United States: Antitrust Outlook - Spring 2018

April 20, 2018 - As the calendar tells us it is spring, despite all contrary indications of ice and snow in the northern U.S. this April, we offer our outlook on the important developments and emerging trends in antitrust enforcement in the United States.

The Trump administration has been slow in making appointments to the two antitrust enforcement agencies, and there remain open leadership positions at both the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that we expect to be filled in the coming months. Merger and cartel enforcement actions have declined, and merger reviews have on average lengthened from 2016 to 2017, but the DOJ has not shown any reluctance to take aggressive positions and push matters to litigation.

MERGERS

DOJ merger investigations leading to antitrust conduct investigations

The DOJ will not hesitate to pursue separate civil or criminal investigations where it uncovers anticompetitive conduct in the course of merger clearance investigations. A recent example of this can be seen in the DOJ's probe into the canned seafood industry that uncovered evidence of price-fixing during the review of a proposed merger, now abandoned, between Bumble Bee and Thai Union d/b/a Chicken of the Sea (the latter's U.S. subsidiary subsequently blew the whistle as the leniency applicant). As a result of this investigation, Bumble Bee and two of its executives pleaded guilty to a criminal price-fixing conspiracy, as did an executive from StarKist. Likewise, the DOJ's civil settlement of a "no poach" agreement among rail companies was the fruit of facts reportedly uncovered in the course of a merger investigation.

Reinvigoration of vertical merger challenges through litigation

The DOJ's suit to block the merger of AT&T and Time Warner marks the first time the DOJ has asked a court to block a vertical merger since 1977. Contrary to some accounts, however, it is not the only objection to vertical mergers in four decades. Since 2000, the DOJ and FTC have challenged 22 vertical mergers, with some investigations resulting in behavioral consent decrees and others in abandoned transactions. The DOJ's suit is consistent with statements of the Trump administration and with the DOJ's announced reluctance to entertain behavioral remedies.

The outcome of this trial now unfolding in district court in Washington, D.C., will likely also shed light on other contemplated vertical mergers, including two pending in health care: CVS Health Corporation's proposed acquisition of health insurer Aetna, announced in December 2017, and health insurer Cigna Corp.'s proposed acquisition of pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, announced in March 2018.

Structural remedies over behavioral remedies

We are seeing an increased emphasis on divestitures to remedy perceived anticompetitive concerns. Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim has recently discussed the Antitrust Division's preference for structural remedies over behavioral remedies on several occasions, and this preference is clear in consent decrees requiring divestitures in mergers (e.g., Bayer/Monsanto). Furthermore, in an April 2018 speech, the director of civil enforcement for the Antitrust Division cautioned that even divestitures might not be a sufficient remedy for mergers between two companies that compete on innovation, implying that such transactions would instead be blocked. The FTC has thus far taken a different approach, resolving enforcement actions with behavioral remedies on two occasions in 2017 (a vertical merger led by Broadcom Limited and a horizontal merger led by Enbridge Inc.). Whether the FTC remains more open to behavioral remedies remains to be seen.

ANTITRUST CONDUCT (NON-CARTEL)

Stepped up enforcement against information sharing among competitors

There is an increased focus on information sharing among competitors as a potential antitrust violation. For example, in March 2017 the DOJ settled a civil antitrust claim against DirecTV alleging that the company acted as a ringleader of information exchanges with three of its competitors as the companies negotiated rights to telecast Los Angeles Dodgers baseball games. The case settled with the mildest of remedies, primarily commitments to avoid sharing competitively sensitive information with rivals, but we expect that other investigations may bring harsher penalties. In particular, hub-and-spoke cartel conduct (i.e., the sharing of competitively sensitive information with a third party with the understanding that this information will be passed on to competitors) is a focus of enforcers.

Focus on the pharmaceutical industry continues

The FTC remains focused on maintaining competition in the generic drug industry and has indicated that it may be investigating markets where the entry of generic pharmaceuticals is expected but has not yet occurred. One roadblock to the FTC's enforcement, however, is clear: a federal court has ruled that the FTC lacks jurisdiction to seek broad injunctive relief against future actions to delay generic entry, though the FTC has appealed this decision. The FTC has also been very focused on life sciences mergers, requiring divestitures to address its competitive concerns (e.g., Baxter/Claris and Abbott/Alere). A long list of state attorneys general and the DOJ also are in the midst of several ongoing antitrust investigations in the pharmaceutical industry, focusing on potential anticompetitive conduct relating to the sale and marketing of generic and branded pharmaceutical products.

Increased scrutiny of licenses for standard-essential patents

Technology companies are closely watching litigation and debate among the antitrust agencies, both in the U.S. and internationally, regarding the circumstances in which a holder of standard-essential patents might face antitrust liability for demanding particular patent licensing terms. In the U.S., a federal district court has allowed the FTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm, filed in January 2017, to proceed on a theory that a refusal to license patents to competitors in the context of an agreement to license technology on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, could constitute an anticompetitive refusal to deal. (A parallel private action brought by Apple against Qualcomm raises similar issues.) This is an area of particular interest to AAG Delrahim, who has offered several comments on the topic indicating his disagreement with the FTC's theory of anticompetitive harm in the Qualcomm case.

CARTELS

Criminal prosecutions and fines in 2017 were significantly reduced in comparison to 2016, as the DOJ reached the tail end of its auto parts and LIBOR and foreign currency exchange (FX) investigations last year. Investigations into the capacitors, ocean shipping, and public real estate foreclosure auction industries have not produced enforcement results on par with those seen in prior years, but the DOJ has focused its enforcement efforts on prosecuting atypical cartels and "no poach" agreements. Other ongoing investigations and litigations show that the DOJ intends to pursue an aggressive cartel enforcement agenda while defendants are more inclined to contest criminal charges.

Forthcoming criminal prosecution of "no poach" agreements

In October 2016, the DOJ and FTC issued joint guidance for human resource professionals that warned that naked wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements among employers are per se illegal, and that, going forward, the DOJ intends to prosecute such agreements criminally. Since then, AAG Delrahim has foreshadowed imminent criminal prosecutions. In April 2018, the DOJ announced the settlement of "no poach" charges against Knorr and Webtec, suppliers to the railroad industry. The conduct was prosecuted civilly, rather than criminally, only because it predated the joint guidance. We consider this an area that deserves particular compliance focus due to the heightened enforcement risk, the possibility of imprisonment for executives who enter into "no poach" agreements, and the DOJ's caution that a significant number of companies and industries are involved in these agreements. The DOJ is keenly focused on the competition for talent: the Antitrust Division is also investigating information-sharing practices among colleges regarding applicants for early decision admissions.

DOJ suffers litigation defeats

Tokai Kogyu Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary were indicted for conspiring to rig bids and fix prices in connection with parts sold to Honda and other automotive companies. Unlike the other companies charged in the automotive parts investigation, Tokai and its subsidiary declined to plead guilty and instead went to trial. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty for both.

Whether the DOJ rehabilitates its trial record remains to be seen. In two unrelated matters, emboldened defendants are taking the DOJ to court. In October 2018, the DOJ will prosecute Nippon Chemi-Con, indicted for its role in the capacitor price-fixing cartel, and will also prosecute three U.K.-based former traders, indicted for their role in FX manipulation.

The DOJ's criminal case against an heir location service provider was dismissed by a district court on statute of limitation grounds. The court also rejected DOJ's argument that the case should be subject to the per se rule, instead finding that the alleged agreement was sufficiently unusual to apply the rule of reason. The DOJ has appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit, contending that under long-standing precedent, customer allocation is subject to the per se rule, and contentions of economic efficiency do not apply. If the district court's opinion stands, we may see more defendants argue for rule of reason treatment in cartel matters.

DOJ runs alongside states in cartel investigations with modest results

The DOJ's three-year investigation of price-fixing among dozens of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers has thus far resulted in guilty pleas from just two executives from a single drug manufacturer. This federal criminal investigation was triggered by a 2014 civil investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General that has spun into multidistrict litigation by the attorneys general of nearly every state in the nation against numerous generic drug manufacturers. In January 2018, the DOJ announced that it may join the civil suit filed by the states on behalf of U.S. government purchasers, an uncharacteristic action considering its own ongoing probe, in which restitution could be court-ordered with criminal convictions. This matter demonstrates that the state attorneys general will move forward aggressively with independent investigations, even where there is an existing federal investigation. The parallel investigations by both federal and state enforcers, with private civil plaintiffs waiting in the wings, present a minefield for pharmaceutical manufacturers tasked with responding to inquiries.

At the ABA Antitrust Section spring meeting in Washington, D.C., on April 11, 2018, the DOJ again expressed its intention to seek damages when the government is the victim of cartel conduct as a purchaser of goods or services. In such cases, the DOJ would seek recovery under section 4(a) of the Clayton Act, which allows treble damages; successful leniency applicants would only be liable for single damages.

Compliance in focus

While the DOJ has maintained its position that a cartel participant will not be given credit for having a compliance program in place, except for sentence mitigation, it recently has appeared more willing to engage in a discussion on the topic, signaling a potential shift in policy. For example, on April 9, 2018, the DOJ held a public roundtable discussion to explore the issue of corporate antitrust compliance and its implications for criminal antitrust enforcement policy. We expect to see future developments in this area.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions