Skip to main content

Displaying 301 - 320 of 465

ZF Friedrichshafen and TRW Automotive, In the Matter of

Two of the world’s largest auto parts suppliers, ZF Friedrichshafen AG and TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., agreed to divest TRW's linkage and suspension business in North America and Europe, to settle FTC charges that their proposed $12.4 billion merger would likely harm competition in the North American market for heavy vehicle tie rods. Under the consent agreement, the combined company is required to divest TRW’s North American and European linkage and suspension business for heavy and light vehicles (which includes heavy vehicle tie rods). The business includes five manufacturing plants in Michigan, Canada, the Czech Republic, and Germany, and leased space in a research and development lab in Germany. At the divestiture buyer’s request, ZF must provide transition services for logistical and administrative support as well as transitional supply agreements for key manufacturing inputs needed to fulfill existing customer contracts.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0235
Docket Number
C-4520

Reynolds American Inc., and Lorillard, Inc., In the Matter of

Tobacco companies Reynolds American Inc. and Lorillard Inc. agreed to divest four cigarette brands to Imperial Tobacco Group to settle FTC charges that their proposed $27.4 billion merger would likely be anticompetitive. The order requires Reynolds to divest to Imperial four established cigarette brands: Winston, Kool, Salem, and Maverick. Imperial is an international tobacco manufacturer with a competitive presence in about 70 countries, but a comparatively small presence in the United States. With the acquisition of the divested assets, Imperial would become a more substantial competitor in the United States. The Commission’s order requires not only that the brands be divested, but also that Reynolds divest to Imperial the Lorillard manufacturing facilities in Greensboro, North Carolina, and provide Imperial with the opportunity to hire most of the existing Lorillard management, staff, and salesforce. It also requires the newly merged Reynolds and Lorillard to provide Imperial with retail shelf space for a short period, and to provide other operational support during the transition.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
141 0168

Panasonic Corporation and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., In the Matter of

The Commission challenged major consumer electronics manufacturers Panasonic Corporation's proposed $9 billion acquisition of Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., requiring that Sanyo sell its portable nickel metal hydride (NiMH) battery business related assets, including a premier manufacturing plant in Japan. NiMH batteries power two-way radios, among other products, which are used by police and fire departments nationwide.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
091 0050
Docket Number
C-4274

McWane, Inc., and Star Pipe Products, Ltd., In the Matter of

The FTC filed separate complaints against the three largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings, which are used in municipal water systems around the United States. The FTC charged that the three companies, McWane, Inc., Star Pipe Products, Ltd., and Sigma Corporation, illegally conspired to set and maintain prices for pipe fittings, and that McWane illegally maintained its monopoly power in the market for U.S.-made pipe fittings by implementing an exclusive dealing policy. Sigma settled the FTC's charges prior to litigation (final order dated Feb. 27, 2012); Star settled soon after (final order dated May 8, 2012).  On 5/9/2013, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed charges that McWane illegally conspired with its competitors to raise and stabilize DIPF prices but found that McWane violated the antitrust laws when it excluded competitors from the market for U.S. made DIPF (domestic DIPF). On 5/13/2013, both parties filed notices of appeal of the Initial Decision. On February 6, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that McWane unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the domestic fittings market through its "Full Support Program", which foreclosed potential entrants from accessing distributors. The Commission's order bars McWane from requiring exclusivity from its customers. On April 17, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Commission's order.

 

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
101 0080b
Docket Number
9351

Graco Inc., Illinois Tool Works Inc., and ITW Finishing LLC, In the Matter of

The FTC challenged Graco Inc.'s proposed $650 million acquisition of ITW Finishing LLC from Illinois Tool Works Inc., alleging that it would harm competition in the market for equipment used to apply paints and other liquid finishes to a variety of manufactured goods, such as cars, wood cabinets, and major appliances. In March 2012, the FTC issued an order requiring Graco Inc. to hold separate the worldwide liquid finishing equipment businesses of Illinois Tool Works Inc. and ITW Finishing LLC, while allowing Graco to complete its proposed $650 million acquisition of all of ITW's finishing equipment businesses. The Commission also withdrew its court challenge to the deal. On 5/31/2012, the FTC required Graco Inc., a leader in the worldwide market for key industrial finishing equipment, to sell the worldwide liquid finishing business of Illinois Tool Works Inc. and ITW Finishing LLC under a proposed order, as part of a settlement resolving charges that its $650 million acquisition of several ITW businesses would have been anticompetitive and led to higher prices and reduced innovation for the North American manufacturers who rely on this equipment.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
111 0169
Docket Number
9350

Tecnica Group, In the Matter of

The FTC alleged that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
121 0004

Marker Volkl, In the Matter of

The FTC alleges that starting in 2004 Marker Völkl and Tecnica agreed not to compete with each other to secure endorsements by professional skiers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the FTC charges that Marker Völkl agreed not to solicit, recruit, or contact any skier who previously endorsed Tecnica skis, and Tecnica agreed to a similar arrangement with respect to Marker Völkl’s endorsers. In addition, the complaint states that in 2007, the companies expanded the scope of their non-compete agreement to cover all of their employees. The proposed orders settling the FTC’s charges bar each firm from engaging in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
121 0004

Ardagh Group S.A., Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, In the Matter of

The FTC challenged Ardagh Group, S.A.’s proposed $1.7 billion acquisition of Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., alleging that it will reduce competition and result in the two firms – the merged firm and its only remaining significant competitor, Owens-Illinois – controlling in excess of 75 percent of the U.S. markets for glass containers for beer and spirits customers, resulting in higher prices for those customers. The FTC issued an administrative complaint against the two companies, alleging that the acquisition would violate U.S. antitrust law. The proposed acquisition would combine the second-largest manufacturer of glass containers (Saint-Gobain) and the third-largest (Ardagh).The complaint alleges that glass container competitors possess a wealth of information about each other and the glass container industry, and that reducing the number of major competitors from three to two will make it substantially easier for the remaining two competitors to coordinate with one another to achieve supracompetitive prices or other anticompetitive outcomes. The Commission also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the administrative trial on the merits.  On 11/3/13, the parties stipulated to a hold separate order in the federal court proceeding.   On 11/8/13 the Commission stayed the part 3 litigation pending settlement discussions. On 4/10/14, Ardagh Group SA agreed to sell six of its nine glass container manufacturing plants in the United States to settle the FTC's charges. The FTC’s settlement order requires Ardagh to sell six of the manufacturing plants and related assets it acquired through its 2012 acquisition of Anchor Glass Container Corporation, along with Anchor’s former corporate headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

Type of Action
Administrative
Last Updated
FTC Matter/File Number
131 0087
Docket Number
9356