Skip to main content
Date
Rule
801.10
Staff
R. Smith
Response/Comments
12/26/91- called (redacted). Advised that Scenario A is reportable. (Do not trace partnership interest held thru to assets of partnership.) B is not reportable. C isreportable if, after redemption of A's partnership interest, B is the only partner of C and thus holds C's assets, valued at $20MM. He advised that all necessary size-of-person tests were met. RBSmith

Question

December 26, 1991


 

VIA FAX

Mr. John Sipple

Mr. Richard Smith

Premerger Notification Office

Bureau of Competition

Federal Trade Commission

Washington, D.C. 20580

Re:Premerger Notification Filing


Gentlemen:

I am writing to you at the suggestion of (redacted) of the Department of Justice. On December 23, 1991 I spoke with Mr. Patrick Sharp of your office concerning whether a particular transactional scenario would require the filing of a premerger notification. This transactional scenario is set forth as scenario A below. In my discussions with Mr. Sharp, he indicated that a premerger notification would need to be filed if, under scenario A below, the purchase price or the fair market value of 100% of the assets of the partnership, whichever is greater, exceeded the $15,000,000 threshold set forth in Section 7A(a)(3)(B) of the Act. After further consideration of my discussions with Mr. Sharp I attempted to talk with him again but was unable to do so on December 24. I then spoke with Mr. Jack Sidorov at the Department of Justice on December 24 and he suggested that I contact you directly. In addition to scenario A set forth below, I have set forth two alternative transactional scenarios.

The factual background on this particular issue is that in 1988 Person A and Person B formed a general partnership under the laws of (redacted). Person A contributed the assets of an ongoing business valued at approximately $6,000,000 to the new Partnership C and Person B contributed $3,000,000 in cash to the Partnership C. Person A received a two-third percentage interest in Partnership C and Person B received a one-third percentage interest in Partnership C. At that time, the fair market value of the assets of Partnership C was estimated to be in the neighborhood of $10,000,000. The following three transactional scenarios are proposed at this time:

Scenario A

Person B proposes to purchase Person As partnership interest in Partnership C for approximately $14,000,000. It is estimated that the fair market value of the assets of Partnership C is now approximately $20,000,000. My initial view before talking to Mr. Sharp was that a filing would not be required for this transaction in that the purchase price for the partnership interest acquired from Person A by Person B did not exceed $15,000,000 and, in addition, the two-third interest of Person A in the fair market value of the assets of Partnership C did not exceed $15,000,000. However, in my telephone conversation with Mr. Sharp he indicated that the test imposed by the FTC was the greater of the acquisition price (in this case $14,000,000) or 100% of the fair market value of the assets of the Partnership.

Scenario B

Partnership C is liquidated with the assets distributed in kind to the respective partners. Accordingly, Person A becomes a two-third tenant in common with Person B in the assets formerly held by Partnership C. Person B then acquires from Person A the two-third interest in the assets owned by Person A for $14,000,000. The fair market value of the assets acquired is approximately $13,333,333 (2/3 of $20,000,000). Accordingly, because neither the purchase price of the assets purchased from Person A nor the fair market value of such assets exceeds $15,000,000, no premerger notification filing is required.

Scenario C

Person B either loans $14,000,000 to Partnership C or makes an additional contribution to the capital of Partnership C in the amount of $14,000,000. Partnership C then redeems the partnership interest of Person A for $14,000,000. It is also my understanding that this particular transaction would not require the filing of a premerger notification.

The difficulty I have with Mr. Sharps position under scenario A is that in substance the three alternative transactions reach the same result. I believe the flaw in Mr. Sharps position is that he views the fair market value test under scenario A to be a 100% test rather than a two-thirds test. In other words, the test under scenario A should be rather the greater of the acquisition price for the partnership interest or two-thirds of the fair market of the assets of the

partnership (sic) exceeds $15,000,000. This test would logically flow from the fact that Person B is already a one-third partner in Partnership C and therefore already owns a one-third interest in the assets of Partnership C. I believe this result is also supported by Reg. 801.13(b). Assume that instead of forming a general partnership in 1988 Person A conveyed a one-third interest in the subject assets to Person B for $3,000,000. This transaction would not have required the filing of a premerger notification. Also assume that today Person A conveyed to person B the remaining two-thirds interest in the subject assets for $14,000,000 and the fair market value of such interest is approximately $13,333,333. Under Reg. 801.13(b), the 1988 and 1991 transactions would not be aggregated. Accordingly, a premerger notification filing would not be required with respect to the 1991 transaction.

As always with matters of this nature, we are under a very tight time frame in terms of structuring this transaction. I would appreciate if someone from your office could contact me with respect to the above sometime today. If I am unavailable, please ask for (redacted) of our office. Your assistance on this matter is greatly appreciated.


Sincerely yours,


 

(redacted)

About Informal Interpretations

Informal interpretations provide guidance from previous staff interpretations on the applicability of the HSR rules to specific fact situations. You should not rely on them as a substitute for reading the Act and the Rules themselves. These materials do not, and are not intended to, constitute legal advice.

Learn more about Informal Interpretations.