Advertisement

June 18, 2013

DOJ and FTC Issue Proposed Revisions to Horizontal Merger Guidelines

The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (the "agencies") recently proposed a revision of the Horizontal Merger Guidelines ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines state the analytical framework and policy rationale behind how the agencies evaluate the potential competitive effects of mergers and acquisitions among businesses at the same level in the supply chain.

The Guidelines were published in 1992 and amended in 1997. The stated purpose of the new revisions is to update them to (a) reflect the agencies' actual current practices in reviewing horizontal transactions, and (b) allow for greater flexibility in such review. The most significant proposed changes are:
 

  • A shift away from step-by-step analytical analysis to a more flexible, fact-specific inquiry into the likely effects of the transaction.
  • Changes in approach to market definition, perhaps making it a less important factor in determining likely competitive effects.
  • Upward adjustments to the Herfindahl-Hischman Index (HHI) presumptions of likely competitive harm based on threshold levels of market concentration.
  • Greater reliance on economic evidence, including discussion of the hypothetical monopolist test and other economic models such as critical loss analysis, diversion ratios, and upward pricing pressure.
  • Changes in unilateral effects analysis, including more focus on direct competitive effects and dropping the presumption that merging entities with a combined market share of at least 35% are customers' first and second choices.
  • Refinement of entry analysis to abandon a set two-year entry time frame in favor of a more flexible inquiry into whether entry would be rapid enough to overcome the profitability of problematic competitive effects.
  • Inclusion of new section on "Powerful Buyers" - customers that may be able to protect themselves from a merged entity's attempts to, for example, raise prices.

The public comment period for the proposed revisions has ended, and a final version of the revised Guidelines should be issued once the comments have been reviewed.

As the changes to the Guidelines are purportedly only meant to better reflect the actual process of horizontal merger review, it is difficult to predict how they will impact the agencies' analyses going forward. However, it does appear that, if implemented, they will provide the agencies with greater flexibility.

Companies considering mergers or acquisitions with other companies that offer competing products or services would likely benefit from seeking antitrust guidance as to how the changes in the Guidelines may impact the review of their deal by the appropriate agency.

© 2013 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Tammy Imhoff is an Associate in the Corporate Department. Tammy concentrates her practice on corporate law and transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, antitrust and competition law counseling, preparation and review of contracts, forming new businesses, and general corporate governance matters.
 

513-977-8534

About the Author

Partner

Mark L. Silbersack is a Partner in the Litigation Department. Mark's practice focuses on antitrust and product liability litigation and counseling. He has participated in the defense of restraint-of-trade, monopoly, price discrimination, and unfair competition cases. He has served as liaison counsel for defendants in a price-fixing class action and assisted clients in dealing with government investigations. His experience includes internal corporate audits and investigations, class actions, punitive damages, and appellate work. While his practice usually involves consumer...

(513) 977-8243

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.