MERGER REVIEW PROCESS INITIATIVE
- STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The objective of the merger review process initiative is to empower and encourage
Division staff to actively tailor investigative plans and strategies according to each
proposed transaction, in lieu of reliance on standardized procedures or models. This effort
builds upon the process improvements implemented by the Division over the last few
years. The staff, working together with the chiefs and deputies, and with support from the
Office of Operations, will have considerable discretion to exercise judgment in devising an
investigative plan. Key factors in tailoring an investigation will include the complexity of
the transaction under review; the nature and magnitude of the competitive concerns at
issue; the Division's expertise in the markets and issues under investigation; the volume,
types and availability of information required to make an appropriate law enforcement
decision; and the likelihood of litigation in the event of a decision to proceed with an
enforcement action.
The goals are to more quickly identify critical legal, factual and economic issues
regarding the proposed transaction, to facilitate more efficient and more focused
investigative discovery and to provide for an effective process for the evaluation of
evidence, in an effort to deploy the Division's investigative resources more efficiently.
The initiative may also have the effect of reducing the investigative burden upon all
concerned.
This document sets forth a basic framework for conducting merger investigations,
assuming a high level of cooperation by both sides. It is the Division's hope that this
framework will encourage such cooperation, toward the end of more quickly and more
thoroughly investigating important issues. This document sets forth no mandatory
procedures. Nor does it create any entitlements for parties proposing mergers. The
Division's willingness to adopt any particular investigative approach will depend upon the
specific circumstances of the proposed transaction, including the parties' willingness to
engage on a cooperative basis.
- INITIAL 15- OR 30-DAY PERIOD
The staff is encouraged to be as aggressive as possible during the initial 15- or 30-day waiting period in attempting to dispense with transactions that are not candidates for
further investigation, and to narrow and refine issues for transactions likely to progress to
formal HSR Second Request inquiries. The success of this effort will require the active
participation and cooperation of the parties, who may or may not wish to engage with the
staff in an active process of identifying and resolving critical issues. Counsel representing
parties are encouraged to be equally aggressive in framing issues for inquiry, substantiating
claimed defenses and responding in a timely manner to staff requests.
- Request to Provide Information Voluntarily
- As soon as feasible during the initial waiting period, staff will contact the
parties and request that they voluntarily provide preliminary information
and documents tailored to the specifics of the proposed transaction.
Depending on the specific issues raised by a transaction and the Division's
expertise in the relevant area, a request might include, for example:
- A list and description of all overlap and otherwise potentially
relevant products;
- Product/marketing brochures;
- Business plans, market studies, strategic plans and information on
market shares and competitor positioning;
- A list of competitors, suppliers and customers;
- Readily available data regarding sales and output; and
- Analyses or studies regarding the transaction.
- In order to ensure good faith compliance with voluntary requests, the staff
may request that the parties describe the scope and nature of their search
for the requested documents and information and certify that description of
their search.
- The earlier the information is provided, the sooner and more effectively the
staff can determine whether a significant competitive concern exists or, if
issuance of a Second Request is necessary, can tailor it to address the
relevant issues.
- Early Consultations Encouraged
- Early substantive consultations are strongly encouraged. The goal of early
consultations is to establish an effective process that will enable the
Division to determine whether the investigation can be concluded prior to
issuance of a Second Request and, if it cannot, to enable the Division to
devise an appropriate investigative plan that includes a tailored Second
Request. Consultations will provide an opportunity for both the Division
and the parties to present their preliminary views on the transaction and to
identify issues requiring further inquiry. The success of such consultations
will depend in large part on the cooperation between the staff and the
parties.
- As soon as possible, the Division staff will request a consultation with the
parties to discuss the parties' views of the transaction, the structure of the
organization and the industr(ies), recent changes in the industr(ies), etc. In
most instances, the staff will request that appropriate business persons
participate and that, where possible, parties provide relevant documents to
support their contentions. These consultations will be most productive
when the parties have provided the staff with any requested information
and materials in advance of the meeting.
- As part of the Division's efforts to engage the parties early in the process,
the staff will, as early as feasible, discuss its current substantive evaluation
of the transaction with the parties and attempt to identify critical or
potentially dispositive issues. While the Division will endeavor in good
faith to identify all such issues as soon as possible, certain issues may not
be identified until later in the process. Accordingly, the Division will not
consider arguments by the parties that the Division is essentially estopped
from later raising issues that were not discussed with the parties early in the
process.
- If it appears that major issues are unlikely to be resolved prior to issuance
of Second Requests, it may be more productive to focus on other issues
that potentially could be resolved prior to issuance of the requests and
assist in narrowing their scope.
- Record Testimony and Interviews
- Division staff may request interviews of personnel of the merging parties to
develop issues or allow the narrowing of the Second Requests. Voluntary
interviews will be the preferred methodology. Record testimony, however,
may be requested in the limited instances in which it could make significant
progress towards resolving important issues (e.g., market definition,
competitive overlaps, entry, efficiencies and failing firm defenses) or in
other limited circumstances.
- Division staff will also continue to actively interview customers,
competitors and complainants and to seek limited submissions from them in
order to evaluate the outstanding issues.
- ISSUANCE OF SECOND REQUESTS
If it is determined that issuance of Second Requests is necessary, the Division staff will use
the knowledge gained within the initial 15- or 30-day period to tailor the Second Requests
as narrowly as possible to the transaction and the goals of the investigation. The prospect
of post-issuance, agreed modifications will not serve as a substitute for issuing tailored
Second Requests in the first instance. The Second Request Model will serve simply as an
example, and while it may in some instances serve as a useful starting point, particularly
for some definitions and instructions, consideration must be given to whether a particular
definition, instruction or specification is appropriate or should be narrowed or otherwise
altered.
- POST-SECOND REQUEST PERIOD
- Regular Consultations
- The element of surprise in modern merger enforcement practice is highly
overrated. Both the Division and the parties to a transaction benefit from
the frank exchange of ideas and evidence that allows both sides to identify
and test the competitive theories for and against the transaction.
- In appropriate circumstances, the Division may agree to meetings or
teleconferences with the parties on a regular basis (e.g., every two (2)
weeks) throughout the investigation to promote a continuing dialogue and
provide a regular opportunity to discuss progress made on both sides.
- While the Division will endeavor in good faith to identify critical or
potentially dispositive issues as soon as possible, certain issues may not be
identified until later in the process. Accordingly, the Division will not
consider arguments by the parties that the Division is essentially estopped
from later raising issues that were not discussed with the parties early in the
process.
- In multi-issue investigations, once the Division determines that an issue that
had been raised and discussed has ceased to be a concern, the Division will
expeditiously communicate that to the parties.
- Negotiated Frameworks Tailored to Goals of Investigation
- The Division's chiefs, in consultation with the relevant Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, will be authorized in appropriate cases to commit the
Division to specific procedural agreements in exchange for specific
undertakings by the parties regarding their submission of information and
compliance with particular investigative requests.
- There will not be a single model for procedural agreements. Instead, the
chiefs and deputies will have considerable discretion as to how, if at all, a
procedural agreement should be structured based on the specific facts and
issues involved in the case. Factors in fashioning an agreement will include
the complexity of the transaction; the Division's expertise in the markets
and issues under consideration; the nature and magnitude of the
competitive concerns at issue; the volume, types and availability of
information required to make appropriate law enforcement decisions; and
the likelihood of litigation in the event of a decision to proceed with an
enforcement action.
- As soon as possible after Second Requests are issued, but generally no later
than three (3) business days after issuance, the Division staff will contact
the parties to discuss whether negotiation of a plan and schedule for the
investigation would be appropriate under the particular facts of the case. If
an agreement would be appropriate, some of the potential commitments
may include, for example:
- Commitments for modification of and compliance with Second
Requests and other discovery, including ordered or rolling
production, compliance dates, etc.
- Dates for depositions of the parties' executives (which may be
conditioned on receipt of certain documents in advance).
- Date for the mutual exchange of economic data and information.
- Date(s) for discussions between the Division's and the parties'
economists.
- Date by which the parties will submit white paper(s) and underlying
datasets, and date or time period by or within which the Division
will discuss the white paper(s) with the parties.
- Date by which the relevant section will describe to the parties its
recommendation to the front office.
- Date(s) when the parties will meet with front office personnel.
- A Division commitment that it will advise the parties as soon as the
Deputy Assistant Attorney General makes a recommendation.
- Time period within which the Division will respond to settlement
offers made by the parties, if any.
- Date before which the parties commit they will not close the
transaction.
- The staff might also consider in the appropriate circumstances negotiating a
schedule to advance an alternative investigative path.
- For example, the staff might identify certain potentially dispositive
issues (e.g., failing firm, entry) or documents (e.g., bid documents)
and agree to a schedule for a "quick look" at those issues or
documents and, if staff determined that the "quick look" was
insufficient, agree to a schedule for the additional necessary phases
of the investigation.
- Or, the staff could agree to a schedule for a "quick look" at certain
potentially dispositive issues or documents and excuse additional
production in exchange for significant stipulations from the parties
and adequate assurances of significant discovery, should the
Division ultimately challenge the transaction.
Date: October 12, 2001
|