United States and Connecticut v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02181 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2015)
U.S. and Connecticut filed complaint and proposed settlement with AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (AMC) and SMH Theaters, Inc. (Starplex Cinemas) to resolve concerns that AMC’s purchase of a Connecticut Starplex theater would substantially harm competition for Connecticut consumers. AMC is the second largest commercial movie exhibitor in the United States, with two theaters in Connecticut. Starplex Cinemas is an independent, privately held commercial movie exhibitor operating 33 theaters with 346 screens in 12 states, including two theaters in Connecticut. In their complaint, Connecticut and the DOJ allege that the Berlin market is concentrated and that AMC and Starplex Cinemas are the other’s most significant competitor, given their close proximity. The agreement with Connecticut and the DOJ requirew that the Berlin 12 theater in Berlin be sold as part of the acquisition, which will help to maintain a competitive market and the best-possible service for Connecticut consumers. The agreement also requires the divestiture of a theater in New Jersey.
United States and Texas v. Cinemark Holdings et al., No. 13-727 (D.D.C. 2013)
United States and Texas challenged $220 million acquisition by Cinemark of Rave Holdings. Cinemark is the third-biggest movie chain in the U.S., with 298 theaters in 39 states. Rave Holdings owns 35 theaters in 12 states and specializes in digital and 3-D presentations, According to the complaint, the proposed acquisition would reduce competition in the Voorhees-Somerdale area of New Jersey and the eastern section of Louisville, where Cinemark and Rave are each other’s chief competitors. Cinemark and Rave operate theaters in the western region of Fort Worth. In addition, if the acquisition were to go through as originally planned, the theaters would be less likely to improve or maintain the quality of their sound systems, screens, and food and drinks. Cinemark agreed to divest Movie Tavern Inc. — a Dallas company operating 16 theaters in Fort Worth and Denton, Texas — and three additional Texas theaters to settle the suit.
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Marquee Holdings, No. 05 CV 10722 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
US DOJ and plaintiff states filed a complaint alleging that the merger of AMC Entertainment and Loews Cineplex Entertainment would eliminate head-to-head competition between AMC and Loews and likely would have resulted in higher prices for tickets to first-run, commercial movies in sections of five major American cities: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, New York, and Seattle. DOJ and the plaintiff states agreed to a consent decree to resolve the complaint. Under the terms of the consent decree, AMC and Loews must divest movie theaters: two in Chicago and one each in New York, Boston, Seattle and Dallas. The parties must inform the parties if it proposes to acquire movie theater assets in those markets over the next 10 years.
U.S., Illinois, Colorado and Indiana v. AMC Entertaininment Holdings, No. 10-cv00846 (D.D.C. 2010)
AMC, a movie theater chain operates 304 U.S. theaters housing 4,574 screens, most
of which are located in megaplexes operates Kerasotes ShowPlace Theatres operates 96 movie theaters with 973 screens in the United States, mostly in the Midwest. USDOJ and the plaintiff states challenged the acquisition of Kerasotes by AMC on the grounds that it would reduce competition in markets in Colorado, Illinois and Indiana. To resolve the case, AMC agreed to divest eight theaters–four in Illinois, two in Colorado and two in Indiana.
Maine v. Flagship Cinemas Management, Inc., No. CV-03-087 (Kennebec Super. Ct. December 2003)
Complaint filed against owner of 12-screen suburban film complex, alleging defendant’s purchase of a downtown theater as well violated Maine’s antitrust law. The state sought divestiture of the downtown movie theater.
California v. Marquee Holdings, Inc., C-05-5306 MEJ (N.D. Cal. 2005)
Plaintiff state challenged merger of two movie theater chains, alleging market power in San Francisco market. Defendants agreed to divestiture of two theaters in that market.
Washington v. Marquee Holdings, Inc., CV 05-2111 (W.D. Wash. 2005)
Plaintiff state reviewed merger of companies owning two large theater chains.
District of Columbia v. Marquee Holdings Inc. and LCE Holdings, Inc.
District of Columbia filed a complaint and a proposed stipulated final judgment simultaneously. The complaint alleged that the merger of movie chains AMC and Loews would substantially lessen competition in the District of Columbia. The stipulated final judgment requires the divestiture of one AMC theatre and one Loews theater, and prohibits the defendants from entering into contracts restricting the rights of theater landlords to rent former AMC and Loews theaters to new theater tenants.
U.S. v. Sony Corporation of America, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20815, 2000-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,787 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
U.S. and the States sought to enjoin Loews Theatres, Inc. (Loews) and Cineplex from consummating their merger, arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition in first screening movie theaters.