Florida et al. v. Dollar Tree, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-01052 (D.D.C. July 2, 2015)
Eighteen plaintiff states and the FTC challenged the merger of Dollar Tree, the largest chain of “dollar” stores (deep discount stores) and Family Dollar Stores, the nation’s third largest dollar store chain. The complaint claimed the proposed acquisition would substantially lessen competition in numerous markets by: (1) eliminating direct and substantial competition between Dollar Tree and Family Dollar; and (2) increasing the likelihood that Dollar Tree will unilaterally exercise market power. This, according to the complaint, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act and each state’s applicable antitrust and consumer protection laws. The states sought a permanent injunction to prevent the merger, along with costs and attorney fees. The parties reached a settlement under which 330 stores in the 18 states would be divested to Sycamore partners and run as a new dollar store chain, Dollar Express. The agreement also required the defendants to report future acquisitions in any of the affected markets and to pay over $865,000 to reimburse the costs and fees of the plaintiff states.
Florida et al. v. Service Corporation International, No. A13CV1082LY (W.D. Texas Jan. 2, 2014)
SCI, the nation’s largest funeral home chain, sought to acquire Stewart Enterprises, another large funeral home chain. Seven states and the FTC entered into consent agreements with SCI specifying which funeral homes would be divested in 59 separate markets. In a separate consent agreement, SCI agreed to provide the state plaintiffs with the same notices, requirements for approval and compliance review as to divestitures and future acquisitions included in the FTC’s consent decree and to pay the state’s costs and attorneys’ fees..
U.S. and Plaintiff States v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 08-cv-01878 (D.D.C. 2008)
USDOJ and plaintiff states filed suit to stop the acquisition of Alltel Corp. by Verizon Communications Corp. Verizon agreed to divest assets in 100 areas in 22 states in order to proceed with the acquisition.
U.S., Missouri and Nebraska v. Stericycle, Inc. Case. No. 1:09-cv-02268 (D.D.C. 2009)
U.S. DOJ, Missouri and Nebraska filed complaint alleging that acquisition of Medserve by Stericycle would substantially lessen competition in infectious waste collection and treatment services to hospitals and other critical healthcare facilities in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma, resulting in higher prices and reduced service. The parties reached a settlement under which Stericycle and MedServe must divest all of MedServe’s assets primarily used in the provision of infectious waste collection and treatment services to large customers in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma to a viable purchaser approved by DOJ after consultation with the states. These assets include MedServe’s Newton, Kan., treatment facility, and its transfer stations in Kansas City, Kan., Oklahoma City, Omaha, Neb., and Booneville, Mo. Notice of future acquisitions must be provided to the plaintiffs.
Massachusetts v. First Group, PLC
Eleven states alleged that the merger would substantially lessen competition in numerous markets for the procurement of School Bus Services within the Plaintiff States. Settlement required divestitures of routes and depots, provision o fmaintenance services, no non-compete agreements, notice to the states of future acquisitions, and no coercion to include certain bid specifications plus $1.1 million in attorneys fees.
California v. Valero Energy Corp., No. 01-10895 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2001)
States sought to enjoin the proposed merger between Valero Energy Corporation (Valero) and Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corporation (Ultramar), arguing that the merger would substantially lessen competition in the bulk supply and wholesale marketing of gasoline.
In the Matter of Schnucks Markets, Inc.
States reached settlement agreement with retail seller of food and grocery store products requiring specified divestitures in concentrated markets; subsequent settlement agreement reached resolving allegation of violation of divestiture agreement
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.
U.S. and Seven States v. Thomson Corp., No. 96-1415 (D.D.C. 1996).
The United States along with Plaintiff States sought to enjoin the merger between the Thomson Corporation (Thomson) and West Publishing Company (West), arguing that the merger would significantly impair competition among law resource publishing companies.
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.
