Insights

Antitrust Alert:  Federal Court Rejects Failing Firm Defense in Merger Case

Antitrust Alert: Federal Court Rejects Failing Firm Defense in Merger Case

A new decision from a federal court in Delaware reinforces the high burden that parties face in insulating an otherwise anticompetitive merger based on the so-called "failing firm" defense. The Justice Department ("DOJ") sought an injunction to block the combination of nuclear waste disposal companies, Energy Solutions Inc. and Waste Control Specialists LLC ("WCS"). The DOJ alleged that the deal would result in a monopoly for the disposal of certain types of radioactive waste. The Defendants challenged the DOJ's market definition but also argued that without the deal, WCS, which had never made an operating profit, would go out of business.

The failing firm defense requires proof that a company (1) is in danger of imminent business failure, (2) cannot reorganize successfully in bankruptcy, and (3) made unsuccessful good faith efforts to find alternative purchasers. The court addressed just the third element, holding that the defendants failed to show that Energy Solutions was the only purchaser. The court found that WCS courted another bidder before terminating those discussions and signing an agreement with Energy Solutions. Moreover, the parties' agreement contained "no-shop" and "no-talk" provisions that prevented WCS from informing itself of other offers.

This case is in contrast to the recently consummated merger of CentraCare Health and St. Cloud Medical Group ("SCMG"), a matter handled by Jones Day. CentraCare and SCMG were the two largest physician practices in St. Cloud, Minnesota but SCMG was failing financially. The FTC permitted the transaction based on the failing firm defense, in part because SCMG led an unsuccessful multiyear search for alternative buyers to CentraCare.

Both matters demonstrate that the failing firm defense is a high bar to meet. In addition to the financial standards, a company will have to show that it conducted an exhaustive search for alternative buyers that proves none exist. Moreover, provisions in a transaction agreement that limit the ability of the failing firm seek or consider competing offers may be harmful to failing firm arguments.

Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.

 
We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.