Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Reminder: Even "Small" Deals Carry Antitrust Risks

Publications

December 4, 2012

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently filed a complaint challenging Magnesium Elektron North America Inc.'s ("MENA") $15 million acquisition of the assets of Revere Graphics Worldwide Inc. ("Revere"), its competitor in the manufacture of photoengraving magnesium plates. Together with the complaint, the FTC filed a consent order including a settlement under which MENA agreed to set up a new competitor in the market for photoengraving magnesium plates, Universal Engraving, Inc., and provide it with the knowledge required to compete as well as certain customer lists and customer contracts.

The FTC claimed MENA's asset purchase, which occurred nearly seven years ago, was an unlawful merger to monopoly in the market for photoengraving magnesium plates that substantially increased MENA's ability to exercise market power. Interestingly, the complaint did not allege that MENA had actually engaged in any anticompetitive activity following the merger, but it is reasonable to suspect that MENA engaged in some sort of conduct that drew the FTC's attention, either directly or through customer complaints.

The FTC's action is significant both because the transaction occurred so long ago and because the size of the transaction is far below the size that requires pre-merger notification under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR Act"). Although the antitrust agencies have the authority to pursue nearly any anticompetitive merger, it is relatively rare for the agencies to challenge a transaction that is so old.

WHAT'S NEXT?

The FTC's action against MENA's $15 million asset purchase continues the trend of increasingly aggressive enforcement with respect to non-HSR-reportable mergers under the Obama administration. The FTC and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") have now challenged as many non-HSR-reportable mergers during President Obama's first term as were challenged during both of President George W. Bush's terms.

The MENA case serves as a reminder that the lack of an HSR filing obligation does not mean a transaction will not face antitrust scrutiny. Companies should be purposeful in investigating the potential antitrust risks of even relatively low dollar value transactions.


Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.