Exam 2: The Regulatory Environment

Give examples of the types of actions that may be required by the parties to a proposed merger subject to a FTC consent decree?

Antitrust authorities may approve a proposed takeover even if the resulting combination will substantially increase market concentration if the target from would go bankrupt if the takeover does not occur.

All of the following are examples of antitakeover provisions commonly found in state statutes except for

Anthem-Well Point Merger Hits Regulatory Snag In mid-2004, a California insurance regulator refused to approve Anthem Inc’s (“Anthem”) $20 billion acquisition of WellPoint Health NetWorks Incorporated (“WellPoint”). If allowed, the proposed merger would result in the nation’s largest health insurer, with 28 million members. After months of regulatory review, the deal had already received approval from 10 state regulators, the Justice Department, and 97% of the shares outstanding of both firms. Nonetheless, California Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi, denounced the proposed transaction as unreasonably enriching the corporate officers of the firms without improving the availability or quality of healthcare. Earlier the same day, Lucinda Ehnes, Director of the Department of Managed Healthcare in California approved the transaction. The Managed Healthcare Agency has regulatory authority over Blue Cross of California, a managed healthcare company that is by far the largest and most important WellPoint operation in the state. Mr. Garamendi’s department has regulatory authority over about 4% of WellPoint’s California business through its BC Life & Health Insurance Company subsidiary (“BC”). Interestingly, Ms. Ehnes is an appointee of California’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, while Mr. Garamendi, a Democrat, is an elected official who had previously run unsuccessfully for governor. Moreover, two week’s earlier he announced that he will be a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006. Mr. Garamendi had asked Anthem to invest in California’s low income communities an amount equal to the executive compensation payable to WellPoint executives due to termination clauses in their contracts. Estimates of the executive compensation ranged as high as $600 million. Anthem immediately sued John Garamendi, seeking to overrule his opposition to the transaction. In the lawsuit, Anthem argued that Garamendi acted outside the scope of his authority by basing his decision on personal beliefs about healthcare policy and executive compensation rather than on the criteria set forth in California state law. Anthem argued that the executive compensation payable for termination if WellPoint changed ownership was part of the affected executives’ employment contracts negotiated well in advance of the onset of Anthem’s negotiations to acquire WellPoint. The California insurance regulator finally dropped his objections when the companies agreed to pay $600 million to help cover the cost of treating California’s uninsured residents. Following similar concessions in Georgia, Anthem was finally able to complete the transaction on December 1, 2004. Closing occurred almost one year after the transaction had been announced. -If you were the Anthem CEO, would you withdraw from the deal, initiate a court battle, drop the Blue Cross subsidiary from the transaction, agree to regulators' demands, or adopt some other course of action? Explain your answer.

The primary shortcoming of industry concentration ratios is the frequent inability of antitrust regulators to define accurately what constitutes an industry, the failure to reflect ease of entry or exit, foreign competition, and the distribution of firm size.

The securities Act of 1933 requires the registration of all securities issued to the public. Such registration requires which of the following disclosures:

If an investor initiates a tender offer, it must make a 14(d) filing with the SEC.

Comment on whether antitrust policy can be used as an effective means of encouraging innovation.

FCC Uses Its Power to Stimulate Competition in the Telecommunications Market Oh, So Many Hurdles Having received approval from the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, Ameritech and SBC Communications received permission from the Federal Communications Commission to combine to form the nation’s largest local telephone company. The FCC gave its approval of the $74 billion transaction, subject to conditions requiring that the companies open their markets to rivals and enter new markets to compete with established local phone companies. Satisfying the FCC’s Concerns SBC, which operates under Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, SNET, Nevada Bell, and Cellular One brands, has 52 million phone lines in its territory. It also has 8.3 million wireless customers across the United States. Ameritech, which serves Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, has more than 12 million phone customers. It also provides wireless service to 3.2 million individuals and businesses. The combined business would control 57 million, or one-third, of the nation’s local phone lines in 13 states. The FCC adopted 30 conditions to ensure that the deal would serve the public interest. The new SBC must enter 30 new markets within 30 months to compete with established local phone companies. In the new markets, it would face fierce competition from Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, and U.S. West. The company is required to provide deep discounts on key pieces of their networks to rivals who want to lease them. The merged companies also must establish a separate subsidiary to provide advanced telecommunications services such as high-speed Internet access. At least 10% of its upgraded services would go toward low-income groups. Failure to satisfy these conditions would result in stiff fines. The companies could face $1.2 billion in penalties for failing to meet the new market deadline and could pay another $1.1 billion for not meeting performance standards related to opening up their markets. A Costly Remedy for SBC SBC has had considerable difficulty in complying with its agreement with the FCC. Between December 2000 and July 2001, SBC paid the U.S. government $38.5 million for failing to provide adequately rivals with access to its network. The government noted that SBC failed repeatedly to make available its network in a timely manner, to meet installation deadlines, and to notify competitors when their orders were filled. -Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe the government should relax the imposition of such fines in the SBC case?

primary reason the Sarbanes-Oxly Act of 2002 was passed was to eliminate insider trading.

In determining whether a proposed transaction is anti-competitive, U.S. regulators look at all of the following except for

The Legacy of GE's Aborted Attempt to Merge with Honeywell Many observers anticipated significant regulatory review because of the size of the transaction and the increase in concentration it would create in the markets served by the two firms. Most believed, however, that, after making some concessions to regulatory authorities, the transaction would be approved, due to its perceived benefits. Although the pundits were indeed correct in noting that it would receive close scrutiny, they were completely caught off guard by divergent approaches taken by the U.S. and EU antitrust authorities. U.S regulators ruled that the merger should be approved because of its potential benefits to customers. In marked contrast, EU regulators ruled against the transaction based on its perceived negative impact on competitors. Honeywell's avionics and engines unit would add significant strength to GE's jet engine business. The deal would add about 10 cents to GE's 2001 earnings and could eventually result in $1.5 billion in annual cost savings. The purchase also would enable GE to continue its shift away from manufacturing and into services, which already constituted 70 percent of its revenues in 2000. The best fit is clearly in the combination of the two firms' aerospace businesses. Revenues from these two businesses alone would total $22 billion, combining Honeywell's strength in jet engines and cockpit avionics with GE's substantial business in larger jet engines. As the largest supplier in the aerospace industry, GE could offer airplane manufacturers "one-stop shopping" for everything from engines to complex software systems by cross-selling each other's products to their biggest customers. Honeywell had been on the block for a number of months before the deal was consummated with GE. Its merger with Allied Signal had not been going well and contributed to deteriorating earnings and a much lower stock price. Honeywell's shares had declined in price by more than 40 percent since its acquisition of Allied Signal. While the euphoria surrounding the deal in late 2000 lingered into the early months of 2001, rumblings from the European regulators began to create an uneasy feeling among GE's and Honeywell's management. Mario Monti, the European competition commissioner at that time, expressed concern about possible "conglomerate effects" or the total influence a combined GE and Honeywell would wield in the aircraft industry. He was referring to GE's perceived ability to expand its influence in the aerospace industry through service initiatives. GE's services offerings help differentiate it from others at a time when the prices of many industrial parts are under pressure from increased competition, including low-cost manufacturers overseas. In a world in which manufactured products are becoming increasingly commodity-like, the true winners are those able to differentiate their product offering. GE and Honeywell's European competitors complained to the EU regulatory commission that GE's extensive services offering would give it entrée into many more points of contact among airplane manufacturers, from communications systems to the expanded line of spare parts GE would be able to supply. This so-called range effect or portfolio power is a relatively new legal doctrine that has not been tested in transactions of this size. On May 3, 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice approved the buyout after the companies agreed to sell Honeywell's helicopter engine unit and take other steps to protect competition. The U.S. regulatory authorities believed that the combined companies could sell more products to more customers and therefore could realize improved efficiencies, although it would not hold a dominant market share in any particular market. Thus, customers would benefit from GE's greater range of products and possibly lower prices, but they still could shop elsewhere if they chose. The U.S. regulators expressed little concern that bundling of products and services could hurt customers, since buyers can choose from among a relative handful of viable suppliers. To understand the European position, it is necessary to comprehend the nature of competition in the European Union. France, Germany, and Spain spent billions subsidizing their aerospace industry over the years. The GE–Honeywell deal has been attacked by their European rivals from Rolls-Royce and Lufthansa to French avionics manufacturer Thales. Although the European Union imported much of its antitrust law from the United States, the antitrust law doctrine evolved in fundamentally different ways. In Europe, the main goal of antitrust law is to guarantee that all companies be able to compete on an equal playing field. The implication is that the European Union is just as concerned about how a transaction affects rivals as it is consumers. Complaints from competitors are taken more seriously in Europe, whereas in the United States it is the impact on consumers that constitutes the litmus test. Europeans accepted the legal concept of "portfolio power," which argues that a firm may achieve an unfair advantage over its competitors by bundling goods and services. Also, in Europe, the European Commission's Merger Task Force can prevent a merger without taking a company to court. The EU authorities continued to balk at approving the transaction without major concessions from the participants—concessions that GE believed would render the deal unattractive. On June 15, 2001, GE submitted its final offer to the EU regulators in a last-ditch attempt to breathe life into the moribund deal. GE knew that if it walked away, it could continue as it had before the deal was struck, secure in the knowledge that its current portfolio of businesses offered substantial revenue growth or profit potential. Honeywell clearly would fuel such growth, but it made sense to GE's management and shareholders only if it would be allowed to realize potential synergies between the GE and Honeywell businesses. GE said it was willing to divest Honeywell units with annual revenue of $2.2 billion, including regional jet engines, air-turbine starters, and other aerospace products. Anything more would jeopardize the rationale for the deal. Specifically, GE was unwilling to agree not to bundle (i.e., sell a package of components and services at a single price) its products and services when selling to customers. Another stumbling block was the GE Capital Aviation Services unit, the airplane-financing arm of GE Capital. The EU Competition Commission argued that that this unit would use its influence as one of the world's largest purchasers of airplanes to pressure airplane manufacturers into using GE products. The commission seemed to ignore that GE had only an 8 percent share of the global airplane leasing market and would therefore seemingly lack the market power the commission believed it could exert. On July 4, 2001, the European Union vetoed the GE purchase of Honeywell, marking it the first time a proposed merger between two U.S. companies has been blocked solely by European regulators. Having received U.S. regulatory approval, GE could ignore the EU decision and proceed with the merger as long as it would be willing to forego sales in Europe. GE decided not to appeal the decision to the EU Court of First Instance (the second highest court in the European Union), knowing that it could take years to resolve the decision, and withdrew its offer to merge with Honeywell. On December 15, 2005, a European court upheld the European regulator's decision to block the transaction, although the ruling partly vindicated GE's position. The European Court of First Instance said regulators were in error in assuming without sufficient evidence that a combined GE–Honeywell could crush competition in several markets. However, the court demonstrated that regulators would have to provide data to support either their approval or rejection of mergers by ruling on July 18, 2006, that regulators erred in approving the combination of Sony BMG in 2004. In this instance, regulators failed to provide sufficient data to document their decision. These decisions affirm that the European Union needs strong economic justification to overrule cross-border deals. GE and Honeywell, in filing the suit, said that their appeal had been made to clarify European rules with an eye toward future deals, since they had no desire to resurrect the deal. In the wake of these court rulings and in an effort to avoid similar situations in other geographic regions, coordination among antitrust regulatory authorities in different countries has improved. For example, in mid-2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reached a consent decree with scientific instrument manufacturer Agilent in approving its acquisition of Varian, in which Agilent agreed to divest certain overlapping product lines. While both firms were based in California, each has extensive foreign operations, which necessitated gaining the approval of multiple regulators. Throughout the investigation, FTC staff coordinated enforcement efforts with the staffs of regulators in the European Union, Australia, and Japan. The cooperation was conducted under the auspices of certain bilateral cooperation agreements, the OECD Recommendation on Cooperation among its members, and the European Union Best Practices on Cooperation in Merger Investigation protocol. -Do you think that competitors are using antitrust to their advantage? Explain your answer.

Exxon and Mobil Merger—The Market Share Conundrum Following a review of the proposed $81 billion merger in late 1998, the FTC decided to challenge the Exxon–Mobil transaction on anticompetitive grounds. Options available to Exxon and Mobil were to challenge the FTC’s rulings in court, negotiate a settlement, or withdraw the merger plans. Before the merger, Exxon was the largest oil producer in the United States and Mobil was the next largest firm. The combined companies would create the world’s biggest oil company in terms of revenues. Top executives from Exxon Corporation and Mobil Corporation argued that they needed to implement their proposed merger because of the increasingly competitive world oil market. Falling oil prices during much of the late 1990s put a squeeze on oil industry profits. Moreover, giant state-owned oil companies are posing a competitive threat because of their access to huge amounts of capital. To offset these factors, Exxon and Mobil argued that they had to combine to achieve substantial cost savings. After a year-long review, antitrust officials at the FTC approved the Exxon–Mobil merger after the companies agreed to the largest divestiture in the history of the FTC. The divestiture involved the sale of 15% of their service station network, amounting to 2400 stations. This included about 1220 Mobil stations from Virginia to New Jersey and about 300 in Texas. In addition, about 520 Exxon stations from New York to Maine and about 360 in California were divested. Exxon also agreed to the divestiture of an Exxon refinery in Benecia, California. In entering into the consent decree, the FTC noted that there is considerably greater competition worldwide. This is particularly true in the market for exploration of new reserves. The greatest threat to competition seems to be in the refining and distribution of gasoline. -Why might it be important to distinguish between a global and a regional oil and gas market?

U.S. antitrust regulators may approve a horizontal transaction even if it results in the combined firms having substantial market share if it can be shown that significant cost efficiencies would result.

The Sherman Act makes illegal all contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that "unreasonably" restrain trade.

FTC Prevents Staples from Acquiring Office Depot As the leading competitor in the office supplies superstore market, Staples’ proposed $3.3 billion acquisition of Office Depot received close scrutiny from the FTC immediately after its announcement in September 1996. The acquisition would create a huge company with annual sales of $10.7 billion. Following the acquisition, only one competitor, OfficeMax with sales of $3.3 billion, would remain. Staples pointed out that the combined companies would comprise only about 5% of the total office supply market. However, the FTC considered the superstore market as a separate segment within the total office supply market. Using the narrow definition of “market,” the FTC concluded that the combination of Staples and Office Depot would control more than three-quarters of the market and would substantially increase the pricing power of the combined firms. Despite Staples’ willingness to divest 63 stores to Office Max in markets in which its concentration would be the greatest following the merger, the FTC could not be persuaded to approve the merger. Staples continued its insistence that there would be no harmful competitive effects from the proposed merger, because office supply prices would continue their long-term decline. Both Staples and Office Depot had a history of lowering prices for their customers because of the efficiencies associated with their “superstores.” The companies argued that the merger would result in more than $4 billion in cost savings over 5 years that would be passed on to their customers. However, the FTC argued and the federal court concurred that the product prices offered by the combined firms still would be higher, as a result of reduced competition, than they would have been had the merger not taken place. The FTC relied on a study showing that Staples tended to charge higher prices in markets in which it did not have another superstore as a competitor. In early 1997, Staples withdrew its offer for Office Depot. -Do you believe the FTC was being reasonable in not approving the merger even though? Staples agreed to divest 63 stores in markets where market concentration would be the greatest following the merger? Explain your answer.

The Legacy of GE's Aborted Attempt to Merge with Honeywell Many observers anticipated significant regulatory review because of the size of the transaction and the increase in concentration it would create in the markets served by the two firms. Most believed, however, that, after making some concessions to regulatory authorities, the transaction would be approved, due to its perceived benefits. Although the pundits were indeed correct in noting that it would receive close scrutiny, they were completely caught off guard by divergent approaches taken by the U.S. and EU antitrust authorities. U.S regulators ruled that the merger should be approved because of its potential benefits to customers. In marked contrast, EU regulators ruled against the transaction based on its perceived negative impact on competitors. Honeywell's avionics and engines unit would add significant strength to GE's jet engine business. The deal would add about 10 cents to GE's 2001 earnings and could eventually result in $1.5 billion in annual cost savings. The purchase also would enable GE to continue its shift away from manufacturing and into services, which already constituted 70 percent of its revenues in 2000. The best fit is clearly in the combination of the two firms' aerospace businesses. Revenues from these two businesses alone would total $22 billion, combining Honeywell's strength in jet engines and cockpit avionics with GE's substantial business in larger jet engines. As the largest supplier in the aerospace industry, GE could offer airplane manufacturers "one-stop shopping" for everything from engines to complex software systems by cross-selling each other's products to their biggest customers. Honeywell had been on the block for a number of months before the deal was consummated with GE. Its merger with Allied Signal had not been going well and contributed to deteriorating earnings and a much lower stock price. Honeywell's shares had declined in price by more than 40 percent since its acquisition of Allied Signal. While the euphoria surrounding the deal in late 2000 lingered into the early months of 2001, rumblings from the European regulators began to create an uneasy feeling among GE's and Honeywell's management. Mario Monti, the European competition commissioner at that time, expressed concern about possible "conglomerate effects" or the total influence a combined GE and Honeywell would wield in the aircraft industry. He was referring to GE's perceived ability to expand its influence in the aerospace industry through service initiatives. GE's services offerings help differentiate it from others at a time when the prices of many industrial parts are under pressure from increased competition, including low-cost manufacturers overseas. In a world in which manufactured products are becoming increasingly commodity-like, the true winners are those able to differentiate their product offering. GE and Honeywell's European competitors complained to the EU regulatory commission that GE's extensive services offering would give it entrée into many more points of contact among airplane manufacturers, from communications systems to the expanded line of spare parts GE would be able to supply. This so-called range effect or portfolio power is a relatively new legal doctrine that has not been tested in transactions of this size. On May 3, 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice approved the buyout after the companies agreed to sell Honeywell's helicopter engine unit and take other steps to protect competition. The U.S. regulatory authorities believed that the combined companies could sell more products to more customers and therefore could realize improved efficiencies, although it would not hold a dominant market share in any particular market. Thus, customers would benefit from GE's greater range of products and possibly lower prices, but they still could shop elsewhere if they chose. The U.S. regulators expressed little concern that bundling of products and services could hurt customers, since buyers can choose from among a relative handful of viable suppliers. To understand the European position, it is necessary to comprehend the nature of competition in the European Union. France, Germany, and Spain spent billions subsidizing their aerospace industry over the years. The GE–Honeywell deal has been attacked by their European rivals from Rolls-Royce and Lufthansa to French avionics manufacturer Thales. Although the European Union imported much of its antitrust law from the United States, the antitrust law doctrine evolved in fundamentally different ways. In Europe, the main goal of antitrust law is to guarantee that all companies be able to compete on an equal playing field. The implication is that the European Union is just as concerned about how a transaction affects rivals as it is consumers. Complaints from competitors are taken more seriously in Europe, whereas in the United States it is the impact on consumers that constitutes the litmus test. Europeans accepted the legal concept of "portfolio power," which argues that a firm may achieve an unfair advantage over its competitors by bundling goods and services. Also, in Europe, the European Commission's Merger Task Force can prevent a merger without taking a company to court. The EU authorities continued to balk at approving the transaction without major concessions from the participants—concessions that GE believed would render the deal unattractive. On June 15, 2001, GE submitted its final offer to the EU regulators in a last-ditch attempt to breathe life into the moribund deal. GE knew that if it walked away, it could continue as it had before the deal was struck, secure in the knowledge that its current portfolio of businesses offered substantial revenue growth or profit potential. Honeywell clearly would fuel such growth, but it made sense to GE's management and shareholders only if it would be allowed to realize potential synergies between the GE and Honeywell businesses. GE said it was willing to divest Honeywell units with annual revenue of $2.2 billion, including regional jet engines, air-turbine starters, and other aerospace products. Anything more would jeopardize the rationale for the deal. Specifically, GE was unwilling to agree not to bundle (i.e., sell a package of components and services at a single price) its products and services when selling to customers. Another stumbling block was the GE Capital Aviation Services unit, the airplane-financing arm of GE Capital. The EU Competition Commission argued that that this unit would use its influence as one of the world's largest purchasers of airplanes to pressure airplane manufacturers into using GE products. The commission seemed to ignore that GE had only an 8 percent share of the global airplane leasing market and would therefore seemingly lack the market power the commission believed it could exert. On July 4, 2001, the European Union vetoed the GE purchase of Honeywell, marking it the first time a proposed merger between two U.S. companies has been blocked solely by European regulators. Having received U.S. regulatory approval, GE could ignore the EU decision and proceed with the merger as long as it would be willing to forego sales in Europe. GE decided not to appeal the decision to the EU Court of First Instance (the second highest court in the European Union), knowing that it could take years to resolve the decision, and withdrew its offer to merge with Honeywell. On December 15, 2005, a European court upheld the European regulator's decision to block the transaction, although the ruling partly vindicated GE's position. The European Court of First Instance said regulators were in error in assuming without sufficient evidence that a combined GE–Honeywell could crush competition in several markets. However, the court demonstrated that regulators would have to provide data to support either their approval or rejection of mergers by ruling on July 18, 2006, that regulators erred in approving the combination of Sony BMG in 2004. In this instance, regulators failed to provide sufficient data to document their decision. These decisions affirm that the European Union needs strong economic justification to overrule cross-border deals. GE and Honeywell, in filing the suit, said that their appeal had been made to clarify European rules with an eye toward future deals, since they had no desire to resurrect the deal. In the wake of these court rulings and in an effort to avoid similar situations in other geographic regions, coordination among antitrust regulatory authorities in different countries has improved. For example, in mid-2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reached a consent decree with scientific instrument manufacturer Agilent in approving its acquisition of Varian, in which Agilent agreed to divest certain overlapping product lines. While both firms were based in California, each has extensive foreign operations, which necessitated gaining the approval of multiple regulators. Throughout the investigation, FTC staff coordinated enforcement efforts with the staffs of regulators in the European Union, Australia, and Japan. The cooperation was conducted under the auspices of certain bilateral cooperation agreements, the OECD Recommendation on Cooperation among its members, and the European Union Best Practices on Cooperation in Merger Investigation protocol. -Do you think the EU regulators would have taken a different position if the deal had involved a less visible firm than General Electric? Explain your answer.

Anthem-Well Point Merger Hits Regulatory Snag In mid-2004, a California insurance regulator refused to approve Anthem Inc’s (“Anthem”) $20 billion acquisition of WellPoint Health NetWorks Incorporated (“WellPoint”). If allowed, the proposed merger would result in the nation’s largest health insurer, with 28 million members. After months of regulatory review, the deal had already received approval from 10 state regulators, the Justice Department, and 97% of the shares outstanding of both firms. Nonetheless, California Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi, denounced the proposed transaction as unreasonably enriching the corporate officers of the firms without improving the availability or quality of healthcare. Earlier the same day, Lucinda Ehnes, Director of the Department of Managed Healthcare in California approved the transaction. The Managed Healthcare Agency has regulatory authority over Blue Cross of California, a managed healthcare company that is by far the largest and most important WellPoint operation in the state. Mr. Garamendi’s department has regulatory authority over about 4% of WellPoint’s California business through its BC Life & Health Insurance Company subsidiary (“BC”). Interestingly, Ms. Ehnes is an appointee of California’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, while Mr. Garamendi, a Democrat, is an elected official who had previously run unsuccessfully for governor. Moreover, two week’s earlier he announced that he will be a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006. Mr. Garamendi had asked Anthem to invest in California’s low income communities an amount equal to the executive compensation payable to WellPoint executives due to termination clauses in their contracts. Estimates of the executive compensation ranged as high as $600 million. Anthem immediately sued John Garamendi, seeking to overrule his opposition to the transaction. In the lawsuit, Anthem argued that Garamendi acted outside the scope of his authority by basing his decision on personal beliefs about healthcare policy and executive compensation rather than on the criteria set forth in California state law. Anthem argued that the executive compensation payable for termination if WellPoint changed ownership was part of the affected executives’ employment contracts negotiated well in advance of the onset of Anthem’s negotiations to acquire WellPoint. The California insurance regulator finally dropped his objections when the companies agreed to pay $600 million to help cover the cost of treating California’s uninsured residents. Following similar concessions in Georgia, Anthem was finally able to complete the transaction on December 1, 2004. Closing occurred almost one year after the transaction had been announced. -What are the risks to Anthem and WellPoint of delaying the closing date? Be specific.

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto Blocked by Regulators in an International Iron Ore Joint Venture The revival in demand for raw materials in many emerging economies fueled interest in takeovers and joint ventures in the global mining and energy sectors in 2009 and 2010. BHP Billiton (BHP) and Rio Tinto (Rio), two global mining powerhouses, had hoped to reap huge cost savings by combining their Australian iron ore mining operations when they announced their JV in mid-2009. However, after more than a year of regulatory review, BHP and Rio announced in late 2010 that they would withdraw their plans to form an iron ore JV corporation valued at $116 billion after regulators in a number of countries indicated that they would not approve the proposal due to antitrust concerns. BHP and Rio, headquartered in Australia, are the world’s largest producers of iron ore, an input critical to the production of steel. Together, these two firms control about one-third of the global iron ore output. The estimated annual synergies from combining mining and distribution operations of the two firms were estimated to be $10 billion. The synergies would come from combining BHP’s more productive mining capacity with Rio’s more efficient distribution infrastructure, enabling both firms to eliminate duplicate staff and redundant overhead and BHP to transport its ore to coastal ports more cheaply. The proposal faced intense opposition from the outset from steel producers and antitrust regulators. The greatest opposition came from China, which argued that the combination would concentrate pricing power further in the hands of the top iron ore producers. China imports about 50 million tons of iron ore monthly, largely from Australia, due to its relatively close proximity. The European Commission, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Japan Fair Trade Commission, the Korea Fair Trade Commission, and the German Federal Cartel Office all advised the two firms that their proposal would not be approved in its current form. While some regulators indicated that they would be willing to consider the JV if certain divestitures and other “remedies” were made to alleviate concerns about excessive pricing power, others such as Germany said they would not approve the proposal under any circumstances. -A "remedy" to antitrust regulators is any measure that would limit the ability of parties in a business combination from achieving what is viewed as excessive market or pricing power. What remedies do you believe could have been put in place by the regulators that might have been acceptable to both Rio and BHP? Be specific.

Antitrust regulators take into account the likelihood that a firm would fail and exit a market if it is not allowed to merger with another firm.