Essay
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.
-Why do you believe the antitrust regulators were successful in this instance but so unsuccessful limiting the powers of cartels such as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which currently controls more than 40 percent of the world's oil production?
Correct Answer:

Verified
Justice Department Approves Maytag/Whirl...View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Correct Answer:
Verified
View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Q88: Efficiencies rarely are considered by antitrust regulators
Q89: Foreign direct investment in U.S. companies that
Q90: All of the following is true about
Q91: Case Study Short Essay Examination Questions<br><br>Regulatory Challenges
Q92: Transactions involving firms in different countries are
Q94: How does the approval of a merger
Q95: Federal antitrust laws exist to prevent individual
Q96: A typical consent decree for firms involved
Q97: How the Microsoft Case Could Define Antitrust
Q98: Case Study Short Essay Examination Questions<br><br>Regulatory Challenges