Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
It's moot because Nat has said there's no deal, but you obviously are not familiar with the Clayton Act, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, etc. People should not make pronouncements about the law when they don't know it. Many mergers and acquisitions have been challenged successfully by the government because they substantially lessened competition. So no, buying out a competitor is not "totally allowed," it depends.
|
I'm familiar with HSR and Clayton! Been doing lots of reading on anti-trust over the past few years. Very interesting field right now.
I don't see how this proposed merger would have been blocked by the FTC. An HSR filing would definitely be needed, given the size of PSA, but I doubt there's a denial of the proposal. The vast majority of mergers are approved, and this particular acquisition doesn't strike me one which would be flagged. There are several other legitimate competitors (BGS, CGC/CSG, HGA). PSA's pricing has not been manipulative (again, if anything, their pricing – often what the FTC has chosen to focus on in the past, though the Khan-led Commission may change that focus – has
increased their competitor's business). This is a field which does not concern public welfare or essential services – another area where the FTC has been laissez-faire in the past decades. Additionally, recent upstarts have been able to grow, which can be construed as a lack of anti-competitive behavior (see: many of the contentions about the defensive acquisition of nascent firms by established technology giants as of late).
They would likely have just paid the filling fee, waited, and gotten approval. FTC/DOJ is still hands off for the most part, and they are looking to focus their efforts in a specific field.