Legal Library: Cases and Proceedings

Broadcom Limited has agreed to establish a firewall to remedy the FTC’s concerns that its proposed $5.9 billion acquisition of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. is anticompetitive. These concerns arise because of Broadcom’s current access to the confidential business information of Brocade’s major competitor, Cisco Systems, Inc., that could be used to restrain competition or slow innovation in the worldwide market for fibre channel switches.Fibre channel switches are part of storage area networks that transfer data between servers and storage arrays in data centers. Because fibre channel switches can quickly and securely transfer large amounts of data, they are often used for mission-critical applications. According to the complaint, San Jose, California-based Broadcom makes the fibre channel application specific integrated circuits, or ASICs, that are custom-tailored to carry out the functions of each switch. Brocade and Cisco are the only two competitors in the worldwide market for fibre channel switches, and Broadcom supplies both companies with ASICs to make fibre channel switches. The complaint alleges that Broadcom’s acquisition of Brocade could harm worldwide competition in the fibre channel switch market because as Cisco’s supplier, Broadcom has extensive access to Cisco’s competitively sensitive confidential information.  The FTC order prevents Brocade from using Cisco’s competitively sensitive confidential information for any purpose other than the design, manufacturing and sale of fibre channel ASICs for Cisco. It requires Broadcom’s business group responsible for developing, producing, selling and marketing fibre channel ASICs for Cisco to have separate facilities and a separate information technology system with security protocols that allow access only to authorized individuals, and provides for other information firewall protections. To assure compliance, the Commission will appoint a monitor for five years, and the Commission may extend the appointment for up to an additional five years.

The FTC authorized legal action to block the merger of the two largest daily fantasy sports sites, DraftKings and FanDuel, alleging that the combined firm would control more than 90 percent of the U.S. market for paid daily fantasy sports contests. The FTC, jointly with the Offices of the Attorneys General in the State of California and the District of Columbia, filed a complaint in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the deal and to maintain the status quo pending an administrative trial. The Commission also issued an administrative complaint alleging that the proposed merger violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act by creating a single provider with by far the largest share of the market for paid daily fantasy sports contests in the United States.

On July 13, 2017, the parties abandoned the transaction, and the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint.

Supermarket operators Albertsons and Safeway Inc. agreed to sell 168 supermarkets to settle FTC charges that their proposed $9.2 billion merger would likely be anticompetitive in 130 local markets in Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Under the settlement, Haggen Holdings, LLC will acquire 146 Albertsons and Safeway stores located in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington; Supervalu Inc. will acquire two Albertsons stores in Washington; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. will acquire 12 Albertsons and Safeway stores in Texas; and Associated Food Stores Inc. will acquire eight Albertsons and Safeway stores in Montana and Wyoming. It is expected that Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. will assign its operating rights in the 12 Texas stores it is acquiring to RLS Supermarkets, LLC (doing business as Minyard Food Stores) and that Associated Food Stores Inc. will assign its rights in the eight Montana and Wyoming stores it is acquiring to Missoula Fresh Market LLC, Ridley’s Family Markets, Inc., and Stokes Inc.

Entrepreneur Mitchell P. Rales agreed to pay $720,000 in civil penalties to resolve charges that he violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act by failing to report his purchases of shares in two industrial companies, Colfax Corporation and Danaher Corporation.  The FTC alleged that Rales violated the HSR Act by failing to file as required when his wife purchased shares in Colfax in 2011. The shares, which are attributed to Rales under the applicable HSR Rules, were above the filing threshold. According to the complaint, Rales was in violation of the HSR Act from 2011, when the shares were purchased, to 2016, when he made a corrective filing and observed the waiting period. The complaint also alleged that in 2008, Rales violated the HSR Act by buying shares of Danaher that exceeded the filing threshold and failing to file. Rales was in violation of the HSR Act between 2008, when he bought the shares, and 2016, when he made a corrective filing and observed the waiting period. Although Rales contended that the violations were inadvertent, the Commission determined to seek penalties because, as noted in the complaint, Rales had paid civil penalties to settle an earlier HSR enforcement action brought by the Department of Justice in 1991.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint alleging that the proposed merger of Advocate Health Care Network and NorthShore University HealthSystem will create the largest hospital system in the North Shore area of Chicago.  According to the complaint, the combined entity would operate a majority of the hospitals in the area and control more than 50 percent of the general acute care inpatient hospital services. The Commission also authorized staff to file for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the administrative trial.

In the federal court proceeding, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 20, 2016, but granted plaintiffs' motion for a stay pending appeal.  On October 31, 2016, the Seventh Circuit reversed, and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. On March 7, 2017, the district court granted an injunction, and the parties abandoned their merger plans.  On March 20, 2017, the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint.

The FTC issued an administrative complaint alleging that the proposed merger of Advocate Health Care Network and NorthShore University HealthSystem will create the largest hospital system in the North Shore area of Chicago.  According to the complaint, the combined entity would operate a majority of the hospitals in the area and control more than 50 percent of the general acute care inpatient hospital services. The Commission also authorized staff to file for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending the administrative trial.

In the federal court proceeding, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 20, 2016, but granted plaintiffs' motion for a stay pending appeal.  On October 31, 2016, the Seventh Circuit reversed, and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. On March 7, 2017, the district court granted an injunction, and the parties abandoned their merger plans.  On March 20, 2017, the Commission dismissed the administrative complaint.