Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson

In the matter of Rhodia, staff has presented to the Commission a complaint and consent order that would settle the Section 7, Clayton Act and Section 5, Federal Trade Commission Act concerns raised by Rhodia's acquisition of Albright & Wilson plc from Donau Chemie AG. The proposed complaint narrowly defines the relevant market for pure phosphoric acid (PPA) as within the boundaries of the United States. For the following reasons, I disagree.

The North American PPA market has operated in an oligopolistic manner for the past twenty years or more. The major North American competitors have successfully engineered the highest PPA prices in the world through a variety of actions, including signaling prices, retaliating selectively to enforce high prices, controlling imports through agreements with a foreign supplier, and eliminating domestic competitors through acquisition. Rhodia, a significant member of the North American oligopoly, now proposes to acquire Albright & Wilson. I believe such an acquisition would allow Rhodia to:

(1) Reinforce its world-wide dominant position among phosphates producers;

(2) Protect PPA prices and market share in North America; and

(3) Position itself to have the capacity to enforce market discipline in the North American market.

Evidence of Rhodia's view of the acquisition's impact on the North American market alone leads me to believe that the geographic scope of the PPA product market extends to all of North America, thus including Albright & Wilson's Mexican plant in the market. Other evidence, however, also demonstrates that North America is the relevant market. Accordingly, the Commission should have fully considered ordering the sale of Albright & Wilson's interests in both of its North American PPA plants to Potash Corporation and/or another purchaser not saddled with the incentives and history Rhodia carries.

Shipment Decisions and the Scope of the Geographic Market

The complaint apparently limits the scope of the geographic market because Albright & Wilson, the owner of a Mexican PPA plant and part owner of a North Carolina plant, does not currently ship Mexican PPA into the United States even though the evidence convinces me that the Mexican capacity could be used to supply customers in the United States. Although this private business decision from a multi-plant supplier creates a shipment pattern that superficially supports finding a United States PPA market, one principle of geographic market analysis is that competition among geographically differentiated producers may be linked indirectly by the customers they can economically serve.

Despite the decision not to ship PPA into the United States from the Mexican plant, North American capacity is competitively linked -- and North American PPA suppliers compete -- because the Mexican plant's PPA is sold to customers in Mexico and Canada that U.S. domestic plants would otherwise supply. Moreover, Albright & Wilson's joint venture plant, as well as other competitors' U.S. plants, undoubtedly serve customers that Albright & Wilson's Mexican plant would otherwise serve, but for Albright & Wilson's decision concerning which of its plants would serve which North American customers.

Divestiture Policy and the Adequacy of the Ordered Relief

As a routine starting point, the Commission's ongoing policy concerns about merger relief generally leads us to consider requiring the complete divestiture of either one of the merging parties' overlapping businesses in the relevant market. This divestiture policy limits the potential adverse market consequences by maintaining the pre-acquisition market structure and by maximizing the potential that the purchaser would be viable and competitive.

I am concerned that we have not adhered to this policy here, where there is significant evidence that the market is acting noncompetitively, as well as compelling evidence supporting a challenge of the proposed acquisition. Rhodia is the dominant phosphates producer in the world, and it will become -- even taking into account the majority's relief -- the leader in the North American PPA market. Thus, Rhodia, through this acquisition, would gain additional North American capacity that could be used to enforce higher prices.

Although the relief set forth in the consent order -- which requires Rhodia to sell the current Albright & Wilson joint venture interest in the North Carolina plant -- does limit the potential adverse market impact, I still am concerned that the relief does not go far enough. In looking forward, if we allow Rhodia to acquire the Mexican plant and become the competitor controlling the greatest amount of capacity in North America, it could leverage the Mexican plant's capacity to discipline competitors' pricing. Thus, a settlement that allows Rhodia to become the North American market leader by acquiring Albright & Wilson's interest in either of its two North American plants should be fully and cautiously scrutinized by the Commission to determine whether further relief is warranted. By alleging a United States geographic market here, the majority has unfortunately isolated itself from a full consideration of the appropriate divestiture and, when evaluating future possible PPA plant acquisitions, the Commission would face the additional burden of justifying a market redefinition.

One could argue that Rhodia's ownership of the Mexican plant, while providing it the capacity to attain the leading position in North America, ironically may well slightly improve the market concentration data. But the limited evidence before me suggests that the majority neither fully explored nor evaluated the consequences of this concentration data or the options available to the Commission. These options include ordering the sale of all of the Albright & Wilson assets to Potash, a North American-only competitor, or ordering the sale of the joint venture interest in the North Carolina plant to Potash and the Mexican plant to another independent purchaser. These options -- when evaluated with the limited information presented to the Commission -- appear no worse than allowing Rhodia to own the Mexican plant, and, in fact, either of these options might prove superior to the majority's relief.

Thus, by basing a complaint on a narrow United States market and avoiding direct confrontation of the issue whether Rhodia should be allowed to purchase the Mexican plant, the majority permits Rhodia to acquire additional North American capacity and perhaps ensures that the PPA market will act noncompetitively in the future. In my view, the majority's unwillingness to make a minor correction now could squander a valuable opportunity to protect North American PPA consumers.