close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Antitrust Alert: It Is Not Over Until It's Over: Antitrust Risks in Unreported Small Acquisitions

On March 9, 2009, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced that it had brought suit against Election Systems & Software, Inc. ("ES&S") to challenge its acquisition in September of 2009 of Premier Election Solutions Inc. ("Premier") from Diebold, Inc. At the same time, the DOJ filed a settlement agreement with ES&S that requires the divestiture of the assets of Premier in order to restore competition in the market for voting equipment systems in the United States. There are several lessons from this enforcement action that apply to companies in other markets.

ES&S acquired Premier for $5 million in cash and 70% of certain receivables. The purchase price fell below the reporting thresholds of the Hart-Scott-Rodino ("HSR") Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. As a result ES&S was not required to and did not report the transaction prior to closing. Rather, ES&S moved immediately to integrate Premier into its existing operations, with the result that Premier no longer exists as an independent, free-standing company. One of the reasons for the HSR reporting requirements was to give the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission a chance to review and, if necessary, challenge proposed mergers before closing. The reason is obvious: if the eggs are already scrambled, it is often difficult to restore competition. While this concern is undoubtedly true, this case shows that the enforcement agencies will challenge mergers even after closing and integration.

The DOJ defined the relevant market as voting equipment systems in the United States. For this purpose, a voting equipment system is the integrated collection of customized hardware, software, firmware, and associated services used to electronically record, tabulate, transmit, and report votes in an election.

Within the market as defined, ES&S was the largest competitor, and Premier was the second largest. Together they constituted 70% of the market. Moreover, the DOJ concluded that many customers viewed the two companies as their first and second choices. Assuming that these allegations are correct, it is hardly surprising that the DOJ concluded that the merger would harm competition. That conclusion follows easily from the resulting market concentration. In addition, the fact that the two companies were viewed by many customers as the closest competitors could justify a challenge under the "unilateral effects" theory even if the combined market share were smaller.

Because Premier had already been folded into ES&S, a simple order of divestiture was impossible. Premier as a viable operating entity no longer exists. But the DOJ was not dissuaded by those facts. Under the settlement agreement, ES&S is required to divest what remains of Premier in terms of physical assets and intellectual property to a qualified purchaser who can use them to compete. In addition, ES&S is required to take various other affirmative steps to give the acquirer the ability to compete. For example, ES&S must forego the enforcement of non-competition and other covenants that would restrict present or former employees of Premier to work for the acquirer. Similarly, ES&S must provide a transition services agreement to assist the acquirer for six months and a transition supply agreement to provide necessary supplies for up to two years. In the event that an acquirer satisfactory to the DOJ is not found within 60 days, the DOJ will appoint a trustee to find a suitable acquirer, with the costs to be borne by ES&S. All in all, ES&S is stuck with many onerous obligations designed to undo its hastily consummated deal.

There is a certain irony in this situation. The vast majority of large mergers that must be reported under the HSR requirements do not, in fact, create any competitive harm. The HSR reporting thresholds reflect the assumption that transactions that do not reach those thresholds are unlikely to harm competition. Yet, some markets are small, whether because they are very local or for other reasons. Mergers in such markets, as in this case, may create competitive problems even though they are not large enough to be reported. In fact, the DOJ and FTC have challenged a number of small transactions over the last several years involving markets ranging from highly-sophisticated software to horseshoe nails.

This case illustrates clearly that the risk of having to sell-off assets previously acquired—often at a price well below what was initially paid—is something to be analyzed early in the consideration of any transaction that may raise antitrust concerns. Doing so will give the buyer the opportunity to manage that risk appropriately through a variety of actions including careful drafting of acquisition agreements, getting informal feedback from the government enforcers on the likelihood of a problem, and/or taking other preemptive curative action (in a better negotiating position) to address possible concerns.

In conclusion, don't assume that because there is no HSR notification required that you are home free. Both the DOJ and the FTC have been quite willing to investigate deals below those thresholds. This is simply the latest example. Similarly, don't assume that because the deal is closed and the assets thoroughly integrated that you are safe. As this case shows, the enforcement agencies are willing to impose the substantial costs of a mistake on the acquirer. Most small acquisitions are unlikely to create problems, but some do. Especially where the deal combines close competitors, it is worth getting antitrust advice before proceeding.


For further information, please contact:

Tyler A. Baker, Co-Chair, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Group
tbaker@fenwick.com, 650.335.7624

Mark S. Ostrau, Co-Chair, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Group Group
mostrau@fenwick.com, 650-335-7269


The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fenwick & West LLP or its clients. The content of the publication ("content") is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter. The publication of any content is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and Fenwick & West LLP. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the publication without seeking the appropriate legal or professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

©2010 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.