|This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.|
| LOWELL R. STERN |
United States Department of Justice
450 5th Street, N.W., Suite 8700
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 307-0922
Facsimile: (202) 307-6283
Attorney for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, plaintiff, the United States of America ("United States"), by and through the undersigned counsel, will move this Court, pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) ("APPA"), for entry of the proposed Final Judgment filed in this civil antitrust proceeding. The proposed Final Judgment (Ex. 1 to Docket #130 and attached hereto) may be entered at this time without further hearing if the Court determines that entry is in the public interest. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-15, counsel for Plaintiff United States and Defendant Microsemi Corporation consent to waiver of oral argument on the motion. The Competitive Impact Statement ("CIS"), filed in this matter on August 20, 2009 (Docket #132), explains why entry of the proposed Final Judgment would be in the public interest. The United States filed with this Motion and Memorandum a Certificate of Compliance setting forth the steps taken by the parties to comply with all applicable provisions of the APPA and certifying that the statutory waiting period has expired (Docket #135).
On July 14, 2008, defendant Microsemi Corporation ("Microsemi") acquired most of the assets of Semicoa. After investigating the competitive impact of that acquisition, the United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on December 18, 2008, seeking an order compelling Microsemi to divest the Semicoa assets and other relief to restore competition. The Complaint alleges that the acquisition significantly lessened competition in the development, manufacture and sale of certain high reliability small signal transistors and ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes used in aerospace and military applications, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. As a result of the acquisition, prices for these products did or would have increased, delivery times would have lengthened, and terms of service would have become less favorable. Pursuant to an Order to Preserve and Maintain Assets, which was entered on December 24, 2008 and modified on August 6, 2009, Microsemi may not, without written consent of the United States, dispose of the acquired assets prior to resolution of this proceeding.
Concurrent with the filing of the CIS on August 20, 2009, the United States and Microsemi filed a Stipulation Regarding Proposed Final Judgment and a proposed Final Judgment. These filings were designed to restore competition through a divestiture of the acquired assets. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsemi to divest the Semicoa assets, thus restoring the competition that was lost as a result of the acquisition.(1)
The United States and Microsemi have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the Final Judgment would terminate this action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
II. Compliance with the APPA
The APPA requires a sixty-day period for the submission of public comments on a proposed Final Judgment. See 15 U.S.C. § 16(b). In compliance with the APPA, the United States filed the CIS on August 20, 2009; published the proposed Final Judgment and CIS in the Federal Register on September 1, 2009 (see United States v. Microsemi Corp., 74 Fed. Reg. 45242); and published summaries of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and CIS, together with directions for the submission of written comments relating to the proposed Final Judgment, in The Washington Post for seven days beginning on September 6, 2009 and ending on September 12, 2009, and in The Los Angeles Times for seven days beginning September 13, 2009 and ending September 19, 2009. The sixty-day public comment period ended on November 18, 2009, and the United States received no comments. The United States has filed a Certificate of Compliance with this Motion and Memorandum that states that all the requirements of the APPA have been satisfied (Docket #135). It is now appropriate for the Court to make the public interest determination required by 15 U.S.C. § 16(e) and to enter the proposed Final Judgment.
III. Standard of Judicial Review
The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment "is in the public interest." 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the court, in accordance with the statute, as amended in 2004,(2) is required to consider:
15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1)(A)-(B). In considering these statutory factors, the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government is entitled to "broad discretion to settle with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest." United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing public interest standard under the Tunney Act).
Under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not "engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best serve the public." United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460-62. Courts have held that:
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).(3) In making its public interest determination, a district court "must accord deference to the government's predictions about the efficacy of its remedies, and may not require that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations." SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting need for courts to be "deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of the proposed remedies"); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court should grant due respect to the prediction of the United States as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its views of the nature of the case).
Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of liability in a litigated matter. "[A] proposed decree must be approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or is 'within the reaches of public interest.'" United States v. AT&T Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations omitted) (quoting Gillette, 406 F. Supp. at 716); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet this standard, the United States "need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms." SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17.
Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Court to "construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case." Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459. Because the "court's authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place," it follows that "the court is only authorized to review the decree itself," and not to "effectively redraft the complaint" to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Id. at 1459-60. Courts "cannot look beyond the complaint in making the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power." SBC Communications, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15.
In its 2004 amendments, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene." 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(2). This instruction explicitly writes into the statute the standard intended by the Congress that enacted the Tunney Act in 1974 , as Senator Tunney then explained: "[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process." 119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Senator Tunney). Rather, the procedure for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of the court, with the recognition that the scope of the court's "review remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act proceedings." SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.(4)
For the reasons set forth in this Motion and Memorandum and in the CIS, the Court should find that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest and should enter the Final Judgment without further hearings. The United States respectfully requests that the Final Judgment annexed hereto be entered as soon as possible.
Dated: January 13, 2010
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of January, 2010, I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:
Brett J. Williamson
Michael E. Antalics
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on December 18, 2008, and the United States and Microsemi Corporation ("Microsemi"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;
AND WHEREAS, Microsemi agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights and assets by Microsemi to assure that competition is substantially restored;
AND WHEREAS, Microsemi has represented to the United States that the divestiture required below can and will be made and that Microsemi will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions contained below;
NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Microsemi under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, as amended, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.II. Definitions
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. "Microsemi" means defendant Microsemi Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Irvine, California, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
B. "Semicoa" means Semicoa, a California corporation with its headquarters in Costa Mesa, California, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. "Acquirer" means the entity to whom defendant divests the Divestiture Assets.
D. "Divestiture Assets" means all assets acquired by Microsemi from Semicoa on July 14, 2008, including but not limited to:
E. "QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diode" means each JAN, JANS, JANTX, and JANTXV part listed on slash sheets 477 and 590 in the Qualified Products Database maintained by the Defense Supply Center Columbus.
F. "QML Small Signal Transistor" means each JAN, JANS, JANTX, and JANTXV part listed on slash sheets 182, 251, 253, 255, 270, 290, 291, 301, 317, 336, 349, 354, 366, 374, 376, 382, 391, 392, 394, 395, 423, 455, 512, 534, 535, 544, 545, 558, 559, 560, and 561 in the Qualified Products Database maintained by the Defense Supply Center Columbus.
This Final Judgment applies to Microsemi, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with it who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
A. Microsemi is hereby ordered and directed, within thirty (30) calendar days after the filing of the proposed Final Judgment in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the Divestiture Assets to an Acquirer in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one extension of this time period, not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days, and shall notify the Court of such extension. Microsemi agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as possible.
B. Microsemi shall provide the Acquirer and the United States information relating to the personnel involved in the development, production, operation, testing, management, or sales at the Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment. Microsemi will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to employ any Microsemi employee whose primary responsibility was the development, production, operation, testing, management, or sales at the Divestiture Assets.
C. Microsemi shall permit the Acquirer to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities included in the Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.
D. Microsemi shall warrant to the Acquirer that each asset will be operational on the date of sale.
E. Microsemi shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
F. Microsemi shall warrant to the Acquirer that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning, permitting, qualification, or other permits pertaining to the operation of the Divestiture Assets, and that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, Microsemi will not undertake directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
G. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant to Section IV of this Final Judgment shall include the entire Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture Assets will remain viable and the divestiture of such assets will remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestitures, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this Final Judgment,
V. Appointment of Trustee to Effect Divestiture
A. If Microsemi has not divested the Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Section IV(A), Microsemi shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States at such price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V(D) of this Final Judgment, the trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Microsemi any investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist in the divestiture.
C. Microsemi shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by Microsemi must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Microsemi, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the Divestiture Assets and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all remaining money shall be paid to Microsemi and the trust shall then be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.
E. Microsemi shall use its best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the required divestiture. The trustee and any consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and Microsemi shall develop financial and other information relevant to such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Microsemi shall take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture.
F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
G. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth: (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestiture has not been accomplished; and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the United States, which shall have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United States.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestiture
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive divestiture agreement, Microsemi or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify Microsemi. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United States of such notice, the United States may request from Microsemi, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed divestiture and the proposed Acquirer. Microsemi and the trustee shall furnish any additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been provided the additional information requested from Microsemi, the proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the trustee, whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to Microsemi and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to Microsemi's limited right to object to the sale under Section V(C) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by Microsemi under Section V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
Microsemi shall not finance all or any part of any purchase or divestiture made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.VIII. Preserving and Maintaining Divestiture Assets
Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been accomplished, Microsemi shall take all steps necessary to comply with the Order Approving Stipulation Modifying Order to Preserve and Maintain Assets and Stipulation Modifying Order to Preserve and Maintain Assets. Microsemi shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestiture ordered by this Court.IX. Affidavits
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the proposed Final Judgment in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV or V, Microsemi shall deliver to the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts Microsemi has taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the United States to information provided by Microsemi, including limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the proposed Final Judgment in this matter, Microsemi shall deliver to the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions Microsemi has taken and all steps Microsemi has implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Microsemi shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined in Microsemi's earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Microsemi shall keep all records of all efforts made to preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such divestiture has been completed.
X. Compliance Inspection
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from time to time authorized representatives of the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division, including consultants and other persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to Microsemi, be permitted:
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, Microsemi shall submit written reports or response to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by Microsemi to the United States, Microsemi represents and identifies in writing the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Microsemi marks each pertinent page of such material, "Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," then the United States shall give Microsemi ten (10) calendar days notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
Unless such transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18a (the "HSR Act"), Microsemi, without providing advance notification to the Antitrust Division, shall not directly or indirectly acquire any assets of or any interest, including any financial, security, loan, equity or management interest, in any entity engaged in the development, production, or sale of QML Small Signal Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes during the term of this Final Judgment.
Such notification shall be provided to the Antitrust Division in the same format as, and per the instructions relating to, the Notification and Report Form set forth in the Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended, except that the information requested in Items 5 through 9 of the instructions must be provided only about QML Small Signal Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes. Notification shall be provided at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to acquiring any such interest, and shall include, beyond what may be required by the applicable instructions, the names of the principal representatives of the parties to the agreement who negotiated the agreement, and any management or strategic plans discussing the proposed transaction. Early termination of the waiting periods in this paragraph may be requested and, where appropriate, granted in the same manner as is applicable under the requirements and provisions of the HSR Act and rules promulgated thereunder. This Section shall be broadly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty regarding the filing of notice under this Section shall be resolved in favor of filing notice.
XII. No Reacquisition
Microsemi may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets during the term of this Final Judgment.
XIII. Retention of Jurisdiction
This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.XIV. Expiration of Final Judgment
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
XV. Public Interest Determination
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, including making copies available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive Impact Statement, and any comments thereon and the United States's responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
Date: __________, 2009
1. Microsemi completed the divestiture, in compliance with the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and with the consent of the United States, on August 20, 2009.
2. The 2004 amendments substituted "shall" for "may" in directing relevant factors for the court to consider and amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 U.S.C. § 16(e) (2004) with 15 U.S.C. § 16(e)(1) (2006); see also United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2007) (concluding that the 2004 amendments "effected minimal changes" to Tunney Act review).
3. Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court's "ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or disapproving the consent decree"); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the court is constrained to "look at the overall picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist's reducing glass"), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether "the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the 'reaches of the public interest'").
4. See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the "Tunney Act expressly allows the court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the competitive impact statement and response to comments alone"); United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., 1977-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) ("Absent a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . carefully consider the explanations of the government in order to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the circumstances."); S. Rep. No. 93-298, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., at 6 (1973) ("Where the public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be utilized.").