2.11. Guideline 11: When an Acquisition Involves Partial Ownership or Minority Interests, the Agencies Examine Its Impact on Competition

In many acquisitions, two companies come under common control. In some situations, however, the acquisition of less-than-full control may still influence decision-making at the target firm or another firm in ways that may substantially lessen competition. Acquisitions of partial ownership or other minority interests may give the investor rights in the target firm, such as rights to appoint board members, observe board meetings, influence the firm’s ability to raise capital, impact operational decisions, or access competitively sensitive information. The Agencies have concerns with both cross- ownership, which refers to holding a non-controlling interest in a competitor, as well as common ownership, which occurs when individual investors hold non-controlling interests in firms that have a competitive relationship that could be affected by those joint holdings.

Partial acquisitions that do not result in control may nevertheless present significant competitive concerns. The acquisition of a minority position may permit influence of the target firm, implicate strategic decisions of the acquirer with respect to its investment in other firms, or change incentives so as to otherwise dampen competition. The post-acquisition relationship between the parties and the independent incentives of the parties outside the acquisition may be important in determining whether the partial acquisition may substantially lessen competition. Such partial acquisitions are subject to the same legal standard as any other acquisition. [Endnote 53]

The Agencies recognize that cross-ownership and common ownership can reduce competition by softening firms’ incentives to compete, even absent any specific anticompetitive act or intent. While the Agencies will consider any way in which a partial acquisition may affect competition, they generally focus on three principal effects:

First, a partial acquisition can lessen competition by giving the partial owner the ability to influence the competitive conduct of the target firm. [Endnote 54] For example, a voting interest in the target firm or specific governance rights, such as the right to appoint members to the board of directors, influence capital budgets, determine investment return thresholds, or select particular managers, can create such influence. Additionally, a nonvoting interest may, in some instances, provide opportunities to prevent, delay, or discourage important competitive initiatives, or otherwise impact competitive decision making. Such influence can lessen competition because the partial owner could use its influence to induce the target firm to compete less aggressively or to coordinate its conduct with that of the acquiring firm.

Second, a partial acquisition can lessen competition by reducing the incentive of the acquiring firm to compete. [Endnote 55] Acquiring a minority position in a rival might blunt the incentive of the partial owner to compete aggressively because it may profit through dividend or other revenue share even when it loses business to the rival. For example, the partial owner may decide not to develop a new product feature to win market share from the firm in which it has acquired an interest, because doing so will reduce the value of its investment in its rival. This reduction in the incentive of the acquiring firm to compete arises even when it cannot directly influence the conduct or decision making of the target firm.

Third, a partial acquisition can lessen competition by giving the acquiring firm access to non- public, competitively sensitive information from the target firm. Even absent any ability to influence the conduct of the target firm, access to competitively sensitive information can substantially lessen competition through other mechanisms. For example, it can enhance the ability of the target and the partial owner to coordinate their behavior and make other accommodating responses faster and more targeted. The risk of coordinated effects is greater if the transaction also facilitates the flow of competitively sensitive information from the investor to the target firm. Even if coordination does not occur, the partial owner may use that information to preempt or appropriate a rival’s competitive business strategies for its own benefit. If rivals know their efforts to win trading partners can be immediately appropriated, they may see less value in taking competitive actions in the first place, resulting in a lessening of competition.

*          *          *

The analyses above address common scenarios that the Agencies use to assess the risk that a merger may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. However, they are not exhaustive. The Agencies have in the past encountered mergers that lessen competition through mechanisms not covered above. For example:

1. A merger that would enable firms to avoid a regulatory constraint because that constraint was applicable to only one of the merging firms;
2. A merger that would enable firms to exploit a unique procurement process that favors the bids of a particular competitor who would be acquired in the merger; or
3. In a concentrated market, a merger that would dampen the acquired firm’s incentive or ability to compete due to the structure of the acquisition or the acquirer.

As these scenarios and these Guidelines indicate, a wide range of evidence can show that a merger may lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Whatever the sources of evidence, the Agencies look to the facts and the law in each case.

Whatever frameworks the Agencies use to identify that a merger may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, they also examine rebuttal evidence under the framework in Section 3.

[Endnote 53] See United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586, 592 (1957) (“[A]ny acquisition by one corporation of all or any part of the stock of another corporation, competitor or not, is within the reach of [Section 7 of the Clayton Act] whenever the reasonable likelihood appears that the acquisition will result in a restraint of commerce or in the creation of a monopoly of any line of commerce.”).

[Endnote 54] See United States v. Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc., 426 F.3d 850, 860-61 (6th Cir. 2005).

[Endnote 55] See Denver & Rio Grande v. United States, 387 U.S. 485, 504 (1967) (identifying Section 7 concerns with a 20% investment).