|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.|
| -----Original Message-----|
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:38 PM
To: Hammaker, Michael
Cc: Harris, Anthony
Subject: Re: WASTE MANAGEMENT: 4/28/03 Sale of $1Billion of Allied Waste Assets to Waste Management
We have the Competitive Impact Statement for the Waste Management/Allied swap.
The CIS correctly notes the critical importance to the maintenance of competition of free access to disposal capacity on non-discriminate terms, and goes onto to note the partial divestitures of transfer and disposal assets in New Jersey and Oklahoma.
In order to comment intelligently on the proposed settlement, we would like to ask if DOJ would share its discovery data on local conditions in the market for diposal in those areas. Specifically, the ownership and maximum daily throughputs for transfer stations, and the ownership, maximum daily tonnages and remaining life and locations for landfills. Also, the names and, if possible, very general indices of the size/share (that does not impinge on trade secrets) of the municipal solid waste firms in each market.
October 9. 2003
BY HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Stacy R. Procter
Dear Ms. Procter:
Thank you for your recent comments as to the purpose and effect of the language contained in Section XI11 of the Final Judgment, entitled "Revisions to Contracts," regarding the obligation of Waste Management not to "attempt to enforce any contract term affecting commercial waste collection customers in the specified areas [Myrtle Beach, SC and Augusta, GA] that conflicts with or is inconsistent with the above terms [reflecting five contract prohibitions], even if those customers choose not to sign a contract with the new terms."
Pursuant to the Final Judgment, these five contract prohibitions provide that "[nlo contract shall : "
As you have advised, the language quoted above became effective as of June 27,2003. At that time, Waste Management became immediately obligated not to enforce any contract provision(s) inconsistent with the five contract prohibitions listed above, although other contract terms may remain enforceable by Waste Management. As a result, contracts in place as of June 27,2003 must conform to these five contract prohibitions. Moreover, Waste Management is also obligated to offer new contracts to new and existing customers in accordance with these five contract prohibitions, subject to the deadlines set forth in Section XI11 the Final Judgment.
In short, the obligation upon Waste Management not to enforce any contract provision(s) inconsistent with the five contract prohibitions currently applies, whether or not the contracts in place physically incorporate the language in question. On that basis, we have no objection to or other comment on the proposed Final Judgment pending before Judge Gladys Kessler.