Antitrust-Related Recent Developments: DOJ settles gun-jumping case, FTC issues fines for failure to submit HSR filing

Dec 4, 2014

Reading Time : 4 min

The companies, Flakeboard America Limited and SierraPine Limited, are sellers of particleboard, an unfinished wood product widely used in countertops, shelving and other finished products. They entered into an agreement on January 13, 2014, for Flakeboard to acquire three mills from SierraPine for $107 million, with the intention that Flakeboard would close down one of the plants after obtaining antitrust clearance. The companies made HSR filings with the antitrust agencies. The DOJ issued a Second Request to further investigate the competitive impact of the transaction, which eventually led to the companies abandoning the proposed transaction on September 30, 2014.

During the waiting period, however, a labor dispute arose that required public disclosure of the planned mill closing. This, in turn, allegedly led to the company coordinating its closure of the mill on March 13, 2014, and migration of the mill’s customers to Flakeboard. According to the DOJ Competitive Impact Statement, SierraPine provided Flakeboard with competitively sensitive information, including customer lists, contact information and purchase order history, which was shared with Flakeboard’s sales employees. The companies coordinated the public announcement of the mill’s closure and instructed SierraPine’s sales employees to notify customers that Flakeboard sought their business and would match the existing price terms. Flakeboard also offered assurances of future employment to key SierraPine sales employees for directing the mill’s customers to Flakeboard.

The DOJ viewed the conduct as a per se illegal agreement between competitors to reduce output and allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and a premature transfer of ownership before expiration of the waiting period in violation of Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a. The consent decree requires the companies to each pay $1.9 million in civil penalties and Flakeboard to disgorge profits earned as a result of the closing of SierraPine’s mill during the antitrust waiting period (approximately $1.15 million). The civil penalty amounts were reduced from the maximum of $3.568 million for cooperation with the investigation and voluntary production of evidence. This included entering into a timing agreement to complete production and allocating time for the DOJ to complete their investigation despite the accrual of civil penalties of up to an additional $16,000 per day for being in continuous violation of the HSR Act (pursuant to 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(1)).

FTC fines investor $896,000 for failure to file an HSR notification in connection with the conversion of notes into voting securities

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) fined Berkshire Hathaway Inc. $896,000 in connection with allegations that the company violated the HSR Act by failing to file an HSR notification for the conversion of notes into voting securities. Berkshire Hathaway acquired notes in USG Corporation in 2008, which were subsequently converted into voting securities in December 2013. The conversion resulted in Berkshire Hathaway exceeding the applicable size-of-transaction threshold, since no HSR filing exemptions were applicable.

This was at least the second time that Berkshire Hathaway submitted a corrective filing to comply with the HSR Act. The company’s previous violation came on June 25, 2013, when it failed to report its acquisition of voting securities of financial services company Symetra. Berkshire Hathaway submitted a corrective HSR filing on July 2, 2013, characterizing its failure to comply as inadvertent. The FTC did not pursue a civil penalty in that case, but required Berkshire Hathaway to institute an effective HSR compliance program.

This second violation, however, led to the imposition of civil penalties. The director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, Deborah Feinstein, stated that “[t]he Commission requires compliance with the premerger notification rules, and will not hesitate to seek civil penalties against companies or individuals that fall short of their filing responsibilities. Although we may not seek penalties for every inadvertent error, we will enforce the rules when the same party makes additional mistakes after promises of improved oversight. Companies and individual investors alike should ensure that they have an effective program in place to monitor compliance with HSR filing requirements.”

FTC settles with patent assertion entity to prevent future deceptive conduct that would trigger penalties of up to $16,000 per letter

Patent assertion entities (PAEs), sometimes referred to as nonpracticing entities or, derisively, as “patent trolls,” generate revenue by acquiring and enforcing intellectual property rights against potential infringers. PAEs have different patent enforcement incentives from companies that develop and/or sell commercial products. A PAE’s unique structure enables it to aggressively pursue royalty licensing agreements in circumstances where a producing company, which may face counterclaims of infringement, might not.

There is substantial scholarly disagreement over whether PAE activities in general harm competition. Without getting into that thorny issue, the FTC and the state attorneys general pursued enforcement against one PAE, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, because it allegedly engaged in deceptive assertions of patent infringement and phony legal threats. MPHJ sent thousands of letters to small businesses around the United States asserting that the companies were infringing its patents related to network computing technology and proposing settlement payment terms. Allegedly, the letters misrepresented the number of settlements MPHJ had entered with other alleged infringers and the terms under which other companies had settled the patent infringement claims.

On November 6, 2014, the FTC entered into a consent order that prohibits MPHJ from engaging in future deceptive conduct and triggers a penalty of up to $16,000 per patent assertion communication that is misleading or unsubstantiated. This includes misrepresentations relating to the number of settlement agreements already entered into or the value of the other settlement agreements. The consent order also imposes recordkeeping requirements for patent assertion communications issued by MPHJ for a period of five years. The director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Jessica Rich, stated that “Patents can promote innovation but a patent is not a license to engage in deception. Small businesses and other consumers have the right to expect truthful communications from those who market patent rights.”

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.