FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (1984)

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20580

OFFICt OF

THE CHAfaMAN

September 19, 1985

The Honorable George Bush

President of the Senate

United States Senate

Washington, D.C.

20510

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

20515

Re:

Ei hth Annual

to Congress Pursuant to

ection 201 of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust

Improvements Ac~ of 1976

Gentlemen:

Section 201 of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements

Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-435, amended the Clayton Act by adding a

new Section 7A, 15 U.S.C. S 18a. Subsedtion (j) of this section

provides as follows:

Beginning not later than January 1, 1978, the

Federal Trade Commission, with the concurrence

of the Assistant Attorney General, shall

annually report to the Congress on the operation

of this section. Such report shall include an

assessment of the effects of this section, of

the effects, purpose, and the need for any rules

promulgated pursuant thereto, and any

recommendations for revisions of this section.

This is the eighth annual report to Congress pursuant to

this provision.

In general, Section 7A establishes a mechanism under which

certain proposed acquisitions of stock or assets must be

reported to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of

Justice prior to consummation. The parties must then wait a

specified period, usually thirty days, before they may complete

the transaction. Whether a particular acquisition is subject to

these requirements depends upon the size of the acquisition and

the size of the parties, as measured by theif sales and

216

,..

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill~ ~r.

-2-

assets. Only those classes of acquisitions which are likely to

raise antitrust concerns are subject to the premerger

notification program; small acquisitions and acquisitions

involving small parties are excluded from the Act's coverage.

The primary purpose of the statutory sch~me, as the

legislative.history makes clear, is to provide the antitrust

enforcement agencies with a meaningful opportunity to review

large mergers and acquisitions before th€y occur. The premerger

notification program, with its filing and waiting requirements,

provides the agencies with not only the time, but also the

information needed to conduct such a review. Much of the

information needed for a preliminary antitrust evaluation of a

proposed transaction is included in the notification filed with

the· agencies and thus is immediately available for review dur:ing

the thirty-day waiting period.

If either agency determines during that .initial waiting

period that further inquiry is necessary, it is authorized by

Section 7A(e) to request additional information or documentary

materials from.either or bo~h of the parties to a reported

transaction. Such a request extends the waiting period for a

specified period, usually twenty days after all of the requested

information and documents are received. this additional time

provides the agencies with the opportunity to review the new

information and to take appropriate action before the

transaction is consummated.

If either agency believes that a

proposed transaction may violate the antitrust laws, Section

7A(f) allows the agency to seek an injunction in feneral

district court to prohibit consummation of the transaction.

Final rules implementing the premerger notification program

were promulgated by the Commission, with the concurrence of the

Assistant Attorney General, on July 31, 1978. l

At that time, a

comprehensive Statement of Basis and Purpose, containing a

43 Fed. Reg. 33450 (July 31, 1978). The rules also appear

in 16 C.F.R. Parts 801 tnrough 803. For more information

concerning the development of the rules and operating

procedures of the premerger notification program, see the

second, third and seventh annual reports covering the years

1978, 1979 and 1983, respectively.

217

The Honorable Gecrge Bus~

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-3-

section-by-section analysis of the rules and an item-by-item

analysis of the Premerger Notification and Report Form, was

published. The program became effective on September S, 1978.

In 1983, the Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant

Attorney General, made several changes in the premerger

notification rules. Those amendments became effective on

August 29, 1983. 2

Statistical Profile of the Prernerger Notification Program

The appendices to this report provide a statistical summary

of the operation of the premerger notification program.

Appendix A shows, for each year (or part of a year) that the

program has bean in operation, the number of transactions

reported, the number of filings received, the number of

transactions in which requests for additional information or

documentary material (hereinafter referred to as "second

requests") were issued, and the number of transactions in which

requests for early termination were received, granted, and

denied. Appendix B provides a month-by-month comparison of the

number of filings received and the number of transactions

reported for 1982 through 1984.

We have added a new table this year, Appendix C, which

provides new second request statistics based on information

which the Co~mission has compiled for filings made since 1981.

We believe that these figures provide a more meaningful measure

of the second request rate than does Appendix A because: 1) the

numbers have been adjusted to eliminate those categories of

transactions in which the agencies could not, or as a practical

matter would not, issue second requests; and 2) the statistics

show the number of second requests issued for transactions

reported in a specified year. In contrast, Appendix A shows all

transactions re~orted and the number of second requests issued

each calendar year irrespective of when the filing was actually

received.

The statistics set out in these appendices indicate that

the number of transactions reported in 1984 increased 24.1~ over

the number reported in 1983 (1128 transactions were reported in

1983, 1400 in 1984). The statistics also indicate a large

increase in the number of second requests issued. Appendix A

48 Fed. Reg. 34427 (July 29, 1983).

218

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-4-

the number of second requests issued increased from

Appendix C, which shows the number of

second requests issued for transactions filed in' a specified

year, shows a slightly larger increase (from 48 in 1983 to 80 in

1984). This represents an increase in the number of second

requests issued as a percentage of reported transactions (from

4.3% in 1983 to 5.5% in 1984, based on Appendix A, and from 5.4%

in 1983 to 6.6% in 1984, based on Appendix C.) As the Sixth and

Seventh Annual Reports indicated, the second request rate was on

a persistent downward trend from 1979 through 1983. Nineteen

eighty-four is the first year that the request rate has

increased.

shows~that

48 in 1983 to 77 in 1984.

The statistics also show that the number of transactions

involving requests for early termination has again increased

dramatically. 3 In 1984, early termination was requested in

1064 transactions, while in 1~83 it was requested in only 643,

and in only 341 in 1982. This represents, as a percentage of

reported transactions, a request rate of 76.0%, as compared with

57.0% in 1983 and 29.8% in 1982. The number of requests granted

has increased (from 599 in 1983 to 847 in 1984), although the

percentage of ·requests granted has decreased (from 93.2% in 1983

to 79.6% in 1984).

Recent Develo~me~ts Relating to Premerger Notification Rules and

Procedures

Rule Changes

The Commission staff is currently working on a new rules

package which will clarify the existing rules, codify

chan~e

As noted in the Seventh Annual Report, the increases in the

nu~ber of requests for early termination and the high

proportions of those requests that have been granted are

probably attributable to the change in the agencies'

standard for granting early termination, adopted in the

formal interpretation issued by the Commission on August 20,

1982. Under that interpretation, the agencies will grant a

reouest for early termination if at least one party has made

a ;ritten request for early termination, all parties to the

proposed transaction have submitted Notification and Report

Forms and any other information required, and the agencies

have de~errnined that they will not take any enforcement

action during the waiting period. The 1982 interpretation

suoerseded an earlier one which required the parties to

ae;onstrate ~ome special busines~ reason that warranted

early termination of the waiting period.

219

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-s-

informal positions of the staff, reduce the r~porting.burden of

the premerger notification program in some areas ~nd expand the

coverage of the program to rea·ch some transactions that may

raise antitrust concerns but are currently not reportable under

existing staff interpretations of the Act and rules. To assist

in the rules change process, as well as to suppl-ement other

publicly available information on merger activity, we have

prepared tables which present statistical information for 1983

Bart-Scott-Rodino filings.

This information, which is set out

in Exhibit A, is similar to the information for 1981 filings

included in the Commission's 1982 request for comments on burden

reduction 4 and the information for 1982 filings included in the

Seventh Annual Report. 5

Co:r.pl i ance

Compliance with the premerger notification program's filing

requirements is believed to be very good. However, this year,

for the first time since the program's inception, an action was

brought under Section 7A{g) (1) to recover civil penalties for

non~compliance. 6

The Coastal Corporation ("Coastal"), a

Houston-based oil and gas company, agreed to pay civil penalties

of $230,000 under a consent judgment negotiated by the

Co~~ission.

Coastal purchased 75,500 shares of stock in the

Houston Natural Gas Company ("HNG") on January 19, 1984, but did

not file a Notification and Report Form until January 27, when

it publicly announced a tender offer to acquire control of

HNG. Coastal claimed that its January 19 acquisition was exempt

fro~ the Act's reporting requirements under Section 7A(c) (9), as

an acquisition of voting securities made "solely for the purpose

of investment." The Bureau of Competition's investigation of

Coastal's purchases indicated that at the time of the January 19

purchases, Coastal's intent was not solely to acquire a passive

investment, but rather included the possibility of acquiring

control of RNG. ·The Commission charged Coastal with violating

47 Fed. Reg. 29182 (July 2, 1982). This notice, inclu~ed in

the Sixth Annual Report as Exhibit A, contained eleven

statistical tables showing premerger filings and

enforcement interest in 1981~

Seve~th

United States v. Coastal Corporation, Cv. No. 84-2675

(D.D.C. filed August 30, 1984).

Annual Report to Congress, Exhibit B.

220

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-6-

the Act for at least 23 days, from January 19 until February 11

the day it could legally have acquired the 75,500 shares after '

the waiting period expired. In addition to paying the maximum

civil penalties authorized .by Section 7A(g) (1) for each day that

Coastal was alleged to be in violation of the Act, Coastal also

agreed to divest the HNG stock that it was alleged to have

acquired illegally.

The staff of the Commission also opened a number of other

investigations in 1984 to obtain additional facts about possible

Hart-Scott-Rodino violations. These investigations have focused

on the validity of exemptions claimed by parties to various

transactions and on the possible use of devices to avoid the

requirements of the Act. All but two of these investigations

have been completed with no violation found. Two investigations

are still pending.

These· investigations grew~out of the agencies' monitoring

program which is designed to ensure that the parties to

transactions that are covered by the program comply with its

provisions. The agencies review business newspapers and

industry publications for announcements of transactions that may

be subject to the Act. In addition, industry sources, such as

competitors, customers and suppliers·, and interested members of

the public often provide fUrther information. If a proposed

transaction i~ announced that appears to be covered by the

statute and rules, but no filing is received within a reasonable

time, the agencies send letters to the parties requesting an

explanation for their failure to file. The same procedure is

followed when the agencies learn of a consummated transaction

for which no prior filing was received. In almost all cases,

the responses to these letters have satisfactorily explained why

the transactions were not covered by the Act, or were ex~rnpted

from it. As previously mentioned, however, in a few cases, the

agencies have opened investigations to obtain additional

information. ·Also, in a few cases, most often involving

ind:viduals or relatively small corporations, parties have

faileo to file when required to do so, but their failure was

inadvertent rather than deliberate. In all of the latter cases

in whic~ such violations have been identified, the parties have

belatedly filed Notification and Report Forms when they were

made 'aware of their filing obligation. None of these

transactions have raised any antitrust problem~.

221

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Nei~l, Jr.

Merge~

-7-

Enforcement Activity During 1984 7

The Antitrust Division sought two preliminary injunctions

in merger cases in 1984. 8 I~ United States v. Calmar, Inc.,

the Division sought to prevent Calmar's acquisition of Realex

Corporation, alleging that the acquisition may substantially

lessen competition in the markets for regular plastic pump

sprayers and plastic pump dispensers.

The court subsequently

denied the Division's motion for a preliminary injunction. The

Division is negotiating a consent decree with the defendants.

A motion for a preliminary injunction was also filed in

United States v. Rice Growers Association of California, but it

was withdrawn when a hold separate agreement was negotiated.

The Antitrust Division challenged the Rice Growers Association

of California's acquisition of the California rice milling

facilities and related business assets of Pacific International

Rice Mills, Inc.

Trial was completed on February 1, 1985, and

on May 22, 1985, the court handed down a judgement in the

Department's favor.

A plan for divestiture is currently being

formulated.

The term "merger" is used generically to include dir~ct or

indirect acquisitions of stock or assets whether through or

as a result of a merger, consolidation, joint venture or

other form of transaction.

!t should be noted that the cases mentioned in this report,

although a matter of public record, were not necessarily

reportable under the premerger notification program.

Because of the Act's provisions regarding the

confidentiality of the information obtained pursuant to the

program, it would be inappropriate to ~dentify which cases

were initiated under the premerger notification program.

United States v. Calmar, Inc., Cv. No. 84-5271 (D.N.J. filed

December 20, 1984; preliminary injunction denied

January 30, 1985); and United States v. Rice Growers

Association of California, Cv. No. CIVS-84-1066 EJG (E.D.

Cal. filed August 17, 1984).

222

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-a-

rn addition, the Antitrust Division filed five other

complaints in merger cases. 9 All five of these cases, United

States v. International Business Machines Corporation, United

States v. ·Alcan Aluminum Limited, United States v. Waste

Management, Inc., United States v. The LTV Corporation, and

United States v. Beverl Enter rises Inc., have been settled by

t e entry o consent

In United States v. International Business Machines

Corporation, the Division challenged IBM's proposed acquisition

of ROLM Corporation, alleging that competition may be lessened

in the market for mil-spec commercial based computers (computers

manufactured to meet rigorous military specifications). The

consent oecree requires IBM to divest the ROLM Mil-Spec Computer

Division. After IBM proposed Loral Corporation as a potential

purchaser, and the Department decided not to object, divestiture

was accomplished on June 28, 1~85.

In United States v. Alcan hluminum Limited, the Division

challenged Alcan's proposed acquisition of most of the aluminumproducing assets of Atlantic Richfield Company. The consent

decree requires Arco to retain a 60-percent interest in its

newly-completed rolling mill designed to produce can stock ..

Alcan would be permitted to acquire a 40-percent interest in the

facility as part of a production joint venture.

In United States v. The LTV Corporation, the Division

challenged the proposed acquisition by The LTV Corporation (a

subsidiary of the nation's third largest steel company) of the

Republic Steel Corporation (the nation's fourth largest steel

company) in three steel product areas. The consent decree

requires LTV to sell two of Republic's steel mills. One of the

mills, in Massillon, Ohio, was divested on December 4, 1984. A

buyer for the other mill is still being sought.

The complaint filed in United States v. Beverly

Enterprises, Inc. challenged the planned acquisition of Southern

Medical Services, Inc. Beverly is the largest provider of

United States v. International Business Machines

Corporation, Cv. No. 84-3508 {D.D.C. filed November 19,

1984); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Limited, Cv. No. C84-1028-L-A (W.D. Ky. filed October S, 19£4); United State~

v. waste Management, Inc., cv. No. 84-2832 {D.O.C. filed

September 12, 1984) · Onited States v. The LTV Corporation,

cv. No. 85-0884 {D.D.C. filed March 21, 1984); and United

States v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., Cv. No. 84-70-l-MA2

(M.D. Ga. filed January 18, 1984).

223

The Bonorabl~ George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-9-

nursin.g home care in the Uni tea States ana Southern Medical owns

forty-nine nursing homes in seven states. The consent decree

requires Beverly to transfer its interests in eight nursing

homes to First American Health Care, Inc. Dives~iture was

accomplished.on August 1, 1984.

Finally, in Unitea States v. Waste Management, Inc., the

Antitrust Division challenged Waste Management's proposed

acquisition of SCA Services, Inc. Waste Management and SCA were

the largest ana third largest waste management companies,

respectively, in the Unitea States. The consent decree requires

prompt divestiture of about 40 percent of SCA's revenueproducing operations to a thira party. Most of the divestiture

was accomplished on October 24, 1984, though some assets have

not yet been sold.

On two occasions the Antitrust Division informed the

parties to proposea transactions that it would file a

suit challenging the transaction unless the parties restructured

their proposal to avoia competitive problems or abandoned the

proposal altogether. 10 In both instances, the parties either

restructured the transaction to eliminate areas of competitive

overlap or did not consummate, eLiminating any need for legal

action by the Antitrust Division.

Finally, the Division entered into consent decrees in three

merger cases in which complaints had been filed prior to

January 1, 1984. 11

The Commission sought preliminary injunctions in three

merger cases in 1984 ana also issued administrative complaints

Department of Justice Press Release of November 21, 1984,

involving the proposed acquisition by Dunlop Olympic Limitea

of the condom business of Youngs Drug Products Corporation;

and Department of Justi~e Press Release of August 14, 1984,

involving the proposed acquisition by Pacific Telecom, Inc.

of the Glacier State Telephone Company and the Juneau and

Douglas Telephone Company.

United States v. Tribune Company, Cv. No. 82-260-0RL-C!VR

{M.D. Fla. filed May 26, 1982; consent decree enterea May

25, 1984); United States v. GTE Corporation, Cv. No. 83-1298

(D.D.C. filed May 4, 1983; consent decree entered December

21, 1984) and Unitea States. v. National Bank ana Trust

co~pany of Norwich and National Bank.of Oxford, Cv. No. 83CV-537 (N.D. N.Y. filed May 6, 1983; consent decree entered

Ju:-!e 12, 1984).

224

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-10-

in each case. 12 Two of the preliminary injunction suits were

filed against Bass Brothers Enterprises and Columbian

Enterprises, Inc., two producers of carbon black: a petroleum

product which is used to strengthen rubber products such as tires,

inner tubes, belts and other automotive rubber products. 13 In

Federal Trade Commission v. Columbian Enterpris-es, Inc. the

Co~oission sought to enjoin Columbian Enterprises, Inc., the third

largest U.S. producer of carbon black, from acquiring all of the

stock of the Continental Carbon Company, the sixth largest U.S.

producer. The other suit, Federal Trade Commission v. Bass

Brothers Enterprises, Inc., was to prevent Bass Brothers

Enterprises from acquiring the Carbon Black Division of the

Ashland Chemical Company~ the second largest domestic producer of

carbon black. The court granted preliminary injunctions in both

cases. The administrative complaints are still pending. The

complaint against Columbian Enterprises has been withdrawn from

adjudication while the Commiss_ion considers a proposed consent

order. The Bass Brothers case is still in litigation before an

Administrative Law Judge.

The third preliminary injunction action, Federal Trade

Co:r.rnission v. warner Communications, Inc., was brought to block. an

agree~ent between Warner Communications Inc. and Polygram Records,

Inc. to merge their prerecorded music business in the U.S. and the

Colum~ian Enterprises, Inc., Docket 9177 (issued May 8,

1984); Bass Brothers Enterprises, Inc., Docket 9178 (issued

May 8, 1984); and Warner Communications, Inc., Docket 9174

{issued March 22, 1984). -

Federal Trade Commission v. Bass Brothers Enterprises, Inc.,

1984-1 Trade Cas. {CCH) 166,041 {N.D. Ohio June 6, 1984);

a~a Columbian Enterprises, Inc., 1984-1 Trade Cas. (CCH)

~66,041 (N.D. Ohio June 6, 1984).

225

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-11-

rest of the world. 14 Although the District Court initially

denied the Commission's motion, the Ninth Circuit reversed and

granted a preliminary injunction. Warner and Polygram

subsequently abandoned their plans to merge.

The Commission also authorized a fourth preliminary

injunction action, but the parties abandoned the merger before it

was filed in court.

The Commission accepted consent agreements in five merger

cases in 1984. 15 In Chevron Corporation, Standard Oil Company of

California (SoCal) agreed to divest certain oil and gas assets to

offset the alleged anticompetitive effects of its $13.2 billion

acquisition of Gulf Oil Corporation, the largest merger in

corporate history. In an accompanying hold separate agreement,

SoCal agreed to the independent operation of all of Gulf's oil and

gas assets until the divestitures required by the consent

agreement were completed, and until the Commission determined that

no further divestitures were needed to cure the antitrust

pro!::>lems.

In Texaco Inc., Texaco agreed to divest more than one hundred

million dollars· worth of oil and gas assets to settle charges that

its acquisition of Getty Oil Co. violated the antitrust laws. In

addition, for a period of five years, Texaco must offer

independent West Coast refiners and other Getty customers the

opportunity to purchase stated amounts of California crude oil.

Texaco also agreed to vote favorably on any proposals to increase

the capacity of the Colonial Pipeline, the major petroleum

products pipeline from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast.

In Pilkington Brothers P.L.C., Pilkington, the world's

largest manufacturer of float glass, agreed to reduce and limit

its affiliations with two other producers of float glass so as to

reduce its involvement in the North American float glass

industry. Float glass is used in car and truck windshields and in

specialty applications such as sliding doors and shower

enclosures.·

Federal Trade Commission v. Warner Communications., Inc.

742 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1984).

Chevron Corporation (accepted October 24, 1984): Texaco Inc.

(accepted·July 10, 1984): Pilkington Br9thers P.L.C.

(accepted June 22, ·1984): Great Lakes Chemical Corporation

_(accepted May 23, 1984): and General Motors Corporation and

1oyota Motor Corporation (accepted April 11, 1984).

226

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-12-

+n Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, Great Lakes agreed to

license its brominated flame retardant technology to settle

charges that the company's 1981 acquisition of Velsicol Chemical

Corporation lessened competition by eliminating one of its

competitors.

Finally, in General Motors Corporation and Toyota Motor

Corporation, General Motors and Toyota agreed to limit production

by their joint venture company, New United Motor Manufacturing

Inc., to twelve years and to limit the number of subcompact cars

to be produced to approximately 250,000 vehicles per year. The

consent order also prohibits General Motors, Toyota and New United

from exchanging competitively sensitive technical information

unless required for the legitimate development of the joint

venture.

In addition, the Commission issued final orders in four other

merger cases. 16 The Commission upheld dismissal of a complaint

against B.A.T. Industries Ltd. challenging B.A.T.'s 1978

acquisition of the Appleton Papers Division of NCR Corporation.

American Medical International (uAMI") was ordered to divest

. French Hospital to remedy the threat to competition in the

provision of general acu.te health care service·s in tile city and

county of San Luis Obispo, California, posed by AMI's acquisition

of that facility. The acquisition had given AMI control of three

of the five hospitals in the area. The Commission upheld an

Administrative Law Judge's decision dismissing charges that

challenged Champion Spark Plug Company's acquisition of the

Anderson Company, a manufacturer of replacement windshield

wipers. Finally, the Commission dismissed a complaint challenging

Schlumberger Lirnited's acquisition of Accutest Corporation when

Schlu~berger voluntarily divested Accutest.

Assessment of the Effects of the Premerger Notification Program

Althoug~ a complete assessment of the impact of the premerger

notification program on the business community and on antitrust

enfcrcement is not possible in this limited report, t~e following

observations can be made.

First, as indicated in previous reports, one of the premerger

notification program's primary objectives, eliminating the so-

E.A.T. Industries Ltd., Docket 9135 (issued December 31,

1984); American Medical International Inc., Docket 9158

(issued July 5, 1984); Champion Spark Plug Company, Docket

9141 {issued June 20, 1984); and Schlumberger Ltd., Docket

9164 (issued March 23, 1984).

227

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-13-

called "midnight merger," has been achieved. As noted above the

program's notification requirements very likely ensure that '

virtually all significant mergers or acquisitions occurring in the

United States ~ill be reviewed by the antitrust agencies prior to

consummation. The agencies have the opportunity to challenge

unlawful transactions prior to consummation, thus avoiding the

problem of constructing effective post-acquisiti~n relief.

Second, the parties usually provide s~fficient information

under the premerger notification program to allow the enforcement

agencies to make a prompt determination of whether a transaction

raises any antitrust problems. In some instances, the agencies

and the parties have been able to use this information to isolate

one element of a larger transaction which creates the antitrust

violation. The parties then have an opportunity to cure the

proble~ without sacrificing the benefits of the whole

transaction. In addition, over the years, parties have

increasingly supplied informat~on voluntarily to the Commission

and the Antitrust Division. This cooperation has resulted in

fewer and narrower second requests than would otherwise have been

possible.

Third, the· existence of the premerger notification program

has almost certainly made business more aware of the antitrust

consideratio~s raised by proposed transactions.

Similarly, the

greatly increased probability that antitrust violations will be

detected prior to consummation has likely prevented some illegal

mergers that would otherwise have occurred. Prior to the

premerger notification program, businesses could, and frequently

did, consummate transactions of questionable legality before the

antitrust agencies had the opportunity to investigate and prevent

the transactions. The enforcement agencies were forced to pursue

lengthy post-acquisition litigation while the parties reaped the

benefits of their questionable transactions during the ensuing

litigation (and afterwards as well, where effective postacquisition rftlief was not possible/available). Since the

prernerger notification program requires reporting before

consu~~ation, the opportunity and, thus, the incentive to benefit

fro~ illegal acquisitions has been significantly reduced.

Finally, the statistics cited above show that, in the past

year, the agencie~ have granted far more requests for e~r~y .

termination than in the early days of the premerger not1f1cat1on

program. The impact of the 1982 formal interpretation concerning

228 •

The Honorable George Bush

The Honorable Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.

-14-

early termination of the waiting period appears to be positive. 17

This new approach to granting early termination requests has greatly

reduced the burden of the premerger notification program on the

business community by shortening the waiting period for transactions

that clearly do not raise antitrust problems.

The Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division has

indicated his concurrence with this annual report.

By direction of the Commission.

cc:

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

President Pro Tempore

United States Senate

W~shington, D.C.

20510·

See note 3 supra.

229

List of Appendices

Appendix A

Summary of Transactions, 1978-1984

Appendix B

Number of Filings Received and Transactions

Reported by Month for the Years 1982-1984

Appendix C

Transactions in Which Additional Information

Was Requested, 1981 - 1984

List of Attachments

Exhibit A

Statistical tables for 1983, presentin~ data

profiling Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger

notification filings and enforcement

interest.

Appendix A

Swmnary of Transactions, 1978-UU

Se2.-0ec.

.Jan:Jar~r

--1222. --12§1. -11ll ~ --l.ill. --lli.i

l,083 , 1,1'4

.l.l.28

l,400

6,802

2,S33 12,395

'1'r ansa::ti ens

355

868

824

Filin;s .Reoeivedl

627

l,818

l,462

2,000

l,954

2,001

'.l'ransa:ticns W"lere

Ad:iticri.a.l

Inf er mat i i;,n was

Rl!q1.Je st eel"

109

474

20 5

.Re:p:rted

IOJ

~of

4€3

33 3

26 4

24 4

28 5

37 6

40 6

246

227

ll5

10-:

174

341 7

643 7 l,064

2,872

15 .

143

255 7

86 7

599

847

201

·'4

2.17

461

Tr A."lSacti ons

Involvin; a

Jequest for Ea:ly

Ter ll:i na ti oi 8

Grant~ 8

Deni eel

1 1'bre than a>e filin; may be receivoed far a sin;le tra.nsacticri where there are ~tiple

parties or where the transactioo is a:z!i:>lete:;l through several steps.

'Ihese statistics are base<! O"l the date the request was iss!Rd and rot the date of the

BSR filing . Sane of these rumt>e rs ha 1.l'e beer. amel"OeC to reflect 11er e ao:::ur a t.e da t.a &rd

a.re, therefcre, diffe:ent frar. th:ise whid", have a;:peared in previo.is An.""lual Jlet:erts.

'D1ese amerx3ee statistics ireicate that the Q:mr.issicri requested ad:li tier.al inionr.atia: in

46 tran.srticns in 198!, rather tha:: in 48, as previrusly rep:irted, and that the Antitrust

Div isi en requested AC1C i ti onal inf O.."'lt.a ti cri in 24 , rather than 23, transactions in l.982.

3 Ea=.'; l'll.m'ber ircli.:des a>e transa:tiCJ'l in lihid'l the relp.rant ~ vi thiteo.- a request

for ac:X:iticr.a.l informatic::n.

Fa:::! ni.mber irclt.Des one transa=ticri lt'hic:h was with:3rawn after the issuan::ie of aeo:ird

reguests. Also, one transacticri ·was wit~awn After the Q:mtis.sicri ci:lt.ained a teap::ira.ry

rest.rainin; order frar. the CDUrt.

5 Che tr aru>a::-ti oi "9S wi tidr awn a.f ter the isst.a.ra! of llKX:l'1d req.ie sts DJ the Cmrr.i ssi cri

an::? two transactions w-ere withdrawn a.fter the issuance of aeo:rd requests DJ the Antitrust

Divisiai.

6 Ea::!: l"IJl!be.: in:l I.Des five tr ansa::-ti ms lt'h i ch vere vi th:ir awn after the issuance cf a

seo::>rd request • In ad:: i ti en, one tr ansacticri lt'?l.S res tr i.rturee an:l refiled after the

Co!Jr.i ss i en i.s.s !Rd a lleO:l"ld req.Je st.

'!hese rurtbers are different fran .-id 11Cre a::c:urate than tl'x:&e whid'l ~ in the Si.xt.h

Amual !lep:irt . O::a.si c:riall y par ti es request early tem.i na ticri b.rt: the - i ting pe: i cd

ex;:ires befcre the 1ge.">Cies c:ari take any fcrir.a.l a:tien to ;rant er deny the request. In

p rev i 045 annual rep:ir ts such requests we re er rc::neais l y ani tt.ed fI'Clll the l'U!be! of requests

for ea: ly termi na ti en b.J t an ~rove..: track.in; systeni has penti. tt.ed us to in:H ate the!r

here. Beca:.ise the ~itin; period expired with::J..Jt the agencies granting early tentinaticn

the recpests were effecti ~ly denied and they are c::ounted in the •aenied" cat1!9o:y.

F\lrthernore, the large increases in 19?2 an:l subsequent ~ars in the rui:be.r of

transa::-tims in whid"l a req..Jest "9S llo!de fer. early t.ermiraticri reflects a liber.tliz.atic:n

cf the st.a.-rla.rd fer granting early tenu.inaticn folio.wing the decisicri in Heublein, Inc. v.

Federal ~ade O:mtissiCJ'l, Cv. B-82-284 (0; O::nr:. filed Mardi 1.5, 1982) an:l the

O::rrr..lssicri's Fom.a.l .Interpretatia; of Al.lg.ist 20, l.962.

8 '!hese statistics are based ai the date of the Rs:R filin; .xi not ai the dat.e a::t..icri 1111aS

t:Ak en cri the request .

A;pl!rld b: B

Ntmber of !'iliri;s Recrived 11 arid Tranuct.ialS

Re?Xted t!r' M::r'!th for the Years

.illl

.!ill.

Pilin::rs

1982 - 19s.:.

Tra."'lsaet:ic::r.s

llli.

Fili res

Tr a."'!Sact i ens

Filincs

Tr ansactic:ns

;January

l-'4

l.31

February

104

116

lBO

Harc:h

181

105

148

255

l.36

April

1.52

129

212

118

Mey

169

105

139

l.99

107

.Jirie

213

131

l.91

104

l.93

· ll.2

.'.7uly

178

102

169

211

120

Au;n.ist

144

l.99

116

260

14'

~te!n't:>er

122

184

200

109

O:'tober

199

l.55

229

l.32

Novert:>er

181

100

. 210

107

269

145

167

212

124

l.94

103

195~

1144

20Cl

1128

2533

1400

TJ..:_

More tha.~ ~ filing rrl!'J. ~ r~i~ fer a single tra."IS.aCtic:r. vhere

t.~re a:e l'll.lltiple ~ties or where the tra.'"!Sacticn is c:arpletee

t.hr0'4 sever~ &t.e?S.

232

Appendix C

Transactions in Which Additional Information was Requested, 1981 - 1984 l

1981

1982

"1983

1984

Transactions 2

810

722

904

1206

Request for Additional

Information

Number

- Percent 3

9.9

6.0

s. 4 .

6.6

The statistics are based on the date of the B-S-R filing, not

the date on which the request was issued.

These figures omit from the total number of transactions

reported all transactions for which the agencies were not

authori~ed to request additional information.

The

transactions omitted include (1) incomplete transactions

(only one party filed a compliant notification); (2)

transactions reported pursuant to the exemption provisions of

sections 7A(c) (6) and 7A(c) (8) of the Act; and (3)

transactions which were found to be non-reportable. In

addition, where a party filed more than one notification in

the same year to acquire voting securities of the same

corporation, e.g. filing for the 15% threshold and later

tiling for the 25% threshold, only a single consolidated

transaction has been counted because, as a practical matter,

the agencies would not issue more than one second request in

such a case.

Second requests as a percentage of the total number of

transactions listed in this table.

233

T~nLt:

~CQUtStTTONS

Tr11nsactlon R_l!_!'-9!..

1$H l I l l onn)

R-S-R Tran11actlone

_!i11mh--""_!._ y

fi~c-~t-:V

BY SIZE OF TR~NS~CTTON, y

(Ry Sl'fe Ranqf')

Granted to FTC or OOJ

Pnc~_.r!_t__ y

TlOJ.

TOT/\L

FTC

OOJ

Cl~arance

~ltmlH'f

-·-

FTC

~-·---

198J

Second Reque1Jt9 tuued

Number

Percent

FTC

OOJ

FTC

DOJ TOT/\L

LeBl'I than 15

111

12.l

2.7

4.5

7.2

0.9

·o. 9

1.1

15 up to 25

212

2J.5

8.5

6.6

15. l

... 7

2 ...

7.1

25 up to 50

247

27.4

8.9

4.9

ll.I

l.2

3.2

C.5

50 up to 100

151

16.9

7.1

l.9

11.11

]

2.5

2.0

... ,

100 up to 150

6.1

10.9

5.5

1'.4

9.1

1.1

10.9

150 up to 200

l.5

6.2

9.4

15.1

l.1

5.2

200 up to JOO

4.1

'··

JOO up to 500

l.O

11.1

7.4

11.5

l.7

:J. 7

500 up to 1000

2.4

22. 7 • lJ. 6

16.4

1000 and up

0.1

28.6

14. l

42.9

90]

100.0

8.9

5.4

14.l

All Tranaactlonl'I

18.9

11.9

14. J

J.J

U.l

2.3

5.C

The el•• of traneactlon 11'1 ba&ed on the aqqreqate total amount of •otlng aecurltlee and aa&eta to be held by the

acquirln9 ~raon al'I a result of the traneactlon and le taken from the response to ltem J(c) of the premerger·

notlflcatlon and report form.

During calendar year 1983, 1121 traneactlonl'I were reported under the Rart-Scott-Rodlno premerqer notification pr09ra•.

The smaller number, 903 reflectl'I adjustments to ellmlnate the followin9 types of transaction&• (1) 8 tranaactlone

reported under Section (cl (6) and 159 traneactlonl'I reported under Section (c) (8) (tranaactlone lnvolvln9 certeln

requlated lnduatrles and flnanclal bualnessea)1

(2) 22 transactlons whlch were followed by separate notification• for

one or more addltlonal tranaactlons between the &ame parties durlnq 1983 (such transactions are llated here~· a •in9l•

consolldated tranaactlon)1 Jl transactlons found to~ non-reportable1

(4) 1 Incomplete transaction (only one party to

the transaction flled a compliant notlficatlon) and (5) 1 secondary acqulaltlon (filed pursuant to Section 801.JO

l•l (4)) reported as a result of a reportable primary transaction. The table does not however, e•clude 9 competing

oCCera or 88 ~ultlple-party transact lone (transact lone .fnvolvlnq two or more acquiring or acquired persons).

]./

Percentage o~ total traneactlons.

Percentage of transaction range group.

{,F. J t

1'CQUJS tTTONS DY SIZP. OF TRl\HSl\CTION .!J, 1981

(Cumul 11t Ive)

Trane11ctlon Ran~

T$H11110riill ____

ff-S-R Transactlona

------_!!umtl_~

\Jl

Pt>rct>nt

---

f'TC .. --- - [l(),J

he ---ri<i.'1To1'1\i:'

Second Regueste tnued

Percentage of

Total Number of

flmnbu

Second R~uests

FTC

OOJ

FTC

OOJ TOTAL

Le11s than 15

111

12.1

2.l

l.9

5.2

2.0

l.9

Les11 than 25

121

15.11

16.]

14. 7

11.0

21.6

11.11

11.:i

Leu than 50

570

'1.1

JJ. l

24,0

57.4

17.1

21. 5

u.1

Le1111 than 100

721

80.l

42.fi

28.7

71.)

45. t

11.l

71 ••

Less than 150

778

lt6. 2

n.1

11. 0

711.l

54.9

15, l

90.2

Le1111 than 200

1110

119.7

48.8

JJ.]

82. 2

56.9

l9. 2

9'.1

LUii than 300

141

91.8

s-4.]

)), ]

87.'

56.9

19.2

96.l

Le1111 than 500

174

95.11

56.6

14. 9

91. 5

56.9

41. 2

911.0

Le1111 than 1000

1196

,,,2

60.5

17. 2

91.1

5'. 9

n.2

91.0

1'11 Tran11actlons

901

100.0

62.0

18.0

100.0

511.8

n. 2

100.0

.!/

Clt>ar11nce Granted to FTC or OOJ

1'1>rcl'ntaqe ol

Total Numl>1>r of

Clearancl'S Granted

Numher

The •l•• of .trans•ctlon ls baaed on the a9gregate total a111<>unt of •otlng eecurltle• and aasete to be held by the

acqulrlng ~raon 1111 • result of the trans11ctlon and ls taken from the response to lte• J(c) of the pre•erget

notlf lcatlon and report for~.

burlng calendar year 1981, 1128 tran11actlon11 were reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino pre•erger notlfleatlon pr09r••·

The sm11ller number, 90J, reflects adjustments to eliminate the rollowlng types of tran11actlon111 (l) I tran11actlone

reported under Sectlon (c) (6) and 159 tr11ns11ctlon11 reported under Sectlon (c) {8) (tr11nsactlons lnvolYln9 certain

requl11ted industries 11nd financial buslnesses)1 (2) 22 transactlons which were followed by separate notlflc•tlon• for

one or more additional transactions between the 1111me parties during l9BJ (such transactions 11re listed here •• • alnqle

con,eolld11ted tr11n11actlon) 1 Jl transactlons found to be non-report11ble1 (4) 1 Incomplete trans•ctlon (only one party to

the transaction llled a compll11nt notlflcatlon) and (5) 1 secondary acqul11ltlon (flled purau11nt to Section 801,JO

Cal 14)) reported 11s a result of a reportable primary trane11ctlon. The table does not however, e•clude 9 c0111petln9

oCfera or BB multiple-party tr11nsactlons (transactions lnvolvln9 two or more acquiring or acquired persona).

Notet

Detail ~ay not add to total due to roundln9,

TRl\N~l\C'l'tON~

lNVOT.VlN<i 1'11F. GRI\'

or CLF.1\Rl\NCE ny l\Gf.NCT,

l'JOJ

ClearancP. GrtintP.d

Tr11_iil'l_1t~,!:_l on R_ttfl~!":..

ClP.~rance Grante~

!/_

as a PP.rCP.ntag@ oft

Tr1rn!lar.tron!1 In

f.ach Trtin!lactlon

Total tht111bu of

Clearances Granted

_!·,11~0£<?.':1e. y __

~~Oy_l\~~ncy____

Tot111 Nurnhf"r of

HI l lloM)

_T_r_a11!1_a~~I_?~!

FTC

00,l

!0!"-~

M'C

OOJ

TOTl\L

M'C

DOJ

TO_!~~

rrc

TOTl\L

LP.1'18 th tin 1 t;

0.3

0.6

o.,

2.7

4.5

7.2

2.l

J.9

'·2

15 up to 25

2.0

1. 6

J.5

8.5

6.6

15. i

14. 0

10.9

24.I

25 up to 50

2.4

1. 3

J.11

8.9

4.9

11.11

17.1

9.J

2'.4

50 up to 100

Ill

1. J

0.7

2.0

1. 8

l.9

11.11

9.l

4.7

u.o

100 up to 150

0.1

O.J

1.0

10.9

5.4

1'.4

4.7

2.l

7.0

150 up to 200

0.2

o. J

0.6

6.2

9.4

15.'

1.'

2. J

3.9

200 up to JOO

0.8

u. 9

11.9

5.4

JOO up to t;OO

o. J

0.2

0.6

11.1

1. 4

11.5

2. l

1.5

500 up to 1000

•

0.6

0.3

o.,

22. 7

ll.'

36.4

l.9

2.J

1.2

1000 and up

0.2

0.1

O.l

28.6

14. l

42.9

1.5

0.8

2.1

1\11 Cl eu a nee a

129

8.9

5 ••

14. l

ll. 9

5.4

U.J

62.0

l8.0

too.o

5.4

'·'

Durln9 cal@ndar y@ar 1983, 1128 transactlona were reported under the Rart-Scott-Rodlno premerger notlflcatlon proqra•.

The smaller number, 903, reflects adjustments to eliminate the following types of tranaactlons1 (1) 8 tranaactlona

reported under Section (c) (6) and 159 transactions reported under Sectlon (c) (Bl (trannactlona ln•ol•ln9 certain

regulated lnduatrlea and flnanclal bualnesses)• (2) 22 tranaactlon• whlch were followed by separate notlflcatlont for

one or more addltlonal transactlona between the aame partlea during 1983 (such traneactlona are llated here •• a elngl•

conaolldated tranaactlon)r 31 transactlonR found to be non-reportabler (4) l Incomplete transaction (only one party to

the trftnaactlon filed • compliant notification) and (S) 1 secondary ecqulaltlon (flied pursuant to Section 801.JO

(a) (4)) rP.portP.d aa a reault of a reportftble primary tran"actlona. The table does not however, exclude 9 co•petlng

offP.rs or BO multiple-party transactions (traneactlons lnvolvlnq tvo or more acquiring or acquired persona).

PP.rcentaqP.s also appear ln T~BLE I.

NotP.1

Detall may not add to total due to roundlng.

TR l\NSl\C1'JONS tNVOl.VTNG TllF

TninA .. ct Ions tnvolvlnq

th~ f!l!;llanc(' or

Tr .. nnnctlon Rnn~e

--is MilTion!l_)_ -

_ _S_f'_!:_t?._n_~"'l'~~!l-~ " - - -

~~SUl\NCE

or SF.COND ~F.OUF.STS, 198)

s,.cond Req11eAtS JA!'IUf'd as a Percentage oft

-------Tr-.,n!l ..;c;tTo-n!-il n

Totd RU111ber of

F.ach TrnnAactlon

Tohl Numhf'r of

Second Jlequests

_!l".11.90-roup_

!~-i'l~!la_ctlo~'.!_ !/

M'C

DOJ

TOTl\T,

FTC

OOJ

TOTl\L

M'C

DO-!_

TOTAL

rrc

DOJ.

Less than 15

0.1

O.l

0.2

0.9

1.8

2.0

15 up to 25

1.1

0.6

1.7

4.7

2.4

7.1

19.'

9.11

29.4

0. CJ

0.9

1. 11

).2

J. 2

C.5

15.7

ll.4

50 up to 100

0.4

o.J

0.11

2.6

2.0

4.6

7.8

5.9

U.1

100 up to 150

O.l

0.7

9.1

1. 11

10.9

9.8

. 2. 0

11.1

150 up to 200

0.6

O.l

0.2

O.J

).1

6.2

9.4

2.0

3.9

5.9

0.1

J.7

l.7

2.0

25 up to 50

TOTAL

'·'

200 up to JOO

300 up to 500

500 up to 1000

1000 and up

1\11 Tranl'lactlonl'I

O.l

3.J

2.3

O.l

14. J

5.5

3.3

2.J

14. l

2.0

5.5

58.8

2.0

41. 2

100.0

1./

Durln9 calendar year 1981, 1128 tranaactlons were reported under the Rart-8cott-,odtno pre~er9er notification pr09ra•.

The smaller number, 903, reflects adjustments to eliminate the following types of traneactlone1 (1) II traneactlone

reported under Section (c) (6) and 159 transactions reported under Section (c)(8) (traneactlons lnvol•ln9 certain

regulated industries and financial bueinesses)J (21 22 transactions which were followed by separate notlflcatlont for

one or more additional transaction~ between the same parties during 1983 (such transactions are listed here as a elngle

consolidated transactlon)J Jl traneactlone found to be non-reportabler (4) 1 Incomplete transaction fonlr one party to

the transaction filed a compliant notification) and (5) 1 secondary acquisition (filed pursuant to 8ectlon 801.JO

(a) (4)) reported ae a result of a reportable primary transactions. The table does not however, e•clude 9 competln9

ollers or 88 multiple-party transactions (transactlona Involving two or more acquiring or acqulred persons).

Percentages also appear In T~BLE I.

Noter

Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Tl\ALf. "

l\COUT s IT IOHS DY RF.PORTING TllRESnOLD, 19 e J

Threnhold

R~S-R

Trannactlonn

~~--~---~~--~

Clearance Cr~nted to FTC or DOJ

Pf'rcr.ota<Je o[

Humber

Thrf'nh~!d Group~Ff~ ~)()J

FTC

00,J

TOTl\L

$15 Ml 11 Ion

... 5

15'

).)

25\

fi6

7.l

9.1

6.1·

50,

511

56.1

9.2

5.7

Assets Only

25]

28.0

8.J

5.9

All Tr11n11actlon11

901

100.0

8.9

5.4

Hotet

4.9

2.4

lJ. J

Second ReT:!e11t11 lllsued

Percentaqe of

Humber

_!!!r~shold Groul!__

FTC

ooJ

FTC

..!2!M!

7.J

11. l

....

15.2

)

2.4

10.0

)

4.5

6.1

10.,

J.1

1.1

4.9

14. 2

J. 2

2. 8

5.9

14.l

),]

2.l

5.,

During calendar year 1983, 1128 transactlone vere reported under the Rart-.Scott-Rodlno premMger notification proqra11.

The Rmaller number, 903, reflects adju5tments to eliminate the following types o[ transactlons1 (lt 8 transactions

reported under Section (ct (6) and 159 transactions reported under Section (c) (8t (traoeactlons lnvol•lng certain

regulated lnduatrles and financial buslne99eS)J (2) 22 transactions which were followed by sepatate notifications ror

one or Nore additional transactions between the same parties durln9 1983 (such transactions are listed h~re as a single

consolidated transaction) 1 31 transactions found to be non-reportable1 (4) 1 Incomplete transaction (only one party .to

the transaction filed a cOlllpllant notification) and (5) 1 secondary acquisition (filed pursuant to Section 801.30

(a) (4)) reported as a result of a reportable primary trannactlons. The table does not however, exclude t c011petln9

offers or 88 multiple-party transactions (transactions lnvolvln9 tvo or more acquiring or acquired per1on1).

Detail •ay not add to total due to rounding.

2.4

""!!"t Rnns

on•1,

($ i1Tfi i

15 up to 25

"-S-R Tran!l~ctlon~

--·---- ---·----

9econd

r .. rc.-nt

25 up to 50

4.1

2.7

l.7

l.2

fi. 9

6.,

4.2

5.J

2.6

5.J

4.0

J. J

4.9

'·'

'·J

2.6

5.l

2.7

1. J

4.0

1.6

1.c

50 up to 100

100 up to 150

·"· l

6. II

150 up to 200

4.s

200 up to JOO

8.6

2.6

1. J

].8

JOO up to 500

8.1

•

5.1

10.1

2.4

8.2

2.4

1.3

1.l

500 up to 1000

10.1

10.J

7.2

11.5

]

5.2

l.1

1.2

1000 and up

JG)

40.2

14. J

II. J

22.6

5.8

4.1

'·'

8.9

5.4

H.1

3•.l

2.J

P.sseh not

avalhble '

P.11 Transactions

o.&

100.0

Durift9 calendar year 1983, 1128 transactions were reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino pre•er9er notlflcatlon prograM.

The s•aller number, 903, reflects adju!tmenta to eliminate the following types of transactlons1 (1) I transaction•

reported under Section (c) (6) and 159 tran!lactlons reported under Section (c) (8) (transactions lnvol•ln9 certain

requlated Industries and financial buslnesses)f (2) 22 transactions which were followed by separate notlficatlona tor

one or •ore additional transactions between the same parties during 1983 (such transactions are li•ted her• •• a alngl•

consolidated tranaactlon)1 31 transactions found to be non-reportabler (4) 1 incomplete transaction (only on• party to

the transaction filed a c0111pllant notification) and (5J 1 secondary acquleltlon (filed pursuant to Section IOI.JO

(a) (411 reported aa a result of a reportable primary transactions. The table doe• not however, e•clude 9 cot11petln9

oCfera or ee multiple-party tranaactlona Ctranaactlona Involving tvo or •ore acquiring or acquired persone).

Thia category la composed of J newly forMed acquiring persona whose asaeta could not be accuretelf deterMlned b11ed on

auhmltted documenta1 1 acquiring Individual, who did not prep6re a personal balance eheet1 and 1 forel9n acqulrln9

p~rn9n wlth no U. s. ansets.

Notes

Detall ~ay not add to total due to roundln9.

TRl\NSl\CTTONS OT Sl\1.F:s or l\CQUIJHNG PF:RSUN5 1

S11lf'!1

R11n9~

-ir "Mm I on;-1

Ions

R-S-R Tr ftn!'tftct

---·-··----N~m~r

Pf'rCf>nt

--------

.. i.n1nce Gr._

- -Cl

------------

NumbPr

f'"TC -- .. -OOJ

1 ~""

_f'<l to M'C or OOJ

rrrcf'nt.aqP. ol

_!'!i!..1-!.~'.'~'JP Gro~pll(),I

F"rC

TOT/\L

Second Re!J!!ests t1111uet.

Percent11qt- of

Humber

Sales Ra~e Group

_fJ's;_-- - ooJ

fTc

than 15

6. 0

15 up to 25

4.2

25 up to 50

5.11

J.8

1. 9

5.11

1.9

l.I

50 up to 100

5.6

5.9

11.11

2.0

l.9

5.9

100 up to 150

4.4

2.5

150 up to 200

]fl

4.2

10.5

200 up to 300

5.0

J.7

7.4

11. l

1.9

JOO up to 500

Ill

9.0

4. C)

J.7

500 up to 1000

106

11. 7

5.7

9.4

'·'

15.l

1000 and up

161

40.0

15.5

7.8

21.l

Sales not avallable

28 y

l.1

All Transactlons

90)

100.0

LeA8

l. 9

1.'

..,

8.9

1.2

5.4

14.l

1.2

'·'

2.8

).1

'·'

3.5

10.2

3.J

2.3

5.1

].6

J.6

Durlnc) cal@ndar year 1983, 1128 transactions were reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino pre~erger notification pr09ra~.

The smaller number, 903, reflects adjust~Pnts to eliminate the following types of traneactlonst (1) I tranaactlona

rPported under Section (c) (6) and 159 tranBactlona reported under Section Cc) (8) (traneactlona lnvol•ln9 certain

regulated lndustrles and financial buulnf'nses)r (2) 22 transactions which were followed by separate notlflcatlon1 for

one or •ore addltlonal traneactlon9 betwPen the 11ame parties during 1981 (ouch traneactlons are llated her• aa a single

consolidated transactlon)J Jl transactions found to be non-reportabler (41 ·1 Incomplete transactlon (only one party to

the transaction filed a compliant notlflcatlon) and (51 1 aecondary acqulsltlon (filed pursuant to Section 801.JO.

(al (4)) reported as a result of a reportable prlmary transactlon. The table does not however, e~clude 9 co•petln9

orrers or 88 multiple-party transactions (transactions Involving two or more acqulrln9 or acqulred persons).

Tranaactlona ln thls category Include acqulrln9 lndlvlduals whose sales could not be accurately deterMlned, n~ly forMed

acquiring companies and a foreign company with no U. S. sales.

Motet.

De ta 11 •ay not add to tot a 1 due to round Ing.

_Jt-S-R Tun~~<::!_! on'!_

~!l!'let R11n9e

1 $ "HTTI I on~-)

~~~h_e_!_

Clr<'r<1nc

_P_!'_r_~.!!_t:_

c11nted to f'TC or'OOJ

Pt>rcrntaqf' o(

l\~9et R11n9e Grou(I___

ffi~ ---,iilJ

____8_e_c_o"""n_.d--...R..;:.e_,qu-.o.e.o...s'""t"'"11-=-tr

·_d____

Pt>rc~

~eset

,:r_o~~

•qe

R11n9!._Qroup_

!.'!£.

DOJ

TUTl\L

LeA!'I thl'ln· 15

10.1

J. J

5.5

II. II

1.1

2.2

1.1

15 up to 25

137

ts. 2

6.6

8.8

15.l

2.9

J.6

25 up to. 50

196

21. 7

10.2

6.6

1fi. II

J.1

1. 5

'·'

4.C

50 up to 100

142

15.7

7,7

4.2

12.0

1.5

:J.5

1.0

8.1

7.2

15.9

4.3

4.:J

1.1

HO up to 200

"19

7.6

200 up to JOO

6.2

.17.9

JOO ·up to 500

4.5

17.1

5.4

16. J

1.1

100 up to 150

500 up to 1000

4.l

1000 and up

7.2

not

ava l ll'lble

11 .!/

2.0

All Trsnsactlons

'OJ

100.0

~flfletll

17. 9

1.9

2.4

n.5

2.0

111 ••

9.2

16.9

1. 5

3.1

..,

l.3

2.3

5.C

1.2

o.,

5.4

14.l

The •••etl of the acquired entity were taken frOll reeponaea to lteM 2(d) (l) (Asset• to be Acquired) or frOll It••• 4(•)

or 4(b) (SEC documents and annual reports) of the premerqer notlflcation and report forM,

Durln9 calendar year 1983, 1128 transactlon11 were reported under the Rart-Scott-Rodlno preMer9er notification pr09ra•.

The emaller number, 903, reflecta adjuetments to eliminate the following types of transactlons1 (1) I transaction•

reported under Section (c) (6) and 159 trane11ctions reported under Section (c) (I) (transactions lnvol•ln9 certain

regulated lnduatrles and financial buslneeses)r (2) )2 traneactlone which were followed by separate notlflcatlonl· for

one or more additional transaction!! between the eame p11rtlee during 1981 Cauch trans11ctlons are listed here as a sln9l•

coneolld11ted tr11nsactlon)1 Jl tran~actlons found to be non-reportabler (4) 1 incomplete transaction (only one party to

the tranR11ctlon fl led a cOlllpllant notlflcatlon) and 15) 1 second11ry acqulsltlon (filed pursuant to Section IOI.JO

\al (4)) r~port~d as a result of a reportable prlm11ry trsnsactlon. The t11ble does not howe•er, e•clude 9 C0111petin9

otters or 88 mul~lple-par~y transactions (transactions Involving two or More acqulrln9 or acquired pereonsJ,

The value of the aaeeta of the entity being acquired le not available for the eighteen trensactlon• ln thl1 category,

Nntp1

O~tall

may not add to total due to rounding.

2.4

0.6

10.1

TRl\NSl\CTIONS hY Sl\r,F:!"

~~1 !'.~-!l~n9f":...

I$ MI I I I on~)

h-S-'!__°t~"!'....:'!.!°'_Ct l O~'!_

~~~~r

-.£!.!'<t!:._~.!!Cf?

P!'rcl'nt

-----

Numtieor

--*-FTC - ---noJ

l\CQtJTRF.O F.NTTTY

.!/, 198]

Or lint Pd to M'C or OOJ

Pl'rct>ntaqe o-(~-<!!_f'!1 Ranqe Groue_

FT~

!J~~

TOT~

8econd llequeste hsued

Percentaqe of

Numbu

Salee Range Grou~

M'C

i)6J"

fTC

DOJ

-.-

TOTI\~

LeA9 th11n 15

110

12. 2

J. fj

2. 7.

5.4

0.9

1.1

15 up to 25

100

11. l

5.0

4.0

9.0

2.0

4.o

25 up to 50

1611

18. 6

1.1

15.5

J.C

7.1

142

15.7

9.2

1.0

U.2

J.C

50 up to 100

2.1

4.2

7.0

100 up to 150

711

11.6

5.1

7.7

12.1

1.e

l.I

7.7

150 up to 200

4.11

11. g

4.7

U.l

2. J

2.1

4.7

200 up to JOO

4.9

lJ.'

2.]

15.9

4.5

JOO up to 500

1.4

1.7

500 up to 1000

5.0

20.0

4.4

'·'

:U.4

1000 and up

7.4

7.5

Bdes not

av all able

48 y

5. l

]

16. g

6.2

All Tr an1111ctlons

901

II. 9

5.4

100.0

II. 6

....

C.7

2.2

•••

1. 5

1.5

J.O

22.•

12. 5

2.1

u.c

14. l

l.l

2.l

'·'

'•

Th~ ealet of the ecqulred entity v~re tsken frOlll responsea to lte~ 5 (dollar revenuea) and

documenta and annual reports) of the premerqer notification report form.

Durln9 c•lendar year 1983, 1128 tr•nasctlona vere reported under the Rart-8cott-Aodlno premer9er nottrlc•tlon pr09raM.

The smaller number, 90J, reflecta adjuHtmenta to eliminate the follovlnq types of transactlons1 (1) 8 tranaaetlona

reported under Section (c) (6) and 159 tran9actlons reported under Section (c) (8) (trannactlona lnvol•ln9 certain

requll'lted lndustrlea and financial bualne9ses}, (2) 22 tranaactlona which were followed by separate notlflc•tlon• rot

one or more additional tranHactlona between the same p11rtles during 1983 (such trsnsactlons are lleted here aa a aln9le

consolidated transactlonJ 1 Jl transactions found to be non-reportable, (4) l Incomplete transaction (only one party to

the trannactlon flled a compliant notification) and (51 1 secondary acquleltlon (filed pursuant to Section 801.JO

(a) 1411 reported aa a result of a reportable primary transaction. The table does not however, e•clude 'COM~tlng

offern or 88 multiple-party transactions (tr11neactlon9 lnvolvlhg two or more acquiring or acquired persona).

lte~a

4(aJ and •fbJ (8!C

Transactions In thla cateqory are represented by the acqulaltlon of newly for•ed corporatlona or corporate joint

ventures frOlll whlch no sales have been generated and the acqulsltlon of assets which had produced no aalea or re•enues.

Note1

Detail ml'ly not add to total due to rounding.

Tl\flf,F: X

JNOIJf.TRY GROUP OP 1\CQUIRJNG PF.RSON,

1993

2-Dlqlt

Acqu I rl nUe r son

~ !_C_<; ?'."~~ .!/

~~~~~~~--~c~i-e-~~r..::.ancr Grnntr~J---e.~~~S-r-co~nd~R-e-.q-u_e_a_t_e

___

To FTC or DOJ

_P_TC_

Agrlcultur&l Production-Crops

Aqrlcultur&l Production-Livestock

Hetftl Mining

Anthr&clte Mining

Bituminous Co&l &nd Lignite Mining

Oil end Gas Extraction

Mining end Ou&rrylng of Monmetelllc

Minerals, Except Fuels

Building Construction-General Contr&ctors

end Operative Builders

Construction other th&n Building

Conetructlon-Generel Contrectors-

Constructlon-Speclel Gr&de Contractors

Food end ~lndred Products

Tobacco Manuf acturere

Te•tlle Mill Products

~pparel

LU111ber and Mood Products,

r.xcept Furniture

and other Plnlshed Products m&de

from Fabrics and Similar Materials

ooJ

Iesued

_To_t_d

FiC

DOJ

Total

TARLE X (contlnued)

lNOllS'rnY GROUP OF ACQUIRING PERSON, 1983

2-0lqlt

_S!_~C_o<l~ .!/

A~ulrlng

~~~~~~~~-C~l-e-~-r~nce

Person

GrantPd

Second Requests

To FTC or DOJ

tTC--DOJ

Furnlture and Flxturen

Paper and Allled Products

Prlntlng, Publlahlng and

·All led Induntrlen

Che~lcals

}99Ued

T(ifiT

ttC

boJ

Total

and Allled Productn

)

Petroleum Reflnlng and Related Induatrlea

Rubber and Mhc. Phstlca Producta

Leather and Leather Products

Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products

Prl~ary

Fabricated Metal Products, twcept Machinery

and TranAportatlon Equlpment

)

Machinery, twcept tlectrlcal

tlectrlcal and Electronic Machlnery,

r.qulpment and Suppllea

)

Trannportatlon tqulpment

Measuring, Analyzlnq and Controlling

Jnstrumentar Photoqraphlc, Hedlcal

And Optlcal Goodar ffatchea and Clocks

Mlscellaneoua Manufacturing Induatrles

)

Metal Industries

)

TAAL~

X (continued)

JNOUSTRY GROUP OP ACQUIRING PERSON,

2-0lqlt

_r,rc__Co<l~ _!/

l 99J

Acquiring PP_.r_11_o_n~~~~...,,...~~~~~

Clearance Grnntcrl

Second Reque9tll

To. fTC or DOJ

J1111ued

FTC

()()J

Total"

FTC

QOJ

Total

Railroad Trannpprtatlon

Motor rrelqht Tran9portatlon

And Warehou9lng

44.

Trannportatlon by Alr

Transportation Services

Communication

llectrlc, Gas, and Sanitary Services

Mhole11al~

111

Mholenale Trade-Nondurable Goods

Building Materials, Rardware, Garden

Supply and Mobile Jlome Dealers

General Merchandise Stores

Food Stores

AutOfllotlve Dealers and Gasoline

Service Statlontt

Trade-Durable Goods

TAnir. X (contlnu~d)

JNOUSTRY GROUP Of' ACQtlTRING

2-0lqlt

:;!_C_(~n<l~

PF:RSON, l 9Al

•.,

'56

Apparel and Acces9ory Stor~e

'57

Furniture, Rome Purnlehlnq, and

· F:qu l pm en t s tor ee

..:

511

r.atlng and Drinking Place9

'59

HlscellaneouA Retail

Bsnklnq

Credit Agencies other than Aanks

Security and CO!lllllodlty Brokers,

Oealer9, Exchanges, and Servlcea

Inaurance

Inaurance Agents, Brokera, and Servlcea

Roldlng and other

Rotela, R00111lng noueea, Campa, and

other Lodqlng Plnces

Personal Servlcea

]

8uslneaa Servlcea

Inv~Rt~ent

Offlcea

INOUSTRY GROUP

ACQUIRING PERSON, .1901

2-0lqlt

gu~~Y

Industry Description

~~~~~~~~~~-=-A.~9ulrln9

Person

Clearance Granted

To fTC or OOJ

Aut0111otlve Repair, Services,

GaraqeA

rTc--oo.r-To-w

--·- ---

an~

Hl11cellaneou11 Repair Services

Motion Plcturee

Ainusement 'and Recreation Services,

Except Hotlon Pictures

110

Second fiequut11

I11aued

OOJ

Total

m -- · -

Health Services

Hlecellaneoue Servlcee

Nonclaeelflable Eetabllehmente

Dlverelf led Companies

195

Not Available

lO _y

All Traneactlon11

901

129

110

1./

2-Dlglt SIC code11 are part of the eyete• of Standard Induatrlal Claaelflcatlon established by theU.B. Governaent,

Standard Induntrlal Claenlflcatlon Hanual, 1972, Executlve Off Ice of the Presldent - Office of Management and Budget.

The SIC groupings uaed In this table were determined from responses eubmltted bf filing parties to lte• 5 of the

'•

premerger notification and report form.

During calendar year 19111, 11211 transactions were reported under the Rart-Scott-Rodlno premerger notlflcatlon progra•.

The smaller number, 903, reflects adjustments to eliminate the following types of traneactlona1 (1) 8 transaction•

reported under Section (ct (6) and 159 transactions reported under Section (c) (8) (transactions lnvol•lng certain

regulated lnduatrlea and financial buslneRsee)• (2) 22 transactions which were followed by separate notlflcatlonl for

one or more addltlonal transactlona between the same partlea during 1981 (such transaction• are listed here ae a 1ln9l1

consolidated transaction)• ll transactlona found to be non-reportable, (4) l Incomplete transaction (only on• party to

the traneectlon flled a compliant notlflcatlon) and (5) 1 secondary acquisition (filed pursuant to Section 801.JO

(a)(4l) reported aa .a result of a reportable primary transaction. The table doea not however, e•clude 9 competing

olCera or 88 multlple-party transactions (transactions involving two or more acqulrlng or acquired pereonat.

Tr•naaotlona Included ln thle category represent newly formed c0111panlea, c0111panles with no U.B. operation• end

not1flcatlona filed by lndlvlduala.

Notes

Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

TflftLY. Xt

tNOU!':TRY GROUP

OF ACQUJRF.D F.NTtTY,

2-0lqlt

~cqulred

~J_U°''~ .!/

CI ear ance Gr ant rel

To FTC or OOJ

FTC

DOJ

Total

~grlcultural

Production-Crops

~qrlcultural

Production-Livestock

Metal Hlnlng

~nthraclte

Bltu111lnous Coal and Lignite Mlnlnq

-··

Oll and Gas F.xtractlon

511

Hlnlnq and Ouarrylnq or "onmetalllc

Hlnerala, F.xcept Fuela

Building Conatructlon-G~neral Contractora

and O~ratlve Bulldera

Conatructlon other than Building

Construction-General Contractors

1981

t:ntlty

S e-co-n<l,....R"""e_q_u_e_s_t9---N....u_111_b_e_r_o_,f........,2"'"--o-l_q_l_E

FTC

IReued

DOJ......::...:c..:.;.._T_o_t_a_I_

Intra-tnduetry

Transactions

Mining

Constructlon-Speclal Grade Contractors

Food and ~lndred Products

Tobacco Manuracturers

Textile Mill Products

~pparel

and other Finished Products 111ade

from rabrlca and Similar Haterlnla

TftOf~

(contlnu~~)

INOIJSTRY G flOllP OF ftCOtll RF.O

F:HTtTY, l 9 0 3

2-0lqlt

1!J_C~~e

~~~~~~-T"~~~~A£9ulred

_!/

Nu~!'l_!!_ y

Lumber and Wood Products,

1':11cept Furniture

rurnlture and FlxtureB

Paper and Allled Products

Prlntlng, Publlahlng and

~llled Induetrles

F.ntlty

Clc3rancc Grnntcrl

Second Rcque~te

To FTC 0( OOJ

IR9Ued

ITC

DOJ

Totaf

FTC

DOJ

Total

Humber ol '-o{q(t

Intra-tndul'ltry

Traneactlone

Chemicals and Allled Products

Petroleum Refining and Related lndustrleB

Rubber and Mlsc. Plastics ProductB

Leather and Leather Products

9tone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products

Prlmary Metal Industries

Fabricated Metal Products, P.xcept Machinery

and Trannportatlon F.qulp!nent

Machinery, lxcept Electrical

Electrical and Electronic Machinery,

~qulpment and Supplies

•

. 4

•

Tl\Of.P. Xt (Cont I no~ti)

TNOllSTRY GROllP OF ACQUIRP.D f.NTJTY, 198)

2-0lqlt

~IC Co·d.O:..

•

Industry Df!Rcrlptlon

Nu111be_!_ y

ei\rance .ran e

To rrc or DOJ

Totaf

FTC

DOJ

ulred P:ntlt

Sf' cone R"<'fUe!I !I

le sued

DOJ

Total

FTC

Transportation P:qulpment

H·easurlng, A·naly:dnq and Controlling

Jnstrumente1 Photoqraphlc, He<llcal

An<l Optlcai Goodsr Watches and Clocks

111

Miscellaneous Manufacturing tni1untr I en

Railroad Transportation

Motor Prelght Transportation

And Warehousing

Mater Tran11portatlon

Transportation by Air

Transportation Services

Communication

Jl!lectrlc, Gas, and Sanitary Services

Whoh111!1h Trade-Durable Goods

Wholesale Trade-Nondurable Goods

um er o

-D 9

Jntra-tnduetry

Tran11actlon11

2-·.

XI (contlnued)

T~ALP.

INDUSTRY CROUP OF ~COUIRF.D F.NTITT, 199]

2-0lglt

filC C()4i~ .!/

Industry Dencrlptlon

Nu~her

Bulldlnq Materlale, Rardvare, Garden

Supply and Hoblle nome Oeal~rn

]

General Merchandlee Stores

Food Stores

Automotl•e Dealers and Ganollne

Service Statlons

and ~cceeeory Stores

•

]

~pparel

·Furnlture, Rome Furnishings, and

F.qulpment Stores

~atlnq

Mlscellaneoua Retail

8anHnq

•

Credit Agencies other than.Banks

]]

and Drlnklnq Places

Hum er o

-o q

Intra-tndllRtry

Transaction

C l!arance Grantr.

To FTC or OOJ

FTC

OOJ

Total

]

1fl

TAIH,1'! XI

(cont I nur.<1)

TNOll!lTRY GROUP OF ACQUtmm F:NTITT, 198)

2-0lqlt

~~~~...;,_--...,.....~--~------....-.....:..:"~c~q~u~l~red F.ntlty

-~~f Co<l~ _!/

Numher y

Clearance Granted

To f,-c or OOJ

FTC

ooJ Total

SPcon-<~l~R~P~.q~u-e-s~t-a------~N~u-mTb-e-r--01l-.2--~o~(-q~l....

Issued

DOJ

Total

Intra-Industry

Transaction

Security and Commodity Brokers,

Dealers, Exchanqes, and Services

fj)

Insurance

Insurance ~gents, Brokern, and Services

R!!al Estate

Bolding and other tnvestment Offlc!!n

noteln, R00111lng Houses, camps, and

other Lodqlnq Places

~rsonnl

S!!rvlc!!S

Busln!!BB S!!rvlces

1.c 11lted Entlt

Clf'i\r11nce Gr&nte

To fTC or OOJ

FIC

OOJ

Total

1.utomotlve Repair,

G<'lr 1'qt>~

Hl1tcell&neous Repair Servlcee

Motton Pictures

Amu1tement 1tnd Recreation Service~,

Except Motion Pictures

Realth Sen•lces

119

Hlscellaneous Services

,.dmlnlstratlon of Auman· Resource8 Proqram8

Nonclssslflable Establishments

Diversified Companies

"ot ,.vallable

22 y

1.11 Transsctlons

901

Service~,

Sl!cond RP.quests

l8SUed

Hum er o

-o g ~

Intre-tndufttry

Tran8&ctlon

11nd

129

,,.

.2-Dlglt 81C codes are part of the system of Standard tnduetrlal Claeelflcatlon establlehed by the U.9.~Go••rmaent,

Standard Jndu1ttrhl Cluslflcatlon Manual, 1972, Executlve Office of the President - Office of Hana9e•ent and Budget~

The SIC groupings used ln thls table were determined from responses submitted by fllln9 parties to lte• S of the

premer9er notlf lcatlon and report form.

During calendar year 1981, 1128 transactions were reported under the Rart-Scott-~odlno premer9er notlfleatlon pr~r ...

The smaller number, 903, reflects adju8t~ents to eliminate the followln9 typi!a of tran1tactlons1 (1) I tranaactlone

reported under Section (c) (fi) and 159 tranuctlon9 reported under Section (c) (8) (traneactlone lnvolvln9 certeln

regulated Industries and financial buslnesnee)f (2) 22 tran9actlons which were followed by separate notification• for

one or more addltlonal transactions between the. 8ame parties during 1983 (such transactions are llated her• •• • aln9l•

consolidated tran1tactlon)1 31 transactions found to be non-reportablef (4) 1 Incomplete tran1tactlon (only one party to

the trans&ctlon filed a compliant notification) and (5) 1 secondary ecqulsltlon (flled purauant to Section 901.JO

ta)(4)) reported as a result of a reportable prlmarf transaction.

The table does not howe•er, exclude t compi!tln9

ollers or ee ~ultlple-party transactlons (transactlons ln•ol•ln9 two or more acquiring or acquired pi!rsona).

Transactlon8 ln this category repre 8 ent the acqulsltlon of an entity wlth no sales and the acqul•ltlon of an •ntltf with

no ti.s. 1tale8.

Noter

Detail may not add to total due to roundlnq.

TllE 11/\RT-SCOTT-ROOINO l\NTITRUS'

·i.tPROVF.HF.NTS ACT BECAME EFFECTIVE

Nu111ber of FTC Enforce111ent Actlons Authorized !/

Calendar

~..'.'__r_

Nl.llllbM of

Tr am1nct Ions

l>rellmlnary

.!!!J unct Ions

Consent Order& 1/

PiirTl-1--r ar t I It

-----

C0111plal nte y

Issued

Number of DOJ !nf orce111ent Actlon11 y

Prdf111lnary

Injunctions

Consent l/

Aqreements

Actions §J

Initiated

3'55

868

1980

824

•

1981

1083

1982

ll44

1983

1128

1984

1400

•

1978

1979

•

These legal actions taken by the Federal Trade Com111l1111lon and the Oepart111ent of Justice 111ay or •ay not be baaed on

premer9er fllln9&.

Part II conaent order• conelat of eo111plalnt11. and orders Issued 11l111ultaneously during the ln•estlgatl•• etage of a

Matter. Part III coneent orders conelat of ordera lsaued by consent after a complaint ls laeued and the 111atter le ln an

adjudicative atatua.

Include• ad111lnl1trat1 .. eot11plalnt1 l11ued In conjunction with prell111ln1ry Injunction 111atter1s ~pl1lnt1 l11ued ln Part

III actions, but does not include complaints laeued In conjunction with consent orders In Part II actl~ne.

The pre. . rger notification rule• went Into effect on 9epte111~r 5, 1978. Ae•lsed rule 11 CPR S 802.20 went Into err&ct

on Nove111ber 21, 1979. Thie rule expanded considerably the number of transactions valued at $15 111llllon or.le11 that are

exempt fr<>ll reporting requirements.

Consent aqree•ente have ~en counted In the year In which the Btlpulatlon wa• entered by the court.

These rl9ure• ~ not Include tranaactlona that were either abandoned or reatructured to ell111lnate a ~tltt .. o .. rtap

In reaponae to an announcement by the Department of an Intention to file ault to block the transaction. The Depart111ent

of Justice started to keep track of these situations In 1982 and reported fl•e In the 1982 annual report, four In the

19.83 annufll report, and three tn the 1984 annual report.

Bource1

Second through Eighth Annual Reports to Con9reaa· pureuant t·o Section 201 of the Rart-Scott-1'odlno Antftruet

Improvements Act of 1976 and enforcement aqency dnta. The flqurea In this table are different than the fl9uree

whlch ap~ared ln Table Xt of the Com~lealon'a 1982 Federal Re9later ftotlce requeatln9 c0111111ent• on burden

reduction. The dlfference la prt 111 arlly attributable to an l111pro•ed record keepln9 aysteM that ha• re•ulted ln 910re

accurate and c0111plete Information. Jn addition, as noted prevloualf, the Federal Trade COlllllll•alon'• consent order•

have bf.en separated Into two new cateqorles In this table. Department of Justice data comes frOfll records kept In

the Antitrust Dlvl~lon'a Office of Operations.

•,

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.