Dale Collins
Georgetown University Law Center
NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.
This page contains the memorandum introducing the course, class schedule, reading materials, and class notes for the Merger Antitrust Law course taught during the 2020 fall semester at Georgetown. It also contains links to related supplemental materials on the Applied Antitrust web site. There is no textbook for this course. Everything you need will be linked to this page.
Memorandum introducing the course
Class schedule 1.2 (revised October 26, 2010)
Required Reading
Comments and Optional Reading
Unit 1
Introduction to Merger Antitrust Law: Substance and Process
Unit 1 class slides (revised Sept. 2 to include an additional slide at 42 on other potential Section 7 plaintiffs)
Class 1
Tuesday, September 1
Introduction
TransDigm/Takata
Memorandum introducing the course
Merger Antitrust Law: Introduction to Substance and Process (class notes)
Class 1 homework assignment (optional in the first week)
Antitrust Law: Hornbooks and Other Antitrust Study Aids
Demand curves and consumer surplus (YouTube videos):
Marginal Revolution University, The Demand Curve
Marginal Revolution University, A Deeper Look at the Demand Curve
Marginal Revolution University, What Is Deadweight Loss?
Unit 2
Predicting Merger Antitrust Enforcement Challenges
Class 2
Thursday, September 3
Predicting merger antitrust enforcement challenges
DOJ/FTC 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines
U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (rev. Aug. 19, 2010)
Predicting Merger Antitrust Enforcement Challenges
(class notes)
Class 2 homework assignment (optional in the first week)
Evolution of the Merger Guidelines
Unit 3
The DOJ/FTC Merger Review Process
For additional supplemental materials, see 13. DOJ/FTC Merger Review and Settlement Procedures in AppliedAntitrust.com
Class 3
Tuesday, September 8
The DOJ/FTC Merger Review Process (class notes)
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, Clayton Act § 7A, 18 U.S.C. § 18a (Premerger notification and waiting period)
HSR form instructions (June 7, 2019)
Note: These forms may not display on some browsers. If you do not get the proper forms, please hit the "download" button on your browser and view the download on Adobe Acrobat Viewer (or just search for the forms using your favorite search engine).
Second request investigations
DOJ Model Second Request (Nov. 28, 2016)
FTC Model Second Request (Apr. 2019)
Other supplemental materials
± DOJ Merger Enforcement web page
± DOJ and FTC, Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 2019
Makan Delrahim, It Takes Two:Modernizing the Merger Review Process, Prepared Remarks Before the 2018 Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, Washington, DC (Sept. 25, 2018)
Case study for homework assignment
Albertsons/Safeway case study (complete)
Unit 4
Merger Antitrust Litigation and Settlements
There is no separate deck of class slides for Unit 4. The few slides we used in class were all pulled from the Unit 4A class notes.
For additional supplemental materials, see 14. Merger Antitrust Litigation and 13. DOJ/FTC Merger Review and Settlement Procedures in AppliedAntitrust.com
Class 4
Thursday, September 10
Litigation
Settlements
Class 4 reading guidance (revised Sept. 4, 2020)
Unit 4A. Merger Antitrust Litigation (class notes)
Unit 4B. Merger Antitrust Settlements (class notes)
There is no homework assignment for this class
The Course of Litigation: EnergySolutions’ Acquisition of Waste Control Specialists (Nov. 16, 2016)
Albertsons/Safeway case study (complete)
TransDigm/Takata case study (complete)
Agency materials: FTC
Fed. Trade Comm’n, Bureau of Competition, Negotiating Merger Remedies (Jan. 2012)
Fed. Trade Comm'n, The FTC’s Merger Remedies 2006-2012: A Report of the Bureaus of Competition and Economics (Jan. 2017) (FTC news release)
Dan Ducore & Naomi Licker, Bureau of Competition, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Looking Back (Again) at FTC Merger Remedies (Feb. 3, 2017)
Fed. Trade Comm'n, Bureau of Competition, Frequently Asked Questions About Merger Consent Order Provisions (downloaded August 8, 2019)
Deborah L. Feinstein, Dir., Bureau of Competition, Fed. Trade Comm'n, The Significance of Consent Orders in the Federal Trade Commission’s Competition Enforcement Efforts (Sept. 17, 2013)
Agency materials: DOJ
Makan Delrahim,Ass't Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Improving the Antitrust Consensus, Prepared Remarks Before the New York State Bar Association Antitrust Section, New York, NY (Jan. 25, 2018)
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Manual Ch. 4 D: Negotiating and Entering Consent Decrees (5th ed. updated Mar. 2014)
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Antitrust Div., Antitrust Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies (rev. June 2011) (news release)
Other materials
Jonathan M. Jacobson, Issues in Antitrust Consent Decrees, Presented to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (Apr. 26, 2018)
Unit 5
Hertz/Avis Budget/Dollar Thrifty
Unit 5 class slides (complete)
For additional supplemental materials, see 13. DOJ/FTC Merger Review and Settlement Procedures in AppliedAntitrust.com
Class 5
Tuesday, September 15
The 2010 Hertz/Dollar Thrifty deal
There are no class notes for this class
YouTube videos
Present value of a perpetuity (perpetual annuity)
Class 6
Thursday, September 17
Antitrust considerations and the merger agreement
The bidding war with Avis
FTC review and settlement
Aftermath
Allocating Antitrust Risk in Merger Agreements
(class notes)
Risk-Shifting in Hertz/Dollar Thrifty (2010)
For a collection of antitrust-related provisions appearing in merger agreements, see Dale Collins, Sample Antitrust-Related Provisions in M&A Agreements, AntitrustUnpacked.com (July 2, 2018)
For a collection on SEC materials and press releases on the bidding war for Dollar Thrifty between Hertz and Avis Budget, click here.
Unit 6
A Case Study Problem: Atlanta Newspaper Merger
Class 7
Tuesday, September 22
Unit 7
Competition Economics
Unit 7 class slides (Part 1) (rev. Sept. 25, 2020) (corrected the error on Slide 20)
Unit 7 class slides (Part 2) (rev. Sept. 29, 2020) (correcting errors spotted in class)
Class 8
Thursday, September 24
Part 1. Demand, Costs, and
Profit-Maximization
Competition Economics Part 1 (class notes)
There are no reading materials for this class
YouTube videos
Revenue, Costs and Profit Part 1
Revenue, Costs and Profit Part 2
Revenue, Costs and Profit Part 3
Marginal Revolution University, The Demand Curve
Marginal Revolution University, A Deeper Look at the Demand Curve
Marginal Revolution University, The Demand Curve Shifts
Marginal Revenue for a Monopolist Facing Linear Demand
Finding a Revenue Function from a Linear Demand Function
Marginal Revolution University, The Supply Curve
Marginal Revolution University, A Deeper Look at the Supply Curve
Marginal Revolution University, The Supply Curve Shifts
Marginal Revolution University, The Equilibrium Price and Quantity
Marginal Revolution University, Exploring Equilibrium
Marginal Revolution University. Maximizing Profit Under Competition
Dennis W. Carlton & Jeffrey M. Perloff, Modern Industrial Organization (4th ed. 2005).
A Marginal Revenue Problem Step-by-Step (by Step)
A Profit-Maximization Problem Step-by-Step (by Step)
See also Dave Berry, Up in the Air on the Question of Gravity, Baltimore Sun, Mar. 16, 1997, at 3J
Completely optional: If you want to understand derivatives and would like a quick introduction, see the following two YouTube videos:
Derivatives... What? (on the theory of derivatives)
Derivatives... How? (on calculating the derivative--first 6.5 minutes is sufficient)
Class 9
Tuesday, September 29
Part 2. Markets and Market Equilibrium
Basic Competition Economics Part 2 (class notes)
(rev. Sept. 29, 2020) (correcting errors spotted in class)
There are no reading materials for this class
YouTube videos
How Substitutes and Complements Affect Demand
Marginal Revolution University, Elasticity of Demand
Marginal Revolution University, Calculating Elasticity of Demand
Marginal Revolution University, Elasticity and its Applications
Marginal Revolution University, Calculating the Elasticity of Demand
Intuition for Monopoly and Elasticity
Marginal Revolution University, The Equilibrium Price and Quantity
Marginal Revolution University, Exploring Equilibrium
Marginal Revolution University, Introduction to the Competitive Firm
Marginal Revolution University, Maximizing Profit Under Competition
How to Solve Cournot Problem: Algebra-Based Solution
Bertrand Oligopoly (solving a Bertrand oligopoly problem)
Wednesday, September 30
Optional economics review session
Unit 8
Sanford Health/Mid Dakota Clinic
Unit 8 class slides (complete) (Oct. 6, 2020)
For a more on Sanford Health,Mid Dakota Clinic, including the briefs on the merits filed in the case and an audio recording of the oral argument in the Eight Circuit, click here.
Class 10
Thursday, October 1
Analysis of the Eight Circuit's opinion
Institutional setting
The prima facie case
Relevant product markets
Relevant geographic markets
The PNB presumption
Introduction to Formal Horizontal Merger Analysis
(class notes)
Memorandum of Decision, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, FTC v. Sanford Health, No. 1:17-cv-00133-ARS (D.N.D. Dec. 15, 2017) (district court's memorandum supporting the entry of the preliminary injunction)
U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (rev. Aug. 19, 2010)
Evolution of the Merger Guidelines
YouTube videos
David Evans, Hypothetical Monopoly Test (SSNIP)
Superseded Merger Guidelines
U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (Apr. 8, 1997)
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Merger Guidelines (June 14, 1984) (published at 49 Fed. Reg. 26,823)
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Merger Guidelines (June 14, 1982) (published at 47 Fed. Reg. 28,493)
Fed. Trade Comm'n, Statement Concerning Horizontal Merger Guidelines (June 14, 1982)
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Merger Guidelines (May 30, 1968)
Note: The 1968, 1982, 1984 (except for Section 4), 1992, and 1997 Merger Guidelines have been superseded by the 2010 Merger Guidelines. Section 4 of the 1984 Merger Guidelines, which addresses nonhorizontal mergers, was superseded by the 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines (June 30, 2020).
The Seminal Cases of the 1960s
| The common law approach to antitrust law | 1 | |
| United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (1957) | 4 | |
| Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962 | 12 | |
| United States v. Philadelphia National Bank (1963) | 28 | |
| United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (Rome Cable) (1964) | 33 | |
| United States v. Von’s Grocery Co. (1966) | 36 | |
| United States v. Pabst Brewing Co. (1966) | 40 | |
| United States v. General Dynamics Corp. (1974) | 44 |
Class 11
Tuesday, October 6
Analysis of the Eight Circuit's opinion
Defenses
Power buyers defense
Entry defense
Efficiencies defense
Failing firm
Unit 8 reading materials (rev. Oct. 2, 2020) (added and reorganized materials on defenses)
Unit 9
H&R Block/TaxACT
Unit 9 class slides: Part 1. Market Definition (Classes 12-14)
Unit 9 class slides: Part 2. Anticompetitive Effect (Class 14-15)
Class 12
Thursday, October 8
Thursday, October 8
H&R Block/TaxACT
Institutional setting
Market definition: (Brown Shoe factors
Market Definition (class notes) (revised October 19, 2020)
Generally
AppliedAntitrust.com, Market Definition
1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments ch. 6 (8th ed. 2017) (market definition). This is the best complication of the current law on market definition. It is the first source to which you should turn if you have questions about how the courts apply the law.
± Serge Moresi, Steven C. Salop & John Woodbury, Market Definition in Merger Analysis (Feb. 9, 2017)
± Malcolm Coate & Jeffrey Fischer, Why Markets Matter for Evidence-Based Merger Analysis (Jan. 2010)
± Jonathan B. Baker, Market Definition: An Analytical Overview, 74 Antitrust L.J. 129 (2007).
± Jonathan B. Baker & Timothy F. Bresnahan, Economic Evidence in Antitrust: Defining Markets and Measuring Market Power (Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 328 Sept. 2006), final version published in Handbook of Antitrust Economics 1 (Paolo Buccirossi ed., 2008).
± Gregory J. Werden, The History of Antitrust Market Delineation, 76 Marquette L. Rev. 123 (1992).
YouTube
The Global Antitrust Institute, Market Definition (general introduction)
H&R Block/TaxACT commentary
Marc Remer & Frederick R. Warren-Boulton, United States v. H&R Block: Market Definition in Court since the 2010 Merger Guidelines, 59 Antitrust Bull. 599 (2014).
± Malcolm B. Coate, Market Definition in Differentiated Goods When the Final Consumer Buys the Good: Insights from the H&R Block Case (Feb. 12, 2014).
± Joseph J. Simons & Malcolm B. Coate, Should DOJ’s Controversial Approach to Market Definition Control Merger Litigation, the Case of US v. H&R Block (Oct. 24, 2013).
± James A. Keyte, United States v. H&R Block: The DOJ Invokes Brown Shoe to Shed the Oracle Albatross, Antitrust, Spring 2012, at 32.
± Deborah Feinstein, The Significance of H&R Block: Brown Shoe Meets Merger Simulation, Antitrust, Spring 2012, at 5.
Class 13
Tuesday, October 13
Market definition
Market Definition (class notes) (revised October 19, 2020)
ADDED: FTC v. Tronox Ltd. excerpt on critical loss (Oct. 10, 2020)
Critical loss analysis
± Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, Improving Critical Loss Analysis, Antitrust Source, Feb. 2008.
± Michael Katz & Carl Shapiro, Further Thoughts on Critical Loss, Antitrust Source, Mar. 2004
± Michael Katz & Carl Shapiro, Critical Loss: Let’s Tell the Whole Story, Antitrust, Spring 2003
Daniel P. O’Brien & Abraham L. Wickelgren, A Critical Analysis of Critical Loss Analysis, 71 Antitrust L.J. 161 (2003)
± Carl.Shapiro, Mergers with Differentiated Products, Antitrust, Spring 1996, at 23.
± Oxera, "Could: or :Would"? The Difference between Two Hypothetical Monopolists (Nov. 2008)
± Serge Moresi & Hans Zenger, Recapture Ratios In Merger Analysis (Oct. 29, 2017).
Øystein Daljord & Lars Sørgard, Single-Product Versus Uniform SSNIPs, 31 Int'l Rev. L. & Econ. 142 (2011) (± working paper version)
See generally AppliedAntitrust.com, Market Definition
Class 14
Thursday, October 15
PNB presumption
Ease of entry defense
Coordinated effects
Elimination of a "maverick"
Anticompetitive Effects in Horizontal Mergers (class notes) (rev. Oct. 17, 2020)
ADDED: FTC v. Tronox Ltd. excerpt on coordinated interaction (Oct. 11, 2020)
Downward-Pricing Pressure Defenses (class notes) (entry defense only; remainder of deck to be posted later)
1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments 361-69 ch. 6 (8th ed. 2017) (identifying market participants; determining market share and concentration).
Coordinated effects
1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments 369-72 (8th ed. 2017) (coordinated effects).
Janusz A. Ordover, Coordinated Effects, in 2 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 1359 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008).
± Jonathan B. Baker, Mavericks, Mergers and Exclusion: Proving Coordinated Competitive Effects Under the Antitrust Laws, 77 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 135 (2002).
William J. Kolasky, Coordinated Effects in Merger Review: From Dead Frenchmen to Beautiful Minds and Mavericks, Prepared Remarks Before the ABA Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting Washington, DC (Apr. 24, 2002).
Oxera, The Ties that Bind: When Is Retaliation Effective and Credible for Tacit Collusion? (May 2008)
See generally AppliedAntitrust.com, Coordinated Effects
Class 15
Tuesday, October 20
Unilateral effects
Efficiencies defense
Anticompetitive Effects in Horizontal Mergers (class notes) (rev. Oct. 17, 2020)
Downward-Pricing Pressure Defenses (class notes) (revised Oct. 17, 2020) (updated efficiencies section)
See class slides for instructor's answers
Unilateral effects
1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments 372-74 (8th ed. 2017) (unilateral effects).
YouTube videos:
The Global Antitrust Institute, Introduction to Unilateral Effects
Howard Chang, Diversion Ratios
Richard Schmalensee, Upward Pricing Pressure Test
± Herbert Hovenkamp, Analyzing Horizontal Mergers: Unilateral Effects in Product-Differentiated Markets (2009)
Gregory J. Werden, Unilateral Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers I: Basic Concepts and Models, in 2 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 1319 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008).
Gregory J. Werden & Luke M. Froeb, Unilateral Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers II: Auctions and Bargaining, in 2 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 1343 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008).
± Carl Shapiro, Unilateral Effects Calculations (rev. Oct. 2010)
± Oxera, Unilateral Effects Analysis and Market Definition: Substitutes in Merger Cases? (June 2011)
± Serge Moresi & Hans Zenger, Aggregate Diversion and Market Elasticity (June 17, 2017)
± LEAR, Merger Screen and the Use of Price Pressure Tests (Feb. 2013)
± Steven C. Salop & Serge Moresi, Updating the Merger Guidelines: Comments (Nov. 9, 2009)
± László Bokor, Strictness and Accuracy of Simple Price Tests of Merger Control (Oct. 2019)
± Charles Taragin & Margaret Loudermilk, Using Measures of Competitive Harm for Optimal Screening of Horizontal Mergers (Oct. 2, 2019)
± Nathan Miller & Gloria Sheu, Quantitative Methods for Evaluating the Unilateral Effects of Mergers (July 20, 2020)
± Jéssica Dutra & Tarun Sabarwal, Antitrust Analysis with Upward Pricing Pressure and Cost Efficiencies, 15 PloS one 1 (2020)
For a more detailed treatment of the use of diversion ratios in unilateral effects analysis than found in U.S. cases, see ± UK Office of Fair Trading, Anticipated Acquisition of the Online DVD Rental Subscription Business of Amazon Inc. by LOVEFiLM International Limited, No. ME/3534/08 (2008)
See also ± Marc Ivaldi, Bruno Jullien, Patrick Rey, Paul Seabright & Jean Tirole, The Economics of Unilateral Effects (Interim Report for DG Competition, European Commission (Nov. 2003))
Unit 10
Sysco/U.S. Foods
Class 16
Tuesday, October 22
Analysis of the district court opinion
Targeted customers
Second price auction theory of unilateral effects
Power buyer defense
Downward-Pricing Pressure Defenses (class notes) (revised Oct. 21, 2020) (see especially the new Power Buyer slides)
± Gregory J. Werden, The Hypothetical Monopolist Test in Sysco: A Litigation Muddle Needing Analytic Clarity, 12 J. Competition L. & Econ. 341 (2016)
Unit 11
Case Study Problem: Ice Cream Merger
Class 17
Tuesday, October 28
Analysis of Class 17 homework assignment
NB: There are no reading guidance, reading materials, or class notes for this unit. Spend all of your time on the homework assignment.
Unit 12
Staples/Office Depot
Class 18
Thursday, October 29
Analysis of the district court opinion
Review Market Definition, Anticompetitive Effects, and Downward-Pricing Pressure Defenses class notes as needed
NB: The Antitcompetitive Effects deck has been updated to include a new slide 35 on bidding markets
Unit 13
Short Horizontal Cases
Class 19
Tuesday, November 3
Analysis of short case studies
ABI/Grupo Modelo
Energy Solutions/Waste Control Specialists
Heinz/Beech-Nut
There is no reading guidance for this unit
Additional case materials
Wednesday, November 4
Anticompetitive effects
Downward-pricing pressure defenses
OPTIONAL REVIEW SESSION
Graded homework assignment posted
Due Monday, November 16
Class 20
Thursday, November 5
Analysis of short case studies
SGI/Alias/Wavefront
Sirius/XM
Boston Scientific/CVIS
Dollar General/Dollar Tree/Family Dollar
There is no reading guidance for this unit
Unit 13B reading materials (required reading only)
THERE IS NO HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR THIS CLASS
Work on the graded homework assignment
Additional case materials
Unit 14
Potential Competition Mergers
Class 21
Tuesday, November 10
Mylan/Perrigo
Medtronic/Covidien
Mallinckrodt (Questcor)/Novartis
Steris/Synergy Health
Nielsen/Arbitron
Akron/VersaPharm
Potential competition mergers (class notes)
THERE IS NO HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT FOR THIS CLASS
Work on the graded homework assignment
Additional case materials
Unit 15
Vertical Mergers
Class 22
Thursday, November 12
Comcast/NBCUniversal
AT&T/Time Warner
Monday, November 16
GRADED HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT DUE BY 11:59 pm
Class 23
Tuesday, November 17
Review of Graded Homework Assignment
Class 24
Thursday, November 19
AT&T/Time Warner (con't)
Class 25
Tuesday, November 24
AT&T/Time Warner (con't)
General Electric/Avio
Coca-Cola/Coca-Cola Enterprises
Unit 16
Sabre/Farelogix
Class 26
Tuesday, December 1
Analysis of the district court opinion
Final Review Session (optional)
Wednesday, December 2
Optional review session
FINAL EXAM
Tuesday, December 7 (8:30 AM) –
Thursday, December 17 (6:30 PM)
5-hour (increased from 4 hours last year)
Open book
Take home
Instructions for the 2019 exam
I anticipate using the same instructions
in 2020 subject to any changes the Registrar's Office requires