Heublein, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
539 F. Supp 123, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11678 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency exceeds its statutory authority and acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it denies a request for early termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act's premerger waiting period for reasons unrelated to the transaction's competitive effects, such as the failure to show a 'special business reason' or a desire to maintain 'neutrality' in a contested takeover.
Facts:
- General Cinema Corporation ('Cinema') filed a premerger notification with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeking approval to acquire up to 49.9% of Heublein, Inc.'s common stock.
- The FTC reviewed Cinema's proposal and determined it raised no competitive concerns, allowing Cinema's waiting period to expire on March 6, 1982.
- In response, Heublein filed its own premerger notification to acquire up to 49.9% of Cinema's stock, with a waiting period set to expire on April 2, 1982.
- Heublein requested an 'early termination' of its waiting period from the FTC, arguing that since there were no competitive issues, it should be allowed to purchase Cinema's stock at the same time Cinema could purchase Heublein's stock.
- The FTC's Bureau of Competition denied Heublein's request, citing an internal policy that required a 'special business reason' for early termination, which it found Heublein had not provided.
- The Bureau also based its denial on a desire to remain 'neutral' in the contested acquisition, believing that granting Heublein's request would unfairly favor it over Cinema.
- After Cinema's waiting period expired, it announced plans to repurchase a significant number of its own shares, an action that made Heublein's potential acquisition more difficult and expensive while Heublein was still legally barred from purchasing stock.
Procedural Posture:
- Heublein requested an early termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period from the FTC's Bureau of Competition.
- The Bureau of Competition denied Heublein's request.
- Heublein appealed the denial to the full Federal Trade Commission, which reviewed the Bureau's decision and decided not to reverse it.
- Heublein, Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking judicial review of the agency's final action.
- Heublein moved for a temporary restraining order to compel the FTC to grant the early termination immediately.
- The District Court held a hearing on Heublein's motion for a temporary restraining order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Trade Commission's denial of a request for early termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act's waiting period, based on the lack of a 'special business reason' and a desire to remain 'neutral' in a hostile takeover, constitute an abuse of discretion and exceed its statutory authority when the agency has already determined the acquisition raises no competitive concerns?
Opinions:
Majority - Clarie, Chief Judge
Yes. The Federal Trade Commission's denial of Heublein's request for early termination exceeded its statutory authority and was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion. The sole purpose of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (H-S-R) Act's waiting period is to provide antitrust enforcement agencies with time to evaluate the competitive effects of a proposed acquisition. Once an agency determines, as the FTC did here, that a transaction is not likely to lessen competition, its authority to delay the transaction ends. The FTC's denial was based on grounds unrelated to competitive considerations, namely its own Formal Interpretation requiring a 'special business reason,' which is a standard not found in the H-S-R Act or its legislative history. Furthermore, the FTC's rationale of maintaining 'neutrality' was flawed; by allowing Cinema to proceed while blocking Heublein, the FTC was actively disadvantaging Heublein rather than remaining neutral. True neutrality would have required allowing both parties to act simultaneously.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the discretion of the FTC and Department of Justice in administering the Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger notification program. It establishes that the waiting period cannot be used as a tool to regulate corporate takeover tactics or to impose procedural hurdles unrelated to the substantive antitrust review mandated by the statute. The ruling reinforces the principle that an agency's actions must be strictly tethered to its statutory purpose. For companies engaged in hostile takeovers, this case provides a key precedent ensuring that as long as a defensive acquisition raises no competitive concerns, it cannot be procedurally delayed by agencies aiming to influence the outcome of the corporate battle.
