State of NY v. Kraft General Foods, Inc.
862 F. Supp. 1030, 1993 WL 735821, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8108 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state, when suing parens patriae as a private plaintiff under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to enjoin an anticompetitive merger, must establish actual and immediate irreparable harm, a burden not presumed as it is for federal antitrust enforcement agencies.
Facts:
- Sales of ready-to-eat (RTE) cereals in the United States totaled over $7 billion in 1991, with Kraft being the third largest producer and Nabisco the sixth largest.
- From 1988 to 1992, Nabisco implemented a profit maximization strategy, which included raising prices significantly and reducing marketing support by 70% for its RTE cereal products.
- Nabisco's strategy led to a steady decline in its market share from 5.52% in 1988 to 2.94% in 1992, with its core Shredded Wheat brands at risk of being delisted by retailers.
- In the spring of 1992, Nabisco decided to exit the RTE cereal business and initially agreed to sell its assets to General Mills, but this transaction was abandoned on November 3, 1992.
- On November 12, 1992, Nabisco agreed to sell its U.S. and Canadian cereal assets to Kraft for $450 million, allocating roughly three-quarters of the price to the goodwill of the Nabisco Shredded Wheat brand.
- The acquisition agreement granted Kraft a four-year exclusive right to use 'Nabisco' trademarks on the cereals, transferred Nabisco’s Naperville plant to Kraft, and included a 15-year non-compete clause for Nabisco in the RTE cereal market.
- By January 4, 1993, Kraft and Nabisco consummated the asset sale, and Nabisco’s RTE cereal operations were thoroughly integrated into Kraft’s operations, including production, marketing, and pricing, by late January 1993.
- Kraft replaced Nabisco's sales force with its own and dissolved Nabisco's RTE cereal marketing department, with only one former Nabisco marketing staff member joining Kraft.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 18, 1992, Nabisco and Kraft notified the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice of their intent to consummate the transaction, in accordance with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.
- In early December 1992, the New York State Attorney General’s Office received copies of documents supplied by the defendants to the federal authorities.
- On December 15, 1992, the New York Attorney General's office asked Nabisco and Kraft to produce additional information not requested by the FTC.
- On December 24, 1992, the Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period expired, with the FTC taking no action to enjoin the transaction.
- On February 10, 1993, the State of New York commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Kraft General Foods, Inc. and RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., alleging violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Section 340 of New York’s Donnelly Act, and seeking either to rescind the transaction or divest Kraft of Nabisco’s RTE cereal assets.
- Contemporaneously with filing the lawsuit, the State of New York moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Kraft from taking any action that would alter the status quo of the acquired RTE cereal assets, specifically seeking to bar Kraft from altering the trade dress of the former Nabisco brands.
- A hearing on the State’s motion for a preliminary injunction was conducted on May 5, 1993.
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 a state, acting parens patriae as a private plaintiff in an antitrust action under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, meet the irreparable harm requirement for a preliminary injunction by demonstrating that a merging company's proposed minor branding changes will diminish the value of acquired trademarks and consumer loyalty prior to a full trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Kimba M. Wood
No, the State of New York failed to establish irreparable harm sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction. The court found the State's contention that the addition of the 'Post' logo to Nabisco cereal brands would diminish the value of the Nabisco mark and cause consumer confusion to be too speculative to support a finding of irreparable harm. A substantial portion of the conduct typically viewed as potentially constituting 'irreparable harm' in the merger context, such as the full integration of Nabisco’s RTE cereal operations into Kraft’s, had already taken place prior to the State's filing of the motion. Furthermore, Kraft had stipulated to maintaining the current packaging status quo until December 31, 1993, and only planned to begin test marketing slightly altered cereal boxes, bearing both the Post and Nabisco logos, for a limited two-to-three-month period in early 1994, before the scheduled trial. The State, as a parens patriae plaintiff, is considered a private party under the Clayton Act and thus does not benefit from the presumption of irreparable harm enjoyed by federal agencies like the FTC or Department of Justice when they seek to enjoin a merger. Since the State could not demonstrate that the threatened danger to competition was 'real, not fancied, actual not prospective, and threatened, not imagined,' the court denied the preliminary injunction without needing to assess the State's likelihood of success on the merits.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent regarding the evidentiary burden for preliminary injunctions in antitrust merger challenges brought by states acting parens patriae. It clarifies that states are held to the same stringent standard as other private plaintiffs, requiring them to demonstrate concrete, immediate, and irreparable harm, rather than benefiting from the presumption of irreparable harm afforded to federal antitrust agencies. The ruling underscores that speculative claims of future harm, especially when substantial integration of operations has already occurred, will likely be insufficient to meet this high bar. This could make it more challenging for states to secure pre-trial injunctive relief in complex merger cases where the acquisition has already been consummated and integration is underway.
