Company Pleads Guilty to Falsifying Documents in HSR Filing
On August 15, 2011, Nautilus Hyosung Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, agreed to
plead guilty to two felony charges for submitting false documents
to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in connection with its proposed acquisition of a competing rel="noopener noreferrer" manufacturer of
ATM systems. According to the charging documents,
an executive of Nautilus falsified documents and directed other employees to falsify documents in an effort to understate the competitive impact of the
proposed acquisition. These documents were submitted with the initial Hart-Scott-Rodino filing and also in response to DOJ's request for additional
information about the transaction. Subsequent to these false submissions, the company voluntarily disclosed that numerous documents had been altered
before being submitted to the antitrust agencies, and agreed to cooperate in DOJ's criminal investigation of the alleged obstructive conduct. Nautilus
faced a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million, but this amount was substantially reduced to $200,000 in consideration of the "nature and extent of the
company's disclosure of wrongdoing and its cooperation" with the investigation, rel="noopener noreferrer" according to a DOJ statement.
FTC Modifies rel="noopener noreferrer" Part 3 of Agency’s Rules of Practice
On August 12, 2011, the FTC announced amendments to several
sections of the procedural rules (known as "Part 3") that govern how administrative competition cases, including merger challenges, are tried before an
administrative law judge (ALJ). The full Commission reviews appeals following an ALJ's initial decision. The changes, which relate to discovery and
the admissibility of certain evidence, aim to improve the efficiency of Part 3 proceedings.
Court Rejects Monopolization Claim Premised on Short-Term Exclusive Contracts
On August 17, 2011, a district court rejected a challenge to short-term exclusive agreements between an auto parts seller and its distributors. In
SPX Corp. v. Mastercool, U.S.A., Inc., Mastercool counterclaimed that even though SPX’s exclusive contracts were short-term and terminable at will, their overall effect of these agreements
was to foreclose competition. The court rejected this argument, holding that such exclusivity agreements were "presumptively lawful" and complaints
about such contracts could not plausibly support an antitrust claim.
UK Competition Agency Publishes Compliance Guidance for Directors
In rel="noopener noreferrer" June 2011, the U.K. Office of Fair Trading published new guidance for businesses on
competition law compliance–including specific advice for directors, general guidance for all businesses, a quick guide to competition law compliance
and a film that includes a dramatized dawn raid–to help businesses comply with competition law. Additional information is available in our August 2011 EU/UK Competition Law Newsletter.
For more information, please contact the lawyers in the
Antitrust & Trade Regulation Department at McGuireWoods.
J. Brent Justus