Big Deal? Size Still Matters to M&A Regulators

Feds revise triggers for automatic merger and acquisition review

Last year saw some successful (NBC/Comcast) and some not so successful (AT&T/T-Mobile) merger applications in the communications sector.  And with hope for continued improvement in the overall economic climate springing eternal, it’s possible that more large scale mergers may be in the pipeline. With that in mind, potential merger/acquisition candidates should be aware that the federal government has performed its annual ritual of announcing the thresholds it will use for automatic federal review of mergers and acquisitions

If a transaction exceeds a certain amount, both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission must scrutinize the deal and render an opinion about any anti-trust concerns raised by the deal.  In addition, as AT&T is acutely aware, when a large merger involves communications assets, the FCC also has no problem sticking its nose into the deal.  In fact, the FCC has its own SWAT team (formally called the Office Of General Counsel Transaction Team) to review deals.  Unlike the DoJ and the FTC, the FCC’s team is not automatically required to review deals of certain size; they could theoretically refrain from involving themselves in deals that pass the triggers described below. Note, though, that the FCC’s SWAT team – as well as DoJ and FTC – can choose to investigate smaller deals coming in below the triggers.

Readers considering a merger or acquisition should bear in mind that after February 27, 2012, the administration automatically will be sending at least two agencies to take a closer look at transactions where either:

the total value of the transaction exceeds $272,800,000; or

the total value of the transaction exceeds $68.2 million andone party to the deal has total assets of at least $13.6 million (or, if a manufacturer, has $13.6 million in annual net sales) and the other party has net sales or total assets of at least $136.4 million

When negotiating deals, all parties would be well-advised to bear these thresholds in mind. Once those lines are crossed, the prospect of additional (and considerable) time, expense and hassle to navigate the federal review process is a virtual certainty.

Size Still Matters To The Feds

2011 threshold triggers for federal scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions announced

Broadcasters and telecommunications operators contemplating possible deals for the coming year should remember that, as far as the federal government is concerned, there may be such a thing as Too Big. The Feds will step in to review an anticipated deal for potential antitrust problems if the deal exceeds certain threshold dollar amounts.  The law mandates that those threshold amounts be revised every year for inflation. The 2011 thresholds have just been announced, and will take effect on February 24, 2011. If your deal exceeds one of the revised thresholds, you should plan for increased government scrutiny, with all the additional hassle, expense and delay that such scrutiny entails.

Under federal antitrust law, certain mergers or acquisitions which exceed the specified thresholds must be submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice for Uncle Sam’s review before the transaction can be consummated.  (The theoretical basis for federal concern here: any transaction big enough to pass the thresholds is presumably big enough to affect interstate commerce.) The government’s internal process for adjusting these thresholds – based on the traditional measure of the gross national product – has been on the books for decades.

The newly-adjusted thresholds require pre-transaction notification if either:

  • the total value of the transaction exceeds $263,800,000; or
  • the total value of the transaction exceeds $66 million and one party to the deal has total assets of at least $13.2 million (or, if a manufacturer, has $13.2 million in annual net sales) and the other party has net sales or total assets of at least $131.9 million.

When negotiating deals, all parties would be well-advised to bear these thresholds in mind. Once those lines are crossed, the prospect of additional time, expense and hassle to navigate the federal review process is a virtual certainty.

Litigating Licensing and Likenesses

A couple of recent court cases touch on issues we've discussed recently regarding the licensing of image and other trademark-type rights claimed to be held by athletes and sports leagues.  

Licensing of NFL Apparel

The big news is that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral argument in a case involving the National Football League's ability to engage in exclusive licensing of its merchandise.  The case  is an appeal by a company called American Needle of an adverse decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  For some 20 years American Needle (along with a number of competitors) had been licensed by the NFL to produce and sell caps bearing NFL logos. But then the NFL decided to enter into an exclusive marketing deal with only one company.  After Reebok was awarded the exclusive deal, American Needle challenged the right of the NFL to strike such an exclusive deal.  American Needle lost the last round in the Seventh Circuit.

Sports law experts are watching the case because, in a separate petition for Supreme Court review, the NFL itself had asked the Court to broaden the antitrust exemption the NFL currently enjoys.  The relief the NFL sought could affect not only all aspects of the NFL's operation, but also the status and operation of other major professional sports leagues.  Since the Supremes appear to have granted only American Needle's petition for cert, and not the NFL's, it's not clear whether the NFL's requested relief will be fair game when the case is presented.  But we'll be watching to see whether the Court makes any pronouncements that might shed light on how it would rule in other areas regarding licensing of team or player trademarks or image rights. 

While the American Needle case involves an overtly commercial use of these trademarks, there is an outside chance that the Court could make a broader pronouncement about the licensing of these rights generally which would affect the ongoing lawsuits by CBS Interactive and Yahoo against the NFL regarding the use of player images and information in fantasy sports. We'd rate this as "highly unlikely" but may attend the oral argument nonetheless. 

Use of College Football Player Image Rights in Video Games

More former college football players are stepping up in the pocket to file suit against Electronic Arts for that company's use of their likenesses in its "NCAA Football" video game.  We previously discussed the lawsuit filed by former Nebraska and Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller.  That case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Now former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart has filed a similar action in a state court in Somerville, NJ.  He is joined in this lawsuit by former University of California quarterback Troy Taylor. 

So, while college football players may or may not attend class, at least a few former players might become part of a class action lawsuit.