Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments, (Feb 3, 2016)
Law Firms Mentioned:Dentons US LLP | Kaufman, Coren & Ress, PC | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Organizations Mentioned:Cox Automotive Inc. | Cox Automotive, Inc. | Cox Enterprises Inc. | DealerTrack Holdings, Inc. | Dealertrack Technologies Inc. | Dentons, LLP | Kaufman Coren & Ress, PC | O'Melveny & Myers, LLP | Sears Protection Co. | Sears Roebuck and Co. | Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz
A periodic roundup of other items of interest to the Antitrust and Trade Regulation community:
ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS—D.D.C.: The federal district court in Washington, D.C. has approved a consent decree settling Department of Justice Antitrust Division concerns that the combination of two firms, which provide automated solutions and services for automotive dealers, would lessen competition substantially for the development, marketing, and sale of full-featured inventory management solutions (IMSs). Under the consent decree, the acquirer—Cox Automotive Inc., a subsidiary of Cox Enterprises Inc.—was required to divest the IMS business of the target company—Dealertrack Technologies Inc. The government had alleged that Cox and Dealertrack were the two leading IMS providers and that the proposed acquisition of Dealertrack would have allowed Cox to become the dominant inventory management solution provider in the United States (U.S. v. Cox Enterprises Inc., Case 1:15-cv-01583, January 21, 2016, Hogan, T.).
STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Ill: Pennsylvania residents who purchased appliances and entered into service agreements with Sears Protection Company and Sears, Roebuck and Co. lacked standing to pursue Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) claims after they learned that their purchases were not covered by the agreements. Non-resident plaintiffs were permitted to sue under the ICFA only if the circumstances relating to the alleged fraudulent transaction occurred mostly in Illinois. The plaintiffs’ allegations suggested that most of the circumstances underlying the alleged fraud occurred in Pennsylvania. Among other factors, the plaintiffs lived in Pennsylvania and entered into the agreements with Sears and thus allegedly were deceived in Pennsylvania. In addition, the appliances that were the subject of the agreements were in Pennsylvania (Greene v. Sears Protection Co., Case: 1:15-cv-02546, February 2, 2016, Alonso, J.).
Attorneys: Damian G. Didden (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz) for Cox Enterprises, Inc. and Cox Automotive, Inc.; Courtney Dyer (O’Melveny & Myers LLP) for Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. David M. Devito (Kaufman, Coren & Ress, PC) for Nina Greene. Christopher Qualley King (Dentons US LLP) for Sears Protection Co. and Sears Roebuck and Co.
Companies: Cox Automotive Inc.; Cox Enterprises Inc.; Dealertrack Technologies Inc.; Sears Protection Co.; Sears Roebuck and Co.
News: AcquisitionsMergers Antitrust AntitrustDivisionNews DistrictofColumbiaNews StateUnfairTradePractices IllinoisNews