reut.rs/1OfQHZ0
>No. 1 office supply chain Staples and smaller rival Office Depo said on Tuesday they would terminate their planned merger after a U.S. federal judge ordered the deal temporarily halted because of antitrust concerns. Shares of Office Depot plunged 26% and Staples shares fell 10% in extended trading following the ruling.
>Judge Emmet Sullivan of U.S. D.C. District Court, in a 3-page order granting the Federal Trade Commission's request for a preliminary injunction, said the agency had shown there was a "reasonable probability" that the merger would "substantially impair competition" for the sale of office supplies to large business customers.
>Staples, based in Framingham, Massachusetts, said in a statement it would terminate the $6.3B deal and pay Office Depot a $250M break-up fee.
>"We are extremely disappointed that the FTC’s request for preliminary injunction was granted despite the fact that it failed to define the relevant market correctly, and fell woefully short of proving its case," Staples' chief executive, Ron Sargent, said in a statement. "We believe that it is in the best interest of our shareholders, customers and associates to forego appealing this decision."
>The FTC called the judge's decision "great news." "This deal would eliminate head-to-head competition between Staples and Office Depot and likely lead to higher prices and lower quality service for large businesses that buy office supplies," Debbie Feinstein, head of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. The FTC, in a complaint filed in December, argued that the deal was illegal because the two companies were each other's biggest rival. It said the two sell 79% of the pens, paper, file folders and other "consumable office supplies" sold to Fortune 100 companies.
THANKS OBAMA.
>>73641794
wasnt there a huge cable company or phone company merger not too long ago? where were they then?
>>73642794
None of these office store former execs work for the ftc.
>>73641794
>The FTC, in a complaint filed in December, argued that the deal was illegal because the two companies were each other's biggest rival. It said the two sell 79% of the pens, paper, file folders and other "consumable office supplies" sold to Fortune 100 companies.
Why the fuck are Fortune 100 companies buying retail? At that size they could buy supplies directly from the manufacturers. Even if the retail chains have special b2b channels for F100 companies, it still doesn't make sense buy from someone with so much overhead.
>/pol/ encounters law: the thread
>>73644294
They buy bulk from these two suppliers, not retail.
There is literally no way two companies with that market share will successfully merge.
>>73642794
>wasnt there a huge cable company or phone company merger not too long ago? where were they then?
AT&T T-mobile was blocked, and Time Warner/Charter still has to compete with Comcast, AT&T, etc
>>73641794
Dow/DuPont is fucked
>>73642794
AT&T and DirecTV were allowed to merge because AT&T cooperates fully with the US government's many surveillance programs. Neither Staples or Office Depot have that kind of leverage. We are moving closer and closer to a cyberpunk dystopia.
>>73641794
This is good, right?
>>73644294
Good question! The answer is entropy.
You see, many companies that have to deal with multiple levels of managers put a metric shitton of requirements on purchasing to control costs. You have to write a requisition, get that approved, send it to the purchase order, get that approved, send it to the supplier for approval, get the stuff, receive it, get the invoice, voucher the invoice, correct discrepancies and errors, and then actually pay for it... eventually. Many may differ from this flow on some parts, but you get the idea.
In the midst of this stream is the part where vendors agree with your PO and will decide to give you stuff in lieu of actual payment, honoring your sheet of paper as a pinkie promise. They work on credit, and unless you have a great history of payments, it's going to be a risk, so they need all of your company deets. It's also a ton of paperwork and approvals for both companies, which leads me to entropy. Why do all that work for cheap pens when your current account will get the same thing done for a little bit more? In some cases, it's totally worth going direct to manufacturer, but in other cases, not.
I hope I have answered your question, anon.
>>73645161
No. Most anti-trust laws don't actually break up trusts or protect agaisnt monopolies.
It just hinders the free market.
>>73645865
>No. Most anti-trust laws don't actually break up trusts or protect agaisnt monopolies.
I assume you have a source for that statement?
those god damn stores, all they do is come up and try to talk to you to see if you're stealing something now. it bothers my autism so I just get office supplies online now.
>>73646070
Yes. Actually.
The book the just about everyone on /pol/ hails as a fundamental read.
Thomas Sowells Basic Economics. Spefically his chapter on Big Business and Government.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/04/28/antitrust-law-and-lawlessness-n1991166
He goes into further detail in his book of course.
>>73642794
Because there really isn't much out there to compete with Office Depot or Staples, other than themselves.
>>73644674
We dodged a missile on Time Warner/Comcast before Charter stepped in.
