Dealmakers grapple with US challenge to mergers - GulfToday

Dealmakers grapple with US challenge to mergers

Joe-biden

Joe Biden

Anirban Sen and Diane Bartz, Reuters

Investment bankers and deal lawyers accustomed to regulatory hurdles to their mergers face an unprecedented challenge under US President Joe Biden — antitrust watchdogs who are undaunted when they lose such battles in court. The US Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have attempted to thwart 22 mergers since Biden came into office in January 2021, according to a Reuters review of announcements from the agencies.

That outnumbers the antitrust challenges during the first two years of former President Barack Obama’s first term in office and is twice as many as in Donald Trump’s first two years, the Reuters analysis shows. While comprehensive data going back decades is unavailable, Joel Grosberg, an antitrust lawyer at McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, said more mergers are entangled in U.S. antitrust litigation now than at any point in his 25-year career. “It’s a combination of the FTC and (Justice Department) being willing to litigate and the fact that companies are fighting back,” Grosberg said.

The DOJ and the FTC managed to stop 15 out of the 22 deals, many without a court fight as companies gave up and walked away from their agreement. More recently, they have lost four attempts to block mergers in court, though they are appealing two of the cases.

These losses have not soured regulators’ appetite for challenging mergers. Biden’s appointees — FTC Chair Lina Khan and DoJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter — are pressing on, arguing that corporate consolidation has gone too far, harming consumers and workers at a time of rampant inflation. “Without question, what is clear about this team compared to their predecessors is that they are not haunted by the possibility that they might lose these cases,” said former FTC chair and George Washington University Law School antitrust professor William Kovacic.

Kanter told US lawmakers in September his department would not “back down from bringing meritorious cases.” In a letter in August, Khan told Senator Elizabeth Warren she believed asset sales to remedy competition issues with mergers frequently fell short.

In response to a request for comment, an FTC spokesperson referred Reuters to recent comments that Khan made in her congressional testimony in September about the effects of past consolidation and the need for stronger enforcement.

The Justice Department declined to comment further, referring Reuters to recent public comments from Kanter on the subject.

The biggest deal currently at stake is Microsoft Corp’s $69 billion bid for “Call of Duty” maker Activision Blizzard Inc. The FTC has sued to stop it, arguing it would allow Microsoft’s Xbox to get exclusive access to Activision games and put it in a position to dominate the gaming market. Microsoft is fighting back and last week told a judge the deal would benefit gamers and gaming companies alike.

Cary Kochman, global co-head of M&A at Citigroup, said deals are taking longer to be approved, forcing companies to “dribble the ball” and “delay engagement on potential transactions” until the regulatory landscape becomes clearer.” Citigroup was not an advisor on the Microsoft-Activision deal.

Bankers and lawyers are advising merger partners to prepare for long battles with regulators. They are pushing for contracts with more time to complete a deal, to account for the possibility of antitrust lawsuits.

“As you’re negotiating things like interim operating covenants that govern what you can and cannot do between signing and closing, you should view them through the lens of having to live with them for 12 to 18 months in some cases,” said Melissa Sawyer, global head of the M&A group at law firm Sullivan & Cromwell.

Related articles

Majority of US voters support the deal with Iran

US presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to return to the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. Instead, President Biden sticks to the dangerous and destructive policy dictated by Donald Trump who withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped 1,500 punitive sanctions on Iran.

Biden hesitates although 54 per cent of registered US voters support a deal while only 20 per cent oppose; among Biden’s Democrats the number is 70 per cent backers and six per cent opponents; among independents 50 per cent support and 30 per cent do not; and 41 per cent of Republicans are in favour against 35 who are not.

Since Biden’s own positive rating is currently a low 41 per cent against 56 per cent negative rating, it would seem it would behove him to re-enter the deal. The main obstacle is Tehran’s insistence that the US must lift Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a “foreign terrorist organisation,” making the IRG the world’s sole national army to join a host of armed non-state actors.

The text, a somewhat amended version of the original document, has been ready for months and awaits finalisation. Why then is Biden procrastinating and prevaricating? He faces stiff opposition from domestic anti-Iran lobbyists and legislators and Israel where the government rejects the deal. In both countries military and intelligence experts are, however, in favour. They hold, correctly, that Tehran has made great strides in developing both nuclear expertise and output since Trump pulled out, prompting Iran to gradually reduce its adherence in retaliation.

Instead of being limited to 3.67 uranium enrichment Iran has 43 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium: this is a few steps away from the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Instead of having a 300 kilogram stockpile of 3.67 enriched uranium, Iran has a stock 18 times larger of uranium enriched above the 3.67 per cent level permitted. Instead of carrying out enrichment with old, approved centrifuges, Iran has employed advanced centrifuges.

Instead of abiding by the stringent monitoring regime put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been slipping surveillance. Until Iran began to breach the regulatory regime, it was the toughest on earth.

Nevertheless, Iran has pledged to revert to the deal once the US re-enters and to halt enrichment above 3.67 per cent, export all but 300 kilogrammes of the permitted 3.67 per cent of material in its stockpile, revert to old centrifuges which have been warehoused, and re-engage fully with the IAEA monitoring effort.

Opponents of the deal argue its “sunset clauses” will expire by 2031, thereby ending restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. This may be addressed in the new deal.

However, they also contend it fails to curb in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and sup- port for Lebanon’s Hizbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Iraqi Shia militias and the Syrian government.

Since these issues are outside the purview of the 2015 deal, Iran rightly rejects including them in its successor. Tehran has also made it clear that they can be discussed directly with the US once Biden re-joins the deal and sanctions are lifted.

After months of trying to get the external issues incorporated into the nuclear deal, the Biden administration conceded that this is impossible.

On April 29th this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign had failed and “produced a more dangerous nuclear programme” while Iran stepped up involvement in regional affairs. These post-Ukraine war remarks suggested that the Biden administration was ready to return to the deal.

However, the administration continues to blow hot at one moment and cold another. Last week Washington may have blown up the deal. At the 35-member IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna the US — along with acolytes Britain, France, and Germany — secured the adoption of a resolution critical of Iran over its inability or refusal to account for traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites found by IAEA monitors in 2019 and 2020.

The resolution, which received 30 votes in favour — with Iran and Russia voting against and India, China and Libya abstaining — urges Iran to co-operate “without delay” with inspectors after IAEA director Rafael Grossi reported he had not received a “technically credible” explanation for the presence of particles.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi pointed out that uranium “contamination” was possible “in a country as vast as Iran.” He also suggested “human sabotage” by Israel which is blamed for repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinations of Iranian scientists.

Iranian officials are suspicious due to the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Bin- yamin Netanyahu instigated visits by IAEA inspectors to one of the three contaminate sites at the village of Turquzabad near Tehran. IAEA monitors took soil samples and concluded that there were “traces of radioactive material” at the location which may have been used for storage as there were no signs of processing. How did Netanyahu know there were samples at this site?

Although the IAEA still has more than 40 cameras which will continue to operate at Iran’s enrichment facilities, Grossi stated Tehran’s action mounted to a “serious challenge.” He warned that in three or four weeks the agency would be unable to provide “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s activities. “This could be a fatal blow” to negotiations over the nuclear deal, he stated.

He also warned that Iran is “just a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran halted work on weaponisation in 2003 and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that Iran will not manufacture nuclear weapons as they are prohibited by Islam.

Kelsey Davenport of the “independent” Washington-based Arms Control Association told the BBC that in ten days or less Iran could transform its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into the 90 per cent required for weapons. She said, however, that manufacturing bombs would require one or two years.

If Biden continues dithering the deal could die, further destabilising an already unstable region.

Michael Jansen, Political Correspondent

12 Jun 2022