Skip to main content

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Simon Property Group's Acquisition of Prime Outlets was Anticompetitive

FTC Announces Revised Thresholds for Clayton Act Antitrust Reviews

The Federal Trade Commission announced it has revised the thresholds that determine whether companies are required to notify federal antitrust authorities about a transaction under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act.

The HSR Act requires companies to notify authorities if – among other things – the value of a transaction exceeds the filing thresholds. The FTC is required to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. This year, the threshold for reporting proposed mergers and acquisitions under Section 7 of the Act increased from $63.4 million to $66.0 million.

The FTC also announced revisions to the thresholds that trigger a prohibition preventing companies from having interlocking memberships on their corporate boards of directors under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. The Act requires that the Commission revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in the level of gross national product. The new thresholds for the Act’s prohibition on interlocking directorates are $26,867,000 for Section 8(a)(1) and $2,686,700 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).

In the case of each type of threshold, the vote to approve Federal Register notices announcing the revisions was 5-0. The revised thresholds under both Sections will apply to all transactions that close on or after the effective date of the notice, which is 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. (FTC File No. P859910; the staff contact for Section 7 is Michael Verne, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3100; the staff contact for Section 8 is James F. Mongoven, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-2879.)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Simon Property Group’s Acquisition of Prime Outlets was Anticompetitive

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission approved a final Order settling charges that the Simon Property Group’s Acquisition of Prime Outlets Acquisition Company, LLC was anticompetitive. Under the final Order, Simon will sell either its Cincinnati Premium Outlet center in Monroe, Ohio, or its Prime Outlets-Jeffersonville outlet center in Jeffersonville, Ohio. In addition, Simon will remove radius restrictions for tenants with stores in its outlet malls serving the Chicago and Orlando markets. This will allow competing outlet centers or outlet mall developers wanting to enter those markets to sign leases with tenants that otherwise would have been prevented from doing so due to the radius restrictions.

The Commission vote approving the final Order and a letter to the members of the public who commented on the Order was 5-0. The Order can be found on the FTC’s website and as a link to this press release. (FTC File No. 051-0199; the staff contact is Joe Lipinsky, FTC Northwest Region, Seattle, 206-220-4473; see press release dated November 10, 2010).

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

(FYI 1.2011.wpd)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...