Skip to main content

Justice Department Requires Divestitures in Unilever's Acquisition of Alberto-Culver Company

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with Unilever and Alberto-Culver Co. that requires them to divest two hair care brands in order to proceed with Unilever’s $3.7 billion acquisition of Alberto-Culver. The department said that the transaction, as originally proposed, would substantially lessen competition in three product markets – value shampoo, value conditioner and hairspray sold in retail stores. Value shampoos and conditioners are the lowest priced shampoos and conditioners sold in retail stores, typically selling for less than two dollars a bottle.

The department’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to block the proposed transaction between three Unilever entities – Unilever N.V., Unilever PLC and Conopco Inc. – and Alberto-Culver. At the same time, the department filed a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the competitive concerns alleged in the lawsuit.

“Without the divestitures required by the department, consumers would have paid higher prices for value shampoo and conditioner and for hairspray sold in retail stores,” said Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.

Under the proposed settlement, the companies must divest Alberto-Culver’s Alberto VO5 brand and Unilever’s Rave brand, as well as associated assets. The Alberto VO5 brand consists of value shampoo and conditioner, hairspray, mousse and other hair styling products. The Rave brand consists of hairspray and mousse products.

According to the complaint, the acquisition would eliminate significant head-to-head competition between the merging parties for value shampoo, value conditioner and hairspray sold in retail stores. In the case of value shampoo and conditioner, it would reduce the number of significant competitors in the value shampoo and conditioner markets from three to two, leaving Unilever with approximately 90 percent of those markets. In the case of hairspray, Unilever’s post-merger share of the market would be approximately 46 percent, with the combination resulting in a highly concentrated market. This loss of competition likely would have resulted in higher prices for value shampoo and conditioner, and hairspray products.

During the investigation of the transaction, the department’s Antitrust Division cooperated with the Office of Fair Trading in the United Kingdom, the Federal Competition Commission in Mexico and South Africa’s Competition Commission. Both Unilever and Alberto-Culver provided waivers, in a timely way, to facilitate the effective international cooperation in this case, the department said.

“Maintaining close working relationships with competition agencies around the world and having open dialogues with our counterparts are important ways of enhancing competition and protecting consumers in the United States and internationally,” said Assistant Attorney General Varney.

Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC are corporations with headquarters in Rotterdam of the Netherlands and London, respectively. They wholly own Conopco Inc., a New York corporation. Unilever sells consumer products in more than 100 countries under brands such as Hellmann’s, Lipton, Surf, Dove, Suave and Vaseline. Unilever had sales of $62 billion in 2010.

Alberto-Culver Co., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Melrose Park, Ill., sells consumer products in more than 100 countries under brands such as TRESemmé, Alberto VO5, Noxzema, Nexxus, St. Ives, Static Guard and Mrs. Dash. Alberto Culver had sales of $1.6 billion for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010.

The proposed settlement, along with the department’s competitive impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register, as required by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act. Any person may submit written comments concerning the proposed settlement within 60 days of its publication to Joshua H. Soven, Chief, Litigation I Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth St., N.W., Suite 4100, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the court may enter the settlement upon a finding that it is in the public interest.

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...

The U-Turn of Candace Owens: From Liberal Critic to Conservative Firebrand

Candace Owens’s career has been defined by one of the most dramatic and controversial political transformations in modern media. In less than a decade, she transitioned from a liberal critic of the Republican Party to a leading voice of the American conservative movement, only to have her time at the top of established conservative media end over a final, divisive shift in rhetoric. Here is a look at the journey that defined her political evolution, culminating in her emergence as a powerful, independent media force. Phase 1: The Anti-Trump Democrat (Pre-2017) Before her political transformation, Candace Owens was known for holding typical liberal views and actively criticizing the Republican Party and its most controversial new figure. Initial Stance: Owens was an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, reportedly publishing articles mocking him and the "bat-s**t crazy antics of the Republican Tea Party." The Turning Point: This initial phase ended following a failed a...