United States v. AT&T Inc. and Dobson Communications Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, 65060-65076 [07-5719]
Download as PDF
65060
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
Hollis City Hall and Jail, 101 W. Jones St.,
Hollis, 07001267
Payne County
Berry, Luke D., House, 621 E. Broadway St.,
Cushing, 07001262
Tulsa County
Ranch Acres Historic District, Roughly
bounded by E. 31 St., S. Harvard Ave, E.
41st St., and S Delaware and S Florence
Aves., Tulsa, 07001268
OREGON
Multnomah County
Pearson Mortuary, 301 NE Knott St.,
Portland, 07001261
RHODE ISLAND
Newport County
Murphy, Dennis J., House at Ogden Farm,
641 Mitchell’s Ln., Middletown, 07001269
TENNESSEE
Putnam County
West End Church of Christ Silver Point,
14360 Center Hill Dam Rd., Silver Point,
07001270
Shelby County
Southern Railway Industrial Historic District
(Boundary Increase) 711 Linden Ave.,
Memphis, 07001273
WISCONSIN
Dane County
Steinle Turret Machine Company, 149
Waubesa St., Madison, 07001272
Dodge County
Zirbel—Hildebrandt Farmstead, W1328–1330
WI 33, Herman, 07001271
[FR Doc. E7–22528 Filed 11–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–70–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–1111 (Final)]
Glycine From India, Japan, and Korea
United States International
Trade Commission.
ACTION: Revised schedule for the subject
investigations.
AGENCY:
DATES:
Effective Date: November 9,
Commission should contact the Office
of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.
General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its internet server (https://
www.usitc.gov). The public record for
this investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 28, 2007, the Commission
established a schedule for the conduct
of the final phase of the subject
investigations (72 FR 55247). Although
the Department of Commerce
(‘‘Commerce’’) had not yet made its
preliminary less than fair value
determination (‘‘LTFV’’) regarding
India, the Commission, for
administrative purposes, included India
in the investigation schedule, pending
Commerce’s preliminary LTFV
determination. On November 7, 2007,
Commerce issued its preliminary
determination in the investigation of
glycine from India (72 FR 62827; as
amended 72 FR 62826). The
Commission, therefore, is revising its
schedule with respect to the
investigation concerning India.
The Commission’s revised schedule
with respect to India is as follows: A
supplemental brief addressing only
Commerce’s final antidumping duty
determination is due on February 11,
2008. The brief may not exceed five (5)
pages in length.
For further information concerning
this investigation see the Commission’s
notice cited above and the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, part 201, subparts A through
E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207,
subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Authority: This investigation is being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.21 of the
Commission’s rules.
Issued: November 13, 2007.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission,
[FR Doc. E7–22538 Filed 11–16–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
2007.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Russell Duncan (202–708–4727), Office
of Investigations, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain
information on this matter by contacting
the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–
205–1810. Persons with mobility
impairments who will need special
assistance in gaining access to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. AT&T Inc. and Dobson
Communications Corporation;
Proposed Final Judgment and
Competitive Impact Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15 U.S.C. § 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
Final Judgment, Stipulation, and
Competitive Impact Statement have
been filed with the United States
District Court for the District of
Columbia in United States of America v.
AT&T Inc. and Dobson
Communications Corporation, Civil
Action No. 1:07–cv–01952. On October
30, 2001, the United States filed a
Complaint alleging that the proposed
acquisition by AT&T Inc. (‘‘AT&T’’) of
Dobson Communications Corporation
(‘‘Dobson’’) would violate Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, by
substantially lessening competition in
the provision of mobile wireless
telecommunications services in seven
(7) markets. The proposed Final
Judgment, filed at the same time as the
Complaint, requires the divestiture of:
(1) Dobson’s mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
in certain markets in Kentucky and
Oklahoma; (2) AT&T’s minority
interests in entities operating mobile
wireless telecommunications services
businesses in certain markets in Texas
and Missouri; and (3) all of Dobson’s
right, title and interest in Cellular One
Properties, LLC, in order for AT&T to
proceed with its $2.8 billion aquisition
of Dobson. The Competitive Impact
Statement filed by the United States
describes the Complaint, the proposed
Final Judgment, the industry, and the
remedies available to private litigants
who may have been injured by the
alleged violation.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact
Statement are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
325 7th Street, NW., Room 215,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–2481), on the Department of
Justice’s Web site at https://
www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at the Office of
the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
Copies of these materials may be
obtained from the Antitrust Division
upon request and payment of the
copying fee set by the Department of
Justice regulations.
Public comment is invited within 60
days of the date of this notice. Such
comments, and responses thereto, will
be published in the Federal Register
and filed with the Court. Comments
should be directed to Nancy Goodman,
Chief, Telecommunications and Media
Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000,
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
514–5621).
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
In the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia
United States of America Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, 1401 H
Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC
20530, Plaintiff, v. AT&T Inc., 175 East
Houston, San Antonio, Texas 78205;
and Dobson Communications
Corporation, 14201 Wireless Way,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73134,
Defendants.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Civil No. 1:07–CV–01952, Assigned:
Rosemary M. Collyer, Filed: October 30,
2007
Complaint
The United States of America, acting
under the direction of the Acting
Attorney General of the United States,
brings this civil action to enjoin the
merger of two mobile wireless
telecommunications service providers,
AT&T Inc. (‘‘AT&T’’) and Dobson
Communications Corporation
(‘‘Dobson’’), and to obtain other relief as
appropriate. Plaintiff United States
alleges as follows:
1. AT&T entered into an agreement to
acquire Dobson, dated June 29, 2007,
under which the two companies would
combine their mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
(‘‘Transaction Agreement’’) and AT&T
would acquire the Cellular One brand
name and associated rights. The United
States seeks to enjoin this transaction
because it likely will substantially
lessen competition to provide mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
several geographic markets where AT&T
and Dobson are each other’s most
significant competitor or where AT&T
competes against mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
that sell services under the Cellular One
brand name.
2. AT&T provides mobile wireless
telecommunications services in 50
states and serves in excess of 63 million
subscribers. Dobson provides mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
seventeen states and serves
approximately 1.6 million subscribers.
The combination of AT&T and Dobson
likely will substantially lessen
competition for mobile wireless
telecommunications services in five
geographic areas in Kentucky, Missouri,
Oklahoma and Texas where businesses
owned in whole or part by AT&T and
Dobson currently operate. As a result of
the proposed acquisition, residents of
these mostly rural areas will likely face
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:29 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
increased prices, diminished quality or
quantity of services, and less investment
in network improvements for these
services. Additionally, in two relevant
geographic areas in Pennsylvania and
Texas, competition likely will be
substantially lessened to the detriment
of consumers because AT&T will have
the incentive and ability to limit, or
eliminate, a primary competitor’s right
to use the Cellular One brand name
effectively.
I. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. This Complaint is filed by the
United States under Section 15 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent
and restrain defendants from violating
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.
4. AT&T and Dobson are engaged in
interstate commerce and in activities
substantially affecting interstate
commerce. The Court has jurisdiction
over this action pursuant to Sections 15
and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25,
26, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337.
5. The defendants have consented to
personal jurisdiction and venue in this
judicial district.
II. The Defendants and the Transaction
6. AT&T, with headquarters in San
Antonio, Texas, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware. AT&T is the
largest communications holding
company in the United States and
worldwide, measured by revenue. AT&T
is the largest mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider
in the United States, measured by
subscribers, provides mobile wireless
telecommunications services in 50
states, and serves in excess of 63 million
subscribers. In 2006, AT&T earned
mobile wireless telecommunications
services revenues of approximately
$37.53 billion.
7. Dobson, with headquarters in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is a
corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Oklahoma.
Dobson is the ninth largest mobile
wireless telecommunications services
provider in the United States, measured
by subscribers and provides mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
17 states. It has approximately 1.7
million subscribers. Dobson also owns
Cellular One Properties, LLC, an
Oklahoma limited liability company,
engaged in the business of licensing the
Cellular One brand and promoting the
Cellular One service mark and certain
related trademarks, service marks and
designs. In 2006, Dobson earned
approximately $1.3 billion in revenues.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65061
8. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated June 29, 2007, AT&T
will acquire Dobson for approximately
$2.8 billion. If this transaction is
consummated, AT&T and Dobson
combined would have approximately 65
million subscribers in the United States,
with $37.54 billion in moble wireless
telecommunications services revenues.
III. Trade and Commerce
A. Nature of Trade and Commerce
9. Mobile wireless
telecommunications services allow
customers to make and receive
telephone calls and obtain data services
using radio transmissions without being
confined to a small area during the call
or data session, and without the need
for unobstructed line-of-sight to the
radio tower. Mobility is highly valued
by customers, as demonstrated by the
more than 233 million people in the
United States who own mobile wireless
telephones. In 2006, revenues from the
sale of mobile wireless
telecommunications services in the
United States were over $125 billion. To
meet this desire for mobility, mobile
wireless telecommunications services
providers must deploy extensive
networks of switches and radio
transmitters and receivers and
interconnect their networks with the
networks of wireline carriers and other
mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers.
10. The first mobile wireless voice
systems were based on analog
technology, now referred to as firstgeneration or ‘‘1G’’ technology. These
analog systems were launched after the
Federal Communications Commission
(‘‘FCC’’) issued the first spectrum
licenses for mobile wireless
telecommunications services. In the
early to mid-1980s, the FCC issued two
cellular licenses (A-block and B-block)
in each Metropolitan Statistical Area
(‘‘MSA’’) and Rural Service Area
(‘‘RSA ‘‘) (collectively, ‘‘Cellular
Marketing Areas’’ or CMAs’’), with a
total of 734 CMAs covering the entire
United States. Each license consists of
25 MHz of spectrum in the 800 MHz
band.
11. In 1995, the FCC licensed
additional spectrum for the provision of
Personal Communications Services
(‘‘PCS’’), a category of services that
includes mobile wireless
telecommunications services
comparable to those offered by cellular
licensees. These licenses are in the 1900
MHz and are divided into six blocks: A,
B, and C, which consist of 30 MHz each;
and D, E, and F, which consist of 10
MHz each. Geographically, the A and B-
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
65062
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
block 30 MHz licenses are issued by
Major Trading Areas (‘‘MTAs’’). C, D, E,
and F-block licenses are issued by Basic
Trading Areas (‘‘BTAs’’), several of
which comprise each MTA. MTAs and
BTAs do not generally correspond to
MSAs and RSAs.
12. With the introduction of the PCS
licenses, both cellular and PCS licensees
began offering digital services, thereby
increasing network capacity, shrinking
handsets, and extending battery life. In
addition, in 1996, one provider, a
specialized mobile radio (‘‘SMR’’ or
‘‘dispatch’’) spectrum licensee, began to
use its SMR spectrum to offer mobile
wireless telecommunications services
comparable to those offered by other
mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers, in conjunction with
its dispatch, or ‘‘push-to-talk,’’ service.
Although there are a number of
providers holding spectrum licenses in
each area of the country, not all
providers have fully built out their
networks throughout each license area.
In particular, because of the
characteristics of PCS spectrum,
providers holding this type of spectrum
have found it less attractive to build out
in rural areas.
13. Today, more than 98 percent of
the total U.S. population lives in
counties where three or more mobile
wireless telecommunications services
operators offer digital service. Nearly all
mobile wireless voice service has
migrated to second-generation or ‘‘2G’’
digital technologies, GSM (global
standard for mobility, a standard used
by all carriers in Europe), and CDMA
(code division multiple access). Even
more advanced technologies (‘‘2.5G’’
and ‘‘3G’’), based on the earlier 2G
technologies, have been deployed for
mobile wireless data services.
B. Relevant Product Market
14. Mobile wireless
telecommunications services is a
relevant product market. Mobile
wireless telecommunications services
include both voice and data services
provided over a radio network and
allow customers to maintain their
telephone calls or data sessions without
wires, such as when traveling. There are
no cost-effective alternatives to mobile
wireless telecommunications services.
Because fixed wireless services are not
mobile, they are not regarded by
consumers of mobile wireless
telecommunications services to be a
reasonable substitute for those services.
It is unlikely that a sufficient number of
customers would switch away from
mobile wireless telecommunications
services to make a small but significant
price increase in those services
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
unprofitable. Mobile wireless
telecommunications services
accordingly is a relevant product market
under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18.
C. Relevant Geographic Markets
15. A large majority of customers use
mobile wireless telecommunications
services in close proximity to their
workplaces and homes. Thus, customers
purchasing mobile wireless
telecommunications services choose
among mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
that offer services where they live, work,
and travel on a regular basis. The
number and identity of mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
varies among geographic areas, as does
the quality of services and breadth of
geographic coverage offered by
providers. Mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
can and do offer different promotions,
discounts, calling plan, and equipment
subsidies in different geographic areas,
varying the price for customers by
geographic area.
16. The United States comprises
numerous local geographic markets for
mobile wireless telecommunications
services. The geographic areas in which
the FCC has licensed mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
often represent the core geographic
areas in which an individual consumer
would use mobile wireless
telecommunications services, those
being the areas in which an individual
customer resides, works and plays. The
relevant geographic markets in which
this transaction will substantially lessen
competition in mobile wireless
telecommunications services are
effectively represented, but not defined,
by FCC spectrum licensing ares.
17. The relevant geographic markets,
under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18, where the transaction will
substantially lessen competition for
mobile wireless telecommunications
services are represented by the
following FCC spectrum licensing areas:
Kentucky RSA–6 (CMA 448); Kentucky
RSA–8 (CMA 450); Missouri RSA–1
(CMA 504); Oklahoma RSA–5 (CMA
600); Pennsylvania RSA–5 (CMA 616);
Texas RSA–9 (CMA 660); and Texas
RSA–11 (CMA 662). It is unlikely that
a sufficient number of customers would
switch to mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
in a different geographic market to make
a small but significant price increase in
the relevant geographic markets
unprofitable.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
D. Anticompetitive Effects
1. Overlap Areas
a. AT&T/Dobson Overlap Markets
17. Currently, AT&T and Dobson each
own a business that offers mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
three relevant geographic areas:
Kentucky RSA–6 (CMA 448); Kentucky
RSA–8 (CMA 450); and Oklahoma RSA–
5 (CMA 600).
18. In each of these three relevant
geographic areas, either AT&T or
Dobson has the largest share of
subscribers and the other defendant is a
particularly strong and important
competitor: the companies controlled by
AT&T and Dobson collectively account
for between 63 percent and 97 percent
of subscribers in these areas. As
measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index (‘‘HHI’’), which is commonly
employed in merger analysis and is
defined and explained in Appendix A to
this Complaint, concentration in these
markets ranges from over 3100 to more
than 7900, which is well above the 1800
threshold at which the Department
considers a market to be highly
concentrated. After AT&T’s proposed
acquisition of Dobson is consummated,
the HHIs in the relevant geographic
markets will range from over 5200 to
over 9400, with increases in the HHI as
a result of the merger ranging from over
1400 to over 2300, significantly beyond
the thresholds at which the Department
considers a transaction likely to cause
competitive harm.
b. AT&T Minority Interest Markets
20. In two relevant geographic areas,
Missouri RSA–1 (CMA 504) and Texas
RSA–9 (CMA 660), Dobson owns a
business that offers mobile wireless
telecommunications services and AT&T
has a minority interest in a competing
business. In Missouri RSA–1, AT&T’s
minority equity interest is in Northwest
Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership’s
business and in Texas RSA–9, AT&T’s
minority equity interest is in Mid-Tex
Cellular, Ltd.
21. In these two relevant geographic
areas, either Dobson or the business in
which AT&T has a minority interest has
the largest share and the other
defendant is a particularly strong and
important competitor in all, or a large
part, of the RSA. In each area, the
businesses in which AT&T and Dobson
have an interest collectively account for
in excess of 70 percent of subscribers.
22. Although the minority equity
interest in each situation is small, AT&T
has significant rights under the relevant
partnership agreements to control core
business decisions, obtain critical
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
confidential competitive information,
and share in profits at a rate
significantly greater than the equity
ownership share upon a sale of the
partnership. Post-merger, the merged
finn would likely have the ability and
incentive to coordinate the activities of
the wholly-owned Dobson wireless
business and the business in which it
has a minority stake, and/or undermine
the ability of the latter to compete
against the former. Such activity would
likely result in a significant lessening of
competition.
c. AT&T/Cellular One Overlap Markets
23. In two relevant geographic areas,
Pennsylvania RSA–5 (CMA 616) and
Texas RSA–11 (CMA 662), AT&T owns
a business that offers mobile wireless
telecommunications services, and a
competing mobile wireless
telecommunications business operates
under the Cellular One brand name that
AT&T would acquire from Dobson
pursuant to the proposed transaction.
24. In these two relevant geographic
areas, AT&T has the largest share of
subscribers and the mobile wireless
telecommunications business operating
under the Cellular One brand name is a
particularly strong and important
competitor. In each area, AT&T and the
Cellular One licensee collectively
account for in excess of 65 percent of
subscribers.
25. The Cellular One brand name was
first used in 1984. In 1989, the Cellular
One Group partnership was formed to
maintain and promote the Cellular One
brand, a licensed trade name. In 1995,
the partnership offered to license the
brand to all A block cellular providers.
Presently, approximately nine mobile
wireless telecommunications services
providers in addition to Dobson license
the Cellular One brand and offer
services to their customers under that
brand. Through its planned purchase of
Dobson, AT&T will acquire the rights to
the Cellular One trademarks, trade
names, service marks, service names,
and designs for the Cellular One brand
name, as well as the agreements to
license the Cellular One brand to other
mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers.
26. The providers that continue to
license and use the Cellular One brand
have invested considerable resources in
developing and building the brand. The
Cellular One brand is thus an important
input to these firms’ provision of mobile
wireless telecommunications services. If
their ability to use the brand were to be
impaired or eliminated, they would
suffer considerable costs and effective
competition in these markets would be
harmed.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
27. Because AT&T offers and markets
wireless services under its own AT&T
brand, it has little or no incentive to use
or maintain the Cellular One brand. In
the two relevant geographic areas where
a Cellular One licensee is a primary
competitor to AT&T in the mobile
wireless telecommunications services
market, AT&T would have the incentive
and ability to impair the effectiveness of
the Cellular One brand, or even deny a
license to the current licensee entirely,
since by doing so, it could reduce
competition by significantly increasing
costs to a primary competitor at little or
no cost to itself.
2. Competitive Impact
28. In all seven relevant geographic
markets, the mobile wireless
telecommunications businesses wholly
or partially owned by AT&T and
Dobson, and/or the Cellular One
licensee, own all or most of thel800
MHz band cellular spectrum licenses,
which are more efficient in serving rural
areas than 1900 MHz band PCS
spectrum. As a result of holding the
cellular spectrum licenses and being
early entrants into these markets, the
networks wholly or partly owned by
AT&T, Dobson, or the Cellular One
licensee provide greater depth and
breadth of coverage than their
competitors, which are operating on
PCS spectrum in these relevant
geographic markets, and thus are more
attractive to consumers. A mobile
wireless telecommunications services
provider with limited coverage in a
geographic area typically does not
aggressively market its services in that
area because it can service customers
only through a roaming arrangement
with a more built-out competitor under
which it must pay roaming charges to,
and rely on, its competitor to maintain
the quality of the network. The mobile
wireless businesses wholly or partly
owned by AT&T or Dobson in five of the
relevant areas, and by AT &T and the
Cellular One licensee in the other two
relevant areas, accordingly, are, for a
large set of customers, likely closer
substitutes for each other than the other
mobile wireless telecommunications
services in these markets provided by
firms who own only PCS spectrum.
29. Competition between the
businesses wholly or partly owned by
AT&T and Dobson, or between AT&T
and the Cellular One licensee, in the
relevant geographic markets has
resulted in lower prices and higher
quality in mobile wireless
telecommunications services, than
would otherwise have existed in these
geographic markets. In these areas,
many consumers consider businesses
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65063
wholly or partly owned by AT&T,
Dobson, or the Cellular One licensee to
be the most attractive competitors
because other providers’ networks lack
coverage or provide lower-quality
service.
30. If AT&T’s proposed acquisition of
Dobson is consummated, (a) the relevant
market for mobile wireless
telecommunications services will
become substantially more concentrated
in the three AT&T/Dobson overlap
geographic markets, and competition
between AT &T and Dobson in mobile
wireless telecommunications services
will be eliminated in these markets; (b)
competition in mobile wireless
telecommunications services between
Dobson and the businesses partly
owned by AT&T will be substantially
curtailed in the two AT&T minority
ownership geographic markets, and (c)
AT&T’s acquisition of the rights to the
Cellular One brand is likely to diminish
the Cellular One licensees’ ability to
competitively constrain AT&T in the
two AT&T/Cellular One overlap
geographic markets thereby lessening
competition substantially to the
detriment of consumers. In all seven
relevant geographic areas, the merged
firm will have the incentive and ability
to increase prices, diminish the quality
or quantity of services provided, and
refrain ITom or delay making
investments in network improvements.
3. Entry
31. Entry by a new mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider
in the relevant geographic markets
would be difficult, time-consuming, and
expensive, requiring the acquisition of
spectrum licenses and the build-out of
a network. Although a number of other
firms own 1900 MHz PCS spectrum in
the relevant geographic markets, the
propagation characteristics of 1900 MHz
PCS spectrum are such that signals
using those frequencies extend to a
significantly smaller area than 800 MHz
cellular signals. The relatively higher
cost of building out 1900 MHz
spectrum, combined with the relatively
low population density of the areas in
question, suggest that competitors with
1900 MHz spectrum are unlikely to
build out their networks to reach the
entire area served by AT&T and Dobson.
Although additional spectrum has been
and will be made available through FCC
auctions, it is unlikely that additional
mobile wireless telecommunications
services based on this spectrum will be
deployed in the near future in the
relevant geographic areas. Therefore,
new entry in response to a small but
significant price increase for mobile
wireless telecommunications services
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
65064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
by the merged firm in the relevant
geographic markets would not be
timely, likely, or sufficient to thwart the
competitive harm resulting from AT&T’s
proposed acquisition of Dobson, if it
were to be consummated.
IV. Violation Alleged
32. The effect of AT&T’s proposed
acquisition of Dobson, if it were to be
consummated, may be substantially to
lessen competition in interstate trade
and commerce in the relevant
geographic markets for mobile wireless
telecommunications services, in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
33. Unless restrained, the transaction
will likely have the following effects in
mobile wireless telecommunications
services in the relevant geographic
markets, among others:
a. Actual and potential competition
between AT&T and Dobson will be
eliminated;
b. Actual and potential competition
between Dobson and businesses in
which AT &T holds a minority interest
will be lessened;
c. Actual and potential competition
between AT&T and Cellular One brand
licensees will be lessened;
d. Competition in general will be
lessened substantially;
e. Prices are likely to increase;
f. The quality and quantity of services
are likely to decrease; and
g. Incentives to improve wireless
networks will be reduced.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
V. Requested Relief
The United States requests:
34. That AT&T’s proposed acquisition
of Dobson be adjudged to violate
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
18;
35. That defendants be permanently
enjoined from and restrained from
carrying out the Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated June 29, 2007, or from
entering into or carrying out any
agreement, understanding, or plan, the
effect of which would be to bring the
wireless services businesses of AT&T
and Dobson under common ownership
or control;
36. That the United States be awarded
its costs of this action; and
37. That the United States have such
other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: October 30, 2007.
Respectfully Submitted,
FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:
l /s/ lll
Thomas O. Barnett,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust
Division.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
l /s/ lll
Deborah A. Garza,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust
Division.
l /s/ lll
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
l /s/ lll
Nancy Goodman,
Chief, Telecommunications & Media
Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division.
l /s/ lll
Laury Bobbish,
Assistant Chief, Telecommunications &
Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division.
l /s/ lll
Hillary B. Burchuk (DC Bar No. 366755),
Lawrence M. Frankel (DC Bar No. 441532),
Rebekah P. Goodheart (DC Bar No. 472673),
Attorneys, Telecommunications & Media
Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, City Center Building,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington,
DC 20530. Phone: (202) 514–5621 Facsimile:
(202) 514–6381.
Appendix A
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index
‘‘HHI’’ means the HerfindahlHirschman Index, a commonly accepted
measure of market concentration. It is
calculated by squaring the market share
of each firm competing in the market
and then summing the resulting
numbers. For example, for a market
consisting of four firms with shares of
30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the HHI is
2600 (302 + 302 +202 + 202 = 2600).
(Note: Throughout the Complaint,
market share percentages have been
rounded to the nearest whole number,
but HHIs have been estimated using
unrounded percentages in order to
accurately reflect the concentration of
the various markets.) The HHI takes into
account the relative size distribution of
the firms in a market and approaches
zero when a market consists of a large
number of small firms. The HHI
increases both as the number of firms in
the market decreases and as the
disparity in size between those firms
increases.
Markets in which the HHI is between
1000 and 1800 points are considered to
be moderately concentrated, and those
in which the HHI is in excess of 1800
points are considered to be highly
concentrated. See Horizontal Merger
Guidelines ¶ 1.51 (revised Apr. 8, 1997).
Transactions that increase the HHI by
more than 100 points in concentrated
markets presumptively raise antitrust
concerns under the guidelines issued by
the U.S. Department of Justice and
Federal Trade Commission. See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
AT&T Inc. and Dobson
Communications Corporation,
Defendants.
Case No.lll
Filed:lll
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of
America, filed its Complaint on October
30,2007, United States and defendants,
AT&T Inc. (‘‘AT&T’’) and Dobson
Communications Corporation
(‘‘Dobson’’), by their respective
attorneys, have consented to the entry of
this Final Judgment without trial or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law,
and without this Final Judgment
constituting any evidence against or
admission by any party regarding any
issue of fact or law;
And whereas, defendants agree to be
bound by the provisions of this Final
Judgment pending its approval by the
Court;
And whereas, the essence of this Final
Judgment is the prompt and certain
divestiture of certain rights or assets by
defendants to assure that competition is
not substantially lessened;
And whereas, the United States
requires defendants to make certain
divestitures for the purpose of
remedying the loss of competition
alleged in the Complaint;
And whereas, defendants have
represented to the United States that the
divestitures required below can and will
be made and that defendants will later
raise no claim of hardship or difficulty
as grounds for asking the Court to
modify any of the divestiture provisions
contained below;
Now therefore, before any testimony
is taken, without trial or adjudication of
any issue of fact or law, .and upon
consent of the parties, it is ordered,
adjudged and decreed:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter of and each of the parties
to this action. The Complaint states a
claim upon which relief may be granted
against defendants under Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C.
18).
II. Definitions
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. ‘‘Acquirer’’ or ‘‘Acquirers’’ means
the entity or entities to whom
defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. ‘‘AT&T’’ means defendant AT&T
Inc., a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, its
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
successors and assigns, and its
subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
affiliates, partnerships and joint
ventures, and their directors, officers,
managers, agents, and employees.
C. ‘‘Cellular One’’ means Cellular One
Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited
liability company, with its headquarters
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, engaged
in the business of licensing the Cellular
One brand and promoting the Cellular
One service mark and certain related
trademarks, service marks and designs.
D. ‘‘Cellular One Assets’’ means all
legal and economic interests Dobson
holds in Cellular One. Cellular One
Assets shall include all right, title and
interest in trademarks, trade names,
service marks, service names, designs,
and intellectual property, all license
agreements for use of the Cellular One
mark, technical information, computer
software and related documentation,
and all records relating to the
divestiture assets. If the acquirer of the
Cellular One Assets is not the
acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets, defendants will grant
the acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets a license to use the
Cellular One service marks on terms
generally available at the time the
merger agreement was entered and make
the transfer of the Cellular One Assets
subject to continuation of these licenses.
E. ‘‘CMA’’ means cellular market area
which is used by the Federal
Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’)
to define cellular license areas and
which consists of Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (‘‘MSAs’’) and Rural
Service Areas (‘‘RSAs’’).
F. ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’ means the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets,
Minority Interests and the Cellular One
Assets, including any direct or indirect
financial ownership or leasehold
interests and any direct or indirect role
in management or participation in
control therein.
G. ‘‘Dobson’’ means defendant Dobson
Communications Corporation, an
Oklahoma corporation, with its
headquarters in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, its successors and assigns,
and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
affiliates, partnerships and joint
ventures, and their directors, officers,
managers, agents, and employees.
H. ‘‘Minority Interests’’ means the
equity interests and any management or
control interests owned by AT&T in the
following entities that are the licensees
or operators of the mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
in the specified RSAs:
(1) Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd., covering
Texas RSA–9 (CMA 660); and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
(2) Northwest Missouri Cellular
Limited Partnership, covering Missouri
RSA–1 (CMA 504).
As an alternative to the divestiture of
the Minority Interests as required by
Section IV of this Final Judgment, upon
approval of the United States,
defendants may withdraw, from the
Minority Interest partnerships pursuant
to the applicable provisions in the
governing partnership agreement.
I. ‘‘Multi-line Business Customer’’
means a corporate or business customer
that contracts with Dobson for mobile
wireless telecommunications services to
provide multiple telephones to its
employees or members whose services
are provided pursuant to a contract with
the corporate or business customer.
J. ‘‘Transaction’’ means the Agreement
and Plan of Merger among Dobson,
AT&T and Alpine Merger Sub, Inc.,
dated June 29, 2007.
K. ‘‘Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets’’ means each mobile wireless
telecommunications services business to
be divested under this Final Judgment,
including all types of assets, tangible
and intangible, used by defendants in
the operation of the mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
to be divested. ‘‘Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets’’ shall be construed
broadly to accomplish the complete
divestiture of the entire business of
Dobson in each of the following RSA
license areas as required by this Final
Judgment and to ensure that the
divested mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
remain viable, ongoing businesses:
(1) Kentucky RSA–6 (CMA 448);
(2) Kentucky RSA–8 (CMA 450); and
(3) Oklahoma RSA–5 (CMA 600)
provided that Dobson may retain all of
the PCS spectrum it currently holds in
each of these RSAs and equipment that
is used only for wireless transmissions
over this PCS spectrum.
The Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets shall include, without limitation,
all types of real and personal property,
monies and financial instruments,
equipment, inventory, office furniture,
fixed assets and furnishings, supplies
and materials, contracts, agreements,
leases, commitments, spectrum licenses
issued by the FCC and all other licenses,
permits and authorizations, operational
support systems, cell sites, network
infrastructure, switches, customer
support and billing systems, interfaces
with other service providers, business
and customer records and information,
customer contracts, customer lists,
credit records, accounts, and historic
and current business plans which relate
primarily to the wireless businesses
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65065
being divested, as well as any patents,
licenses, sub-licenses, trade secrets,
know-how, drawings, blueprints,
designs, technical and quality
specifications and protocols, quality
assurance and control procedures,
manuals and other technical
information defendant Dobson supplies
to its own employees, customers,
suppliers, agents, or licensees, and
trademarks, trade names and service
marks or other intellectual property,
including all intellectual property rights
under third-party licenses that are
capable of being transferred to an
Acquirer either in their entirety, for
assets described in (a) below, or through
a license obtained through or from
Dobson, for assets described in (b)
below; provided that defendants shall
only be required to divest Multi-line
Business Customer contracts if the
primary business address for that
customer is located within any of the
three license areas described herein, and
further, any subscriber who obtains
mobile wireless telecommunications
services through any such contract
retained by defendants and who are
located within the three geographic
areas identified above, shall be given the
option to terminate their relationship
with defendants, without financial cost,
at any time within one year of the
closing of the Transaction. Defendants
shall provide written notice to these
subscribers within 45 days after the
closing of the Transaction of the option
to terminate.
The divestiture of the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets shall be
accomplished by:
(a) Transferring to the Acquirers the
complete ownership and/or other rights to
the assets (other than those assets used
substantially in the operations of Dobson’s
overall wireless telecommunications services
business which must be retained to continue
the existing operations of the wireless
properties that defendants are not required to
divest, and that either are not capable of
being divided between the divested wireless
telecommunications services businesses and
those not divested, or are assets that the
defendants and the Acquirer(s) agree, subject
to the approval of the United States, shall not
be divided); and
(b) Granting to the Acquirer(s) an option to
obtain a nonexclusive, transferable license
from defendants for a reasonable period,
subject to the approval of the United States
and at the election of an Acquirer, to use any
of Dobson’s retained assets under paragraph
(a) above used in operating the mobile
wireless telecommunications services
businesses being divested, so as to enable the
Acquirer to continue to operate the divested
mobile wireless telecommunications services
businesses without impairment. Defendants
shall identify in a schedule submitted to the
United States and filed with the Court as
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
65066
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
expeditiously as possible following the filing
of the Complaint, and in any event prior to
any divestiture and before the approval by
the Court of this Final Judgment, any and all
intellectual property rights under third-party
licenses that are used by the mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
being divested that defendants could not
transfer to an Acquirer entirely or by license
without third-party consent, the specific
reasons why such consent is necessary, and
how such consent would be obtained for
each asset.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
III. Applicability
A. This Final Judgment applies to
defendants AT&T and Dobson, as
defined above, and all other persons in
active concert or participation with any
of them who receive actual notice of this
Final Judgment by personal service or
otherwise.
B. If, prior to complying with Section
IV and V of this Final Judgment,
Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of
all or substantially all of their assets or
of lesser business units that include the
Divestiture Assets, they shall require the
purchaser to be bound by the provisions
of this Final Judgment. Defendants need
not obtain such an agreement from the
acquirers of the assets divested pursuant
to this Final Judgment.
IV. Divestitures
A. Defendants are ordered and
directed, within 120 days after
consummation of the Transaction, or
five (5) calendar days after notice of the
entry of this Final Judgment by the
Court, whichever is later, to divest the
Divestiture Assets in a manner
consistent with this Final Judgment to
an Acquirer or Acquirers acceptable to
the United States in its sole discretion,
or, if applicable, to a Divestiture Trustee
designated pursuant to Section V of this
Final Judgment. The United States, in
its sole discretion, may agree to one or
more extensions of this time period not
to exceed 60 calendar days in total, and
shall notify the Court in such
circumstances. With respect to
divestiture of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets by defendants or the
Divestiture Trustee, if applications have
been filed with the FCC within the
period permitted for divestiture seeking
approval to assign or transfer licenses to
the Acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets, but an order or other
dispositive action by the FCC on such
applications has not been issued before
the end of the period permitted for
divestiture, the period shall be extended
with respect to divestiture of those
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets for
which FCC approval has not been
issued until five (5) days after such
approval is received. Defendants agree
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
to use their best efforts to accomplish
the divestitures set forth in this Final
Judgment and to seek all necessary
regulatory approvals as expeditiously as
possible. This Final Judgment does not
limit the FCC’s exercise of its regulatory
powers and process with respect to the
Divestiture Assets. Authorization by the
FCC to conduct the divestiture of a
Divestiture Asset in a particular manner
will not modify any of the requirements
of this decree.
B. In accomplishing the divestitures
ordered by this Final Judgment,
defendants shall promptly make known,
if they have not already done so, by
usual and customary means, the
availability of the Divestiture Assets.
Defendants shall inform any person
making inquiry regarding a possible
purchase of the Divestiture Assets that
they are being divested pursuant to this
Final Judgment and provide that person
with a copy of this Final Judgment.
Defendants shall offer to furnish to all
prospective Acquirers, subject to
customary confidentiality assurances,
all information and documents relating
to the Divestiture Assets customarily
provided in a due diligence process
except such information or documents
subject to the attorney-client or work
product privileges. Defendants shall
make available such information to the
United States at the same time that such
information is made available to any
other person. Notwithstanding the
provisions of this paragraph, with the
consent of the United States in its sole
discretion, the defendants may enter
into exclusive negotiations to sell the
divestiture assets and may limit their
obligations under this paragraph to the
provision of information to a single
potential buyer for the duration of those
negotiations.
C. Defendants shall provide the
Acquirers and the United States
information relating to the personnel
involved in the operation, development,
and sale or license of the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets and Cellular
One Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to
make offers of employment. Defendants
will not interfere with any negotiations
by the Acquirer(s) to employ any
defendant employee whose primary
responsibility is the operation,
development, or sale or license of the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets or
the Cellular One Assets.
D. Defendants shall permit
prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture
Assets to have reasonable access to
personnel and to make inspections of
the Divestiture Assets; access to any and
all environmental, zoning, and other
permit documents and information; and
access to any and all financial,
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
operational, and other documents and
information customarily provided as
part of a due diligence process.
E. Defendants shall warrant to the
Acquirer(s) that (1) the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets will be
operational on the date of sale, (2) every
wireless spectrum license is in full force
and effect on the date of sale, and (3) the
Cellular One Assets will be
unencumbered and not judged invalid
or unenforceable by any court or similar
authority on the date of sale.
F. Defendants shall not take any
action that will impede in any way the
permitting, licensing, operation, or
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
G. Defendants shall warrant to the
Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets that
there are no material defects in the
environmental, zoning, licensing or
other permits pertaining to the
operation of each asset and that
following the sale of the Divestiture
Assets, defendants will not undertake,
directly or indirectly, any challenges to
the environmental, zoning, licensing or
other permits relating to the operation of
the Divestiture Assets.
H. Unless the United States otherwise
consents in writing, the divestitures
pursuant to Section IV, or by a
Divestiture Trustee appointed pursuant
to Section V, of this Final Judgment,
shall include the entire Divestiture
Assets, and with respect to the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets shall be
accomplished in such a way as to satisfy
the United States in its sole discretion
that these assets can and will be used by
the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable,
ongoing business engaged in the
provision of mobile wireless
telecommunications services.
Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets
may be made to one or more Acquirers,
provided that in each instance it is
demonstrated to the sole satisfaction of
the United States that the Divestiture
Assets will remain viable and the
divestiture of such assets will remedy
the competitive harm alleged in the
Complaint. The divestiture of the
Divestiture Assets, whether pursuant to
Section IV or Section V of this Final
Judgment,
(1) Shall be made to an Acquirer or
Acquirers that, in the United States’s
sole judgment,
(a) With respect to the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets, has the
intent and capability (including the
necessary managerial, operational,
technical, and financial capability) of
competing effectively in the provision of
mobile wireless telecommunications
services; and
(b) With respect to the Cellular One
Assets, has the intent and capability
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
(including the necessary managerial,
operational, technical, and financial
capability) of maintaining and
promoting the intellectual property,
including trademarks and service marks.
(2) Shall be accomplished so as to
satisfy the United States, in its sole
discretion, that none of the terms of any
agreement between an Acquirer(s) and
defendants shall give defendants the
ability unreasonably to raise the
Acquirer’s costs, to lower the Acquirer’s
efficiency, or otherwise to interfere with
the ability of the Acquirer to compete
effectively.
I. At the option of the Acquirer(s) of
the Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets, defendants shall enter into a
contract for transition services
customarily provided in connection
with the sale of a business providing
mobile wireless telecommunications
services or intellectual property
licensing sufficient to meet all or part of
the needs of the Acquirer for a period
of up to one year. The terms and
conditions of any contractual
arrangement meant to satisfy this
provision must be reasonably related to
market conditions.
J. To the extent that the Divestiture
Assets use intellectual property, as
required to be identified by Section II.K,
that cannot be transferred or assigned
without the consent of the licensor or
other third parties, defendants shall use
their best efforts to obtain those
consents.
K. Defendants shall not obtain any
additional equity interest in any
Minority Interest entity.
V. Appointment of Divestiture Trustee
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
A. If defendants have not divested the
Divestiture Assets within the time
period specified in Section IV.A,
defendants shall notify the United
States of that fact in writing, specifically
identifying the Divestiture Assets that
have not been divested. Upon
application of the United States, the
Court shall appoint a Divestiture
Trustee selected by the United States
and approved by the Court to effect the
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
The Divestiture Trustee will have all the
rights and responsibilities of the
Management Trustee appointed
pursuant to the Preservation of Assets
Stipulation and Order, and will be
responsible for:
(1) Accomplishing divestiture of all
Divestiture Assets transferred to the
Divestiture Trustee from defendants, in
accordance with the terms of this Final
Judgment, to an Acquirer(s) approved by the
United States, under Section IV.A of this
Final Judgment;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:29 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
(2) Exercising the responsibilities of the
licensee of any transferred Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets and controlling and
operating any transferred Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets, to ensure that the
businesses remain ongoing, economically
viable competitors in the provision of mobile
wireless telecommunications services in the
three license areas specified in Section II.K,
until they are divested to an Acquirer(s), and
the Divestiture Trustee shall agree to be
bound by this Final Judgment; and
(3) Exercising the responsibilities of the
licensee of any transferred Cellular One
Assets and controlling and operating any
transferred Cellular One Assets, to ensure
that the business remains ongoing and that
the obligations of Cellular One under the
Cellular One license agreements are fulfilled,
until they are divested to an Acquirer(s), and
the Divestiture Trustee shall agree to be
bound by this Final Judgment.
B. Defendants shall submit a proposed
trust agreement (‘‘Trust Agreement’’) to
the United States, which must be
consistent with the terms of this Final
Judgment and which must receive
approval by the United States in its sole
discretion, who shall communicate to
defendants within 10 business days its
approval or disapproval of the proposed
Trust Agreement, and which must be
executed by the defendants and the
Divestiture Trustee within five business
days after approval by the United States.
C. After obtaining any necessary
approvals from the FCC for the
assignment of the licenses of the
Divestiture Assets to the Divestiture
Trustee, defendants shall irrevocably
divest the remaining Divestiture Assets
to the Divestiture Trustee, who will own
such assets (or own the stock of the
entity owning such assets, if divestiture
is to be effected by the creation of such
an entity for sale to Acquirer(s)) and
control such assets, subject to the terms
of the approved Trust Agreement.
D. After the appointment of a
Divestiture Trustee becomes effective,
only the Divestiture Trustee shall have
the right to sell the Divestiture Assets.
The Divestiture Trustee shall have the
power and authority to accomplish the
divestiture to an Acquirer(s) acceptable
to the United States, in its sole
judgment, at such price and on such
terms as are then obtainable upon
reasonable effort by the Divestiture
Trustee, subject to the provisions of
Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final
Judgment, and shall have such other
powers as this Court deems appropriate.
Subject to Section V.G of this Final
Judgment, the Divestiture Trustee may
hire at the cost and expense of
defendants the Management Trustee
appointed pursuant to the Preservation
of Assets Stipulation and Order and any
investment bankers, attorneys or other
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65067
agents, who shall be solely accountable
to the Divestiture Trustee, reasonably
necessary in the Divestiture Trustee’s
judgment to assist in the divestiture.
E. In addition, notwithstanding any
provision to the contrary, the United
States, in its sole discretion, may require
defendants to include additional assets,
or with the written approval of the
United States, allow defendants to
substitute substantially similar assets,
which substantially relate to the
Divestiture Assets to be divested by the
Divestiture Trustee to facilitate prompt
divestiture to an acceptable Acquirer.
F. Defendants shall not object to a sale
by the Divestiture Trustee on any
ground other than the Divestiture
Trustee’s malfeasance. Any such
objections by defendants must be
conveyed in writing to the United States
and the Divestiture Trustee within 10
calendar days after the Divestiture
Trustee has provided the notice
required under Section VI.
G. The Divestiture Trustee shall serve
at the cost and expense of defendants,
on such terms and conditions as the
United States approves, and shall
account for an monies derived from the
sale of the assets sold by the Divestiture
Trustee and all costs and expenses so
incurred. After approval by the Court of
the Divestiture Trustee’s accounting,
including fees for its services and those
of any professionals and agents retained
by the Divestiture Trustee, an remaining
money shall be paid to defendants and
the trust shall then be terminated. The
compensation of the Divestiture Trustee
and any professionals and agents
retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall
be reasonable in light of the value of the
Divestiture Assets and based on a fee
arrangement providing the Divestiture
Trustee with an incentive based on the
price and terms of the divestiture, and
the speed with which it is
accomplished, but timeliness is
paramount.
H. Defendants shall use their best
efforts to assist the Divestiture Trustee
in accomplishing the required
divestitures, including their best efforts
to effect all necessary regulatory
approvals. The Divestiture Trustee and
any consultants, accountants, attorneys,
and other persons retained by the
Divestiture Trustee shall have full and
complete access to the personnel, books,
records, and facilities of the businesses
to be divested, and defendants shall
develop financial and other information
relevant to the assets to be divested as
the Divestiture Trustee may reasonably
request, subject to reasonable protection
for trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
information. Defendants shall take no
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
65068
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
action to interfere with or to impede the
Divestiture Trustee’s accomplishment of
the divestitures.
I. After its appointment, the
Divestiture Trustee shall file monthly
reports with the United States and the
Court setting forth the Divestiture
Trustee’s efforts to accomplish the
divestitures ordered under this Final
Judgment. To the extent such reports
contain information that the Divestiture
Trustee deems confidential, such
reports shall not be filed in the public
docket of the Court. Such reports shall
include the name, address, and
telephone number of each person who,
during the preceding month, made an
offer to acquire, expressed an interest in
acquiring, entered into negotiations to
acquire, or was contacted or made an
inquiry about acquiring, any interest in
the Divestiture Assets, and shall
describe in detail each contact with any
such person. The Divestiture Trustee
shall maintain full records of all efforts
made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
J. If the Divestiture Trustee has not
accomplished the divestitures ordered
under the Final Judgment within six
months after its appointment, the
Divestiture Trustee shall promptly file
with the Court a report setting forth (1)
the Divestiture Trustee’s efforts to
accomplish the required divestitures, (2)
the reasons, in the Divestiture Trustee’s
judgment, why the required divestitures
have not been accomplished, and (3) the
Divestiture Trustee’s recommendations.
To the extent such reports contain
information that the Divestiture Trustee
deems confidential, such reports shall
not be filed in the public docket of the
Court. The Divestiture Trustee shall at
the same time furnish such report to the
United States, who shall have the right
to make additional recommendations
consistent with the purpose of the trust.
The Court thereafter shall enter such
orders as it shall deem appropriate to
carry out the purpose of the Final
Judgment, which may, if necessary,
include extending the trust and the term
of the Divestiture Trustee’s appointment
by a period requested by the United
States.
K. After defendants transfer the
Divestiture Assets to the Divestiture
Trustee, and until those Divestiture
Assets have been divested to an
Acquirer or Acquirers approved by the
United States pursuant to Sections IV.A
and IV.H, the Divestiture Trustee shall
have sole and complete authority to
manage and operate the Divestiture
Assets and to exercise the
responsibilities of the licensee and shall
not be subject to any control or direction
by defendants. Defendants shall not use,
or retain any economic interest in, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
Divestiture Assets transferred to the
Divestiture Trustee, apart from the right
to receive the proceeds of the sale or
other disposition of the Divestiture
Assets.
L. The Divestiture Trustee shall
operate the Divestiture Assets consistent
with the Preservation of Assets
Stipulation and Order and this Final
Judgment, with control over operations,
marketing, sales and Cellular One
licensing. Defendants shall not attempt
to influence the business decisions of
the Divestiture Trustee concerning the
operation and management of the
Divestiture Assets, and shall not
communicate with the Divestiture
Trustee concerning divestiture of the
Divestiture Assets or take any action to
influence, interfere with, or impede the
Divestiture Trustee’s accomplishment of
the divestitures required by this Final
Judgment, except that defendants may
communicate with the Divestiture
Trustee to the extent necessary for
defendants to comply with this Final
Judgment and to provide the Divestiture
Trustee, if requested to do so, with
whatever resources or cooperation may
be required to complete divestiture of
the Divestiture Assets and to carry out
the requirements of the Preservation of
Assets Stipulation and Order and this
Final Judgment. Except as provided in
this Final Judgment and the
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order, in no event shall defendants
provide to, or receive from, the
Divestiture Trustee, the mobile wireless
telecommunications services
businesses, Minority Interests or the
Cellular One business under the
Divestiture Trustee’s control, any nonpublic or competitively sensitive
marketing, sales, pricing or other
information relating to their respective
mobile wireless telecommunications
services businesses.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestitures
A. Within two (2) business days
following execution of a definitive
divestiture agreement, defendants or the
Divestiture Trustee, whichever is then
responsible for effecting the divestitures
required herein, shall notify the United
States in writing of any proposed
divestiture required by Section IV or V
of this Final Judgment. If the Divestiture
Trustee is responsible, it shall similarly
notify defendants. The notice shall set
forth the details of the proposed
divestiture and list the name, address,
and telephone number of each person
not previously identified who offered or
expressed an interest in or desire to
acquire any ownership interest in the
Divestiture Assets, together with full
details of the same.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of
receipt by the United States of such
notice, the United States may request
from defendants, the proposed
Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the
Divestiture Trustee, if applicable,
additional information concerning the
proposed divestiture, the proposed
Acquirer(s), and any other potential
Acquirer. Defendants and the
Divestiture Trustee shall furnish any
additional information requested within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the receipt
of the request, unless the parties shall
otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days
after receipt of the notice or within
twenty (20) calendar days after the
United States has been provided the
additional information requested from
defendants, the proposed Acquirer(s),
any third party, and the Divestiture
Trustee, whichever is later, the United
States shall provide written notice to
defendants and the Divestiture Trustee,
if there is one, stating whether or not it
objects to the proposed divestiture. If
the United States provides written
notice that it does not object, the
divestiture may be consummated,
subject only to defendants’ limited right
to object to the sale under Section V.F
of this Final Judgment. Absent written
notice that the United States does not
object to the proposed Acquirer(s) or
upon objection by the United States, a
divestiture proposed under Section IV
or Section V shall not be consummated.
Upon objection by defendants under
Section V.F, a divestiture proposed
under Section V shall not be
consummated unless approved by the
Court.
VII. Financing
Defendants shall not finance all or
any part of any divestiture made
pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final
Judgment.
VIII. Preservation of Assets
Until the divestitures required by this
Final Judgment have been
accomplished, defendants shall take all
steps necessary to comply with the
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order entered by this Court and cease
use of the Divestiture Assets during the
period that the Divestiture Assets are
managed by the Management Trustee.
Defendants shall take no action that
would jeopardize the divestitures
ordered by this Court.
IX. Affidavits
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days
of the filing of the Complaint in this
matter, and every thirty (30) calendar
days thereafter until the divestitures
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
have been completed under Section IV
or V, defendants shall deliver to the
United States an affidavit as to the fact
and manner of its compliance with
Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
Each such affidavit shall include the
name, address, and telephone number of
each person who during the preceding
thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer
to acquire, expressed an interest in
acquiring, entered into negotiations to
acquire, or was contacted or made an
inquiry about acquiring, any interest in
the Divestiture Assets, and shall
describe in detail each contact with any
such person during that period. Each
such affidavit shall also include a
description of the efforts defendants
have taken to solicit buyers for the
Divestiture Assets, and to provide
required information to prospective
Acquirers, including the limitations, if
any, on such information. Assuming the
information set forth in the affidavit is
true and complete, any objection by the
United States to information provided
by defendants, including limitation on
information, shall be made within
fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of
such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days
of the filing of the Complaint in this
matter, defendants shall deliver to the
United States an affidavit that describes
in reasonable detail all actions
defendants have taken and all steps
defendants have implemented on an
ongoing basis to comply with Section
VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants
shall deliver to the United States an
affidavit describing any changes to the
efforts and actions outlined in
defendants’ earlier affidavits filed
pursuant to this section within fifteen
(15) calendar days after the change is
implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of
all efforts made to preserve and divest
the Divestiture Assets until one year
after such divestitures have been
completed.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
X. Compliance Inspection
A. For the purposes of determining or
securing compliance with this Final
Judgment or whether the Final
Judgment should be modified or
vacated, and subject to any legally
recognized privilege, authorized
representatives of the United States
Department of Justice (including
consultants and other persons retained
by the United States) shall, upon written
request of an authorized representative
of the Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Antitrust Division, and on
reasonable notice to defendants, be
permitted:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
(1) Access during defendants’ office hours
to inspect and copy, or at the United States’
option, to require defendants to provide hard
copy or electronic copies of, all books,
ledgers, accounts, records, data and
documents in the possession, custody, or
control of defendants, relating to any matters
contained in this Final Judgment; and
(2) To interview, either informally or on
the record, defendants’ officers, employees,
or agents, who may have their individual
counsel present, regarding such matters. The
interviews shall be subject to the reasonable
convenience of the interviewee and without
restraint or interference by defendants.
B. Upon the written request of an
authorized representative of the
Assistant Attorney General in charge of
the Antitrust Division, defendants shall
submit written reports or response to
written interrogatories, under oath if
requested, relating to any of the matters
contained in this Final Judgment as may
be requested.
C. No information or documents
obtained by the means provided in this
section shall be divulged by the United
States to any person other than an
authorized representative of the
executive branch of the United States or,
pursuant to a customary protective
order or waiver of confidentiality by
defendants, the FCC, except in the
course of legal proceedings to which the
United States is a party (including grand
jury proceedings), or for the purpose of
securing compliance with this Final
Judgment, or as otherwise required by
law.
D. If at the time information or
documents are furnished by defendants
to the United States, defendants
represent and identify in writing the
material in any such information or
documents to which a claim of
protection may be asserted under Rule
26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and defendants mark each
pertinent page of such material,
‘‘Subject to claim of protection under
Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure,’’ then the United States
shall give defendants ten (10) calendar
days notice prior to divulging such
material in any legal proceeding (other
than a grand jury proceeding).
XI. No Reacquisition
Defendants may not reacquire or lease
any part of the Divestiture Assets during
the term of this Final Judgment,
provided however that defendants shall
not be precluded from entering into
agreements with the Acquirer of the
Cellular One Assets to license those
assets for use for a period not to exceed
one (1) year from the date of the closing
of the Transaction.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65069
XII. Retention of Jurisdiction
This Court retains jurisdiction to
enable any party to this Final Judgment
to apply to this Court at any time for
further orders and directions as may be
necessary or appropriate to carry out or
construe this Final Judgment, to modify
any of its provisions, to enforce
compliance, and to punish violations of
its provisions.
XIII. Expiration of Final Judgement
Unless this Court grants an extension,
this Final Judgment shall expire ten
years from the date of its entry.
XIV. Public Interest Determination
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the
public interest. The parties have
complied with the requirements of the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies
available to the public of this Final
Judgment, the Competitive Impact
Statement, and any comments thereon
and the United States’s responses to
comments. Based upon the record
before the Court, which includes the
Competitive Impact Statement and any
comments and response to comments
filed with the Court, entry of this Final
Judgment is in the public interest.
Date: llllllllllllllll
Court approval subject to procedures of
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
llllllllllllllllll
l
United States District Judge.
In the United States District Court for
The District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
AT&T Inc. and Dobson
Communications Corporation,
Defendants.
Case Number 1:07–CV–01952, Assigned
to: Rosemary M. Collyer, FILED: October
30, 2007.
Competitive Impact Statement
Plaintiff United States of America
(‘‘United States’’), pursuant to Section
2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act (‘‘APPA’’ or ‘‘Tunney
Act’’), 15 U.S.C. l6(b)–(h), files this
Competitive Impact Statement relating
to the proposed Final Judgment
submitted for entry in this civil antitrust
proceeding.
I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding
Defendants entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated June 29, 2007,
pursuant to which AT&T Inc. (‘‘AT&T’’)
will acquire Dobson Communications
Corporation (‘‘Dobson’’).
Plaintiff filed a civil antitrust
Complaint on October 30, 2007 seeking
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
65070
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
to enjoin the proposed acquisition. The
Complaint alleges that the likely effect
of this acquisition would be to lessen
competition substantially for mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
seven (7) geographic areas in the states
of Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania and Texas, in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
18. This loss of competition would
result in consumers facing higher prices,
lower quality service and fewer choices
of mobile wireless telecommunications
services.
At the same time the Complaint was
filed, plaintiff also filed a Preservation
of Assets Stipulation and Order and
proposed Final Judgment, which are
designed to eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition.
Under the proposed Final Judgment,
which is explained more fully below,
defendants are required to divest (a)
Dobson’s mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses
and related assets in three (3) markets
(‘‘Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets’’); (b) AT&T minority interests in
other mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
in two (2) markets (‘‘Minority
Interests’’), and (c) Dobson’s Cellular
One Assets, which include the Cellular
One service mark and related assets,
(‘‘Cellular One Assets’’) (collectively the
‘‘Divestiture Assets’’). Under the terms
of the Preservation of Assets Stipulation
and Order, competition will be
maintained, and defendants will take
certain steps to ensure that, while the
ordered divestiture is pending the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets
and Cellular One Assets are preserved
as competitively independent,
economically viable and ongoing
businesses. In addition, AT&T will not
exercise any rights associated with its
Minority Interests to control or
influence the operations of the
competing mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider.
Plaintiff and defendants have
stipulated that the proposed Final
Judgment may be entered after
compliance with the APPA. Entry of the
proposed Final Judgment would
terminate this action, except that the
Court would retain jurisdiction to
construe, modify, or enforce the
provisions of the proposed Final
Judgment and to punish violations
thereof. Defendants have also stipulated
that they will comply with the terms of
the Preservation of Assets Stipulation
and Order and the proposed Final
Judgment from the date of signing of the
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order, pending entry of the proposed
Final Judgment by the Court and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
required divestitures. Should the Court
decline to enter the proposed Final
Judgment, defendants have also
committed to continue to abide by its
requirements and those of the
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order until the expiration of time for
appeal.
II. Description of the Events Giving Rise
to the Alleged Violation
A. The Defendants and the Proposed
Transaction
AT&T, with headquarters in San
Antonio, Texas, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware. AT&T is the
largest communications holding
company in the United States and
worldwide, measured by revenue. It also
is the largest mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider
in the United States, measured by
subscribers, providing mobile wireless
telecommunications services in 50
states and serving in excess of 63
million subscribers. In 2006, AT&T
earned approximately $37.53 billion in
mobile wireless telecommunications
services revenues.
Dobson, with headquarters in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is a
corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Oklahoma.
Dobson is the ninth largest mobile
wireless telecommunications services
provider in the United States, measured
by subscribers, and provides mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
17 states. It has approximately 1.7
million subscribers. Dobson also owns
Cellular One Properties, LLC, an
Oklahoma limited liability company,
engaged in the business of licensing the
Cellular One brand and promoting the
Cellular One service mark and certain
related trademarks, service marks and
designs. In 2006, Dobson earned
approximately $1.3 billion in revenues.
Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated June 29, 2007, AT&T will
acquire Dobson for approximately $2.8
billion. If this transaction is
consummated, AT&T and Dobson
combined would have approximately 65
million subscribers in the United States,
with $37.54 billion in mobile wireless
telecommunications services revenues.
The proposed transaction, as initially
agreed to by defendants, would lessen
competition substantially for mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
seven (7) relevant geographic markets.
This acquisition is the subject of the
Complaint and proposed Final
Judgment filed by plaintiff.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
B. Mobile Wireless Telecommunications
Services Industry
Mobile wireless telecommunications
services allow customers to make and
receive telephone calls and use data
services using radio transmissions
without being confined to a small area
during the call or data session and
without the need for unobstructed lineof-sight to the radio tower. More than
233 million people in the United States
own mobile wireless telephones and
annual revenues from the sale of mobile
wireless telecommunications services in
the United States were over $125 billion
in 2006. To meet this strong demand for
mobility, mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
must deploy extensive networks of
switches and radio transmitters and
receivers and interconnect their
networks with the networks of wireline
carriers and other mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers.
First-generation mobile wireless voice
systems based on analog technology,
now referred to as ‘‘1 G’’ technology,
were initially launched after the Federal
Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’)
issued the first spectrum licenses for
mobile wireless telecommunications
services in the early to mid-1980s. The
FCC issued two cellular licenses (Ablock and B-block) in each Metropolitan
Statistical Area (‘‘MSA’’) and Rural
Service Area (‘‘RSA’’) (collectively,
‘‘Cellular Marketing Areas’’ or ‘‘CMAs’’),
with a total of 734 CMAs covering the
entire United States. Each license
consists of 25 MHz of spectrum in the
800 MHz band.
In 1995, the FCC licensed additional
spectrum for the provision of Personal
Communications Services (‘‘PCS ‘‘), a
category of services that includes mobile
wireless telecommunications services
comparable to those offered by cellular
licensees. These licenses are in the 1900
MHz band and are divided into six
blocks: A, B, and C, which consist of 30
MHz each; and D, E, and F, which
consist of 10 MHz each. Geographically,
the A and B-block 30 MHz licenses are
issued by Major Trading Areas
(‘‘MTAs’’), and C, D, E, and F-block
licenses are issued by Basic Trading
Areas (‘‘BTAs’’), several of which
comprise each MTA. MTAs and BTAs
do not generally correspond to MSAs
and RSAs.
With the introduction of the PCS
licenses, both cellular and PCS licensees
began offering digital services. The use
of digital technology enabled providers
to increase network capacity, develop
smaller handsets, and extend handset
battery life. In addition, in 1996, one
provider, a specialized mobile radio
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
(‘‘SMR’’ or ‘‘dispatch’’) spectrum
licensee, began to use its SMR spectrum
to offer mobile wireless
telecommunications services
comparable to those offered by other
mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers, in conjunction with
its dispatch, or ‘‘push-to-talk,’’ service.
Although there are a number of
providers holding spectrum licenses in
each area of the country, not all
providers have fully built out their
networks throughout each license area.
In particular, because of the
characteristics of PCS spectrum,
providers holding this type of spectrum
have found it less attractive to build out
in rural areas.
The vast majority of U.S. consumers
have multiple choices for mobile
wireless telecommunications service,
with more than 98 percent of the total
population residing in counties where
three or more mobile wireless
telecommunications services operators
offer digital service. Nearly all mobile
wireless voice service has migrated to
second-generation or ‘‘2G’’ digital
technologies, GSM (global standard for
mobility, a standard used by all carriers
in Europe), and CDMA (code division
multiple access). Even more advanced
technologies (‘‘2.5G’’ and ‘‘3G’’), based
on the earlier 2G technologies, have
been deployed for mobile wireless data
services.
C. The Competitive Effects of the
Transaction on Mobile Wireless
Telecommunications Services
Mobile wireless telecommunications
services allow customers to maintain
their telephone calls or data sessions
without wires when they are moving
from place to place and include both
voice and data services provided over a
radio network. There are no costeffective alternatives to mobile wireless
telecommunications services. Because
fixed wireless services do not allow
customers to maintain their calls or data
sessions while moving and do not
permit the placement and receipt of
calls from different locations, they are
not regarded by consumers as a
reasonable substitute for mobile
wireless telecommunications services. It
is unlikely that a sufficient number of
customers would switch from mobile
wireless telecommunications services so
as to make a small but significant
increase in the price of those services
unprofitable.
A large majority of customers use
mobile wireless telecommunications
services in close proximity to their
workplaces and homes. Thus, customers
purchasing mobile wireless
telecommunications services choose
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
among mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
that offer services where they live, work,
and travel on a regular basis. The
number and identity of mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
varies among geographic areas, as does
the quality of services and breadth of
geographic coverage offered by
providers. Mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
can and do offer different promotions,
discounts, calling plans, and equipment
subsidies in different geographic areas,
thereby varying the price charged by
geographic area.
The United States comprises
numerous local geographic markets for
mobile wireless telecommunications
services. The geographic areas in which
the FCC has licensed mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
often represent the core areas in which
an individual consumer would use
mobile wireless telecommunications
services, those being the areas in which
an individual customer resides, works,
and travels. The relevant geographic
markets in which this transaction will
substantially lessen competition in
mobile wireless telecommunications
services are effectively represented, but
not defined, by the following FCC
spectrum licensing areas: Kentucky
RSA–6 (CMA 448); Kentucky RSA–8
(CMA 450); Missouri RSA–1 (CMA 504);
Oklahoma RSA–5 (CMA 600);
Pennsylvania RSA–5 (CMA 616); Texas
RSA–9 (CMA 660); and Texas RSA–11
(CMA 662). It is unlikely that a
sufficient number of customers would
switch to mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers
in a different geographic market to make
a small but significant price increase in
the relevant geographic markets
unprofitable.
The seven (7) geographic markets of
concern for mobile wireless
telecommunications services were
identified by plaintiff via a fact-specific,
market-by-market analysis that included
consideration of, but was not limited to,
the following factors: the number of
mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers and their competitive
strengths and weaknesses; AT&T’s and
Dobson’s market shares, along with
those of the other providers; whether
additional spectrum is, or is likely soon
to be, available; whether any providers
are limited by insufficient spectrum or
other factors in their ability to add new
customers; the concentration of the
market, and the breadth and depth of
coverage by different providers in each
market; the likelihood that any provider
would expand its existing coverage or
that new providers would enter;
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65071
whether AT&T or Dobson own rights to
control or influence the competitive
operations of another provider in the
market; and the particular rights
associated with any such minority
interests.
1. Overlap Areas
a. AT&T/Dobson Overlap Markets
AT&T and Dobson each own a
business that offers mobile wireless
telecommunications services in three
relevant geographic areas: Kentucky
RSA–6 (CMA 448); Kentucky RSA–8
(CMA 450); and Oklahoma RSA–5
(CMA 600). In each of these areas, either
AT&T or Dobson has the largest share of
subscribers and the other defendant is a
particularly strong and important
competitor. The companies controlled
by AT&T and Dobson collectively
account for between 63 percent and 97
percent of subscribers in these areas. As
measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman
Index (‘‘HHI’’), which is commonly
employed in merger analysis and is
defined and explained in Appendix A to
the Complaint, concentration in these
markets ranges from over 3100 to more
than 7900, which is well above the 1800
threshold at which the Department
considers a market to be highly
concentrated. After AT&T’s proposed
acquisition of Dobson is consummated,
the HHls in the relevant geographic
markets will range from over 5200 to
over 9400, with increases in the HHI as
a result of the merger ranging from over
1400 to over 2300, significantly beyond
the thresholds at which the Department
considers a transaction likely to cause
competitive harm.
b. AT&T Minority Interest Markets
In two relevant geographic areas,
Missouri RSA–1 (CMA 504) and Texas
RSA–9 (CMA 660), Dobson owns a
business that offers mobile wireless
telecommunications services and AT&T
has a minority interest in a competing
business. In Missouri RSA–1 , AT&T’s
minority equity interest is in Northwest
Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership’s
business. In Texas RSA–9, AT&T’s
minority equity interest is in Mid-Tex
Cellular, Ltd. In these areas, either
Dobson or the business in which AT&T
has a minority interest has the largest
share and the other firm is a particularly
strong and important competitor in all,
or a large part, of the RSA. In both areas,
the businesses in which AT&T and
Dobson have an interest collectively
account for in excess of 70 percent of
mobile wireless subscribers.
Although AT&T’s minority equity
interests in Northwest Missouri Cellular
LP and Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd. are small,
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
65072
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AT&T has significant rights under each
relevant partnership agreement to
control core business decisions, obtain
critical confidential competitive
information, and share in profits at a
rate significantly greater than the equity
ownership share upon a sale of the
partnership. Post-merger, AT&T would
likely have the ability and incentive to
coordinate the activities of the whollyowned Dobson wireless business and
the business in which it has a minority
stake, and/or undermine the ability of
the latter to compete against the former.
Such activity would likely result in a
significant lessening of competition.
c. AT&T/Cellular One Overlap Markets
In two relevant geographic areas,
Pennsylvania RSA–5 (CMA 616) and
Texas RSA–11 (CMA 662), AT&T owns
a business that offers mobile wireless
telecommunications services, and a
competing mobile wireless
telecommunications business operates
under the Cellular One brand name that
AT&T would acquire from Dobson
pursuant to the proposed transaction. In
these areas, AT&T has the largest share
of subscribers and the mobile wireless
telecommunications business operating
under the Cellular One brand name is a
particularly strong and important
competitor. In each area, AT&T and the
Cellular One licensee collectively
account for in excess of 65 percent
subscribers.
The Cellular One brand name was
first used in 1984. In 1989, the Cellular
One Group partnership was formed to
maintain and promote the Cellular One
brand, a licensed trade name. In 1995,
the partnership offered to license the
brand to all A block cellular providers.
Presently, approximately nine mobile
wireless telecommunications services
providers in addition to Dobson license
the Cellular One brand and offer
services to their customers under that
brand. Under the terms of the Cellular
One licensing agreements it has entered
into with other mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers,
it is required to promote and maintain
the value of the mark. Through its
planned purchase of Dobson, AT&T will
acquire the rights to the Cellular One
trademarks, trade names, service marks,
service names, and designs for the
Cellular One brand name, as well as the
agreements to license the Cellular One
brand to other mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers.
The providers that continue to license
and use the Cellular One brand have
invested considerable resources in
developing and building the brand. The
Cellular One brand is thus an important
input to these firms’ provision of mobile
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
wireless telecommunications services. If
their ability to use the brand were to be
impaired or eliminated, they would
suffer considerable costs and effective
competition in these markets would be
harmed. Because AT&T offers and
markets wireless services under its own
AT&T brand, it has little or no incentive
to use or maintain the Cellular One
brand. In the two relevant geographic
areas where a Cellular One licensee is
a primary competitor to AT&T in the
mobile wireless telecommunications
services market, AT&T would have the
incentive and ability to impair the
effectiveness of the Cellular One brand,
or even deny a license to the current
licensee entirely, since by doing so, it
could reduce competition by
significantly increasing costs to a
primary competitor at little or no cost to
itself. Although current Cellular One
licensees could, in theory, re-brand their
mobile wireless service in response to
such conduct, not only would such a
process be difficult, expensive, and
disruptive, but it is unlikely that
another brand could be obtained that
would be as widely-recognized or as
effective in promoting mobile wireless
telecommunications services as the
Cellular One brand.
2. Competitive Impact
In all seven relevant geographic
markets, the mobile wireless
telecommunications businesses wholly
or partially owned by AT&T and
Dobson, and/or the Cellular One
licensee, own all or most of the 800
MHz band cellular spectrum licenses,
which are more efficient in serving rural
areas than 1900 MHz band PCS
spectrum. As a result of holding the
cellular spectrum licenses and being
early entrants into these markets, the
networks wholly or partly owned by
AT&T, Dobson, or the Cellular One
licensee provide greater depth and
breadth of coverage than their PCSbased competitors. A mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider
with limited coverage in a geographic
area typically does not aggressively
market its services in that area because
it can service customers only through a
roaming arrangement with a more builtout competitor under which it must pay
roaming charges to, and rely on, its
competitor to maintain the quality of the
network and to support new features.
The mobile wireless businesses wholly
or partly owned by AT&T or Dobson in
five of the relevant areas, and by AT&T
and the Cellular One licensee in the
other two relevant areas, accordingly,
are, for a large set of customers, likely
closer substitutes for each other than the
other mobile wireless
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
telecommunications services in these
markets provided by firms who own
only PCS spectrum.
Competition between the businesses
wholly or partly owned by AT&T and
Dobson, or between AT&T and the
Cellular One licensee, in the relevant
geographic markets has resulted in
lower prices and higher quality in
mobile wireless telecommunications
services, than would otherwise have
existed in these geographic markets. In
these areas, many consumers consider
businesses wholly or partly owned by
AT&T, Dobson, or the Cellular One
licensee to be the most attractive
competitors because other providers’
networks lack coverage or provide
lower-quality service.
Competition will be substantially
lessened to the detriment of consumers
if AT&T’s proposed acquisition of
Dobson is consummated without the
required divestitures: (a) Competition
between AT&T and Dobson in mobile
wireless telecommunications services
will be eliminated in the three AT&T/
Dobson overlap geographic markets and
the relevant markets for mobile wireless
telecommunications services will
become substantially more
concentrated; (b) AT &T would have the
incentive and ability to diminish
competition in mobile wireless
telecommunications services between
Dobson and the businesses partly
owned by AT&T in the two AT&T
minority ownership geographic markets;
and (c) AT&T’s acquisition of the rights
to the Cellular One brand would give
AT&T the incentive and ability to
diminish the Cellular One licensee’s
ability to compete effectively in the two
AT&T/Cellular One overlap geographic
markets. In all seven relevant
geographic areas, the merged firm will
have the incentive and ability to
increase prices, diminish the quality or
quantity of services provided, and
refrain from or delay making
investments in network improvements.
3. Entry
Entry by a new mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider
in the relevant geographic markets
would require the acquisition of
spectrum licenses and the build-out of
a network, and thus would be difficult,
time-consuming, and expensive.
Although a number of other firms in the
relevant geographic areas own 1900
MHz PCS spectrum, the propagation
characteristics of that spectrum are such
that signals extend to a significantly
smaller area than do 800 MHz cellular
signals. The relatively higher cost of
building out 1900 MHz spectrum,
combined with the relatively low
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
population density of the areas in
question, make it unlikely that
competitors with 1900 MHz spectrum
will build out their networks to reach
the entire area served by AT&T and
Dobson. Although additional spectrum
has been and will be made available
through FCC auctions, it is unlikely that
additional mobile wireless
telecommunications services based on
this spectrum will be deployed in the
near future in the relevant geographic
areas. Therefore, new entry in response
to a small but significant price increase
for mobile wireless telecommunications
services by the merged firm in the
relevant geographic markets would not
be timely, likely, or sufficient to thwart
the competitive harm resulting from
AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Dobson,
if it were to be consummated.
For these reasons, the United States
concluded that AT&T’s proposed
acquisition of Dobson will likely
substantially lessen competition, in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, in the provision of mobile wireless
telecommunications services in the
seven relevant geographic markets
alleged in the Complaint.
III. Explanation of the Proposed Final
Judgment
The divestiture requirements of the
proposed Final Judgment will eliminate
the anticompetitive effects of the
acquisition in mobile wireless
telecommunications services in the
seven (7) geographic markets of concern.
The proposed Final Judgment requires
defendants, within one hundred twenty
(120) days after the consummation of
the Transaction, or five (5) days after
notice of the entry of the Final Judgment
by the Court, whichever is later, to
divest the Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets, the Minority Interests and the
Cellular One Assets. The Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets are
essentially Dobson’s entire mobile
wireless telecommunications services
businesses in the three (3) markets
where AT&T and Dobson are each
other’s closest competitors for mobile
wireless telecommunications services.
These assets must be divested in such
a way as to satisfy plaintiff in its sole
discretion that they will be operated by
the purchaser as a viable, ongoing
business that can compete effectively in
each relevant market. Defendants must
take all reasonable steps necessary to
accomplish the divestitures quickly and
shall cooperate with prospective
purchasers.
In requiring the divestitures, plaintiff
seeks to make certain that the potential
buyer acquires all the assets it may need
to be a viable competitor and replace the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
competition lost by the merger. The 25
MHz of cellular spectrum that must be
divested is sufficient to support the
operation and expansion of the mobile
wireless telecommunications services
businesses being divested, enabling the
buyer to be a viable competitor to the
merged entity. Plaintiff is not requiring
the divestiture of the 10 MHz of PCS
spectrum held by Dobson in the three
(3) divestiture markets because that
spectrum is not essential to the viability
of the business to be divested.
Moreover, in none of the three markets
does Dobson’s PCS spectrum holdings
cover all counties in the RSA.
In the two relevant geographic
markets where AT&T owns a minority
interest in another mobile wireless
services provider, the proposed Final
Judgment requires defendants to divest
or withdraw from these Minority
Interests. The informational and control
rights associated with the minority
interests created concerns that allowing
the merged firm to continue to hold its
existing interest and rights would
diminish competition in markets where
Dobson and the firm in which AT&T
holds an interest were particularly
strong, close competitors. Requiring
AT&T to relinquish its ownership and
control rights in these entities, through
divestiture or withdrawal, would
eliminate the combined company’s
ability and incentive to limit
competition between itself and the
entities in which it owns minority
interests.
The Cellular One Assets consist of all
right, title and interest in trademarks,
trade names, service marks, service
names, designs, and intellectual
property, all license agreements for use
of the Cellular One mark, technical
information, computer software and
related documentation, and all records
relating to the Cellular One Assets. The
proposed acquisition raised concerns
that in two (2) markets, AT&T would
have the incentive and ability to
substantially impair the ability of its
primary competitor, a Cellular One
licensee, to compete effectively. Under
the proposed Final Judgment, the
defendants are required to divest the
Cellular One Assets to a buyer with the
intent and capability to maintain and
promote the Cellular One brand such
that the current Cellular One licensees
can continue to effectively use the brand
to compete.
A. Timing of Divestitures
In antitrust cases involving mergers or
joint ventures in which the United
States seeks a divestiture remedy, it
requires completion of the divestitures
within the shortest time period
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65073
reasonable under the circumstances.
Section IV.A.g of the proposed Final
Judgment in this case requires
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets,
within one hundred twenty (120) days
after the consummation of the
Transaction, or five (5) days after notice
of the entry of the Final Judgment by the
Court, whichever is later. Plaintiff in its
sole discretion may extend the date for
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets by
up to sixty (60) days. Because the FCC’s
approval is required for the transfer of
the wireless licenses to a purchaser,
Section IV.A provides that if
applications for transfer of a wireless
license have been filed with the FCC,
but the FCC has not acted dispositively
before the end of the required
divestiture period, the period for
divestiture of those assets shall be
extended until five (5) days after the
FCC has acted. This extension is to be
applied only to the individual Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets affected by
the delay in approval of the license
transfer and does not entitle defendants
to delay the divestiture of any other
Divestiture Assets for which license
transfer approval is not required or has
been granted.
The divestiture timing provisions of
the proposed Final Judgment win
ensure that the divestitures are carried
out in a timely manner, and at the same
time will permit defendants an adequate
opportunity to accomplish the
divestitures through a fair and orderly
process. Even if all Divestiture Assets
have not been divested upon
consummation of the transaction, there
should be no adverse impact on
competition given the limited duration
of the period of common ownership and
the detailed requirements of the
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order.
B. Use of a Management Trustee
The Preservation of Assets Stipulation
and Order, filed simultaneously with
this Competitive Impact Statement,
ensures that, prior to divestiture, the
Divestiture Assets are maintained, the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets
remain an ongoing business concern,
the Cellular One Assets remain
economically viable, and defendants
will not exercise any legal or equitable
rights it may have in the Minority
Interest entities. The Preservation of
Assets Stipulation and Order is
designed to ensure that the Divestiture
Assets will be preserved and remain
independent of defendants, so that
competition is maintained during the
pendency of the ordered divestiture.
The Preservation of Assets Stipulation
and Order appoints a management
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
65074
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
trustee selected by plaintiff to oversee
the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets
and the Cellular One Assets in the
relevant geographic markets. The
appointment of a management trustee in
this situation is required because the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets are
not independent facilities that can be
held separate and operated as standalone units by the merged firm. Rather,
the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets
are an integral part of a larger network
and, to maintain their competitive
viability and economic value, they
should remain part of that network
during the divestiture period. A
management trustee is necessary to
oversee the continuing relationship
between defendants and these assets, to
ensure that these assets are preserved
and supported by defendants during
this period, yet run independently. The
management trustee will also preserve
and ensure the viability of the Cellular
One Assets. The management trustee
will have the power to operate the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets
and the Cellular One Assets in the
ordinary course of business, so that they
will remain independent and
uninfluenced by defendants, and so that
the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets
remain an ongoing and economically
viable competitor to defendants and to
other mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers.
The management trustee will preserve
the confidentiality of competitively
sensitive marketing, pricing, and sales
information; ensure defendants’
compliance with the Preservation of
Assets Stipulation and Order and the
proposed Final Judgment; and maximize
the value of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets and the Cellular One
Assets so as to permit expeditious
divestiture in a manner consistent with
the proposed Final Judgment. Because
defendants have agreed in the
Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order to forego exercising any rights
they may have with respect to the
Minority Interests pending disposal of
those interests, and defendants do not
have an active day-to-day role in
managing the businesses of the Minority
Interest Entities, it is unnecessary for
the Minority Interests to be operated by
the Management Trustee.
The Preservation of Assets Stipulation
and Order provides that defendants will
pay all costs and expenses of the
management trustee, including the cost
of consultants, accountants, attorneys,
and other representatives and assistants
hired by the management trustee as are
reasonably necessary to carry out his or
her duties and responsibilities. After his
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
or her appointment becomes effective,
the management trustee will file
monthly reports with plaintiffs setting
forth efforts taken to accomplish the
goals of the Preservation of Assets
Stipulation and Order and the proposed
Final Judgment and the extent to which
defendants are fulfilling their
responsibilities. Finally, the
management trustee may become the
divestiture trustee, pursuant to the
provisions of Section Y of the proposed
Final Judgment.
c. Use of a Divestiture Trustee
In the event that defendants do not
accomplish the divestiture within the
periods prescribed in the proposed
Final Judgment, the Final Judgment
provides that the Court will appoint a
trustee selected by plaintiff to effect the
divestitures. As part of this divestiture,
defendants must relinquish any direct
or indirect financial ownership interests
and any direct or indirect role in
management or participation in control.
Pursuant to Section V of the proposed
Final Judgment, the divestiture trustee
will own and control the Divestiture
Assets until they are sold to a final
purchaser, subject to safeguards to
prevent defendants from influencing
their operation.
Section V details the requirements for
the establishment of the divestiture
trust, the selection and compensation of
the divestiture trustee, the
responsibilities of the divestiture trustee
in connection with the divestiture and
operation of the Divestiture Assets, and
the termination of the divestiture trust.
The divestiture trustee will have the
obligation and the sole responsibility,
under Section V.D, for the divestiture of
any transferred Divestiture Assets. The
divestiture trustee has the authority to
accomplish divestitures at the earliest
possible time and ‘‘at such price and on
such terms as are then obtainable upon
reasonable effort by the Divestiture
Trustee.’’ In addition, to ensure that the
divestiture trustee can promptly locate
and divest to an acceptable purchaser,
plaintiff, in its sole discretion, may
require defendants to include additional
assets, or allow defendants to substitute
substantially similar assets, which
substantially relate to the Divestiture
Assets to be divested by the divestiture
trustee.
The divestiture trustee will not only
have responsibility for sale of the
Divestiture Assets, but will also be the
authorized holder of the wireless
licenses, with full responsibility for the
operations, marketing, and sales of the
wireless businesses to be divested, and
will not be subject to any control or
direction by defendants. Defendants
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will no longer have any role in the
ownership, operation, or management of
the Divestiture Assets other than the
right to receive the proceeds of the sale.
Defendants will also retain certain
obligations to support to the Divestiture
Assets and cooperate with the
divestiture trustee in order to complete
the divestiture.
The proposed Final Judgment
provides that defendants will pay all
costs and expenses of the divestiture
trustee. The divestiture trustee’s
commission will be structured, under
Section V.G of the proposed Final
Judgment, so as to provide an incentive
for the divestiture trustee based on the
price obtained and the speed with
which the divestitures are
accomplished. After his or her
appointment becomes effective, the
divestiture trustee will file monthly
reports with the Court and plaintiff
setting forth his or her efforts to
accomplish the divestitures. Section V.J
requires the divestiture trustee to divest
the Divestiture Assets to an acceptable
purchaser or purchasers no later than
six (6) months after the assets are
transferred to the divestiture trustee. At
the end of six (6) months, if all
divestitures have not been
accomplished, the trustee and plaintiff
will make recommendations to the
Court, which shall enter such orders as
appropriate in order to carry out the
purpose of the Final Judgment,
including extending the trust or term of
the trustee’s appointment.
The divestiture provisions of the
proposed Final Judgment will eliminate
the anticompetitive effects of the
transaction in the provision of mobile
wireless telecommunications services.
The divestitures of the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets and
Minority Interests will preserve
competition in mobile wireless
telecommunications services by
maintaining an independent and
economically viable competitor in the
relevant geographic markets. The
divestiture of the Cellular One Assets
will ensure that the Cellular One brand
will be preserved and maintained so
that the current Cellular One licensees
can continue to compete effectively.
IV. Remedies Available to Potential
Private Litigants
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who
has been injured as a result of conduct
prohibited by the antitrust laws may
bring suit in federal court to recover
three times the damages the person has
suffered, as well as costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees. Entry of the proposed
Final Judgment will neither impair nor
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
assist the bringing of any private
antitrust damage action. Under the
provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final
Judgment has no prima facie effect in
any subsequent private lawsuit that may
be brought against defendants.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
v. Procedures Available for
Modification of the Proposed Final
Judgment
The United States and defendants
have stipulated that the proposed Final
Judgment may be entered by the Court
after compliance with the provisions of
the APPA, provided that the United
States has not withdrawn its consent.
The APPA conditions entry upon the
Court’s determination that the proposed
Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at
least sixty (60) days preceding the
effective date of the proposed Final
Judgment within which any person may
submit to the United States written
comments regarding the proposed Final
Judgment. Any person who wishes to
comment should do so within sixty (60)
days of the date of publication of this
Competitive Impact Statement in the
Federal Register or the last date of
publication in a newspaper of the
summary of this Competitive Impact
Statement, whichever is later. All
comments received during this period
will be considered by the Department of
Justice, which remains free to withdraw
its consent to the proposed Final
Judgment at any time prior to the
Court’s entry of judgment. The
comments and the response of the
United States will be filed with the
Court and published in the Federal
Register.
Written comments should be
submitted to: Nancy M. Goodman Chief,
Telecommunications and Media
Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000,
Washington, DC 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment
provides that the Court retains
jurisdiction over this action, and the
parties may apply to the Court for any
order necessary or appropriate for the
modification, interpretation, or
enforcement of the Final Judgment.
VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Final
Judgment
Plaintiff considered, as an alternative
to the proposed Final Judgment, a full
trial on the merits against defendants.
Plaintiff could have continued the
litigation and sought preliminary and
permanent injunctions against AT&T’s
acquisition of Dobson. Plaintiff is
satisfied, however, that the divestiture
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
of assets and other relief described in
the proposed Final Judgment will
preserve competition for the provision
of mobile wireless telecommunications
services in the relevant markets
identified in the Complaint.
VII. Standard of Review Under the
APPA for the Proposed Final Judgment
The Clayton Act, as amended by the
APPA, requires that proposed consent
judgments in antitrust cases brought by
the United States be subject to a sixtyday comment period, after which the
Court shall determine whether entry of
the proposed Final Judgment ‘‘is in the
public interest.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(l). In
making that determination, the court, in
accordance with the statute as amended
in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) The competitive impact of such
judgment, including termination of alleged
violations, provisions for enforcement and
modification, duration of relief sought,
anticipated effects of alternative remedies
actually considered, whether its terms are
ambiguous, and any other competitive
considerations bearing upon the adequacy of
such judgment that the court deems
necessary to a determination of whether the
consent judgment is in the public interest;
and
(B) The impact of entry of such judgment
upon competition in the relevant market or
markets, upon the public generally and
individuals alleging specific injury from the
violations set forth in the complaint
including consideration of the public benefit,
if any, to be derived from a determination of
the issues at trial.
15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B); see generally
United States v. SBC Commuc’ns, Inc.,
489 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2007)
(concluding that the 2004 amendments
‘‘effected minimal changes’’ to scope of
review under Tunney Act, leaving
review ‘‘sharply proscribed by
precedent and the nature of Tunney Act
proceedings’’).1
As the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit has
held, under the APPA a court considers,
among other things, the relationship
between the remedy secured and the
specific allegations set forth in the
government’s complaint, whether the
decree is sufficiently clear, whether
enforcement mechanisms are sufficient,
and whether the decree may positively
harm third parties. See United States v.
Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1458–62
(D.C. Cir. 1995). With respect to the
adequacy of the relief secured by the
decree, a court may not ‘‘engage in an
1 The 2204 amendments substituted ‘‘shall’’ for
‘‘may’’ in directing relevant factors for court to
consider and amended the list of factors to focus on
competitive considerations and to address
potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15
U.S.C. 16(e)(2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65075
unrestricted evaluation of what relief
would best serve the public.’’ United
States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462
(9th Cir. 1988) (citing United States v.
Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 660,666 (9th Cir.
1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at
1460–62. Courts have held that:
[t]he balancing of competing social and
political interests affected by a proposed
antitrust consent decree must be left, in the
first instance, to the discretion of the
Attorney General. The court’s role in
protecting the public interest is one of
insuring that the government has not
breached its duty to the public in consenting
to the decree. The court is required to
determine not whether a particular decree is
the one that will best serve society, but
whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches
of the public interest.’’ More elaborate
requirements might undermine the
effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by
consent decree.
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis
added) (citations omitted).2 In making
its public interest determination, a
district court ‘‘must accord deference to
the government’s predictions about the
efficacy of its remedies, and may not
require that the remedies perfectly
match the alleged violations because
this may only reflect underlying
weakness in the government’s case or
concessions made during negotiation.’’
SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17;
see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461
(noting the need for courts to be
‘‘deferential to the government’s
predictions as to the effect of the
proposed remedies’’); United States v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 272 F.
Supp. 2d 1,6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that
the court should grant due respect to the
United States’ prediction as to the effect
of proposed remedies, its perception of
the market structure, and its views of
the nature of the case).
Court approval of a consent decree
requires a standard more flexible and
less strict than that appropriate to court
adoption of a litigated decree following
a finding of liability. ‘‘[A] proposed
decree must be approved even if it falls
short of the remedy the court would
impose on its own, as long as it falls
within the range of acceptability or is
‘within the reaches of public interest.’ ’’
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552
F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982)
2 Cf BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court’s
‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA) is limited to
approving or disapproving the consent decree’’);
United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 716
(D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the court
is constrained to ‘‘look at the overall picture not
hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an
artist’s reducing glass’’). See generally Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ‘‘the remedies
[obtained in the decree are] so inconsonant with the
allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘ reaches
of the public interest’ ’’).
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
65076
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 222 / Monday, November 19, 2007 / Notices
(citations omitted) (quoting United
States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp.
713,716 (D. Mass. 1975)), affd sub nom.
Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S.
1001 (1983); see also United States v.
Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp.
619,622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the
consent decree even though the court
would have imposed a greater remedy).
To meet this standard, the United States
‘‘need only provide a factual basis for
concluding that the settlements are
reasonably adequate remedies for the
alleged harms.’’ SBC Commc’ns, 489 F.
Supp. 2d at 17.
Moreover, the Court’s role under the
APPA is limited to reviewing the
remedy in relationship to the violations
that the United States has alleged in its
Complaint, and does not authorize the
Court to ‘‘construct [its] own
hypothetical case and then evaluate the
decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56
F.3d at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s
authority to review the decree depends
entirely on the government’s exercising
its prosecutorial discretion by bringing
a case in the first place,’’ it follows that
‘‘the court is only authorized to review
the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively
redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into
other matters that the United States did
not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. As this Court
recently confirmed in SBC
Communications, courts ‘‘cannot look
beyond the complaint in making the
public interest determination unless the
complaint is drafted so narrowly as to
make a mockery of judicial power.’’ SBC
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 15.
In its 2004 amendments, Congress
made clear its intent to preserve the
practical benefits of utilizing consent
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding
the unambiguous instruction ‘‘[n]othing
in this section shall be construed to
require the court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing or to require the
court to permit anyone to intervene.’’ 15
U.S.C. 16(e)(2). The language wrote into
the statute what the Congress that
enacted the Tunney Act in 1974
intended, as Senator Tunney then
explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere
compelled to go to trial or to engage in
extended proceedings which might have
the effect of vitiating the benefits of
prompt and less costly settlement
through the consent decree process.’’
119 Cong. Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement
of Senator Tunney). Rather, the
procedure for the public interest
determination is left to the discretion of
the court, with the recognition that the
court’s ‘‘scope of review remains
sharply proscribed by precedent and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:17 Nov 16, 2007
Jkt 214001
nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’
SBC Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.3
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that were considered by plaintiff
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
October 30, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
llllllll
Hillary B. Burchuk (D.C. Bar No. 366755),
Lawrence M. Frankel (DC Bar No. 441532),
Rebekah P. Goodheart (DC Bar No.
472673),
Attorneys, Telecommunications & Media
Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, City Center
Building, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000,
Washington, DC 20530. (202) 514–5621,
Facsimile: (202) 514–6381.
[FR Doc. 07–5719 Filed 11–16–07; 8:45 am]
DATED:
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for
modification of existing mandatory
safety standards.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
30 CFR Part 44 govern the application,
processing, and disposition of petitions
for modification. This notice is a
summary of petitions for modification
filed by the parties listed below to
modify the application of existing
mandatory safety standards published
in Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
DATES: All comments on the petitions
must be received by the Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances
on or before December 19, 2007.
3 See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp.
2d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ‘‘Tunney
Act expressly allows the court to make its public
interest determination on the basis of the
competitive impact statement and response to
comments alone’’); S. Rep. No. 93–298, 93d Cong.,
1st Sess., at 6 (1973) (‘‘Where the public interest can
be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that
should be utilized.’’); United States v. Mid-Am.
Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508,
at 71,980 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (‘‘Absent a showing of
corrupt failure of the government to discharge its
duty, the Court, in making its public interest
finding, should * * * carefully consider the
explanations of the government in the competitive
impact statement and its responses to comments in
order to determine whether those explanations are
reasonable under the circumstances.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
You may submit your
comments, identified by ‘‘docket
number’’ on the subject line, by any of
the following methods:
1. Electronic mail: StandardsPetitions@dol.gov.
2. Facsimile: 1–202–693–9441.
3. Regular Mail: MSHA, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349,
Arlington, Virginia 22209, Attention:
Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
4. Hand-Delivery or Courier: MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard,
Room 2349, Arlington, Virginia 22209,
Attention: Patricia W. Silvey, Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances.
We will consider only comments
postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service or
proof of delivery from another delivery
service such as UPS or Federal Express
on or before the deadline for comments.
Individuals who submit comments by
hand-delivery are required to check in
at the receptionist desk on the 21st
floor.
Individuals may inspect copies of the
petitions and comments during normal
business hours at the address listed
above.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Sexauer, Chief, Regulatory
Development Division at 202–693–9444
(Voice), sexauer.edward@dol.gov
(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax), or
contact Barbara Barron at 202–693–9447
(Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov
(E-mail), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax).
[These are not toll-free numbers].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 101(c) of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine
Act) allows the mine operator or
representative of miners to file a
petition to modify the application of any
mandatory safety standard to a coal or
other mine if the Secretary determines
that: (1) An alternative method of
achieving the result of such standard
exists which will at all times guarantee
no less than the same measure of
protection afforded the miners of such
mine by such standard; or (2) that the
application of such standard to such
mine will result in a diminution of
safety to the miners in such mine. In
addition, the regulations at 30 CFR
44.10 and 44.11 establish the
requirements and procedures for filing
petitions for modifications.
II. Petitions for Modification
Docket Number: M–2007–061–C.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 222 (Monday, November 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65060-65076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5719]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. AT&T Inc. and Dobson Communications Corporation;
Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final
Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed
with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
United States of America v. AT&T Inc. and Dobson Communications
Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-01952. On October 30, 2001, the
United States filed a Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition
by AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') of Dobson Communications Corporation
(``Dobson'') would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18,
by substantially lessening competition in the provision of mobile
wireless telecommunications services in seven (7) markets. The proposed
Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires the
divestiture of: (1) Dobson's mobile wireless telecommunications
services businesses in certain markets in Kentucky and Oklahoma; (2)
AT&T's minority interests in entities operating mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses in certain markets in Texas and
Missouri; and (3) all of Dobson's right, title and interest in Cellular
One Properties, LLC, in order for AT&T to proceed with its $2.8 billion
aquisition of Dobson. The Competitive Impact Statement filed by the
United States describes the Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment, the
industry, and the remedies available to private litigants who may have
been injured by the alleged violation.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive
Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 325 7th Street,
NW., Room 215, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), on the
Department of Justice's Web site at https://www.usdoj.gov/atr, and at
the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from
the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set
by the Department of Justice regulations.
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this
notice. Such comments, and responses thereto, will be published in the
Federal Register and filed with the Court. Comments should be directed
to Nancy Goodman, Chief, Telecommunications and Media Enforcement
Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street,
NW., Suite 8000,
[[Page 65061]]
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-5621).
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States of America Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v.
AT&T Inc., 175 East Houston, San Antonio, Texas 78205; and Dobson
Communications Corporation, 14201 Wireless Way, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73134, Defendants.
Civil No. 1:07-CV-01952, Assigned: Rosemary M. Collyer, Filed: October
30, 2007
Complaint
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Acting Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action
to enjoin the merger of two mobile wireless telecommunications service
providers, AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'') and Dobson Communications Corporation
(``Dobson''), and to obtain other relief as appropriate. Plaintiff
United States alleges as follows:
1. AT&T entered into an agreement to acquire Dobson, dated June 29,
2007, under which the two companies would combine their mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses (``Transaction Agreement'') and
AT&T would acquire the Cellular One brand name and associated rights.
The United States seeks to enjoin this transaction because it likely
will substantially lessen competition to provide mobile wireless
telecommunications services in several geographic markets where AT&T
and Dobson are each other's most significant competitor or where AT&T
competes against mobile wireless telecommunications services providers
that sell services under the Cellular One brand name.
2. AT&T provides mobile wireless telecommunications services in 50
states and serves in excess of 63 million subscribers. Dobson provides
mobile wireless telecommunications services in seventeen states and
serves approximately 1.6 million subscribers. The combination of AT&T
and Dobson likely will substantially lessen competition for mobile
wireless telecommunications services in five geographic areas in
Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas where businesses owned in whole
or part by AT&T and Dobson currently operate. As a result of the
proposed acquisition, residents of these mostly rural areas will likely
face increased prices, diminished quality or quantity of services, and
less investment in network improvements for these services.
Additionally, in two relevant geographic areas in Pennsylvania and
Texas, competition likely will be substantially lessened to the
detriment of consumers because AT&T will have the incentive and ability
to limit, or eliminate, a primary competitor's right to use the
Cellular One brand name effectively.
I. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. This Complaint is filed by the United States under Section 15 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain defendants from
violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.
4. AT&T and Dobson are engaged in interstate commerce and in
activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. The Court has
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, 26, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337.
5. The defendants have consented to personal jurisdiction and venue
in this judicial district.
II. The Defendants and the Transaction
6. AT&T, with headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. AT&T is
the largest communications holding company in the United States and
worldwide, measured by revenue. AT&T is the largest mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider in the United States, measured by
subscribers, provides mobile wireless telecommunications services in 50
states, and serves in excess of 63 million subscribers. In 2006, AT&T
earned mobile wireless telecommunications services revenues of
approximately $37.53 billion.
7. Dobson, with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Oklahoma. Dobson is the ninth largest mobile wireless
telecommunications services provider in the United States, measured by
subscribers and provides mobile wireless telecommunications services in
17 states. It has approximately 1.7 million subscribers. Dobson also
owns Cellular One Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability
company, engaged in the business of licensing the Cellular One brand
and promoting the Cellular One service mark and certain related
trademarks, service marks and designs. In 2006, Dobson earned
approximately $1.3 billion in revenues.
8. Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 29, 2007,
AT&T will acquire Dobson for approximately $2.8 billion. If this
transaction is consummated, AT&T and Dobson combined would have
approximately 65 million subscribers in the United States, with $37.54
billion in moble wireless telecommunications services revenues.
III. Trade and Commerce
A. Nature of Trade and Commerce
9. Mobile wireless telecommunications services allow customers to
make and receive telephone calls and obtain data services using radio
transmissions without being confined to a small area during the call or
data session, and without the need for unobstructed line-of-sight to
the radio tower. Mobility is highly valued by customers, as
demonstrated by the more than 233 million people in the United States
who own mobile wireless telephones. In 2006, revenues from the sale of
mobile wireless telecommunications services in the United States were
over $125 billion. To meet this desire for mobility, mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers must deploy extensive networks of
switches and radio transmitters and receivers and interconnect their
networks with the networks of wireline carriers and other mobile
wireless telecommunications services providers.
10. The first mobile wireless voice systems were based on analog
technology, now referred to as first-generation or ``1G'' technology.
These analog systems were launched after the Federal Communications
Commission (``FCC'') issued the first spectrum licenses for mobile
wireless telecommunications services. In the early to mid-1980s, the
FCC issued two cellular licenses (A-block and B-block) in each
Metropolitan Statistical Area (``MSA'') and Rural Service Area (``RSA
``) (collectively, ``Cellular Marketing Areas'' or CMAs''), with a
total of 734 CMAs covering the entire United States. Each license
consists of 25 MHz of spectrum in the 800 MHz band.
11. In 1995, the FCC licensed additional spectrum for the provision
of Personal Communications Services (``PCS''), a category of services
that includes mobile wireless telecommunications services comparable to
those offered by cellular licensees. These licenses are in the 1900 MHz
and are divided into six blocks: A, B, and C, which consist of 30 MHz
each; and D, E, and F, which consist of 10 MHz each. Geographically,
the A and B-
[[Page 65062]]
block 30 MHz licenses are issued by Major Trading Areas (``MTAs''). C,
D, E, and F-block licenses are issued by Basic Trading Areas
(``BTAs''), several of which comprise each MTA. MTAs and BTAs do not
generally correspond to MSAs and RSAs.
12. With the introduction of the PCS licenses, both cellular and
PCS licensees began offering digital services, thereby increasing
network capacity, shrinking handsets, and extending battery life. In
addition, in 1996, one provider, a specialized mobile radio (``SMR'' or
``dispatch'') spectrum licensee, began to use its SMR spectrum to offer
mobile wireless telecommunications services comparable to those offered
by other mobile wireless telecommunications services providers, in
conjunction with its dispatch, or ``push-to-talk,'' service. Although
there are a number of providers holding spectrum licenses in each area
of the country, not all providers have fully built out their networks
throughout each license area. In particular, because of the
characteristics of PCS spectrum, providers holding this type of
spectrum have found it less attractive to build out in rural areas.
13. Today, more than 98 percent of the total U.S. population lives
in counties where three or more mobile wireless telecommunications
services operators offer digital service. Nearly all mobile wireless
voice service has migrated to second-generation or ``2G'' digital
technologies, GSM (global standard for mobility, a standard used by all
carriers in Europe), and CDMA (code division multiple access). Even
more advanced technologies (``2.5G'' and ``3G''), based on the earlier
2G technologies, have been deployed for mobile wireless data services.
B. Relevant Product Market
14. Mobile wireless telecommunications services is a relevant
product market. Mobile wireless telecommunications services include
both voice and data services provided over a radio network and allow
customers to maintain their telephone calls or data sessions without
wires, such as when traveling. There are no cost-effective alternatives
to mobile wireless telecommunications services. Because fixed wireless
services are not mobile, they are not regarded by consumers of mobile
wireless telecommunications services to be a reasonable substitute for
those services. It is unlikely that a sufficient number of customers
would switch away from mobile wireless telecommunications services to
make a small but significant price increase in those services
unprofitable. Mobile wireless telecommunications services accordingly
is a relevant product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18.
C. Relevant Geographic Markets
15. A large majority of customers use mobile wireless
telecommunications services in close proximity to their workplaces and
homes. Thus, customers purchasing mobile wireless telecommunications
services choose among mobile wireless telecommunications services
providers that offer services where they live, work, and travel on a
regular basis. The number and identity of mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers varies among geographic areas, as
does the quality of services and breadth of geographic coverage offered
by providers. Mobile wireless telecommunications services providers can
and do offer different promotions, discounts, calling plan, and
equipment subsidies in different geographic areas, varying the price
for customers by geographic area.
16. The United States comprises numerous local geographic markets
for mobile wireless telecommunications services. The geographic areas
in which the FCC has licensed mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers often represent the core geographic areas in which
an individual consumer would use mobile wireless telecommunications
services, those being the areas in which an individual customer
resides, works and plays. The relevant geographic markets in which this
transaction will substantially lessen competition in mobile wireless
telecommunications services are effectively represented, but not
defined, by FCC spectrum licensing ares.
17. The relevant geographic markets, under Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, where the transaction will substantially lessen
competition for mobile wireless telecommunications services are
represented by the following FCC spectrum licensing areas: Kentucky
RSA-6 (CMA 448); Kentucky RSA-8 (CMA 450); Missouri RSA-1 (CMA 504);
Oklahoma RSA-5 (CMA 600); Pennsylvania RSA-5 (CMA 616); Texas RSA-9
(CMA 660); and Texas RSA-11 (CMA 662). It is unlikely that a sufficient
number of customers would switch to mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers in a different geographic market to make a small but
significant price increase in the relevant geographic markets
unprofitable.
D. Anticompetitive Effects
1. Overlap Areas
a. AT&T/Dobson Overlap Markets
17. Currently, AT&T and Dobson each own a business that offers
mobile wireless telecommunications services in three relevant
geographic areas: Kentucky RSA-6 (CMA 448); Kentucky RSA-8 (CMA 450);
and Oklahoma RSA-5 (CMA 600).
18. In each of these three relevant geographic areas, either AT&T
or Dobson has the largest share of subscribers and the other defendant
is a particularly strong and important competitor: the companies
controlled by AT&T and Dobson collectively account for between 63
percent and 97 percent of subscribers in these areas. As measured by
the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (``HHI''), which is commonly employed in
merger analysis and is defined and explained in Appendix A to this
Complaint, concentration in these markets ranges from over 3100 to more
than 7900, which is well above the 1800 threshold at which the
Department considers a market to be highly concentrated. After AT&T's
proposed acquisition of Dobson is consummated, the HHIs in the relevant
geographic markets will range from over 5200 to over 9400, with
increases in the HHI as a result of the merger ranging from over 1400
to over 2300, significantly beyond the thresholds at which the
Department considers a transaction likely to cause competitive harm.
b. AT&T Minority Interest Markets
20. In two relevant geographic areas, Missouri RSA-1 (CMA 504) and
Texas RSA-9 (CMA 660), Dobson owns a business that offers mobile
wireless telecommunications services and AT&T has a minority interest
in a competing business. In Missouri RSA-1, AT&T's minority equity
interest is in Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership's
business and in Texas RSA-9, AT&T's minority equity interest is in Mid-
Tex Cellular, Ltd.
21. In these two relevant geographic areas, either Dobson or the
business in which AT&T has a minority interest has the largest share
and the other defendant is a particularly strong and important
competitor in all, or a large part, of the RSA. In each area, the
businesses in which AT&T and Dobson have an interest collectively
account for in excess of 70 percent of subscribers.
22. Although the minority equity interest in each situation is
small, AT&T has significant rights under the relevant partnership
agreements to control core business decisions, obtain critical
[[Page 65063]]
confidential competitive information, and share in profits at a rate
significantly greater than the equity ownership share upon a sale of
the partnership. Post-merger, the merged finn would likely have the
ability and incentive to coordinate the activities of the wholly-owned
Dobson wireless business and the business in which it has a minority
stake, and/or undermine the ability of the latter to compete against
the former. Such activity would likely result in a significant
lessening of competition.
c. AT&T/Cellular One Overlap Markets
23. In two relevant geographic areas, Pennsylvania RSA-5 (CMA 616)
and Texas RSA-11 (CMA 662), AT&T owns a business that offers mobile
wireless telecommunications services, and a competing mobile wireless
telecommunications business operates under the Cellular One brand name
that AT&T would acquire from Dobson pursuant to the proposed
transaction.
24. In these two relevant geographic areas, AT&T has the largest
share of subscribers and the mobile wireless telecommunications
business operating under the Cellular One brand name is a particularly
strong and important competitor. In each area, AT&T and the Cellular
One licensee collectively account for in excess of 65 percent of
subscribers.
25. The Cellular One brand name was first used in 1984. In 1989,
the Cellular One Group partnership was formed to maintain and promote
the Cellular One brand, a licensed trade name. In 1995, the partnership
offered to license the brand to all A block cellular providers.
Presently, approximately nine mobile wireless telecommunications
services providers in addition to Dobson license the Cellular One brand
and offer services to their customers under that brand. Through its
planned purchase of Dobson, AT&T will acquire the rights to the
Cellular One trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names, and
designs for the Cellular One brand name, as well as the agreements to
license the Cellular One brand to other mobile wireless
telecommunications services providers.
26. The providers that continue to license and use the Cellular One
brand have invested considerable resources in developing and building
the brand. The Cellular One brand is thus an important input to these
firms' provision of mobile wireless telecommunications services. If
their ability to use the brand were to be impaired or eliminated, they
would suffer considerable costs and effective competition in these
markets would be harmed.
27. Because AT&T offers and markets wireless services under its own
AT&T brand, it has little or no incentive to use or maintain the
Cellular One brand. In the two relevant geographic areas where a
Cellular One licensee is a primary competitor to AT&T in the mobile
wireless telecommunications services market, AT&T would have the
incentive and ability to impair the effectiveness of the Cellular One
brand, or even deny a license to the current licensee entirely, since
by doing so, it could reduce competition by significantly increasing
costs to a primary competitor at little or no cost to itself.
2. Competitive Impact
28. In all seven relevant geographic markets, the mobile wireless
telecommunications businesses wholly or partially owned by AT&T and
Dobson, and/or the Cellular One licensee, own all or most of thel800
MHz band cellular spectrum licenses, which are more efficient in
serving rural areas than 1900 MHz band PCS spectrum. As a result of
holding the cellular spectrum licenses and being early entrants into
these markets, the networks wholly or partly owned by AT&T, Dobson, or
the Cellular One licensee provide greater depth and breadth of coverage
than their competitors, which are operating on PCS spectrum in these
relevant geographic markets, and thus are more attractive to consumers.
A mobile wireless telecommunications services provider with limited
coverage in a geographic area typically does not aggressively market
its services in that area because it can service customers only through
a roaming arrangement with a more built-out competitor under which it
must pay roaming charges to, and rely on, its competitor to maintain
the quality of the network. The mobile wireless businesses wholly or
partly owned by AT&T or Dobson in five of the relevant areas, and by AT
&T and the Cellular One licensee in the other two relevant areas,
accordingly, are, for a large set of customers, likely closer
substitutes for each other than the other mobile wireless
telecommunications services in these markets provided by firms who own
only PCS spectrum.
29. Competition between the businesses wholly or partly owned by
AT&T and Dobson, or between AT&T and the Cellular One licensee, in the
relevant geographic markets has resulted in lower prices and higher
quality in mobile wireless telecommunications services, than would
otherwise have existed in these geographic markets. In these areas,
many consumers consider businesses wholly or partly owned by AT&T,
Dobson, or the Cellular One licensee to be the most attractive
competitors because other providers' networks lack coverage or provide
lower-quality service.
30. If AT&T's proposed acquisition of Dobson is consummated, (a)
the relevant market for mobile wireless telecommunications services
will become substantially more concentrated in the three AT&T/Dobson
overlap geographic markets, and competition between AT &T and Dobson in
mobile wireless telecommunications services will be eliminated in these
markets; (b) competition in mobile wireless telecommunications services
between Dobson and the businesses partly owned by AT&T will be
substantially curtailed in the two AT&T minority ownership geographic
markets, and (c) AT&T's acquisition of the rights to the Cellular One
brand is likely to diminish the Cellular One licensees' ability to
competitively constrain AT&T in the two AT&T/Cellular One overlap
geographic markets thereby lessening competition substantially to the
detriment of consumers. In all seven relevant geographic areas, the
merged firm will have the incentive and ability to increase prices,
diminish the quality or quantity of services provided, and refrain ITom
or delay making investments in network improvements.
3. Entry
31. Entry by a new mobile wireless telecommunications services
provider in the relevant geographic markets would be difficult, time-
consuming, and expensive, requiring the acquisition of spectrum
licenses and the build-out of a network. Although a number of other
firms own 1900 MHz PCS spectrum in the relevant geographic markets, the
propagation characteristics of 1900 MHz PCS spectrum are such that
signals using those frequencies extend to a significantly smaller area
than 800 MHz cellular signals. The relatively higher cost of building
out 1900 MHz spectrum, combined with the relatively low population
density of the areas in question, suggest that competitors with 1900
MHz spectrum are unlikely to build out their networks to reach the
entire area served by AT&T and Dobson. Although additional spectrum has
been and will be made available through FCC auctions, it is unlikely
that additional mobile wireless telecommunications services based on
this spectrum will be deployed in the near future in the relevant
geographic areas. Therefore, new entry in response to a small but
significant price increase for mobile wireless telecommunications
services
[[Page 65064]]
by the merged firm in the relevant geographic markets would not be
timely, likely, or sufficient to thwart the competitive harm resulting
from AT&T's proposed acquisition of Dobson, if it were to be
consummated.
IV. Violation Alleged
32. The effect of AT&T's proposed acquisition of Dobson, if it were
to be consummated, may be substantially to lessen competition in
interstate trade and commerce in the relevant geographic markets for
mobile wireless telecommunications services, in violation of Section 7
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
33. Unless restrained, the transaction will likely have the
following effects in mobile wireless telecommunications services in the
relevant geographic markets, among others:
a. Actual and potential competition between AT&T and Dobson will be
eliminated;
b. Actual and potential competition between Dobson and businesses
in which AT &T holds a minority interest will be lessened;
c. Actual and potential competition between AT&T and Cellular One
brand licensees will be lessened;
d. Competition in general will be lessened substantially;
e. Prices are likely to increase;
f. The quality and quantity of services are likely to decrease; and
g. Incentives to improve wireless networks will be reduced.
V. Requested Relief
The United States requests:
34. That AT&T's proposed acquisition of Dobson be adjudged to
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
35. That defendants be permanently enjoined from and restrained
from carrying out the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 29, 2007,
or from entering into or carrying out any agreement, understanding, or
plan, the effect of which would be to bring the wireless services
businesses of AT&T and Dobson under common ownership or control;
36. That the United States be awarded its costs of this action; and
37. That the United States have such other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
Dated: October 30, 2007.
Respectfully Submitted,
FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
-- /s/ ------
Thomas O. Barnett,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division.
-- /s/ ------
Deborah A. Garza,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division.
-- /s/ ------
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
-- /s/ ------
Nancy Goodman,
Chief, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division.
-- /s/ ------
Laury Bobbish,
Assistant Chief, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section,
Antitrust Division.
-- /s/ ------
Hillary B. Burchuk (DC Bar No. 366755),
Lawrence M. Frankel (DC Bar No. 441532),
Rebekah P. Goodheart (DC Bar No. 472673),
Attorneys, Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, City Center Building, 1401 H
Street, NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530. Phone: (202) 514-5621
Facsimile: (202) 514-6381.
Appendix A
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index
``HHI'' means the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a commonly accepted
measure of market concentration. It is calculated by squaring the
market share of each firm competing in the market and then summing the
resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting of four firms
with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the HHI is 2600 (30\2\ +
30\2\ +20\2\ + 20\2\ = 2600). (Note: Throughout the Complaint, market
share percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number, but
HHIs have been estimated using unrounded percentages in order to
accurately reflect the concentration of the various markets.) The HHI
takes into account the relative size distribution of the firms in a
market and approaches zero when a market consists of a large number of
small firms. The HHI increases both as the number of firms in the
market decreases and as the disparity in size between those firms
increases.
Markets in which the HHI is between 1000 and 1800 points are
considered to be moderately concentrated, and those in which the HHI is
in excess of 1800 points are considered to be highly concentrated. See
Horizontal Merger Guidelines ] 1.51 (revised Apr. 8, 1997).
Transactions that increase the HHI by more than 100 points in
concentrated markets presumptively raise antitrust concerns under the
guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade
Commission. See id.
In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. AT&T Inc. and Dobson
Communications Corporation, Defendants.
Case No.------
Filed:------
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint
on October 30,2007, United States and defendants, AT&T Inc. (``AT&T'')
and Dobson Communications Corporation (``Dobson''), by their respective
attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without
trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this
Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any
party regarding any issue of fact or law;
And whereas, defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this
Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
And whereas, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and
certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by defendants to assure
that competition is not substantially lessened;
And whereas, the United States requires defendants to make certain
divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition
alleged in the Complaint;
And whereas, defendants have represented to the United States that
the divestitures required below can and will be made and that
defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as
grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture
provisions contained below;
Now therefore, before any testimony is taken, without trial or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law, .and upon consent of the
parties, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of
the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which
relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18).
II. Definitions
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. ``Acquirer'' or ``Acquirers'' means the entity or entities to
whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
B. ``AT&T'' means defendant AT&T Inc., a Delaware corporation with
its headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, its
[[Page 65065]]
successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors,
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
C. ``Cellular One'' means Cellular One Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma
limited liability company, with its headquarters in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, engaged in the business of licensing the Cellular One brand
and promoting the Cellular One service mark and certain related
trademarks, service marks and designs.
D. ``Cellular One Assets'' means all legal and economic interests
Dobson holds in Cellular One. Cellular One Assets shall include all
right, title and interest in trademarks, trade names, service marks,
service names, designs, and intellectual property, all license
agreements for use of the Cellular One mark, technical information,
computer software and related documentation, and all records relating
to the divestiture assets. If the acquirer of the Cellular One Assets
is not the acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets,
defendants will grant the acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets a license to use the Cellular One service marks on
terms generally available at the time the merger agreement was entered
and make the transfer of the Cellular One Assets subject to
continuation of these licenses.
E. ``CMA'' means cellular market area which is used by the Federal
Communications Commission (``FCC'') to define cellular license areas
and which consists of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (``MSAs'') and
Rural Service Areas (``RSAs'').
F. ``Divestiture Assets'' means the Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets, Minority Interests and the Cellular One Assets, including any
direct or indirect financial ownership or leasehold interests and any
direct or indirect role in management or participation in control
therein.
G. ``Dobson'' means defendant Dobson Communications Corporation, an
Oklahoma corporation, with its headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors,
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
H. ``Minority Interests'' means the equity interests and any
management or control interests owned by AT&T in the following entities
that are the licensees or operators of the mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses in the specified RSAs:
(1) Mid-Tex Cellular, Ltd., covering Texas RSA-9 (CMA 660); and
(2) Northwest Missouri Cellular Limited Partnership, covering
Missouri RSA-1 (CMA 504).
As an alternative to the divestiture of the Minority Interests as
required by Section IV of this Final Judgment, upon approval of the
United States, defendants may withdraw, from the Minority Interest
partnerships pursuant to the applicable provisions in the governing
partnership agreement.
I. ``Multi-line Business Customer'' means a corporate or business
customer that contracts with Dobson for mobile wireless
telecommunications services to provide multiple telephones to its
employees or members whose services are provided pursuant to a contract
with the corporate or business customer.
J. ``Transaction'' means the Agreement and Plan of Merger among
Dobson, AT&T and Alpine Merger Sub, Inc., dated June 29, 2007.
K. ``Wireless Business Divestiture Assets'' means each mobile
wireless telecommunications services business to be divested under this
Final Judgment, including all types of assets, tangible and intangible,
used by defendants in the operation of the mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses to be divested. ``Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets'' shall be construed broadly to accomplish
the complete divestiture of the entire business of Dobson in each of
the following RSA license areas as required by this Final Judgment and
to ensure that the divested mobile wireless telecommunications services
businesses remain viable, ongoing businesses:
(1) Kentucky RSA-6 (CMA 448);
(2) Kentucky RSA-8 (CMA 450); and
(3) Oklahoma RSA-5 (CMA 600)
provided that Dobson may retain all of the PCS spectrum it currently
holds in each of these RSAs and equipment that is used only for
wireless transmissions over this PCS spectrum.
The Wireless Business Divestiture Assets shall include, without
limitation, all types of real and personal property, monies and
financial instruments, equipment, inventory, office furniture, fixed
assets and furnishings, supplies and materials, contracts, agreements,
leases, commitments, spectrum licenses issued by the FCC and all other
licenses, permits and authorizations, operational support systems, cell
sites, network infrastructure, switches, customer support and billing
systems, interfaces with other service providers, business and customer
records and information, customer contracts, customer lists, credit
records, accounts, and historic and current business plans which relate
primarily to the wireless businesses being divested, as well as any
patents, licenses, sub-licenses, trade secrets, know-how, drawings,
blueprints, designs, technical and quality specifications and
protocols, quality assurance and control procedures, manuals and other
technical information defendant Dobson supplies to its own employees,
customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees, and trademarks, trade names
and service marks or other intellectual property, including all
intellectual property rights under third-party licenses that are
capable of being transferred to an Acquirer either in their entirety,
for assets described in (a) below, or through a license obtained
through or from Dobson, for assets described in (b) below; provided
that defendants shall only be required to divest Multi-line Business
Customer contracts if the primary business address for that customer is
located within any of the three license areas described herein, and
further, any subscriber who obtains mobile wireless telecommunications
services through any such contract retained by defendants and who are
located within the three geographic areas identified above, shall be
given the option to terminate their relationship with defendants,
without financial cost, at any time within one year of the closing of
the Transaction. Defendants shall provide written notice to these
subscribers within 45 days after the closing of the Transaction of the
option to terminate.
The divestiture of the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets shall
be accomplished by:
(a) Transferring to the Acquirers the complete ownership and/or
other rights to the assets (other than those assets used
substantially in the operations of Dobson's overall wireless
telecommunications services business which must be retained to
continue the existing operations of the wireless properties that
defendants are not required to divest, and that either are not
capable of being divided between the divested wireless
telecommunications services businesses and those not divested, or
are assets that the defendants and the Acquirer(s) agree, subject to
the approval of the United States, shall not be divided); and
(b) Granting to the Acquirer(s) an option to obtain a
nonexclusive, transferable license from defendants for a reasonable
period, subject to the approval of the United States and at the
election of an Acquirer, to use any of Dobson's retained assets
under paragraph (a) above used in operating the mobile wireless
telecommunications services businesses being divested, so as to
enable the Acquirer to continue to operate the divested mobile
wireless telecommunications services businesses without impairment.
Defendants shall identify in a schedule submitted to the United
States and filed with the Court as
[[Page 65066]]
expeditiously as possible following the filing of the Complaint, and
in any event prior to any divestiture and before the approval by the
Court of this Final Judgment, any and all intellectual property
rights under third-party licenses that are used by the mobile
wireless telecommunications services businesses being divested that
defendants could not transfer to an Acquirer entirely or by license
without third-party consent, the specific reasons why such consent
is necessary, and how such consent would be obtained for each asset.
III. Applicability
A. This Final Judgment applies to defendants AT&T and Dobson, as
defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation
with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by
personal service or otherwise.
B. If, prior to complying with Section IV and V of this Final
Judgment, Defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially
all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the
Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the
provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an
agreement from the acquirers of the assets divested pursuant to this
Final Judgment.
IV. Divestitures
A. Defendants are ordered and directed, within 120 days after
consummation of the Transaction, or five (5) calendar days after notice
of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later,
to divest the Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final
Judgment to an Acquirer or Acquirers acceptable to the United States in
its sole discretion, or, if applicable, to a Divestiture Trustee
designated pursuant to Section V of this Final Judgment. The United
States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of
this time period not to exceed 60 calendar days in total, and shall
notify the Court in such circumstances. With respect to divestiture of
the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets by defendants or the
Divestiture Trustee, if applications have been filed with the FCC
within the period permitted for divestiture seeking approval to assign
or transfer licenses to the Acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets, but an order or other dispositive action by the FCC
on such applications has not been issued before the end of the period
permitted for divestiture, the period shall be extended with respect to
divestiture of those Wireless Business Divestiture Assets for which FCC
approval has not been issued until five (5) days after such approval is
received. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to accomplish the
divestitures set forth in this Final Judgment and to seek all necessary
regulatory approvals as expeditiously as possible. This Final Judgment
does not limit the FCC's exercise of its regulatory powers and process
with respect to the Divestiture Assets. Authorization by the FCC to
conduct the divestiture of a Divestiture Asset in a particular manner
will not modify any of the requirements of this decree.
B. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final
Judgment, defendants shall promptly make known, if they have not
already done so, by usual and customary means, the availability of the
Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making inquiry
regarding a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are
being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person
with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish
to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality
assurances, all information and documents relating to the Divestiture
Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such
information or documents subject to the attorney-client or work product
privileges. Defendants shall make available such information to the
United States at the same time that such information is made available
to any other person. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph,
with the consent of the United States in its sole discretion, the
defendants may enter into exclusive negotiations to sell the
divestiture assets and may limit their obligations under this paragraph
to the provision of information to a single potential buyer for the
duration of those negotiations.
C. Defendants shall provide the Acquirers and the United States
information relating to the personnel involved in the operation,
development, and sale or license of the Wireless Business Divestiture
Assets and Cellular One Assets to enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers
of employment. Defendants will not interfere with any negotiations by
the Acquirer(s) to employ any defendant employee whose primary
responsibility is the operation, development, or sale or license of the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets or the Cellular One Assets.
D. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture
Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections
of the Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning,
and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all
financial, operational, and other documents and information customarily
provided as part of a due diligence process.
E. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that (1) the
Wireless Business Divestiture Assets will be operational on the date of
sale, (2) every wireless spectrum license is in full force and effect
on the date of sale, and (3) the Cellular One Assets will be
unencumbered and not judged invalid or unenforceable by any court or
similar authority on the date of sale.
F. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way
the permitting, licensing, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture
Assets.
G. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture
Assets that there are no material defects in the environmental, zoning,
licensing or other permits pertaining to the operation of each asset
and that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, defendants will
not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the
environmental, zoning, licensing or other permits relating to the
operation of the Divestiture Assets.
H. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the
divestitures pursuant to Section IV, or by a Divestiture Trustee
appointed pursuant to Section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include
the entire Divestiture Assets, and with respect to the Wireless
Business Divestiture Assets shall be accomplished in such a way as to
satisfy the United States in its sole discretion that these assets can
and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable, ongoing
business engaged in the provision of mobile wireless telecommunications
services. Divestiture of the Divestiture Assets may be made to one or
more Acquirers, provided that in each instance it is demonstrated to
the sole satisfaction of the United States that the Divestiture Assets
will remain viable and the divestiture of such assets will remedy the
competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. The divestiture of the
Divestiture Assets, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this
Final Judgment,
(1) Shall be made to an Acquirer or Acquirers that, in the United
States's sole judgment,
(a) With respect to the Wireless Business Divestiture Assets, has
the intent and capability (including the necessary managerial,
operational, technical, and financial capability) of competing
effectively in the provision of mobile wireless telecommunications
services; and
(b) With respect to the Cellular One Assets, has the intent and
capability
[[Page 65067]]
(including the necessary managerial, operational, technical, and
financial capability) of maintaining and promoting the intellectual
property, including trademarks and service marks.
(2) Shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in
its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between an
Acquirer(s) and defendants shall give defendants the ability
unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's
efficiency, or otherwise to interfere with the ability of the Acquirer
to compete effectively.
I. At the option of the Acquirer(s) of the Wireless Business
Divestiture Assets, defendants shall enter into a contract for
transition services customarily provided in connection with the sale of
a business providing mobile wireless telecommunications services or
intellectual property licensing sufficient to meet all or part of the
needs of the Acquirer for a period of up to one year. The terms and
conditions of any contractual arrangement meant to satisfy this
provision must be reasonably related to market conditions.
J. To the extent that the Divestiture Assets use intellectual
property, as required to be identified by Section II.K, that cannot be
transferred or assigned without the consent of the licensor or other
third parties, defendants shall use their best efforts to obtain those
consents.
K. Defendants shall not obtain any additional equity interest in
any Minority Interest entity.
V. Appointment of Divestiture Trustee
A. If defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within
the time period specified in Section IV.A, defendants shall notify the
United States of that fact in writing, specifically identifying the
Divestiture Assets that have not been divested. Upon application of the
United States, the Court shall appoint a Divestiture Trustee selected
by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. The Divestiture Trustee will
have all the rights and responsibilities of the Management Trustee
appointed pursuant to the Preservation of Assets Stipulation and Order,
and will be responsible for:
(1) Accomplishing divestiture of all Divestiture Assets
transferred to the Divestiture Trustee from defendants, in
accordance with the terms of this Final Judgment, to an Acquirer(s)
approved by the United States, under Section IV.A of this Final
Judgment;
(2) Exercising the responsibilities of the licensee of any
transferred Wireless Business Divestiture Assets and controlling and
operating any transferred Wireless Business Divestiture Assets, to
ensure that the businesses remain ongoing, economically viable
competitors in the provision of mobile wireless telecommunications
services in the three license areas specified in Section II.K, until
they are divested to an Acquirer(s), and the Divestiture Trustee
shall agree to be bound by this Final Judgment; and
(3) Exercising the responsibilities of the licensee of any
transferred Cellular One Assets and controlling and operating any
transferred Cellular One Assets, to ensure that the business remains
ongoing and that the obligations of Cellular One under the Cellular
One license agreements are fulfilled, until they are divested to an
Acquirer(s), and the Divestiture Trustee shall agree to be bound by
this Final Judgment.
B. Defendants shall submit a proposed trust agreement (``Trust
Agreement'') to the United States, which must be consistent with the
terms of this Final Judgment and which must receive approval by the
United States in its sole discretion, who shall communicate to
defendants within 10 business days its approval or disapproval of the
proposed Trust Agreement, and which must be executed by the defendants
and the Divestiture Trustee within five business days after approval by
the United States.
C. After obtaining any necessary approvals from the FCC for the
assignment of the licenses of the Divestiture Assets to the Divestiture
Trustee, defendants shall irrevocably divest the remaining Divestiture
Assets to the Divestiture Trustee, who will own such assets (or own the
stock of the entity owning such assets, if divestiture is to be
effected by the creation of such an entity for sale to Acquirer(s)) and
control such assets, subject to the terms of the approved Trust
Agreement.
D. After the appointment of a Divestiture Trustee becomes
effective, only the Divestiture Trustee shall have the right to sell
the Divestiture Assets. The Divestiture Trustee shall have the power
and authority to accomplish the divestiture to an Acquirer(s)
acceptable to the United States, in its sole judgment, at such price
and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the
Divestiture Trustee, subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and
VI of this Final Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this
Court deems appropriate. Subject to Section V.G of this Final Judgment,
the Divestiture Trustee may hire at the cost and expense of defendants
the Management Trustee appointed pursuant to the Preservation of Assets
Stipulation and Order and any investment bankers, attorneys or other
agents, who shall be solely accountable to the Divestiture Trustee,
reasonably necessary in the Divestiture Trustee's judgment to assist in
the divestiture.
E. In addition, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the
United States, in its sole discretion, may require defendants to
include additional assets, or with the written approval of the United
States, allow defendants to substitute substantially similar assets,
which substantially relate to the Divestiture Assets to be divested by
the Divestiture Trustee to facilitate prompt divestiture to an
acceptable Acquirer.
F. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the Divestiture Trustee
on any ground other than the Divestiture Trustee's malfeasance. Any
such objections by defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United
States and the Divestiture Trustee within 10 calendar days after the
Divestiture Trustee has provided the notice required under Section VI.
G. The Divestiture Trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of
defendants, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves,
and shall account for an monies derived from the sale of the assets
sold by the Divestiture Trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred.
After approval by the Court of the Divestiture Trustee's accounting,
including fees for its services and those of any professionals and
agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee, an remaining money shall be
paid to defendants and the trust shall then be terminated. The
compensation of the Divestiture Trustee and any professionals and
agents retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall be reasonable in light
of the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement
providing the Divestiture Trustee with an incentive based on the price
and terms of the divestiture, and the speed with which it is
accomplished, but timeliness is paramount.
H. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the
Divestiture Trustee in accomplishing the required divestitures,
including their best efforts to effect all necessary regulatory
approvals. The Divestiture Trustee and any consultants, accountants,
attorneys, and other persons retained by the Divestiture Trustee shall
have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records, and
facilities of the businesses to be divested, and defendants shall
develop financial and other information relevant to the assets to be
divested as the Divestiture Trustee may reasonably request, subject to
reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information. Defendants shall take no
[[Page 65068]]
action to interfere with or to impede the Divestiture Trustee's
accomplishment of the divestitures.
I. After its appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall file
monthly reports with the United States and the Court setting forth the
Divestiture Trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered
under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports contain
information that the Divestiture Trustee deems confidential, such
reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such
reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each
person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to acquire,
expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to
acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any
interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each
contact with any such person. The Divestiture Trustee shall maintain
full records of all efforts made to divest the Divestiture Assets.
J. If the Divestiture Trustee has not accomplished the divestitures
ordered under the Final Judgment within six months after its
appointment, the Divestiture Trustee shall promptly file with the Court
a report setting forth (1) the Divestiture Trustee's efforts to
accomplish the required divestitures, (2) the reasons, in the
Divestiture Trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures have not
been accomplished, and (3) the Divestiture Trustee's recommendations.
To the extent such reports contain information that the Divestiture
Trustee deems confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the
public docket of the Court. The Divestiture Trustee shall at the same
time furnish such report to the United States, who shall have the right
to make additional recommendations consistent with the purpose of the
trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such orders as it shall deem
appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Final Judgment, which may,
if necessary, include extending the trust and the term of the
Divestiture Trustee's appointment by a period requested by the United
States.
K. After defendants transfer the Divestiture Assets to the
Divestiture Trustee, and until those Divestiture Assets have been
divested to an Acquirer or Acquirers approved by the United States
pursuant to Sections IV.A and IV.H, the Divestiture Trustee shall have
sole and complete authority to manage and operate the Divestiture
Assets and to exercise the responsibilities of the licensee and shall
not be subject to any control or direction by defendants. Defendants
shall not use, or retain any economic interest in, the Divestiture
Assets transferred to the Divestiture Trustee, apart from the right to
receive the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of the
Divestiture Assets.
L. The Divestiture Trustee shall operate the Divestiture Assets
consistent with the Preservation of Assets Stipulation and Order and
this Final Judgment, with control over operations, marketing, sales and
Cellular One licensing. Defendants shall not attempt to influence the
business decisions of the Divestiture Trustee concerning the operation
and management of the Divestiture Assets, and shall not communicate
with the Divestiture Trustee concerning divestiture of the Divestiture
Assets or take any action to influence, interfere with, or impede the
Divestiture Trustee's accomplishment of the divestitures required by
this Final Judgment, except that defendants may communicate with the
Divestiture Trustee to the extent necessary for defendants to comply
with this Final Judgment and to provide the Divestiture Trustee, if
requested to do so, with whatever resources or cooperation may be
required to complete divestiture of the Divestiture Assets and to carry
out the requirements of the Preservation of Assets Stipulation and
Order and this Final Judgment. Except as provided in this Final
Judgment and the Preservation of Assets Stipulation and Order, in no
event shall defendants provide to, or receive from, the Divestiture
Trustee, the mobile wireless telecommunications services businesses,
Minority Interests or the Cellular One business under the Divestiture
Trustee's control, any non-public or competitively sensitive marketing,
sales, pricing or other information relating to their respective mobile
wireless telecommunications services businesses.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestitures
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive
divestiture agreement, defendants or the Divestiture Trustee, whichever
is then responsible for effecting the divestitures required herein,
shall notify the United States in writing of any proposed divestiture
required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the Divestiture
Trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The
notice shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list
the name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously
identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to acquire
any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together with full
details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United
States of such notice, the United States may request from defendants,
the proposed Acquirer(s), any other third party, or the Divestiture
Trustee, if applicable, additional information concerning the proposed
divestiture, the proposed Acquirer(s), and any other potential
Acquirer. Defendants and the Divestiture Trustee shall furnish any
additional information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of
the receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice or
within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been
provided the additional information requested from defendants, the
proposed Acquirer(s), any third party, and the Divestiture Trustee,
whichever is later, the United States shall provide written notice to
defendants and the Divestiture Trustee, if there is one, stating
whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the United
States provides written notice that it does not object, the divestiture
may be consummated, subject only to defendants' limited right to object
to the sale under Section V.F of this Final Judgment. Absent written
notice that the United States does not object to the proposed
Acquirer(s) or upon objection by the United States, a divestiture
proposed under Section IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon
objection by defendants under Section V.F, a divestiture proposed under
Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
VII. Financing
Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any divestiture
made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
VIII. Preservation of Assets
Until the divestitures required by this Final Judgment have been
accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply with
the Preservation of Assets Stipulation and Order entered by this Court
and cease use of the Divestiture Assets during the period that the
Divestiture Assets are managed by the Management Trustee. Defendants
shall take no action that would jeopardize the divestitures ordered by
this Court.
IX. Affidavits
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint
in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until
the divestitures
[[Page 65069]]
have been completed under Section IV or V, defendants shall deliver to
the United States an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its
compliance with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such
affidavit shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each
person who during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an
offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into
negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about
acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall describe
in detail each contact with any such person during that period. Each
such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts
defendants have taken to solicit buyers for the Divestiture Assets, and
to provide required information to prospective Acquirers, including the
limitations, if any, on such information. Assuming the information set
forth in the affidavit is true and complete, any objection by the
United States to information provided by defendants, including
limitation on information, shall be made within fourteen (14) calendar
days of receipt of such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the Complaint
in this matter, defendants shall deliver to the United States an
affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions defendants
have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on an ongoing
basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. Defendants
shall deliver to the United States an affidavit describing any changes
to the efforts and actions outlined in defendants' earlier affidavits
filed pursuant to this section within fifteen (15) calendar days after
the change is implemented.
C. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to
preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such
divestitures have been completed.
X. Compliance Inspection
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this
Final Judgment or whether the Final Judgment should be modified or
vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, authorized
representatives of the United States Department of Justice (including
consultants and other persons retained by the United States) shall,
upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable
notice to defendants, be permitted:
(1) Access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy,
or at the United States' option, to require defendants to provide
hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, accounts,
records, data and documents in the possession, custody, or control
of defendants, relating to any matters contained in this