Agrium Inc. and UAP Holding Corporation; Analysis of the Complaint and Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment, 26993-26995 [E8-10461]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 92 / Monday, May 12, 2008 / Notices
The Bureau seeks comment on
NECA’s proposed compensation rates
for traditional TRS, STS, CTS and IP
CTS, IP Relay, and VRS for the period
of July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009,
as well as the proposed carrier
contribution factor and Fund size
requirement.
Federal Communications Commission.
Nicole McGinnis,
Deputy Chief, Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. E8–10517 Filed 5–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT
INVESTMENT BOARD
Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting
9 a.m. (Eastern Time)
May 19, 2008.
PLACE: 4th Floor Conference Room,
1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC
20005.
STATUS: Parts will be open to the public
and parts closed to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
TIME AND DATE:
Parts Open to the Public
1. Approval of the minutes of the
April 21, 2008 Board member meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report
by the Executive Director.
a. Monthly Participant Activity
Report.
b. Monthly Investment Performance
Report.
c. Legislative Report.
3. Mid-year budget review.
Parts Closed to the Public
4. Personnel.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of
External Affairs, (202) 942–1640.
Dated: May 8, 2008.
Thomas K. Emswiler,
Secretary, Federal Retirement Thrift
Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 08–1253 Filed 5–8–08; 3:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
[File No. 081 0073]
Agrium Inc. and UAP Holding
Corporation; Analysis of the Complaint
and Proposed Consent Order to Aid
Public Comment
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this
matter settles alleged violations of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 May 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
26993
federal law prohibiting unfair or
deceptive acts or practices or unfair
methods of competition. The attached
Analysis to Aid Public Comment
describes both the allegations in the
draft complaint and the terms of the
consent order — embodied in the
consent agreement — that would settle
these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 4, 2008
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments.
Comments should refer to ‘‘Agrium and
UAP Holding Corp., File No. 081 0073,’’
to facilitate the organization of
comments. A comment filed in paper
form should include this reference both
in the text and on the envelope, and
should be mailed or delivered to the
following address: Federal Trade
Commission/Office of the Secretary,
Room 135-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
Comments containing confidential
material must be filed in paper form,
must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’
and must comply with Commission
Rule 4.9(c). 16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The
FTC is requesting that any comment
filed in paper form be sent by courier or
overnight service, if possible, because
U.S. postal mail in the Washington area
and at the Commission is subject to
delay due to heightened security
precautions. Comments that do not
contain any nonpublic information may
instead be filed in electronic form by
following the instructions on the webbased form at https://
secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Agrium.
To ensure that the Commission
considers an electronic comment, you
must file it on that web-based form.
The FTC Act and other laws the
Commission administers permit the
collection of public comments to
consider and use in this proceeding as
appropriate. All timely and responsive
public comments, whether filed in
paper or electronic form, will be
considered by the Commission, and will
be available to the public on the FTC
website, to the extent practicable, at
www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion,
the FTC makes every effort to remove
home contact information for
individuals from the public comments it
receives before placing those comments
on the FTC website. More information,
including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s
privacy policy, at (https://www.ftc.gov/
ftc/privacy.shtm).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald R. Gordon, FTC Bureau of
Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 3262357.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.
46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission
Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is
hereby given that the above-captioned
consent agreement containing a consent
order to cease and desist, having been
filed with and accepted, subject to final
approval, by the Commission, has been
placed on the public record for a period
of thirty (30) days. The following
Analysis to Aid Public Comment
describes the terms of the consent
agreement, and the allegations in the
complaint. An electronic copy of the
full text of the consent agreement
package can be obtained from the FTC
Home Page (for February 27, 2008), on
the World Wide Web, at https://
www.ftc.gov/os/2008/05/index.htm. A
paper copy can be obtained from the
FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20580, either in
person or by calling (202) 326-2222.
Public comments are invited, and may
be filed with the Commission in either
paper or electronic form. All comments
should be filed as prescribed in the
ADDRESSES section above, and must be
received on or before the date specified
in the DATES section.
1 The comment must be accompanied by an
explicit request for confidential treatment,
including the factual and legal basis for the request,
and must identify the specific portions of the
comment to be withheld from the public record.
The request will be granted or denied by the
Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with
applicable law and the public interest. See
Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
II. Description of the Parties and the
Proposed Acquisition
Agrium is a Calgary, Alberta-based
agricultural products company, a major
producer of fertilizer in the Americas,
and is the largest operator of retail farm
stores in the United States. Agrium has
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Analysis of Agreement Containing
Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
I. Introduction
The Federal Trade Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public
comment from Agrium Inc. (‘‘Agrium’’),
and UAP Holding Corporation, (‘‘UAP’’)
(collectively ‘‘the Parties’’) an
Agreement Containing Consent Orders
(‘‘the proposed consent order’’). The
Parties have also reviewed a draft
complaint contemplated by the
Commission. The proposed consent
order is designed to remedy likely
anticompetitive effects arising from
Agrium’s proposed acquisition of all of
the outstanding voting stock of UAP.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
26994
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 92 / Monday, May 12, 2008 / Notices
approximately 433 retail locations in 31
states, in all areas of the country except
for a north-south band from the
Northern plains to Texas. Agrium’s
stores operate under the ‘‘Crop
Production Services’’ brand in the East
and Midwest, and under ‘‘Western Farm
Service’’ in the West. Agrium had nearly
$4.2 billion in sales in 2006, of which
more than $1 billion came from its U.S.
farm stores, the majority from fertilizer
sales. Agrium is a multinational
fertilizer and farm products company
that develops, manufactures, and
markets chemical and agricultural
products and services that it distributes
to customers in the Americas and
elsewhere.
UAP is a publicly-traded U.S.
company based in Colorado that
develops, manufactures, and markets a
line of products and value-added
services including chemicals, fertilizer,
and seed to farmers, commercial
growers, and regional dealers
throughout the world. UAP is the
second-largest operator of farm stores in
the U.S., measured by sales, and its 370
retail stores operate in all 50 states—
making it, with Helena Chemical, one of
only two farm store operators with a
national footprint. UAP’s U.S. farm store
sales in 2006 constituted more than onethird of its $2.85 billion in total sales.
UAP’s retail sales are weighted more
toward pesticides, though fertilizer sales
account for about 30% of its revenue.
Agrium and UAP announced on
December 3, 2007, that their respective
boards of directors had approved the
sale and purchase of all outstanding
shares of UAP stock to Agrium for
approximately $2.65 billion pursuant to
the stock purchase agreements by and
between Agrium and UAP. As a result
of the merger, Agrium will hold 100%
of the voting securities of UAP. Upon
completion of the merger, UAP will
become a wholly owned subsidiary of
Agrium.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
III. The Draft Complaint
The draft complaint alleges that the
transaction may substantially lessen
competition in the market for the retail
sale of bulk fertilizer, and in certain
cases related services, by farm stores.
Retail farm stores sell mainly three
classes of products: pesticides, seed,
and fertilizer. Additionally, farm stores
can deliver a range of services to meet
the specific needs of particular growers.
Retail farm stores, for example, often
deliver fertilizer directly to the grower,
and in many cases apply fertilizer to
growers’ fields, usually with the store’s
equipment. The stores often provide a
variety of agronomic services to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:54 May 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
grower in order to help maximize the
efficiency of the fields.
Farmers typically want one-stop
shopping from their farm stores,
favoring a single provider who can
provide all the inputs and services they
require. Although farmers sometimes
visit the store, sales representatives from
the stores also call upon the farmers,
and bulk fertilizer is usually delivered
to the farms in trucks or spreaders.
Bulk fertilizer is a critical product
without which most agricultural
growers cannot profitably operate.
Growers must have it, must have the
proper amount, and must have it exactly
on time, to produce their harvest.
Fertilizer is usually applied before
planting, and then again at the same
time as planting. Along with occasional
applications during the growing season,
there is usually a fall application of
fertilizer. Agricultural growers have no
close substitutes for bulk fertilizer
purchased through farm stores.
The relevant geographic markets
within which to analyze the likely
effects of the proposed transaction are a
series of small areas within the United
States, typically extending 20-30 miles
from a farm store. Transportation costs
can make fertilizer prices less
competitively attractive at distances
over about 25-30 miles because of high
fuel costs and the low price-to-weight
ratio of bulk fertilizer. Furthermore,
application services require application
equipment that often travels slowly, and
can tie up several employees and pieces
of equipment if traveling more than 2030 miles.
The proposed merger of Agrium and
UAP would impact six geographic
markets, including three in the central
‘‘thumb’’ of Michigan, two in east/
central Michigan, and one on the
eastern shore of Maryland. The draft
complaint alleges that the relevant
sections of the country (i.e., the
geographic markets) in which to analyze
the acquisition are the areas in or near
the towns of Croswell, MI; Richmond,
MI; Imlay City, MI; Vestaburg, MI;
Standish, MI; and Pocomoke/Girdletree,
MD. In each of these identified areas,
Agrium and UAP own farm stores that
are well-situated among a small number
of competitors in the market for the
group of growers located proximate to
their stores.
The draft complaint further alleges
that new entry would not prevent or
counteract the anticompetitive effects of
this acquisition in the relevant
geographic markets. New farm store
entry has become highly infrequent, due
to the risks involved in expending
significant sunk costs to obtain enough
customers to make a new store viable in
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a mature industry. Furthermore, because
reliable supply and service is so
important, loyalty to existing suppliers
is typically high among growers, making
it particularly difficult for a new entrant
to develop a sufficient customer base.
The draft complaint also alleges that
Agrium’s acquisition of all of the
outstanding voting securities of UAP, if
consummated, may substantially lessen
competition in the relevant line of
commerce in the relevant markets in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and
Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C.
§ 45, by eliminating direct competition
between farm retail stores owned or
controlled by Agrium and farm retail
stores owned and controlled by UAP; by
increasing the likelihood that Agrium
will unilaterally exercise market power;
and by increasing the likelihood of, or
facilitating, collusion or coordinated
interaction among the remaining farm
retail store firms. Each of these effects
increases the likelihood that the prices
of bulk fertilizer or related services will
increase, in the geographic markets
alleged in the complaint. Other
competitors are not effective
competitive constraints to Agrium or
UAP throughout each relevant trade
area, due to factors such as location, and
size and scale of their operations.
IV. The Terms of the Agreement
Containing Consent Orders
The Agreement Containing Consent
Orders (‘‘proposed consent order’’) will
remedy the Commission’s competitive
concerns about the proposed
acquisition. Under the terms of the
proposed consent order, Agrium must
divest five UAP farm stores and two
Agrium farm stores. UAP’s farm stores
that will be divested are located in
Croswell, MI; Richmond, MI; Imlay City,
MI; Vestaburg, MI; and Standish, MI.
Agrium’s farm stores that will be
divested are located in Snow Hill, MD
and Keller, VA. An Order to Hold
Separate and Maintain Assets requires
that the stores to be divested be
operated independently, and appoints
an Interim Monitor to ensure that the
Commission’s interests are protected.
A. Key Provisions of the Decision and
Order
The proposed Orders will allow for
effective divestiture of the key assets
that today allow UAP to provide an
independent competitive presence to
Agrium in the relevant markets, and
therefore will preserve the market
structure. Paragraph II of the Decision
and Order provides that Agrium divest
itself of five UAP stores in Michigan,
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 92 / Monday, May 12, 2008 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
and two Agrium stores in Maryland and
Virginia within 180 days of its
acquisition of UAP, and that Agrium
further comply with all provisions of a
divestiture agreement to be approved by
the Commission. The agreement also
provides that the two Agrium stores
located in Snow Hill, Maryland and
Keller, Virginia, be sold to a single
buyer. Because Agrium’s Keller location
provides the Snow Hill location with
dry bulk blended fertilizer, the Keller
store must be sold to maintain the
existing market dynamic. If the Snow
Hill store were sold alone, it would be
unable to sell bulk dry blended fertilizer
to local farmers.
The Decision and Order defines the
scope of the assets to include the
attributes of an ongoing business, such
as necessary real property, tangible
personal property, inventories,
contracts, records of the business,
accounts receivable permits, and
intellectual property (other than the
UAP and Agrium trade names).
Pursuant to Paragraph II.E. of the
proposed Decision and Order, Agrium
also is required, for a period of up to a
year, provide necessary transition
services to the buyer at cost. The
purpose of this provision is to allow for
a relatively smooth transition of the
store operation to the acquirer.
Paragraph II.F. of the Decision and
Order provides mechanisms for
retention of each UAP store’s employees
by the acquiring party.
Paragraph III of the proposed Decision
and Order requires that the Parties keep
private, except where necessary under
the agreement, confidential business
information related to the divested UAP
stores. Paragraph IV of the proposed
Decision and Order requires that the
Parties provide the Commission with
‘‘advance written notification’’ of intent
to acquire any assets engaged in the sale
of agricultural products in any area
affected by the proposed divestitures.
Paragraph V of the proposed Decision
and Order provides for appointment of
a divestiture trustee. Paragraphs VI-VIII
define reporting obligations.
B. Key Provisions of the Order to Hold
Separate
The Order to Hold Separate and
Maintain Assets requires the Parties to
maintain the assets to be divested as
independent businesses pending
divestiture, and to maintain the viability
of these businesses. The proposed Order
also provides for the appointment of an
interim monitor to oversee the UAP
assets in the relevant markets. The
proposed Order incorporates the
traditional provisions that allow the
Interim Monitor broad oversight of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:34 May 09, 2008
Jkt 214001
assets, and requiring the Monitor to
report to the Commission on a regular
basis. Furthermore, the proposed Order
has provisions requiring the Parties to
appoint a Manager who would run the
assets on an independent basis, and
requiring the Parties to give that
Manager financial incentives in the
success of the assets. The Parties will
also be required to provide the held
separate businesses with necessary
support, but provides that employees of
the Parties will not have access to
confidential information, except to the
extent necessary to accomplish the
divestitures, comply with laws or
regulations, or comply with the Orders.
The Order requires that the Parties
establish a system to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of such
confidential information, and, more
generally, written procedures covering
the management, maintenance and
independence of the held separate
assets. The Order also requires that the
Parties provide the held separate assets
with the financial resources and support
that the Monitor believes are necessary
to run the assets on an independent
basis, including maintenance and
replacement of existing assets, and
business expansion.
V. Opportunity for Public Comment
The proposed consent order has been
placed on the public record for 30 days
for receipt of comments by interested
persons. Comments received during this
period will become part of the public
record. After 30 days, the Commission
will again review the proposed consent
order and the comments received and
will decide whether it should withdraw
from the agreement or make the
proposed consent order final.
By accepting the proposed consent
order subject to final approval, the
Commission anticipates that the
competitive problems alleged in the
complaint will be resolved. The purpose
of this analysis is to invite public
comment on the proposed consent
order, in order to aid the Commission in
its determination of whether to make
the proposed consent order final. This
analysis is not intended to constitute an
official interpretation of the proposed
consent order nor is it intended to
modify the terms of the proposed
consent order in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–10461 Filed 5–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–S
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26995
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
[ATSDR–242]
Development of Set 22 Toxicological
Profiles
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of Development of Set 22
Toxicological Profiles.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
development of Set 22 Toxicological
Profiles. Set 22 Toxicological Profiles
consists of one new draft and five
updated drafts. These profiles will be
available to the public for comment on
or about October 17, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Commander Jessilynn B. Taylor,
Division of Toxicology and
Environmental Medicine, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
Mailstop F–32, 1600 Clifton Road, NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (770)
488–3313. Electronic access to these
documents will also be available at the
ATSDR Web site: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) amended the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund) (42
U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) by establishing
certain requirements for ATSDR and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) with regard to hazardous
substances that are most commonly
found at facilities on the CERCLA
National Priorities List (NPL). Among
these statutory requirements is a
mandate for the Administrator of
ATSDR to prepare toxicological profiles
for each substance included on the
Priority List of Hazardous Substances,
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla/
07list.html. The list identifies 275
hazardous substances that ATSDR and
EPA have determined pose the most
significant potential threat to human
health. The availability of the revised
list of the 275 priority substances was
announced in the Federal Register on
March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12178). For prior
versions of the list of substances, see
Federal Register notices dated April 17,
1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20, 1988
(53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR
43619); October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067);
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 92 (Monday, May 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26993-26995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10461]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. 081 0073]
Agrium Inc. and UAP Holding Corporation; Analysis of the
Complaint and Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft
complaint and the terms of the consent order -- embodied in the consent
agreement -- that would settle these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 4, 2008
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments.
Comments should refer to ``Agrium and UAP Holding Corp., File No. 081
0073,'' to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in
paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the
envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address:
Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room 135-H, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing
confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be clearly
labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c).
16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).\1\ The FTC is requesting that any comment filed
in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible,
because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission
is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments
that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in
electronic form by following the instructions on the web-based form at
https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Agrium. To ensure that the
Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on that
web-based form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with
applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c),
16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the
collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as
appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed
in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and
will be available to the public on the FTC website, to the extent
practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes
every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from
the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the
FTC website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at (https://
www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald R. Gordon, FTC Bureau of
Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202)
326-2357.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Sec. 2.34 of
the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given
that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order
to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to
final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record
for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public
Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the
allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of
the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page
(for February 27, 2008), on the World Wide Web, at https://www.ftc.gov/
os/2008/05/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public
Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,
D.C. 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.
Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission
in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as
prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or
before the date specified in the DATES section.
Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order to Aid Public Comment
I. Introduction
The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') has accepted for
public comment from Agrium Inc. (``Agrium''), and UAP Holding
Corporation, (``UAP'') (collectively ``the Parties'') an Agreement
Containing Consent Orders (``the proposed consent order''). The Parties
have also reviewed a draft complaint contemplated by the Commission.
The proposed consent order is designed to remedy likely anticompetitive
effects arising from Agrium's proposed acquisition of all of the
outstanding voting stock of UAP.
II. Description of the Parties and the Proposed Acquisition
Agrium is a Calgary, Alberta-based agricultural products company, a
major producer of fertilizer in the Americas, and is the largest
operator of retail farm stores in the United States. Agrium has
[[Page 26994]]
approximately 433 retail locations in 31 states, in all areas of the
country except for a north-south band from the Northern plains to
Texas. Agrium's stores operate under the ``Crop Production Services''
brand in the East and Midwest, and under ``Western Farm Service'' in
the West. Agrium had nearly $4.2 billion in sales in 2006, of which
more than $1 billion came from its U.S. farm stores, the majority from
fertilizer sales. Agrium is a multinational fertilizer and farm
products company that develops, manufactures, and markets chemical and
agricultural products and services that it distributes to customers in
the Americas and elsewhere.
UAP is a publicly-traded U.S. company based in Colorado that
develops, manufactures, and markets a line of products and value-added
services including chemicals, fertilizer, and seed to farmers,
commercial growers, and regional dealers throughout the world. UAP is
the second-largest operator of farm stores in the U.S., measured by
sales, and its 370 retail stores operate in all 50 states--making it,
with Helena Chemical, one of only two farm store operators with a
national footprint. UAP's U.S. farm store sales in 2006 constituted
more than one-third of its $2.85 billion in total sales. UAP's retail
sales are weighted more toward pesticides, though fertilizer sales
account for about 30% of its revenue.
Agrium and UAP announced on December 3, 2007, that their respective
boards of directors had approved the sale and purchase of all
outstanding shares of UAP stock to Agrium for approximately $2.65
billion pursuant to the stock purchase agreements by and between Agrium
and UAP. As a result of the merger, Agrium will hold 100% of the voting
securities of UAP. Upon completion of the merger, UAP will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Agrium.
III. The Draft Complaint
The draft complaint alleges that the transaction may substantially
lessen competition in the market for the retail sale of bulk
fertilizer, and in certain cases related services, by farm stores.
Retail farm stores sell mainly three classes of products: pesticides,
seed, and fertilizer. Additionally, farm stores can deliver a range of
services to meet the specific needs of particular growers. Retail farm
stores, for example, often deliver fertilizer directly to the grower,
and in many cases apply fertilizer to growers' fields, usually with the
store's equipment. The stores often provide a variety of agronomic
services to the grower in order to help maximize the efficiency of the
fields.
Farmers typically want one-stop shopping from their farm stores,
favoring a single provider who can provide all the inputs and services
they require. Although farmers sometimes visit the store, sales
representatives from the stores also call upon the farmers, and bulk
fertilizer is usually delivered to the farms in trucks or spreaders.
Bulk fertilizer is a critical product without which most
agricultural growers cannot profitably operate. Growers must have it,
must have the proper amount, and must have it exactly on time, to
produce their harvest. Fertilizer is usually applied before planting,
and then again at the same time as planting. Along with occasional
applications during the growing season, there is usually a fall
application of fertilizer. Agricultural growers have no close
substitutes for bulk fertilizer purchased through farm stores.
The relevant geographic markets within which to analyze the likely
effects of the proposed transaction are a series of small areas within
the United States, typically extending 20-30 miles from a farm store.
Transportation costs can make fertilizer prices less competitively
attractive at distances over about 25-30 miles because of high fuel
costs and the low price-to-weight ratio of bulk fertilizer.
Furthermore, application services require application equipment that
often travels slowly, and can tie up several employees and pieces of
equipment if traveling more than 20-30 miles.
The proposed merger of Agrium and UAP would impact six geographic
markets, including three in the central ``thumb'' of Michigan, two in
east/central Michigan, and one on the eastern shore of Maryland. The
draft complaint alleges that the relevant sections of the country
(i.e., the geographic markets) in which to analyze the acquisition are
the areas in or near the towns of Croswell, MI; Richmond, MI; Imlay
City, MI; Vestaburg, MI; Standish, MI; and Pocomoke/Girdletree, MD. In
each of these identified areas, Agrium and UAP own farm stores that are
well-situated among a small number of competitors in the market for the
group of growers located proximate to their stores.
The draft complaint further alleges that new entry would not
prevent or counteract the anticompetitive effects of this acquisition
in the relevant geographic markets. New farm store entry has become
highly infrequent, due to the risks involved in expending significant
sunk costs to obtain enough customers to make a new store viable in a
mature industry. Furthermore, because reliable supply and service is so
important, loyalty to existing suppliers is typically high among
growers, making it particularly difficult for a new entrant to develop
a sufficient customer base.
The draft complaint also alleges that Agrium's acquisition of all
of the outstanding voting securities of UAP, if consummated, may
substantially lessen competition in the relevant line of commerce in
the relevant markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45, by eliminating direct
competition between farm retail stores owned or controlled by Agrium
and farm retail stores owned and controlled by UAP; by increasing the
likelihood that Agrium will unilaterally exercise market power; and by
increasing the likelihood of, or facilitating, collusion or coordinated
interaction among the remaining farm retail store firms. Each of these
effects increases the likelihood that the prices of bulk fertilizer or
related services will increase, in the geographic markets alleged in
the complaint. Other competitors are not effective competitive
constraints to Agrium or UAP throughout each relevant trade area, due
to factors such as location, and size and scale of their operations.
IV. The Terms of the Agreement Containing Consent Orders
The Agreement Containing Consent Orders (``proposed consent
order'') will remedy the Commission's competitive concerns about the
proposed acquisition. Under the terms of the proposed consent order,
Agrium must divest five UAP farm stores and two Agrium farm stores.
UAP's farm stores that will be divested are located in Croswell, MI;
Richmond, MI; Imlay City, MI; Vestaburg, MI; and Standish, MI. Agrium's
farm stores that will be divested are located in Snow Hill, MD and
Keller, VA. An Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets requires that
the stores to be divested be operated independently, and appoints an
Interim Monitor to ensure that the Commission's interests are
protected.
A. Key Provisions of the Decision and Order
The proposed Orders will allow for effective divestiture of the key
assets that today allow UAP to provide an independent competitive
presence to Agrium in the relevant markets, and therefore will preserve
the market structure. Paragraph II of the Decision and Order provides
that Agrium divest itself of five UAP stores in Michigan,
[[Page 26995]]
and two Agrium stores in Maryland and Virginia within 180 days of its
acquisition of UAP, and that Agrium further comply with all provisions
of a divestiture agreement to be approved by the Commission. The
agreement also provides that the two Agrium stores located in Snow
Hill, Maryland and Keller, Virginia, be sold to a single buyer. Because
Agrium's Keller location provides the Snow Hill location with dry bulk
blended fertilizer, the Keller store must be sold to maintain the
existing market dynamic. If the Snow Hill store were sold alone, it
would be unable to sell bulk dry blended fertilizer to local farmers.
The Decision and Order defines the scope of the assets to include
the attributes of an ongoing business, such as necessary real property,
tangible personal property, inventories, contracts, records of the
business, accounts receivable permits, and intellectual property (other
than the UAP and Agrium trade names). Pursuant to Paragraph II.E. of
the proposed Decision and Order, Agrium also is required, for a period
of up to a year, provide necessary transition services to the buyer at
cost. The purpose of this provision is to allow for a relatively smooth
transition of the store operation to the acquirer. Paragraph II.F. of
the Decision and Order provides mechanisms for retention of each UAP
store's employees by the acquiring party.
Paragraph III of the proposed Decision and Order requires that the
Parties keep private, except where necessary under the agreement,
confidential business information related to the divested UAP stores.
Paragraph IV of the proposed Decision and Order requires that the
Parties provide the Commission with ``advance written notification'' of
intent to acquire any assets engaged in the sale of agricultural
products in any area affected by the proposed divestitures. Paragraph V
of the proposed Decision and Order provides for appointment of a
divestiture trustee. Paragraphs VI-VIII define reporting obligations.
B. Key Provisions of the Order to Hold Separate
The Order to Hold Separate and Maintain Assets requires the Parties
to maintain the assets to be divested as independent businesses pending
divestiture, and to maintain the viability of these businesses. The
proposed Order also provides for the appointment of an interim monitor
to oversee the UAP assets in the relevant markets. The proposed Order
incorporates the traditional provisions that allow the Interim Monitor
broad oversight of the assets, and requiring the Monitor to report to
the Commission on a regular basis. Furthermore, the proposed Order has
provisions requiring the Parties to appoint a Manager who would run the
assets on an independent basis, and requiring the Parties to give that
Manager financial incentives in the success of the assets. The Parties
will also be required to provide the held separate businesses with
necessary support, but provides that employees of the Parties will not
have access to confidential information, except to the extent necessary
to accomplish the divestitures, comply with laws or regulations, or
comply with the Orders. The Order requires that the Parties establish a
system to prevent unauthorized disclosure of such confidential
information, and, more generally, written procedures covering the
management, maintenance and independence of the held separate assets.
The Order also requires that the Parties provide the held separate
assets with the financial resources and support that the Monitor
believes are necessary to run the assets on an independent basis,
including maintenance and replacement of existing assets, and business
expansion.
V. Opportunity for Public Comment
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
30 days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments
received during this period will become part of the public record.
After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed consent
order and the comments received and will decide whether it should
withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed consent order final.
By accepting the proposed consent order subject to final approval,
the Commission anticipates that the competitive problems alleged in the
complaint will be resolved. The purpose of this analysis is to invite
public comment on the proposed consent order, in order to aid the
Commission in its determination of whether to make the proposed consent
order final. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of the proposed consent order nor is it intended to
modify the terms of the proposed consent order in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10461 Filed 5-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S