United States v. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings, LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group Limited, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, 34948-34961 [E8-13029]
Download as PDF
34948
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
International Trade Commission, 511
F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Intervenor
Flexsys America L.P. (‘‘Flexsys’’)
petitioned the Federal Circuit for
rehearing and rehearing en banc. The
Commission supported rehearing. On
April 7, 2008, the Federal Circuit denied
the petition for rehearing and rehearing
en banc. The mandate of the Court
issued on April 14, 2008.
On June 3, 2008, the Commission
determined to rescind the limited
exclusion order relating to the
importation of rubber antidegradants
made by Sinorgchem and Sovereign and
to remand the investigation to the
presiding ALJ for proceedings consistent
with Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v.
International Trade Commission, 511
F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007), including
issuance of a final initial determination
on violation and a recommended
determination on remedy and bonding.
The parties to the remand proceeding
are Flexsys, Sinorgchem, Sovereign, and
the Commission investigative attorney.
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
the Administrative Procedure Act, and
Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part
210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: June 13, 2008.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–13875 Filed 6–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
assets of Houghton Mifflin College
Division would violate section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed
Final Judgment, filed at the same time
as the Complaint, requires Cengage
Learning to divest assets related to
textbooks and educational materials
used in 14 college-level courses.
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,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 1010,
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 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 James J. Tierney,
Chief, Networks & Technology
Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division, Department of Justice, 600 E
Street, NW., Suite 9500, Washington,
DC 20530 (telephone: 202–307–6200).
Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust
Division.
The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
United States v. Cengage Learning
Holdings I, L.P., Cengage Learning
Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning,
Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings, LLC, Education
Media and Publishing Group Limited,
and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company; Proposed Final
Judgment and Competitive Impact
Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. 16(b)–(h), that a proposed
Final Judgment, Asset Preservation
Stipulation and Order, and Competitive
Impact Statement have been filed with
the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in United States v.
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Civil
Action No. 1:08–cv–00899. On May 28,
2008, the United States filed a
Complaint alleging that the proposed
acquisition by Cengage Learning of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
United States of America, United States
Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, 600 E Street, NW., Suite 9500,
Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff, v.
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P.,
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P.,
Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl
Holdings, LLC, Education Media and
Publishing Group Limiited, and
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company, Defendants
Case No.:
Judge:
Case: 1:08–cv–00899, Assigned To:
Bates, John D., Assign. Date: 5/28/
2008, Description: Antitrust.
Complaint
The United States of America, acting
under the direction of the Attorney
General of the United States, brings this
civil antitrust action to enjoin the
proposed acquisition by Cengage
Learning, Inc. and related entities
(collectively ‘‘Cengage’’), of the assets of
the Houghton Mifflin College Division
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(‘‘HM College’’) from Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company and a
related entity (collectively ‘‘Houghton
Mifflin’’), and to obtain equitable and
other relief. The United States
complains and alleges as follows:
I. Nature of the Action
1. On or about November 30, 2007,
Cengage and Houghton Mifflin entered
into an agreement for Cengage to acquire
the assets of HM College for
approximately $750 million.
2. Cengage and HM College publish
textbooks and other educational
materials and are direct competitors in
the development, publication, and sale
of textbooks and ancillary print and
electronic (including Internet-based)
educational materials (collectively
‘‘textbooks and ancillary materials’’)
used in numerous courses taught at
higher education institutions
throughout the United States.
For the courses listed in Appendix A
of this Complaint (hereinafter ‘‘the
Overlap Courses’’), Cengage and HM
College publish textbooks and ancillary
materials that compete head-to-head
with each other and are close
substitutes.
3. The markets for textbooks and
ancillary materials used in the Overlap
Courses are highly concentrated and
have high barriers to entry. Cengage’s
proposed acquisition of the assets of HM
College would eliminate competition
between Cengage and HM College in
these markets.
4. The United States brings this action
to prevent Cengage’s proposed
acquisition of the assets of HM College
because it is likely to substantially
lessen competition in the development,
publication, and sale of textbooks and
ancillary materials used in the Overlap
Courses in violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
II. Parties to the Proposed Acquisition
5. Cengage Learning, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut.
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., a
limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut,
is the ultimate parent entity of Cengage
Learning, Inc. Cengage Learning
Holdings II L.P., a limited partnership
with its headquarters in Stamford
Connecticut, is an intermediate entity
between Cengage Learning Holdings I,
L.P. and Cengage Learning, Inc. Apax/
TL Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is the general partner
in Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P.
The above entities (collectively
‘‘Cengage’’) develop, publish, and sell
textbooks and ancillary materials for use
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
in the United States and elsewhere.
Cengage is the second largest publisher
of textbooks and ancillary materials
used in courses taught at higher
education institutions in the United
States and ranks among the top three
sellers of such textbooks and materials
for each of the Overlap Courses.
Cengage had total revenues of about
$1.7 billion in the twelve-month period
ending September 30, 2007, including
about $1 billion in revenues from the
sale of higher education textbooks and
ancillary materials.
6. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company (formerly
Houghton Mifflin Company) is a
Massachusetts corporation with its
headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts.
Education Media and Publishing Group
Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation
with its headquarters in Dublin, Ireland,
is the ultimate parent entity of
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company. The above entities
(collectively ‘‘Houghton Mifflin’’)
develop, publish, and sell textbooks and
ancillary materials for use in the United
States and elsewhere. Houghton
Mifflin’s HM College Division is the
fifth largest publisher of textbooks and
ancillary materials used in courses
taught at higher education institutions
in the United States and ranks among
the top three sellers of such textbooks
and materials for each of the Overlap
Courses. Houghton Mifflin has total
annual revenues of about $2.5 billion,
and estimated 2007 revenues of about
$230 million from the sale of textbooks
and ancillary materials by HM College.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
III. Jurisdiction and Venue
7. The United States brings this action
under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and
restrain the Defendants from violating
section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
18.
8. Defendants’ activities in
developing, publishing, and selling
textbooks and ancillary materials for use
in the Overlap Courses are in the flow
of and substantially affect interstate
trade and commerce. This Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this
action pursuant to section 12 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C.
1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
9. Defendants sell higher education
textbooks and ancillary materials in,
and have consented to venue and
personal jurisdiction in, this judicial
district. Venue is proper under 15
U.S.C. 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(d).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
IV. Trade and Commerce
A. Relevant Product Markets for
Textbooks and Ancillary Materials
10. Publishers market and sell
textbooks and ancillary materials for use
in courses taught at higher education
institutions. In most cases, instructors
select the textbooks and ancillary
materials that will be used for their
courses, and students buy the selected
textbooks and ancillary materials.
11. Textbooks are often supplemented
with ancillary educational materials,
such as teacher’s editions, audio-visual
teaching tools, Internet content, CDROMs, workbooks, and study guides.
These materials are often offered by
publishers for free or as part of a
discounted package to induce
instructors to select a particular
textbook and to induce students to
purchase the publisher’s textbooks and
ancillary materials.
12. Textbooks and ancillary materials
are used as the primary teaching
materials in each of the Overlap
Courses. Textbooks provide the core
written material for the Overlap Courses
and serve as the foundation for
instructors’ overall lesson plans. While
instructors could use alternative
teaching materials (such as copies of
lecture notes and articles), they
generally select textbooks to serve as the
primary teaching materials for their
courses because accessing and creating
alternative teaching materials is often a
more time-consuming, costly, and
inefficient method of delivering high
quality content to their students.
Instructors using textbooks and
ancillary materials would not turn to
any alternative teaching materials in
sufficient numbers to defeat a small but
significant increase in the price of any
textbooks and ancillary materials for the
Overlap Courses, or a small but
significant decrease in the quality of
such textbooks and other materials.
13. Students taking the Overlap
Courses are unlikely to have any
significant alternatives to purchasing
new textbooks for these courses.
Although used textbooks, if available,
can sometimes serve as alternatives for
new textbooks, used textbooks are not
uniformly available in large numbers.
Moreover, instructors often require
students to use the newest textbook
editions. Publishers generally revise
textbooks every three to four years and
revised textbooks often differ
substantially from their prior edition,
limiting the extent to which used
textbooks may be substituted for new
editions of the same textbooks. Students
would not turn to purchasing used
textbooks in sufficient numbers to
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34949
defeat a small but significant increase in
the price of a new edition of the
textbooks.
14. Each Overlap Course is a separate
course focused on a different subject
and therefore requires instructors and
students in the course to use the
textbooks and ancillary materials that
have been developed for that course. For
each Overlap Course, the textbooks and
ancillary materials for that course
constitute a separate relevant product
market and a line of commerce pursuant
to Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
B. The Relevant Geographic Market
15. Defendants market and sell
textbooks and ancillary materials for use
in courses taught at higher education
institutions throughout the United
States. Market participants for each
relevant product market alleged herein
are those publishers from which
instructors select textbooks and
ancillary materials for use as primary
teaching materials in their courses. A
hypothetical monopolist of the
textbooks and ancillary materials sold
for use in any Overlap Course in the
United States could profitably lower the
rate of quality improvements in and/or
increase the price of such textbooks and
ancillary materials in the United States.
For each relevant product market
alleged herein, the United States
constitutes a relevant geographic market
pursuant to Section 7 of the Clayton
Act.
C. Anti Competitive Effects: Loss of
Price and Product Quality Competition
16. In each relevant product and
geographic market alleged herein,
Cengage and HM College offer leading
textbooks and ancillary materials that
are close substitutes for a significant
number of customers in that market. In
each such market, Cengage and HM
College are among the few firms with a
significant presence that compete to
provide textbooks and ancillary
materials and consistently account for at
least 35 percent of all sales. Using a
standard concentration measure called
the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (or
‘‘HHI,’’ defined and explained in
Appendix B), the proposed acquisition
would substantially raise market
concentration in highly concentrated
markets, increasing the HHI by more
than 500 and producing a post-merger
HHI in excess of 3000 in each relevant
market.
17. Cengage and HM College compete
head-to-head to be selected by
instructors to provide textbooks and
ancillary materials for each Overlap
Course in the United States. This
competition has provided significant
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
34950
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
incentives for each to publish new titles
and improve product quality and has
disciplined pricing decisions. The
proposed acquisition would eliminate
this competition in each relevant
market, increasing the likelihood that
Cengage will unilaterally increase prices
or reduce its investment or other efforts
to develop new or improved textbooks
and ancillary materials.
18. The proposed acquisition is likely
to substantially lessen competition in
the development, publication, and sale
of textbooks and ancillary materials in
each of the relevant markets, in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton
Act.
a. Actual and future competition
between Cengage and Houghton Mifflin
in the development, publication, and
sale of textbooks and ancillary materials
in each relevant product and geographic
market alleged herein will be
eliminated;
b. Competition in the development,
publication, and sale of textbooks and
ancillary materials in each relevant
market will be substantially lessened;
and
c. The rate of quality improvements in
the textbooks and ancillary materials in
each relevant market likely will decline
and/or prices for such textbooks and
ancillary materials likely will increase.
D. Entry: New Entrants Will Not Defeat
an Exercise of Market Power
VI. Request for Relief
19. In each relevant product and
geographic market alleged herein, there
is unlikely to be timely entry by any
firm that would be sufficient to defeat
the likely anticompetitive effects of the
proposed acquisition. Successful entry
into developing, publishing, and selling
textbooks and ancillary materials in
each of the relevant markets is difficult,
time-consuming, and costly.
20. Successful entry generally can be
achieved only over many years and after
at least one or more textbook revision
cycles. Significant investment and effort
are required to assemble authors,
editorial staff, and reviewing professors,
to develop and obtain licenses to
copyrighted content and ancillary
educational materials, and to train a
knowledgeable sales force. The outcome
of such effort would be highly uncertain
because, among other things, the
reputation of a successful incumbent
textbook is difficult for a publisher of a
new textbook to challenge. The leading
textbooks in each relevant market have
been published for some time and are
well-known to instructors. Most
instructors switch textbooks
infrequently because they develop
course syllabi, lesson plans, homework,
tests, and other materials that conform
to the textbooks they use, and changing
textbooks usually requires modifications
to course syllabi and other materials.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
V. Violations Alleged
21. The United States incorporates the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20
above.
22. The proposed acquisition of HM
College by Cengage would substantially
lessen competition in interstate trade
and commerce in violation of section 7
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
23. Unless restrained, the acquisition
would likely have the following
anticompetitive effects, among others:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
24. The United States requests that
this Court:
a. Adjudge and decree the proposed
acquisition to violate section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
b. Enjoin and restrain the Defendants
and all persons acting on their behalf
from consummating the proposed
acquisition or from entering into or
carrying out any contract, agreement,
plan, or understanding, the effect of
which would be to combine HM College
with the operations of Cengage;
c. Award the United States its costs
for this action; and
d. Grant the United States such other
and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff United States of America:
Thomas O. Barnett (D.C. Bar #426840),
Assistant Attorney General.
James J. Tierney (D.C. Bar #434610),
Chief, Networks & Technology
Enforcement Section.
David L. Meyer (D.C. Bar #414420),
Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
Scott A. Scheele (D.C. Bar #429061),
Assistant Chief, Networks & Technology
Enforcement Section.
Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of
Operations.
Janet J. Brody.
Justine K. Donahue (D.C. Bar #476255).
Aaron Comenetz (D.C. Bar #479572).
John C. Filippini (D.C. Bar #165159).
Kent Brown.
Aaron Brodsky.
Attorneys, Networks & Technology
Enforcement Section.
Antitrust Division, United States
Department of Justice, 600 B Street,
NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC
20530, (202) 307–6200, Dated: May 28,
2008.
Appendix A
Overlap Courses
Business: Introductory.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Foreign Languages and Literature: French:
Language: Business French.
Foreign Languages and Literature: French:
Language: Intermediate.
Foreign Languages and Literature: German:
Language: Grammar.
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian:
Language: Elementary.
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian:
Language: Intermediate.
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1500 to
Present.
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1750 to
Present.
History: Western Civilization Survey:
Prehistory to 1715.
History: Western Civilization Survey:
Prehistory to Present.
History: World History Survey: 1400 to 1750.
History: World History Survey: 1500 to
Present.
History: World History Survey: Prehistory to
Present.
Interdisciplinary Studies: Orientation to
College.
Appendix B
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%, the HHI is 2600
(302 + 302 +202 + 202 = 2600). 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.
The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Cengage
Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning,
Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings, LLC, Education
Media and Publishing Group Limited, and
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company, Defendants
Case No.: Judge: Case: 1:08–Cv–00899,
Assigned To: Bates, John D., Assign. Date:
5/28/2008, Description: Antitrust.
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of
America, filed its Complaint on May 28,
2008, and the United States and
Defendants, Cengage and Houghton
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
Mifflin, as defined below, 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
the 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:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter 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. ‘‘Cengage’’ means Defendants
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P, a
limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut;
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., a
limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut,
which is controlled by Cengage
Learning Holdings I, L.P.; Cengage
Learning, Inc., a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters in Stamford,
Connecticut, which is controlled by
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P.; and
Apax/TL Holdings, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company that is the
general partner in Cengage Learning
Holdings I, L.P.; their successors,
assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
affiliates, partnerships, joint ventures;
and their directors, officers, managers,
agents, and employees.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
B. ‘‘Houghton Mifflin’’ means
Defendants Education Media and
Publishing Group Limited, a Cayman
Islands corporation with it headquarters
in Dublin, Ireland, and Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, a
Massachusetts corporation with its
headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts,
which is an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Education Media and
Publishing Group Limited; their
successors, assigns, subsidiaries,
divisions, groups, affiliates,
partnerships, joint ventures; and their
directors, officers, managers, agents, and
employees.
C. ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’ means all of
the textbooks described in Exhibit A
attached hereto and associated ancillary
educational materials offered or under
development by any of the Defendants
for use with any such textbook. Each
textbook includes all versions that are
customizations of, components of
supplements to, derivations of, volumes
that address specific subjects or periods
included in the subject matter of, or
brief or ‘‘essentials’’ versions of the
textbook, but does not include any
customized publication sold prior to the
filing of the Complaint in this matter
that both (i) is not authored or coauthored by any author listed in Exhibit
A, and (ii) contains content from an
author identified in, or a textbook
described in, Exhibit A that comprises
less than twenty-five (25) percent of the
publisher-provided content (hereafter
‘‘Excluded Customized Publications’’).
The associated ancillary educational
materials include all materials in any
form or format offered or under
development for use with any textbook,
including teacher editions or aids,
excerpts, workbooks, outlines,
summaries, study guides, notebooks,
charts, audio, video, software, CDROMs, DVD-ROMs, Internet and
broadcast components, all other
technology components, teacher support
and staff development materials, and
any other materials. The associated
ancillary educational materials include
(i) materials that are or will be offered
specifically for use with any textbook
listed on Exhibit A; (ii) materials that
are or will be offered primarily for use
with any such textbook, meaning at
least fifty (50) percent of the total units
of such materials shipped in the United
States during the twelve-month period
prior to the filing of the Complaint in
this matter were associated with the sale
of any such textbook (or for materials
still under development, meaning at
least fifty (50) percent of the total units
of such materials forecast to be shipped
in the United States during the twelve-
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34951
month period following development
are forecast to be associated with the
sale of any such textbook) (hereafter
‘‘Category (ii) Ancillary Materials’’); and
(iii) a one-year, nonexclusive, royaltyfree license to use materials that have
been offered during the twelve-month
period prior to the filing of the
Complaint in this matter for use in
association with any of the textbooks
described in Exhibit A but are offered
primarily for use with other textbooks,
meaning at least fifty (50) percent of the
units of such materials shipped in the
United States during the twelve-month
period prior to the filing of the
Complaint in this matter were
associated with the sale of other
textbooks. (The textbooks and
associated ancillary educational
materials are hereafter collectively
referred to as ‘‘Divested Textbooks.’’)
(1) The Divestiture Assets Include:
(a) All tangible assets used in the
development, production, servicing,
marketing, distribution, and sale of the
Divested Textbooks, including, but not
limited to, all records relating to historic
and current research data and activities
and development activities relating to
the Divested Textbooks; all original and
digital artwork, film plates, and other
reproductive materials relating to the
Divested Textbooks; all manuscripts,
illustrations, any other content, and any
revisions or revision plans thereof in
print or digital form; all finished
inventory; all licenses, permits and
authorizations issued by any
governmental organization relating to
the Divested Textbooks; all contracts,
teaming arrangements, agreements,
commitments, certifications, and
understandings relating to the Divested
Textbooks, including, but not limited to,
author permissions and agreements,
publishing agreements, research
agreements, other similar agreements,
and supply and distribution agreements;
all customer lists, contracts, purchase
orders, accounts, and credit records, or
similar records of all sales and potential
sales of the Divested Textbooks; all sales
support and promotional materials,
advertising materials, and production,
sales and marketing files relating to the
Divested Textbooks; at the option of the
Acquirer(s), computers and other
tangible assets used primarily for the
production or distribution of the
Divested Textbooks; and all
performance and all other records
relating to the Divested Textbooks; and
(b) All intangible assets used in the
development, production, servicing,
marketing, distribution, and sale of the
Divested Textbooks, including, but not
limited to; all patents, licenses and
sublicenses, intellectual property,
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
34952
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
copyrights, contract rights, trademarks
(registered and unregistered), trade
names, service marks, service names,
including all titles of existing products
comprising or relating to the Divested
Textbooks, but only including
nonexclusive licenses to use the
corporate trademarks or trade names of
Cengage or Houghton Mifflin sufficient
to allow any Acquirer to sell finished
inventory or other materials that have
already been marked with such
trademarks or trade names; all technical
information, computer software and
related documentation, know-how,
trade secrets, drawings, blueprints,
designs, design protocols, specifications
for materials, quality assurance and
control procedures, and manuals used
for any purpose relating to the Divested
Textbooks or that Defendants provide to
their own employees, customers,
suppliers, agents or licensees for use in
relation to the Divested Textbooks; and
all other intangible research data
concerning historic and current research
and development efforts relating to the
Divested Textbooks.
(2) The Divestiture Assets Do Not
Include:
(a) Except to the extent included in
the non-exclusive license of materials
described in Section II.C.(1)(b), the
company names, company Internet
domain names, and company
trademarks of Defendants or any of their
affiliates, or portions or elements
thereof, including, but not limited to,
‘‘Cengage’’, ‘‘South-Western’’,
‘‘Wadsworth’’, ‘‘Brooks Cole’’, ‘‘Heinle’’,
‘‘Houghton Mifflin’’, ‘‘HM’’, and
‘‘HMCo’’;
(b) Defendants’ employee records that
may not be produced under applicable
law; and
(c) Originals of books or records, as
well as the information management
systems used to create and store such
books and records, that Defendants are
required by law to retain or that
Defendants determine are necessary or
advisable to retain, provided that copies
of any such books or records, or data
sets that can be accessed by information
management systems, are provided in a
form useable by the Acquirer(s), subject
to customary confidentiality assurances,
to any Acquirer(s) or potential
Acquirer(s).
D. ‘‘Acquirer’’ or ‘‘Acquirers’’ means
the entity or entities to whom
Defendants divest the Divestiture
Assets.
III. Applicability
A. This Final Judgment applies to
Cengage and Houghton Mifflin, as
defined above, and all other persons in
active concert or participation with any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
of them who receive actual notice of this
Final Judgment by personal service or
otherwise. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Final Judgment,
Houghton Mifflin’s obligations under
sections IV.A, IV.H, V.A, V.B, V.D, VI.A
shall cease upon completion of its sale
of the Divestiture Assets to Cengage as
part of its sale to Cengage of the assets
of the Houghton Mifflin College
Division.
B. If prior to complying with sections
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
Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets
pursuant to this Final Judgment.
IV. Divestitures
A. Defendants are ordered and
directed, within forty-five (45) calendar
days after the filing of the Complaint in
this matter, 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 one or more Acquirers
acceptable to the United States, in its
sole discretion. The United States, in its
sole discretion, may agree to one or
more extensions of this time period not
to exceed thirty (30) calendar days in
total, and shall notify the Court in such
circumstances. Defendants agree to use
their best efforts to divest the
Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as
possible.
B. In accomplishing the divestitures
ordered by this Final Judgment,
Defendants promptly shall make known,
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 privilege or
work-product doctrine. Defendants shall
make available such information to the
United States at the same time that such
information is made available to any
other person.
C. Defendants shall provide the
Acquirer(s) and the United States the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
identity of any personnel responsible for
any editorial content of any Divestiture
Asset, and any personnel involved in
the management, sale, marketing,
development, design, layout,
production, research, operation,
delivery, distribution, acquisition or
maintenance of licenses or other rights
to copyrights or other intellectual
property, or provision or development
of seminars or training activities relating
to any of the Divestiture Assets, to
enable the Acquirer(s) to make offers of
employment. Defendants will not
interfere with any negotiations or
attempts by the Acquirer(s) to employ or
contract with any of Defendants’
officers, directors, employees, or any
other persons responsible for any such
activity related to any Divestiture Asset
and, if requested, will release any such
person from any non-compete
agreement with any of the Defendants.
D. Defendants shall permit
prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture
Assets to have reasonable access to
personnel responsible for the
Divestiture Assets (as described in
section IV.C of this Final Judgment); and
to have access to any and all financial,
operational, or other documents and
information customarily provided as
part of a due diligence process.
E. Defendants shall warrant to all
Acquirers of the Divestiture Assets that
each asset is complete, intact, fully
functional and operational on the date
of sale, provided that, for any asset that
is in development at the time of sale,
Defendants shall describe the extent to
which the asset is complete, intact,
functional and operational and project
the amount of time, money and effort
required to complete the development.
Defendants shall warrant to all
Acquirers of the Divestiture Assets that
each asset has been preserved,
maintained, developed, sold, and
operated as required by the Asset
Preservation Stipulation and Order filed
simultaneously with the Court.
F. Defendants shall not take any
action that will impede in any way the
permitting, publication, marketing, sale,
development, administration,
acquisition or maintenance of related
licenses or other rights to copyrights or
other intellectual property, function,
operation or divestiture of the
Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall use
their best efforts to facilitate the
assignment to the Acquirer(s) of all of
the tangible and intangible assets
included in the Divestiture Assets that
Defendants presently hold or use
pursuant to a license or any other
agreement.
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
G. Defendant Cengage shall have the
right to obtain from the Acquirer(s) of
the Divestiture Assets:
(1) With respect to each Excluded
Customized Publication, a one-year,
non-exclusive, royalty-free license to
continue to include in that publication
Divestiture Asset-related content;
(2) With respect to Category (ii)
Ancillary Materials, a one-year, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to
continue to sell such materials in
association with textbooks that are not
described on Exhibit A where, prior to
the filing of the Complaint in this
matter, such materials were sold in
association with those textbooks; and
(3) With respect to copyrighted art,
photographs, illustrations, charts,
graphs, or other similar content that, at
the time of the filing of the Complaint
in this matter, were included within
both the Divestiture Assets and other
textbooks and products (other than
content written, developed produced or
copyrighted by, or otherwise
attributable to, (i) any author identified
in Exhibit A with respect to any course
associated with that author in Exhibit A,
or (ii) the author’s co-authors or
successor authors), a non-exclusive,
royalty-free license to continue to use
such content (i) in the other textbooks
and products in which it is now
included, (ii) in future textbooks and
ancillary educational materials other
than textbooks and materials offered for
use in any course listed in Exhibit A,
and (iii) with the permission of the
Acquirer(s) of all of the Divested Assets
applicable to any course listed in
Exhibit A, in future textbooks and
ancillary materials for use in that
course.
H. Unless the United States otherwise
consents in writing, the divestitures
pursuant to section IV, or by trustee
appointed pursuant to section V, of this
Final Judgment, shall include the entire
Divestiture Assets, and shall be
accomplished in such a way as to satisfy
the United States, in its sole discretion,
that the Divestiture Assets can and will
be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a
viable, ongoing higher education
textbook publishing business.
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 divestitures, whether
pursuant to section IV or section V of
this Final Judgment:
(1) Shall be made to an Acquirer(s)
that, in the United States’s sole
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
judgment, has the intent and capability
(including the necessary managerial,
operational, technical and financial
capability) of competing effectively in
the higher education textbook
publishing business; and
(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 give Defendants the ability
unreasonably to raise the Acquirer’s
costs, to lower the Acquirer’s efficiency,
or otherwise to interfere in the ability of
the Acquirer to compete effectively.
V. Appointment of Trustee
A. If Defendants have not divested the
Divestiture Assets within the time
period specified in section IV.A of this
Final Judgment, Defendants shall notify
the United States of that fact in writing.
Upon application of the United States,
the Court shall appoint a trustee
selected by the United States and
approved by the Court to effect the
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a trustee
becomes effective, only the trustee shall
have the right to sell the Divestiture
Assets. The trustee shall have the power
and authority to accomplish the
divestiture to an Acquirer(s) acceptable
to the United States at such price and
on such terms as are then obtainable
upon reasonable effort by the 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.D of this Final Judgment, the
trustee may hire at the cost and expense
of Defendants any investment bankers,
attorneys, or other agents, who shall be
solely accountable to the trustee,
reasonably necessary in the trustee’s
judgment to assist in the divestitures.
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale
by the trustee on any ground other than
the trustee’s malfeasance. Any such
objections by Defendants must be
conveyed in writing to the United States
and the trustee within ten (10) calendar
days after the trustee has provided the
notice required under section VI of this
Final Judgment.
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost
and expense of Defendants, on such
terms and conditions as the United
States approves, and shall account for
all monies derived from the sale of the
assets sold by the trustee and all costs
and expenses so incurred. After
approval by the Court of the trustee’s
accounting, including fees for its
services and those of any professionals
and agents retained by the trustee, all
remaining money shall be paid to
Defendants and the trust shall then be
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34953
terminated. The compensation of the
trustee and any professionals and agents
retained by the trustee shall be
reasonable in light of the value of the
Divestiture Assets and based on a fee
arrangement providing the 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.
E. Defendants shall use their best
efforts to assist the trustee in
accomplishing the required divestitures.
The trustee and any consultants,
accountants, attorneys, and other
persons retained by the 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 such
businesses as the trustee may reasonably
request, subject to reasonable protection
for trade secrets or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
information. Defendants shall take no
action to interfere with or to impede the
trustee’s accomplishment of the
divestitures.
F. After its appointment, the trustee
shall file monthly reports with the
United States and the Court setting forth
the trustee’s efforts to accomplish the
divestitures ordered under this Final
Judgment. To the extent such reports
contain information that the 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
trustee shall maintain full records of all
efforts made to divest the Divestiture
Assets.
G. If the trustee has not accomplished
the divestitures ordered under this Final
Judgment within six (6) months after its
appointment, the trustee shall promptly
file with the Court a report setting forth:
(1) The trustee’s efforts to accomplish
the required divestitures, (2) the
reasons, in the trustee’s judgment, why
the required divestitures have not been
accomplished, and (3) the trustee’s
recommendations. To the extent such
reports contain information that the
trustee deems confidential, such reports
shall not be filed in the public docket
of the Court. The trustee shall at the
same time furnish such report to the
United States, which shall have the
right to make additional
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
34954
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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 trustee’s
appointment by a period requested by
the United States.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestitures
A. Within two (2) business days
following execution of a definitive
divestiture agreement, Defendants or the
trustee, whichever is then responsible
for effecting the divestitures required
herein, shall notify the United States of
any proposed divestiture(s) required by
section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
If the trustee is responsible, it shall
similarly notify Defendants. The notice
shall set forth the details of the
proposed divestiture(s) 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
trustee, if applicable, additional
information concerning the proposed
divestiture(s), the proposed Acquirer(s),
and any other potential Acquirer.
Defendants and the 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 trustee,
whichever is later, the United States
shall provide written notice to
Defendants and the trustee, if there is
one, stating whether or not it objects to
the proposed divestiture(s). If the
United States provides written notice
that it does not object, the divestiture(s)
may be consummated, subject only to
Defendants’ limited right to object to the
sale under section V.C of this Final
Judgment. Absent written notice that the
United States does not object to the
proposed Acquirer or upon objection by
the United States, a divestiture
proposed under section IV or section V
of this Final Judgment shall not be
consummated. Upon objection by
Defendants under section V.C, a
divestiture proposed under section V
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
shall not be consummated unless
approved by the Court.
VII. Financing
Defendants shall not finance all or
any part of any purchase made pursuant
to section IV or section 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
Asset Preservation Stipulation and
Order entered by this Court. 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
have been completed under section IV
or section V of this Final Judgment,
Defendants shall deliver to the United
States an affidavit as to the fact and
manner of its compliance with section
IV or section V. 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 limitations 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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 of determining whether
the Final Judgment should be modified
or vacated, and subject to any legally
recognized privilege, from time to time
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’ regular
office hours to inspect and copy, or at
the option of the United States, to
require Defendants to provide electronic
or hard 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 responses 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,
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
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
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).
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 Judgment
XI. No Reacquisition
Defendant Cengage may not reacquire
any part of the Divestiture Assets during
the term of this Final Judgment.
Unless this Court grants an extension,
this Final Judgment shall expire ten (10)
years from the date of its entry.
XIV. Public Interest Determination
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the
public interest. The parties have
34955
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:
Court approval subject to procedures
of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
United States District Judge.
Exhibit A
Course
Textbooks
Business: Introductory ........................................
All textbooks that relate to the study of introduction to business with which Louis Boone has
been or will be associated, and all textbooks that relate to the study of introduction to business with which David Kurtz has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which Jean-Luc Penfornis has been or will be associated.
Foreign Languages and Literature: French: Language: Business French.
Foreign Languages and Literature: French: Language: Intermediate.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Foreign Languages and Literature: German:
Language: Grammar.
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian: Language: Elementary.
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian: Language: Intermediate.
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1500 to
Present.
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1750 to
Present.
History: Western Civilization Survey: Prehistory
to 1715.
History: Western Civilization Survey: Prehistory
to Present.
History: World History Survey: 1400 to 1750 .....
History: World History Survey: 1500 to Present
History: World History Survey: Prehistory to
Present.
Interdisciplinary Studies: Orientation to College
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
All textbooks that relate to the study of French language or literature at the intermediate level
with which Michael Oates has been or will be associated, all textbooks with which Jacques
Dubois has been or will be associated, all textbooks with which Simone Renaud has been
or will be associated, all textbooks with which Dominique Van Hooff has been or will be associated, all textbooks that relate to the study of French language or literature at the intermediate level with which Jean-Paul Valette has been or will be associated, and all textbooks
that relate to the study of French language, or literature at the intermediate level with which
Rebecca Valette has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which Kimberly Sparks has been or will be associated, and all textbooks
with which Van Horn Vail has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which Marcel Danesi has been or will be associated, and all textbooks with
which Suzanne Branciforte has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which Marcel Danesi has been or will be associated, and all textbooks with
which Francesca Italiano has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John Gardner has been or will be associated.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
34956
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P.,
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P.,
Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl
Holdings, LLC, Education Media and
Publishing Group Limited, and
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company, Defendants
Case No.: Judge: Case: 1:08Cv–00899,
Assigned To: Bates, John D., Assign. Date: 5/
28/2008, Description: Antitrust.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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. 16(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
The United States filed a civil
antitrust Complaint on May 28, 2008,
seeking to enjoin the proposed
acquisition by Cengage Learning, Inc.,
and related entities (collectively
‘‘Cengage’’), of the assets of the
Houghton Mifflin College Division
(‘‘HM College’’) from Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company, and a
related entity (collectively ‘‘Houghton
Mifflin’’). The Complaint alleges that
the likely effects of this acquisition
would be to substantially lessen
competition in the development,
publication, and sale of textbooks and
ancillary educational materials
(collectively ‘‘textbooks and ancillary
materials’’) used in fourteen higher
education courses listed in Appendix A
(hereinafter ‘‘the Overlap Courses’’), in
violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. 18. The loss of competition
caused by the acquisition would likely
result in a reduced rate of quality
improvements in, and/or increased
prices for, the textbooks and ancillary
materials used in each of the fourteen
courses in the United States.
At the same time the Complaint was
filed, the United States also filed an
Asset Preservation Stipulation and
Order (‘‘APSO’’) and a 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, the Defendants are
required to divest all tangible and
intangible assets used in the
development, production, servicing,
marketing, distribution and sale of
certain textbooks in the Overlap Courses
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
and all associated ancillary educational
materials (collectively ‘‘Divestiture
Assets’’). Until the divestitures required
by the Final Judgment have been
accomplished, the APSO requires the
Defendants to preserve and maintain the
value of and goodwill in the Divestiture
Assets, and continue to operate the
Divestiture Assets as economically
viable, competitive, and ongoing
business properties.
The United States 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.
II. Description of the Events Giving Rise
to the Alleged Violations
A. The Defendants and the Proposed
Transaction
Cengage Learning, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters in
Stamford, Connecticut. Cengage
Learning Holdings I, L.P., a limited
partnership with its headquarters in
Stamford, Connecticut, is the ultimate
parent entity of Cengage Learning, Inc.
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., a
limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford Connecticut,
is an intermediate entity between
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. and
Cengage Learning, Inc. Apax/TL
Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is the general partner
in Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P.
The above entities (collectively
‘‘Cengage’’) develop, publish and sell
textbooks and ancillary materials for use
in the United States and elsewhere.
Cengage is the second largest publisher
of textbooks and ancillary materials
used in courses taught at higher
education institutions in the United
States and ranks among the top three
sellers of such textbooks and materials
for each of the Overlap Courses.
Cengage had total revenues of about
$1.7 billion in the twelve-month period
ending September 30, 2007, including
about $1 billion in revenues from the
sale of higher education textbooks and
ancillary materials.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company (formerly Houghton Mifflin
Company) is a Massachusetts
corporation with its headquarters in
Boston, Massachusetts. Education
Media and Publishing Group Limited, a
Cayman Islands corporation with its
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, is the
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ultimate parent entity of Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
The above entities (collectively
‘‘Houghton Mifflin’’), develop, publish
and sell textbooks and ancillary
materials for use in the United States
and elsewhere. Houghton Mifflin’s HM
College Division is the fifth largest
publisher of textbooks and ancillary
materials used in courses taught at
higher education institutions in the
United States and ranks among the top
three sellers of such textbooks and
materials for each of the Overlap
Courses. Houghton Mifflin has total
annual revenues of about $2.5 billion,
and estimated 2007 revenues of about
$230 million from the sale of textbooks
and ancillary materials by HM College.
On or about November 30, 2007,
Cengage and Houghton Mifflin entered
into an agreement for Cengage to acquire
the assets of HM College for
approximately $750 million.
B. The Competitive Effects of the
Transaction
1. Textbooks and Ancillary Materials
Publishers market and sell textbooks
and ancillary materials for use in
courses taught at higher education
institutions. In most cases, instructors
select the textbooks and ancillary
materials that will be used for their
courses, and students buy the selected
textbooks and ancillary materials.
Textbooks are often supplemented
with ancillary educational materials,
such as teacher’s editions, audio-visual
teaching tools, Internet content, CD–
ROMs, workbooks, and study guides.
These ancillary materials are often
offered by publishers for free or as part
of a discounted package to induce
instructors to select a particular
textbook and to induce students to
purchase the publisher’s textbooks and
ancillary materials. Textbooks and
ancillary materials are used as the
primary teaching materials in each of
the Overlap Courses.
2. Relevant Product Markets
The Complaint alleges that for each
Overlap Course, the textbooks and
ancillary materials for that course
constitute a separate relevant product
market and a line of commerce pursuant
to section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Textbooks and ancillary materials are
used as the primary teaching materials
in each of the Overlap courses.
Textbooks provide the core written
material for the Overlap Courses and
serve as the foundation for instructors’
overall lesson plans. While instructors
could use alternative teaching materials
(such as copies of lecture notes and
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
articles), they generally select textbooks
to serve as the primary teaching
materials for their courses because
accessing and creating alternative
teaching materials is often a more timeconsuming, costly, and inefficient
method of delivering high quality
content to their students. Instructors
using textbooks and ancillary materials
would not turn to any alternative
teaching materials in sufficient numbers
to defeat a small but significant increase
in the price of any textbooks and
ancillary materials for the Overlap
Courses, or a small but significant
decrease in the quality of such textbooks
and other materials.
Students taking the Overlap Courses
are unlikely to have any significant
alternatives to purchasing new
textbooks for their Overlap Courses.
Although used textbooks, if available,
can sometimes serve as alternatives for
new textbooks, used textbooks are not
uniformly available in large numbers.
Moreover, instructors often require
students to use the newest textbook
editions. Publishers generally revise
textbooks every three to four years, and
revised textbooks often differ
substantially from their prior edition,
limiting the extent to which used
textbooks may be substituted for new
editions of the same textbooks. Students
would not turn to purchasing used
textbooks in sufficient numbers to
defeat a small but significant increase in
the price of a new edition of the
textbooks.
3. Relevant Geographic Market
The Complaint alleges that
Defendants market and sell textbooks
and ancillary materials for use in
courses taught at higher education
institutions throughout the United
States. Market participants for each
relevant product market alleged in the
Complaint are those publishers from
which instructors select textbooks and
ancillary materials for use as primary
teaching materials in their courses. A
hypothetical monopolist of the
textbooks and ancillary materials sold
for use in any Overlap Course in the
United States could profitably lower the
rate of quality improvements in, or
increase the price of, such textbooks and
ancillary materials in the United States.
Therefore, for each relevant product
market alleged in the Complaint, the
United States constitutes a relevant
geographic market pursuant to section 7
of the Clayton Act.
4. Anticompetitive Effects of the
Acquisition
In each relevant product and
geographic market alleged in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Complaint, Cengage and HM College
offer leading textbooks and ancillary
materials that are close substitutes for a
significant number of customers in that
market. In each such market, Cengage
and HM College are among the few
firms with a significant presence that
compete to provide textbooks and
ancillary materials, and together they
account for at least 35 percent of all
sales. Using a standard concentration
measure called the HerfindahlHirschman Index (‘‘HHI’’), the proposed
acquisition would substantially raise
market concentration in highly
concentrated markets, increasing the
HHI by more than 500 and producing a
post-merger HHI in excess of 3000 in
each relevant market.
Cengage and HM College compete
head-to-head to have their textbooks
and ancillary materials selected by
instructors for each Overlap Course in
the United States. This competition has
provided significant incentives for each
to publish new titles and improve
product quality, and it has also
disciplined pricing decisions. Although
textbooks are purchased by students
who do not select the books, the
Department’s investigation revealed that
when institutions and instructors
request price concessions at the time
they are selecting textbooks, publishers
such as Cengage and HM College have
competed to provide them. The
proposed acquisition would eliminate
the competition between Cengage and
HM College in each relevant market,
increasing the likelihood that Cengage
will unilaterally increase prices or
reduce its investment or other efforts to
develop new or improved textbooks and
ancillary materials.
The proposed acquisition therefore is
likely to substantially lessen
competition in the development,
publication, and sale of textbooks and
ancillary materials in each of the
relevant markets alleged in the
Complaint, in violation of section 7 of
the Clayton Act.
5. Entry Would Not Likely Constrain the
Acquisition’s Adverse Effects
The Complaint alleges that, in each of
the relevant product and geographic
markets, there is unlikely to be timely
entry by any firm that would be
sufficient to defeat the likely
anticompetitive effects of the proposed
acquisition. Successful entry into
developing, publishing, and selling
textbooks and ancillary materials in
each of the relevant markets is difficult,
time-consuming, and costly.
Successful entry generally can be
achieved only over many years and after
at least one or more textbook revision
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34957
cycles. Significant investment and effort
are required to assemble authors,
editorial staff and reviewing professors,
to develop and obtain licenses to
copyrighted content and ancillary
educational materials, and to train a
knowledgeable sales force. The outcome
of any such effort would be highly
uncertain, because, among other things,
the reputation of a successful incumbent
textbook is difficult for a publisher of a
new textbook to challenge. The leading
textbooks in each relevant market have
been published for some time and are
well-known to instructors. Most
instructors switch textbooks
infrequently because they develop
course syllabi, lesson plans, homework,
tests, and other materials that conform
to the textbooks they use, and changing
textbooks often requires modifications
to course syllabi and other materials.
III. Explanation of the Proposed Final
Judgment
A. The Required Divestitures
Section IV.A of the proposed Final
Judgment requires that the Defendants
divest the existing or future textbooks
described in Appendix A, which are
used in the Overlap Courses, and
associated ancillary educational
materials used with those textbooks.
The Divestiture Assets may be sold to
more than one acquirer with approval of
the United States. Section II.C specifies
that the divested textbooks include all
supplements to, derivations of, and
customized versions of the textbooks,
except the Defendants are not required
to divest existing publications that were
customized for specific institutions that
contain only a small amount of content
(less than 25%) written by an author
listed on Appendix A. The description
of Divestiture Assets in Section II.C will
ensure that the acquirer or acquirers
shall have access to all ancillary
educational materials offered with a
divested textbook. The Defendants are
required to divest all associated
ancillary materials offered specifically
or primarily for use with the textbooks.
With respect to other ancillary
educational materials that are offered
primarily for use with Defendants’ other
textbooks, but are also offered with
divested textbooks, the Defendants are
required to grant the acquirer(s) a oneyear license to use any such materials.
To the extent an acquirer desires to
continue to provide these other
ancillary materials to instructors and
students who use a divested textbook,
the one-year license is intended to
provide the acquirer a sufficient period
of time to continue selling the
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
34958
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
Defendants’ materials while it develops
substitute materials.
The Divestiture Assets also include all
tangible and intangible assets related to
the divested textbooks and any ancillary
educational materials associated with
those textbooks. For example, section
II.C(1)(a) provides that the Divestiture
Assets include, among other things, all
original artwork, illustrations and other
content, and all contracts, author
permissioning agreements and other
agreements related to the divested
textbooks and ancillary materials. In
addition, section II.C(1)(b) provides that
the Divestiture Assets include, among
other things, licenses and sublicenses to
intellectual property of any kind that is
used in the development, production,
servicing, marketing, distribution, and
sale of any of the divested textbooks or
ancillary materials.
The Divestiture Assets do not include
Defendants’ company names or
trademarks, except that the Divestiture
Assets include nonexclusive licenses to
use the corporate trademarks or trade
names of Cengage or Houghton Mifflin
sufficient to allow the acquirer(s) to sell
finished inventory or other materials
that have already been marked with
such trademarks or trade names. This
provision will ensure that the
acquirer(s) will not infringe the
Defendants’ intellectual property rights
in the course of distributing the finished
inventory.
Sale of the Divestiture Assets
according to the terms of the proposed
Final Judgment will preserve
competition between the textbooks and
ancillary materials to be divested and
the textbooks and ancillary materials
that Cengage will retain and will thus
eliminate the anticompetitive effects of
the proposed acquisition in each
relevant market alleged in the
Complaint. In each of the Overlap
Courses, the textbooks to be divested,
alone or in combination with each
other, are among the leading textbooks
sold by Defendants. For several of the
Overlap Courses, the Final Judgment
requires the divestiture of all of the
significant textbooks Cengage or HM
College offers for sale. For others, the
textbooks to be divested are the
publications by one Defendant that are
close substitutes with textbooks offered
by the other Defendant, and thus as to
which there is meaningful competition
between Cengage and HM College that
would have been eliminated by the
proposed acquisition.
seeks a divestiture remedy, the United
States seeks to require completion of the
divestiture(s) within the shortest period
of time reasonable under the
circumstances. A quick divestiture has
the benefits of restoring competition lost
in the acquisition and reducing the
possibility that the value of the assets
will be diminished. Section IV.A of the
proposed Final Judgment requires the
Defendants to divest the Divestiture
Assets within forty-five (45) calendar
days after the filing of the Complaint in
this matter, or five (5) calendar days
after notice of the entry of this Final
Judgment by the Court, whichever is
later.*1 Section IV.H requires that the
Divestiture Assets be divested in such a
way as to satisfy the United States in its
sole discretion that the Divestiture
Assets will remain viable and can and
will be operated by the acquirer(s) as
part of a viable, competitively-effective,
ongoing higher education textbook
publishing business and that the
divestiture of such assets will remedy
the competitive harm alleged in the
Complaint.
Sections IV.B, IV.C, IV.D, and IV.E
include specific obligations and
prohibitions that require the Defendants
to cooperate with prospective
acquirer(s) and facilitate the
divestitures. Similarly, section IV.F
requires the Defendants to use their best
efforts to facilitate the assignment to the
acquirer(s) of all assets included in the
Divestiture Assets that Defendants hold
or use pursuant to a license or any other
agreement.
Section V.G creates a limited
exception to the Defendants’ obligation
to divest the Divestiture Assets in their
entirety by allowing Cengage to retain a
nonexclusive license to certain
intellectual property that is used jointly
in divested textbooks and textbooks that
are not being divested. Cengage has the
right to obtain a one-year license to
continue to include content written by
an author on Appendix A in certain
customized publications that are not
required to be divested and to continue
to sell for use with textbooks that will
not be divested ancillary educational
materials that are primarily, but not
exclusively, used with the divested
textbooks. This license is intended to
allow Cengage a sufficient period of
time to continue its limited use of the
divested content while it develops
substitute content. Cengage also has the
right to a license to continue using any
copyrighted art, charts or similar
B. Selected Provisions of the Proposed
Final Judgment
In antitrust cases involving
acquisitions in which the United States
*1 The proposed Final Judgment also provides
that this time period may be extended by the United
States in its sole discretion for a period not to
exceed thirty (30) calendar days, and that the Court
will receive notice of any such extension.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
content that has been included in both
divested textbooks and textbooks that
will not be divested, other than content
attributable to the authors of the
divested textbooks. Cengage may
continue to use this content in all
existing and future textbooks and
ancillary materials, except that Cengage
must obtain the consent of the
acquirer(s) to use the content in future
textbooks or ancillary materials that will
compete with the divested textbooks
and ancillary materials.
Section V.A of the proposed Final
Judgment provides that in the event the
Defendants do not accomplish the
divestitures within the periods
prescribed in section IV.A of the
proposed Final Judgment, the Court will
appoint a trustee selected by the United
States to effect the divestitures. Section
IV.H requires that any sale of the
Divestiture Assets by a trustee be
acceptable to the United States, in its
sole discretion, and specifies that any
divestiture by a trustee must satisfy the
same criteria that a divestiture by
Defendants must satisfy. Section V.B
provides that, after a trustee is
appointed, only the trustee will have the
right to sell the Divestiture Assets, and
section V.C precludes Defendants from
objecting to a sale by the trustee on any
ground other than the trustee’s
malfeasance. Section V.E requires
Defendants to use their best efforts to
assist the trustee in accomplishing the
divestitures.
If a trustee is appointed, section V.D
provides that Defendants will pay all
costs and expenses of the trustee. The
trustee’s commission will be structured
so as to provide an incentive for the
trustee based on the price obtained and
the speed with which the divestitures
are accomplished. After his or her
appointment, section V.F requires the
trustee to file monthly reports with the
Court and the United States setting forth
his or her efforts to accomplish the
required divestitures. Section V.G
requires that, if the required divestitures
have not been accomplished within six
(6) months after a trustee’s appointment,
the trustee and the United States will
both make recommendations to the
Court, which shall enter such orders as
appropriate to carry out the purpose of
the Final Judgment, which may include
extending the trust or the term of the
trustee’s appointment.
C. The Asset Preservation Stipulation
and Order
To ensure that the Divestiture Assets
will be preserved, maintained,
marketed, and further developed, and
continue to be operated as economically
viable and ongoing business properties,
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
until the divestitures required by the
proposed Final Judgement have been
accomplished, the United States and
Defendants have agreed that the Court
may enter the APSO that was filed
simultaneously with the proposed Final
Judgment.
Sections V.A and V.B of the APSO
provide that Defendants are required to
preserve and maintain the value and
goodwill of the Divestiture Assets. Prior
to the completion of the divestitures,
Defendants must maintain and increase
the sales and revenues of the Divestiture
Asset-related products and services, and
maintain all operational, promotional,
developmental, advertising, sales,
technical, customer-service and
marketing funding and other support for
the Divestiture Assets. Defendants must
also ensure that the Divestiture Assets
arc fully maintained in operable and
saleable condition and continue to be
developed and updated, and maintain
and adhere to normal sales,
development, updating, and support
schedules for the Divestiture Assets.
Section V.C requires the Defendants to
provide sufficient capital to maintain
the Divestiture Assets and to maintain
the Divestiture Assets as economically
viable, competitive, and ongoing
business properties. Section V.D
prevents the Defendants from
transferring or otherwise disposing of
the Divestiture Assets.
These asset preservation obligations
should suffice to preserve competition
during the brief 45-day period between
consummation of the acquisition and
completion of the required divestitures.
Defendants will be required to continue
their ongoing efforts—which have in
part been stimulated by competition
between them—to make improvements
to the textbooks to be divested, and to
maintain or increase the sales of those
books. Moreover, the period between
consummation and divestiture is likely
to occur during the summer months
when instructors do not typically select
textbooks for their courses, and thus
when competitive sales efforts are less
meaningful.
Section VI of the APSO requires the
Defendants to appoint a person or
persons to oversee the implementation
of Defendants’ obligations under the
proposed Final Judgment and the APSO.
The appointed person(s) will be
responsible for ensuring Defendants’
compliance with the asset preservation
requirements specified in section V of
the APSO, will have complete
managerial responsibility for the
Divestiture Assets, and will have
authority to direct and implement all
steps necessary to ensure Defendants’
full compliance with section V. Any
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
person(s) appointed to oversee the
Divestiture Assets must receive a
compensation package that provides a
significant incentive to increase sales of
the Divestiture Assets.
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
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.
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 a
summary of this Competitive Impact
Statement, whichever is later. All
comments received during this period
will be considered by the United States
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: James J. Tierney, Chief,
Networks & Technology Enforcement
Section, Antitrust Division, United
States Department of Justice, 600 E
Street, NW., Suite 9500, Washington,
DC 20530.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34959
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
The United States considered, as an
alternative to the proposed Final
Judgment, a full trial on the merits
against Defendants. The United States
could have continued the litigation and
sought preliminary and permanent
injunctions against the proposed
acquisition. The United States is
satisfied, however, that the divestiture
of assets described in the proposed
Final Judgment will preserve
competition in the development,
publication and sale of textbooks and
ancillary materials in the relevant
markets alleged in the Complaint. Thus,
the proposed Final Judgment would
achieve all or substantially all of the
relief the United States would have
obtained through litigation, but avoids
the time, expense, and uncertainty of a
full trial on the merits of 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)(1). 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). In
considering these statutory factors, the
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
34960
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis
added) (citations omitted).3 In
determining whether a proposed
settlement is in the public interest, 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.’’ 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-DanielsMidland 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).
Courts have greater flexibility in
approving proposed consent decrees
than in crafting their own decrees
following a finding of liability in a
litigated matter. ‘‘[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)
(citations omitted) (quoting United
States v. Gillette Co., 406 F.Supp. 713,
716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff’d 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
2 The 2004 amendments substituted ‘‘shall’’ for
‘‘may’’ in directing relevant factors for a 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);
see also SBC Commc’ns, 489 F.Supp. 2d at 11
(concluding that the 2004 amendments ‘‘effected
minimal changes’’ to Tunney Act review).
3 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’’’).
4 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’’); United States v. Mid-Am.
Dairymen, Inc., 1977–1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 61,508,
court’s inquiry is necessarily a limited
one as the government is entitled to
‘‘broad discretion to settle with the
defendant within the reaches of the
public interest.’’ United States v.
Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461
(D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally United
States v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 489 F.
Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) (assessing
public interest standard under the
Tunney Act).2
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
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458–62. With
respect to the adequacy of the relief
secured by the decree, a court may not
‘‘engage in an 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; United
States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F.Supp. 2d 37,
40 (D.D.C. 2001). Courts have held that:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
[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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 that
‘‘[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
Congress intended when it enacted the
Tunney Act in 1974, as Senator Tunney
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
nature of Tunney Act proceedings.’’
SBC Commc’ns, 489 F.Supp. 2d at 11.4
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials
or documents within the meaning of the
APPA that were considered by the
United States in formulating the
proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: May 28, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane J. Brody, Justine K. Donahue (DC
Bar #476255), Aaron Comenetz (DC
Bar #479572), John C. Filippini (DC
Bar #165159), Kent Brown, Aaron
Brodsky.
Attorneys, Networks &; Technology
Enforcement Section, Antitrust
Division, United States Department of
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.’’); 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.’’).
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 119 / Thursday, June 19, 2008 / Notices
Justice, 600 E Street, NW., Suite 9500,
Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307–
6200.
34961
Appendix A
Course
Textbooks
Business: Introductory ..............................................................................
All textbooks that relate to the study of introduction to business with
which Louis Boone has been or will be associated, and all textbooks
that relate to the study of introduction to business with which David
Kurtz has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which Jean-Luc Penfornis has been or will be associated.
All textbooks that relate to the study of French language or literature at
the intermediate level with which Michael Oates has been or will be
associated, all textbooks with which Jacques Dubois has been or will
be associated, all textbooks with which Simone Renaud has been or
will be associated, all textbooks with which Dominique Van Hooff
has been or will be associated, all textbooks that relate to the study
of French language or literature at the intermediate level with which
Jean-Paul Valette has been or will be associated, and all textbooks
that relate to the study of French language or literature at the intermediate level with which Rebecca Valette has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which Kimberly Sparks has been or will be associated, and all textbooks with which Van Horn Vail has been or will be
associated.
All textbooks with which Marcel Danesi has been or will be associated,
and all textbooks with which Suzanne Branciforte has been or will be
associated.
All textbooks with which Marcel Danesi has been or will be associated,
and all textbooks with which Francesca Italiano has been or will be
associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John McKay has been or will be associated.
All textbooks with which John Gardner has been or will be associated.
Foreign Languages and Literature: French: Language: Business French
Foreign Languages and Literature: French: Language: Intermediate .....
Foreign Languages and Literature: German: Language: Grammar ........
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian: Language: Elementary .........
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian: Language: Intermediate .......
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1500 to Present ............................
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1750 to Present ............................
History: Western Civilization Survey: Prehistory to 1715 .........................
History: Western Civilization Survey: Prehistory to Present ....................
History: World History Survey: 1400 to 1750 ...........................................
History: World History Survey: 1500 to Present ......................................
History: World History Survey: Prehistory to Present ..............................
Interdisciplinary Studies: Orientation to College ......................................
[FR Doc. E8–13029 Filed 6–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
June 13, 2008.
The Department of Labor (DOL)
hereby announces the submission of the
following public information collection
request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
A copy of this ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation, including
among other things a description of the
likely respondents, proposed frequency
of response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov
Web site at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain or by contacting
Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:00 Jun 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
not a toll-free number)/e-mail:
king.darrin@dol.gov.
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington,
DC 20503, Telephone: 202–395–7316/
Fax: 202–395–6974 (these are not tollfree numbers), E-mail:
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within
30 days from the date of this publication
in the Federal Register. In order to
ensure the appropriate consideration,
comments should reference the OMB
Control Number (see below).
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Title: National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth 1997.
OMB Control Number: 1220–0157.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
7,350.
Total Estimated Annual Burden
Hours: 7,360.
Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:
$0.
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 119 (Thursday, June 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34948-34961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13029]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Cengage
Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings,
LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group Limited, and Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt Publishing Company; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive
Impact Statement
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment,
Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact
Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia in United States v. Cengage Learning Holdings I,
L.P., Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-00899. On May 28, 2008, the United
States filed a Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by
Cengage Learning of the assets of Houghton Mifflin College Division
would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed
Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires
Cengage Learning to divest assets related to textbooks and educational
materials used in 14 college-level courses.
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, 450 Fifth
Street, NW., Suite 1010, 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 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 James J. Tierney, Chief, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section,
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 600 E Street, NW., Suite
9500, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-307-6200).
Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States of America, United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, 600 E Street, NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC
20530, Plaintiff, v. Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P., Cengage
Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/Tl Holdings,
LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group Limiited, and Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, Defendants
Case No.:
Judge:
Case: 1:08-cv-00899, Assigned To: Bates, John D., Assign. Date: 5/28/
2008, Description: Antitrust.
Complaint
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust
action to enjoin the proposed acquisition by Cengage Learning, Inc. and
related entities (collectively ``Cengage''), of the assets of the
Houghton Mifflin College Division (``HM College'') from Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company and a related entity (collectively
``Houghton Mifflin''), and to obtain equitable and other relief. The
United States complains and alleges as follows:
I. Nature of the Action
1. On or about November 30, 2007, Cengage and Houghton Mifflin
entered into an agreement for Cengage to acquire the assets of HM
College for approximately $750 million.
2. Cengage and HM College publish textbooks and other educational
materials and are direct competitors in the development, publication,
and sale of textbooks and ancillary print and electronic (including
Internet-based) educational materials (collectively ``textbooks and
ancillary materials'') used in numerous courses taught at higher
education institutions throughout the United States.
For the courses listed in Appendix A of this Complaint (hereinafter
``the Overlap Courses''), Cengage and HM College publish textbooks and
ancillary materials that compete head-to-head with each other and are
close substitutes.
3. The markets for textbooks and ancillary materials used in the
Overlap Courses are highly concentrated and have high barriers to
entry. Cengage's proposed acquisition of the assets of HM College would
eliminate competition between Cengage and HM College in these markets.
4. The United States brings this action to prevent Cengage's
proposed acquisition of the assets of HM College because it is likely
to substantially lessen competition in the development, publication,
and sale of textbooks and ancillary materials used in the Overlap
Courses in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
18.
II. Parties to the Proposed Acquisition
5. Cengage Learning, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. Cengage Learning Holdings I,
L.P., a limited partnership with its headquarters in Stamford,
Connecticut, is the ultimate parent entity of Cengage Learning, Inc.
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., a limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford Connecticut, is an intermediate entity between
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. and Cengage Learning, Inc. Apax/TL
Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general
partner in Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. The above entities
(collectively ``Cengage'') develop, publish, and sell textbooks and
ancillary materials for use
[[Page 34949]]
in the United States and elsewhere. Cengage is the second largest
publisher of textbooks and ancillary materials used in courses taught
at higher education institutions in the United States and ranks among
the top three sellers of such textbooks and materials for each of the
Overlap Courses. Cengage had total revenues of about $1.7 billion in
the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2007, including about $1
billion in revenues from the sale of higher education textbooks and
ancillary materials.
6. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company (formerly Houghton
Mifflin Company) is a Massachusetts corporation with its headquarters
in Boston, Massachusetts. Education Media and Publishing Group Limited,
a Cayman Islands corporation with its headquarters in Dublin, Ireland,
is the ultimate parent entity of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company. The above entities (collectively ``Houghton Mifflin'')
develop, publish, and sell textbooks and ancillary materials for use in
the United States and elsewhere. Houghton Mifflin's HM College Division
is the fifth largest publisher of textbooks and ancillary materials
used in courses taught at higher education institutions in the United
States and ranks among the top three sellers of such textbooks and
materials for each of the Overlap Courses. Houghton Mifflin has total
annual revenues of about $2.5 billion, and estimated 2007 revenues of
about $230 million from the sale of textbooks and ancillary materials
by HM College.
III. Jurisdiction and Venue
7. The United States brings this action under Section 15 of the
Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain the
Defendants from violating section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
8. Defendants' activities in developing, publishing, and selling
textbooks and ancillary materials for use in the Overlap Courses are in
the flow of and substantially affect interstate trade and commerce.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1331,
1337(a), and 1345.
9. Defendants sell higher education textbooks and ancillary
materials in, and have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in,
this judicial district. Venue is proper under 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28
U.S.C. 1391(d).
IV. Trade and Commerce
A. Relevant Product Markets for Textbooks and Ancillary Materials
10. Publishers market and sell textbooks and ancillary materials
for use in courses taught at higher education institutions. In most
cases, instructors select the textbooks and ancillary materials that
will be used for their courses, and students buy the selected textbooks
and ancillary materials.
11. Textbooks are often supplemented with ancillary educational
materials, such as teacher's editions, audio-visual teaching tools,
Internet content, CD-ROMs, workbooks, and study guides. These materials
are often offered by publishers for free or as part of a discounted
package to induce instructors to select a particular textbook and to
induce students to purchase the publisher's textbooks and ancillary
materials.
12. Textbooks and ancillary materials are used as the primary
teaching materials in each of the Overlap Courses. Textbooks provide
the core written material for the Overlap Courses and serve as the
foundation for instructors' overall lesson plans. While instructors
could use alternative teaching materials (such as copies of lecture
notes and articles), they generally select textbooks to serve as the
primary teaching materials for their courses because accessing and
creating alternative teaching materials is often a more time-consuming,
costly, and inefficient method of delivering high quality content to
their students. Instructors using textbooks and ancillary materials
would not turn to any alternative teaching materials in sufficient
numbers to defeat a small but significant increase in the price of any
textbooks and ancillary materials for the Overlap Courses, or a small
but significant decrease in the quality of such textbooks and other
materials.
13. Students taking the Overlap Courses are unlikely to have any
significant alternatives to purchasing new textbooks for these courses.
Although used textbooks, if available, can sometimes serve as
alternatives for new textbooks, used textbooks are not uniformly
available in large numbers. Moreover, instructors often require
students to use the newest textbook editions. Publishers generally
revise textbooks every three to four years and revised textbooks often
differ substantially from their prior edition, limiting the extent to
which used textbooks may be substituted for new editions of the same
textbooks. Students would not turn to purchasing used textbooks in
sufficient numbers to defeat a small but significant increase in the
price of a new edition of the textbooks.
14. Each Overlap Course is a separate course focused on a different
subject and therefore requires instructors and students in the course
to use the textbooks and ancillary materials that have been developed
for that course. For each Overlap Course, the textbooks and ancillary
materials for that course constitute a separate relevant product market
and a line of commerce pursuant to Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
B. The Relevant Geographic Market
15. Defendants market and sell textbooks and ancillary materials
for use in courses taught at higher education institutions throughout
the United States. Market participants for each relevant product market
alleged herein are those publishers from which instructors select
textbooks and ancillary materials for use as primary teaching materials
in their courses. A hypothetical monopolist of the textbooks and
ancillary materials sold for use in any Overlap Course in the United
States could profitably lower the rate of quality improvements in and/
or increase the price of such textbooks and ancillary materials in the
United States. For each relevant product market alleged herein, the
United States constitutes a relevant geographic market pursuant to
Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
C. Anti Competitive Effects: Loss of Price and Product Quality
Competition
16. In each relevant product and geographic market alleged herein,
Cengage and HM College offer leading textbooks and ancillary materials
that are close substitutes for a significant number of customers in
that market. In each such market, Cengage and HM College are among the
few firms with a significant presence that compete to provide textbooks
and ancillary materials and consistently account for at least 35
percent of all sales. Using a standard concentration measure called the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (or ``HHI,'' defined and explained in
Appendix B), the proposed acquisition would substantially raise market
concentration in highly concentrated markets, increasing the HHI by
more than 500 and producing a post-merger HHI in excess of 3000 in each
relevant market.
17. Cengage and HM College compete head-to-head to be selected by
instructors to provide textbooks and ancillary materials for each
Overlap Course in the United States. This competition has provided
significant
[[Page 34950]]
incentives for each to publish new titles and improve product quality
and has disciplined pricing decisions. The proposed acquisition would
eliminate this competition in each relevant market, increasing the
likelihood that Cengage will unilaterally increase prices or reduce its
investment or other efforts to develop new or improved textbooks and
ancillary materials.
18. The proposed acquisition is likely to substantially lessen
competition in the development, publication, and sale of textbooks and
ancillary materials in each of the relevant markets, in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
D. Entry: New Entrants Will Not Defeat an Exercise of Market Power
19. In each relevant product and geographic market alleged herein,
there is unlikely to be timely entry by any firm that would be
sufficient to defeat the likely anticompetitive effects of the proposed
acquisition. Successful entry into developing, publishing, and selling
textbooks and ancillary materials in each of the relevant markets is
difficult, time-consuming, and costly.
20. Successful entry generally can be achieved only over many years
and after at least one or more textbook revision cycles. Significant
investment and effort are required to assemble authors, editorial
staff, and reviewing professors, to develop and obtain licenses to
copyrighted content and ancillary educational materials, and to train a
knowledgeable sales force. The outcome of such effort would be highly
uncertain because, among other things, the reputation of a successful
incumbent textbook is difficult for a publisher of a new textbook to
challenge. The leading textbooks in each relevant market have been
published for some time and are well-known to instructors. Most
instructors switch textbooks infrequently because they develop course
syllabi, lesson plans, homework, tests, and other materials that
conform to the textbooks they use, and changing textbooks usually
requires modifications to course syllabi and other materials.
V. Violations Alleged
21. The United States incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1
through 20 above.
22. The proposed acquisition of HM College by Cengage would
substantially lessen competition in interstate trade and commerce in
violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
23. Unless restrained, the acquisition would likely have the
following anticompetitive effects, among others:
a. Actual and future competition between Cengage and Houghton
Mifflin in the development, publication, and sale of textbooks and
ancillary materials in each relevant product and geographic market
alleged herein will be eliminated;
b. Competition in the development, publication, and sale of
textbooks and ancillary materials in each relevant market will be
substantially lessened; and
c. The rate of quality improvements in the textbooks and ancillary
materials in each relevant market likely will decline and/or prices for
such textbooks and ancillary materials likely will increase.
VI. Request for Relief
24. The United States requests that this Court:
a. Adjudge and decree the proposed acquisition to violate section 7
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
b. Enjoin and restrain the Defendants and all persons acting on
their behalf from consummating the proposed acquisition or from
entering into or carrying out any contract, agreement, plan, or
understanding, the effect of which would be to combine HM College with
the operations of Cengage;
c. Award the United States its costs for this action; and
d. Grant the United States such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
For Plaintiff United States of America:
Thomas O. Barnett (D.C. Bar 426840),
Assistant Attorney General.
James J. Tierney (D.C. Bar 434610), Chief, Networks &
Technology Enforcement Section.
David L. Meyer (D.C. Bar 414420), Deputy Assistant Attorney
General.
Scott A. Scheele (D.C. Bar 429061), Assistant Chief, Networks
& Technology Enforcement Section.
Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations.
Janet J. Brody.
Justine K. Donahue (D.C. Bar 476255).
Aaron Comenetz (D.C. Bar 479572).
John C. Filippini (D.C. Bar 165159).
Kent Brown.
Aaron Brodsky.
Attorneys, Networks & Technology Enforcement Section.
Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 600 B Street,
NW., Suite 9500, Washington, DC 20530, (202) 307-6200, Dated: May 28,
2008.
Appendix A
Overlap Courses
Business: Introductory.
Foreign Languages and Literature: French: Language: Business French.
Foreign Languages and Literature: French: Language: Intermediate.
Foreign Languages and Literature: German: Language: Grammar.
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian: Language: Elementary.
Foreign Languages and Literature: Italian: Language: Intermediate.
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1500 to Present.
History: Western Civilization Survey: 1750 to Present.
History: Western Civilization Survey: Prehistory to 1715.
History: Western Civilization Survey: Prehistory to Present.
History: World History Survey: 1400 to 1750.
History: World History Survey: 1500 to Present.
History: World History Survey: Prehistory to Present.
Interdisciplinary Studies: Orientation to College.
Appendix B
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%, the
HHI is 2600 (302 + 302 +202 + 202 = 2600). 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 Sec. 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.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Cengage Learning Holdings
I, L.P., Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc.,
Apax/Tl Holdings, LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group
Limited, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company,
Defendants
Case No.: Judge: Case: 1:08-Cv-00899, Assigned To: Bates, John D.,
Assign. Date: 5/28/2008, Description: Antitrust.
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint
on May 28, 2008, and the United States and Defendants, Cengage and
Houghton
[[Page 34951]]
Mifflin, as defined below, 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 the 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 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. ``Cengage'' means Defendants Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P, a
limited partnership with its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut;
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., a limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, which is controlled by Cengage
Learning Holdings I, L.P.; Cengage Learning, Inc., a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut, which is
controlled by Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P.; and Apax/TL Holdings,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that is the general partner
in Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P.; their successors, assigns,
subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, joint
ventures; and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and
employees.
B. ``Houghton Mifflin'' means Defendants Education Media and
Publishing Group Limited, a Cayman Islands corporation with it
headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publishing Company, a Massachusetts corporation with its headquarters
in Boston, Massachusetts, which is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary
of Education Media and Publishing Group Limited; their successors,
assigns, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships,
joint ventures; and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and
employees.
C. ``Divestiture Assets'' means all of the textbooks described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and associated ancillary educational
materials offered or under development by any of the Defendants for use
with any such textbook. Each textbook includes all versions that are
customizations of, components of supplements to, derivations of,
volumes that address specific subjects or periods included in the
subject matter of, or brief or ``essentials'' versions of the textbook,
but does not include any customized publication sold prior to the
filing of the Complaint in this matter that both (i) is not authored or
co-authored by any author listed in Exhibit A, and (ii) contains
content from an author identified in, or a textbook described in,
Exhibit A that comprises less than twenty-five (25) percent of the
publisher-provided content (hereafter ``Excluded Customized
Publications''). The associated ancillary educational materials include
all materials in any form or format offered or under development for
use with any textbook, including teacher editions or aids, excerpts,
workbooks, outlines, summaries, study guides, notebooks, charts, audio,
video, software, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, Internet and broadcast components,
all other technology components, teacher support and staff development
materials, and any other materials. The associated ancillary
educational materials include (i) materials that are or will be offered
specifically for use with any textbook listed on Exhibit A; (ii)
materials that are or will be offered primarily for use with any such
textbook, meaning at least fifty (50) percent of the total units of
such materials shipped in the United States during the twelve-month
period prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter were
associated with the sale of any such textbook (or for materials still
under development, meaning at least fifty (50) percent of the total
units of such materials forecast to be shipped in the United States
during the twelve-month period following development are forecast to be
associated with the sale of any such textbook) (hereafter ``Category
(ii) Ancillary Materials''); and (iii) a one-year, nonexclusive,
royalty-free license to use materials that have been offered during the
twelve-month period prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter
for use in association with any of the textbooks described in Exhibit A
but are offered primarily for use with other textbooks, meaning at
least fifty (50) percent of the units of such materials shipped in the
United States during the twelve-month period prior to the filing of the
Complaint in this matter were associated with the sale of other
textbooks. (The textbooks and associated ancillary educational
materials are hereafter collectively referred to as ``Divested
Textbooks.'')
(1) The Divestiture Assets Include:
(a) All tangible assets used in the development, production,
servicing, marketing, distribution, and sale of the Divested Textbooks,
including, but not limited to, all records relating to historic and
current research data and activities and development activities
relating to the Divested Textbooks; all original and digital artwork,
film plates, and other reproductive materials relating to the Divested
Textbooks; all manuscripts, illustrations, any other content, and any
revisions or revision plans thereof in print or digital form; all
finished inventory; all licenses, permits and authorizations issued by
any governmental organization relating to the Divested Textbooks; all
contracts, teaming arrangements, agreements, commitments,
certifications, and understandings relating to the Divested Textbooks,
including, but not limited to, author permissions and agreements,
publishing agreements, research agreements, other similar agreements,
and supply and distribution agreements; all customer lists, contracts,
purchase orders, accounts, and credit records, or similar records of
all sales and potential sales of the Divested Textbooks; all sales
support and promotional materials, advertising materials, and
production, sales and marketing files relating to the Divested
Textbooks; at the option of the Acquirer(s), computers and other
tangible assets used primarily for the production or distribution of
the Divested Textbooks; and all performance and all other records
relating to the Divested Textbooks; and
(b) All intangible assets used in the development, production,
servicing, marketing, distribution, and sale of the Divested Textbooks,
including, but not limited to; all patents, licenses and sublicenses,
intellectual property,
[[Page 34952]]
copyrights, contract rights, trademarks (registered and unregistered),
trade names, service marks, service names, including all titles of
existing products comprising or relating to the Divested Textbooks, but
only including nonexclusive licenses to use the corporate trademarks or
trade names of Cengage or Houghton Mifflin sufficient to allow any
Acquirer to sell finished inventory or other materials that have
already been marked with such trademarks or trade names; all technical
information, computer software and related documentation, know-how,
trade secrets, drawings, blueprints, designs, design protocols,
specifications for materials, quality assurance and control procedures,
and manuals used for any purpose relating to the Divested Textbooks or
that Defendants provide to their own employees, customers, suppliers,
agents or licensees for use in relation to the Divested Textbooks; and
all other intangible research data concerning historic and current
research and development efforts relating to the Divested Textbooks.
(2) The Divestiture Assets Do Not Include:
(a) Except to the extent included in the non-exclusive license of
materials described in Section II.C.(1)(b), the company names, company
Internet domain names, and company trademarks of Defendants or any of
their affiliates, or portions or elements thereof, including, but not
limited to, ``Cengage'', ``South-Western'', ``Wadsworth'', ``Brooks
Cole'', ``Heinle'', ``Houghton Mifflin'', ``HM'', and ``HMCo'';
(b) Defendants' employee records that may not be produced under
applicable law; and
(c) Originals of books or records, as well as the information
management systems used to create and store such books and records,
that Defendants are required by law to retain or that Defendants
determine are necessary or advisable to retain, provided that copies of
any such books or records, or data sets that can be accessed by
information management systems, are provided in a form useable by the
Acquirer(s), subject to customary confidentiality assurances, to any
Acquirer(s) or potential Acquirer(s).
D. ``Acquirer'' or ``Acquirers'' means the entity or entities to
whom Defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
III. Applicability
A. This Final Judgment applies to Cengage and Houghton Mifflin, 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. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Final Judgment, Houghton Mifflin's obligations under sections
IV.A, IV.H, V.A, V.B, V.D, VI.A shall cease upon completion of its sale
of the Divestiture Assets to Cengage as part of its sale to Cengage of
the assets of the Houghton Mifflin College Division.
B. If prior to complying with sections 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 Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets pursuant to
this Final Judgment.
IV. Divestitures
A. Defendants are ordered and directed, within forty-five (45)
calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, 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 one or more Acquirers
acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. The United
States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of
this time period not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days in total, and
shall notify the Court in such circumstances. Defendants agree to use
their best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as expeditiously as
possible.
B. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final
Judgment, Defendants promptly shall make known, 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 privilege or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall
make available such information to the United States at the same time
that such information is made available to any other person.
C. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer(s) and the United States
the identity of any personnel responsible for any editorial content of
any Divestiture Asset, and any personnel involved in the management,
sale, marketing, development, design, layout, production, research,
operation, delivery, distribution, acquisition or maintenance of
licenses or other rights to copyrights or other intellectual property,
or provision or development of seminars or training activities relating
to any of the Divestiture Assets, to enable the Acquirer(s) to make
offers of employment. Defendants will not interfere with any
negotiations or attempts by the Acquirer(s) to employ or contract with
any of Defendants' officers, directors, employees, or any other persons
responsible for any such activity related to any Divestiture Asset and,
if requested, will release any such person from any non-compete
agreement with any of the Defendants.
D. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the Divestiture
Assets to have reasonable access to personnel responsible for the
Divestiture Assets (as described in section IV.C of this Final
Judgment); and to have access to any and all financial, operational, or
other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due
diligence process.
E. Defendants shall warrant to all Acquirers of the Divestiture
Assets that each asset is complete, intact, fully functional and
operational on the date of sale, provided that, for any asset that is
in development at the time of sale, Defendants shall describe the
extent to which the asset is complete, intact, functional and
operational and project the amount of time, money and effort required
to complete the development. Defendants shall warrant to all Acquirers
of the Divestiture Assets that each asset has been preserved,
maintained, developed, sold, and operated as required by the Asset
Preservation Stipulation and Order filed simultaneously with the Court.
F. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way
the permitting, publication, marketing, sale, development,
administration, acquisition or maintenance of related licenses or other
rights to copyrights or other intellectual property, function,
operation or divestiture of the Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall
use their best efforts to facilitate the assignment to the Acquirer(s)
of all of the tangible and intangible assets included in the
Divestiture Assets that Defendants presently hold or use pursuant to a
license or any other agreement.
[[Page 34953]]
G. Defendant Cengage shall have the right to obtain from the
Acquirer(s) of the Divestiture Assets:
(1) With respect to each Excluded Customized Publication, a one-
year, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to continue to include in
that publication Divestiture Asset-related content;
(2) With respect to Category (ii) Ancillary Materials, a one-year,
non-exclusive, royalty-free license to continue to sell such materials
in association with textbooks that are not described on Exhibit A
where, prior to the filing of the Complaint in this matter, such
materials were sold in association with those textbooks; and
(3) With respect to copyrighted art, photographs, illustrations,
charts, graphs, or other similar content that, at the time of the
filing of the Complaint in this matter, were included within both the
Divestiture Assets and other textbooks and products (other than content
written, developed produced or copyrighted by, or otherwise
attributable to, (i) any author identified in Exhibit A with respect to
any course associated with that author in Exhibit A, or (ii) the
author's co-authors or successor authors), a non-exclusive, royalty-
free license to continue to use such content (i) in the other textbooks
and products in which it is now included, (ii) in future textbooks and
ancillary educational materials other than textbooks and materials
offered for use in any course listed in Exhibit A, and (iii) with the
permission of the Acquirer(s) of all of the Divested Assets applicable
to any course listed in Exhibit A, in future textbooks and ancillary
materials for use in that course.
H. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the
divestitures pursuant to section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant
to section V, of this Final Judgment, shall include the entire
Divestiture Assets, and shall be accomplished in such a way as to
satisfy the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture
Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer(s) as part of a viable,
ongoing higher education textbook publishing business. 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 divestitures, whether pursuant to section IV or
section V of this Final Judgment:
(1) Shall be made to an Acquirer(s) that, in the United States's
sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the necessary
managerial, operational, technical and financial capability) of
competing effectively in the higher education textbook publishing
business; and
(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 give Defendants the ability unreasonably to
raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's efficiency, or
otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer to compete
effectively.
V. Appointment of Trustee
A. If Defendants have not divested the Divestiture Assets within
the time period specified in section IV.A of this Final Judgment,
Defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing. Upon
application of the United States, the Court shall appoint a trustee
selected by the United States and approved by the Court to effect the
divestiture of the Divestiture Assets.
B. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only the
trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The
trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the
divestiture to an Acquirer(s) acceptable to the United States at such
price and on such terms as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort
by the 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.D of this Final Judgment, the
trustee may hire at the cost and expense of Defendants any investment
bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely accountable to
the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's judgment to assist
in the divestitures.
C. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any
ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by
Defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the
trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided
the notice required under section VI of this Final Judgment.
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Defendants,
on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and shall
account for all monies derived from the sale of the assets sold by the
trustee and all costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the
Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees for its services and
those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all
remaining money shall be paid to Defendants and the trust shall then be
terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals and
agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of the
value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement
providing the 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.
E. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee in
accomplishing the required divestitures. The trustee and any
consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by the
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
such businesses as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to
reasonable protection for trade secrets or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information. Defendants shall take no action
to interfere with or to impede the trustee's accomplishment of the
divestitures.
F. After its appointment, the trustee shall file monthly reports
with the United States and the Court setting forth the trustee's
efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered under this Final
Judgment. To the extent such reports contain information that the
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 trustee
shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the
Divestiture Assets.
G. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestitures ordered
under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its appointment,
the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report setting forth:
(1) The trustee's efforts to accomplish the required divestitures, (2)
the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the required divestitures
have not been accomplished, and (3) the trustee's recommendations. To
the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems
confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of
the Court. The trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to
the United States, which shall have the right to make additional
[[Page 34954]]
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 trustee's appointment
by a period requested by the United States.
VI. Notice of Proposed Divestitures
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a definitive
divestiture agreement, Defendants or the trustee, whichever is then
responsible for effecting the divestitures required herein, shall
notify the United States of any proposed divestiture(s) required by
section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee is responsible,
it shall similarly notify Defendants. The notice shall set forth the
details of the proposed divestiture(s) 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 trustee, if
applicable, additional information concerning the proposed
divestiture(s), the proposed Acquirer(s), and any other potential
Acquirer. Defendants and the 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 trustee, whichever is
later, the United States shall provide written notice to Defendants and
the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects to the
proposed divestiture(s). If the United States provides written notice
that it does not object, the divestiture(s) may be consummated, subject
only to Defendants' limited right to object to the sale under section
V.C of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that the United
States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon objection by
the United States, a divestiture proposed under section IV or section V
of this Final Judgment shall not be consummated. Upon objection by
Defendants under section V.C, 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 purchase made
pursuant to section IV or section 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 Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order entered by this Court.
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 have been completed under section IV or section V of
this Final Judgment, Defendants shall deliver to the United States an
affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with section IV
or section V. 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 limitations 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 of determining whether the Final Judgment should be
modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized privilege,
from time to time 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' regular office hours to inspect and
copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendants to
provide electronic or hard 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 responses 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, 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
[[Page 34955]]
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
Defendant Cengage may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture
Assets during the term of this Final Judgment.
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 Judgment
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall
expire ten (10) 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:
Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.
United States District Judge.
Exhibit A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Course Textbooks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business: Introductory....... All textbooks that relate to the study of
introduction to business with which
Louis Boone has been or will be
associated, and all textbooks that
relate to the study of introduction to
business with which David Kurtz has been
or will be associated.
Foreign Languages and All textbooks with which Jean-Luc
Literature: French: Penfornis has been or will be
Language: Business French. associated.
Foreign Languages and All textbooks that relate to the study of
Literature: French: French language or literature at the
Language: Intermediate. intermediate level with which Michael
Oates has been or will be associated,
all textbooks with which Jacques Dubois
has been or will be associated, all
textbooks with which Simone Renaud has
been or will be associated, all
textbooks with which Dominique Van Hooff
has been or will be associated, all
textbooks that relate to the study of
French language or literature at the
intermediate level with which Jean-Paul
Valette has been or will be associated,
and all textbooks that relate to the
study of French language, or literature
at the intermediate level with which
Rebecca Valette has been or will be
associated.
Foreign Languages and All textbooks with which Kimberly Sparks
Literature: German: has been or will be associated, and all
Language: Grammar. textbooks with which Van Horn Vail has
been or will be associated.
Foreign Languages and All textbooks with which Marcel Danesi
Literature: Italian: has been or will be associated, and all
Language: Elementary. textbooks with which Suzanne Branciforte
has been or will be associated.
Foreign Languages and All textbooks with which Marcel Danesi
Literature: Italian: has been or will be associated, and all
Language: Intermediate. textbooks with which Francesca Italiano
has been or will be associated.
History: Western Civilization All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: 1500 to Present. been or will be associated.
History: Western Civilization All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: 1750 to Present. been or will be associated.
History: Western Civilization All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: Prehistory to 1715. been or will be associated.
History: Western Civilization All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: Prehistory to been or will be associated.
Present.
History: World History All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: 1400 to 1750. been or will be associated.
History: World History All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: 1500 to Present. been or will be associated.
History: World History All textbooks with which John McKay has
Survey: Prehistory to been or will be associated.
Present.
Interdisciplinary Studies: All textbooks with which John Gardner has
Orientation to College. been or will be associated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34956]]
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Cengage Learning Holdings I,
L.P., Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., Cengage Learning, Inc., Apax/
Tl Holdings, LLC, Education Media and Publishing Group Limited, and
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, Defendants
Case No.: Judge: Case: 1:08Cv-00899, Assigned To: Bates, John D.,
Assign. Date: 5/28/2008, Description: Antitrust.
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. 16(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
The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on May 28,
2008, seeking to enjoin the proposed acquisition by Cengage Learning,
Inc., and related entities (collectively ``Cengage''), of the assets of
the Houghton Mifflin College Division (``HM College'') from Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, and a related entity (collectively
``Houghton Mifflin''). The Complaint alleges that the likely effects of
this acquisition would be to substantially lessen competition in the
development, publication, and sale of textbooks and ancillary
educational materials (collectively ``textbooks and ancillary
materials'') used in fourteen higher education courses listed in
Appendix A (hereinafter ``the Overlap Courses''), in violation of
section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The loss of competition
caused by the acquisition would likely result in a reduced rate of
quality improvements in, and/or increased prices for, the textbooks and
ancillary materials used in each of the fourteen courses in the United
States.
At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also
filed an Asset Preservation Stipulation and Order (``APSO'') and a
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, the Defendants are
required to divest all tangible and intangible assets used in the
development, production, servicing, marketing, distribution and sale of
certain textbooks in the Overlap Courses and all associated ancillary
educational materials (collectively ``Divestiture Assets''). Until the
divestitures required by the Final Judgment have been accomplished, the
APSO requires the Defendants to preserve and maintain the value of and
goodwill in the Divestiture Assets, and continue to operate the
Divestiture Assets as economically viable, competitive, and ongoing
business properties.
The United States 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.
II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violations
A. The Defendants and the Proposed Transaction
Cengage Learning, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. Cengage Learning Holdings I,
L.P., a limited partnership with its headquarters in Stamford,
Connecticut, is the ultimate parent entity of Cengage Learning, Inc.
Cengage Learning Holdings II L.P., a limited partnership with its
headquarters in Stamford Connecticut, is an intermediate entity between
Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. and Cengage Learning, Inc. Apax/TL
Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general
partner in Cengage Learning Holdings I, L.P. The above entities
(collectively ``Cengage'') develop, publish and sell textbooks and
ancillary materials for use in the United States and elsewhere. Cengage
is the second largest publisher of textbooks and ancillary materials
used in courses taught at higher education institutions in the United
States and ranks among the top three sellers of such textbooks and
materials for each of the Overlap Courses. Cengage had total revenues
of about $1.7 billion in the twelve-month period ending September 30,
2007, including about $1 billion in revenues from the sale of higher
education textbooks and ancillary materials.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company (formerly Houghton
Mifflin Company) is a Massachusetts corporation with its headquarters
in Boston, Massachusetts. Education Media and Publishing Group Limited,
a Cayman Islands corporation with its headquarters in Dublin, Ireland,
is the ultimate parent entity of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company. The above entities (collectively ``Houghton Mifflin''),
develop, publish and sell textbooks and ancillary materials for use in
the United States and elsewhere. Houghton Mifflin's HM College Division
is the fifth largest publisher of textbooks and ancillary materials
used in courses taught at higher education institutions in the United
States and ranks among the top three sellers of such textbooks and
materials for each of the Overlap Courses. Houghton Mifflin has total
annual revenues of about $2.5 billion, and estimated 2007 revenues of
about $230 million from the sale of textbooks and ancillary materials
by HM College.
On or about November 30, 2007, Cengage and Houghton Mifflin entered
into an agreement for Cengage to acquire the assets of HM College for
approximately $750 million.
B. The Competitive Effects of the Transaction
1. Textbooks and Ancillary Materials
Publishers market and sell textbooks and ancillary materials for
use in courses taught at higher education institutions. In most cases,
instructors select the textbooks and ancillary materials that will be
used for their courses, and students buy the selected textbooks and
ancillary materials.
Textbooks are often supplemented with ancillary educational
materials, such as teacher's editions, audio-visual teaching tools,
Internet content, CD-ROMs, workbooks, and study guides. These ancillary
materials are often offered by publishers for free or as part of a
discounted package to induce instructors to select a particular
textbook and to induce students to purchase the publisher's textbooks
and ancillary materials. Textbooks and ancillary materials are used as
the primary teaching materials in each of the Overlap Courses.
2. Relevant Product Markets
The Complaint alleges that for each Overlap Course, the textbooks
and ancillary materials for that course constitute a separate relevant
product market and a line of commerce pursuant to section 7 of the
Clayton Act.
Textbooks and ancillary materials are used as the primary teaching
materials in each of the Overlap courses. Textbooks provide the core
written material for the Overlap Courses and serve as the foundation
for instructors' overall lesson plans. While instructors could use
alternative teaching materials (such as copies of lecture notes and
[[Page 34957]]
articles), they generally select textbooks to serve as the primary
teaching materials for their courses because accessing and creating
alternative teaching materials is often a more time-consuming, costly,
and inefficient method of delivering high quality content to their
students. Instructors using textbooks and ancillary materials would not
turn to any alternative teaching materials in sufficient numbers to
defeat a small but significant increase in the price of any textbooks
and ancillary materials for the Overlap Courses, or a small but
significant decrease in the quality of such textbooks and other
materials.
Students taking the Overlap Courses are unlikely to have any
significant alternatives to purchasing new textbooks for their Overlap
Courses. Although used textbooks, if available, can sometimes serve as
alternatives for new textbooks, used textbooks are not uniformly
available in large numbers. Moreover, instructors often require
students to use the newest textbook editions. Publishers generally
revise textbooks every three to four years, and revised textbooks often
differ substantially from their prior edition, limiting the extent to
which used textbooks may be substituted for new editions of the same
textbooks. Students would not turn to purchasing used textbooks in
su