United States v. Microsemi Corporation; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement, 45242-45252 [E9-21051]
Download as PDF
45242
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to the Consent Decree.
Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either e-mailed to
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611, and should refer to the
consent decree between the United
States and Bowater, DOJ Ref. No. 90–5–
2–1–08852.
The proposed consent decree may be
examined at EPA’s office, 61 Forsyth
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303. During the
public comment period, the Settlement
Agreement may also be examined on the
following Department of Justice Web
site, https://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
Settlement Agreement may also be
obtained by mail from the Consent
Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a
request to Tonia Fleetwood
(tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), fax no.
(202) 514–0097, phone confirmation
number (202) 514–1547. In requesting a
copy from the Consent Decree Library,
please enclose a check in the amount of
$9.25 (25 cents per page reproduction
cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if
by e-mail or fax, forward a check in that
amount to the Consent Decree Library at
the stated address.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. E9–20950 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree
Under the Clean Air Act
Notice is hereby given that on August
20, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree in
United States and Louisville Metro Air
Pollution Control District v. D.D.
Williamson & Company, Inc. Civil
Action No. 3:09 cv 633 was lodged with
the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky (Louisville
Division).
In this action both the United States
and Louisville Metro Air Pollution
Control District (‘‘District’’) sought civil
penalties and injunctive relief from D.D.
Williamson & Company, Inc. (‘‘D.D.
Williamson’’) for its violations of the
Clean Air Act (the ‘‘Act’’) and its
implementing regulations. The consent
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:18 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
decree obligates D.D. Williamson to pay
$600,000 in civil penalties which will
be divided equaling between the United
States and the District. Additionally,
D.D. Williamson is obligated pursuant
to the consent decree to: (1) Hire an
independent engineering consultant to
conduct a full hazard operability study
of its manufacturing operations; (2)
implement the study’s
recommendations; and (3) train its
managers in process-hazard assessment
techniques.
The Department of Justice will receive
for a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this publication comments
relating to this proposed settlement.
Comments should be addressed to the
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either e-mailed to
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or
mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611, and should refer to United
States et al. v. D.D. Williamson &
Company, Inc. Civil Action No. 3:09 cv
633, D.J. Ref. 90–5–2–1–08538.
The consent decree may be examined
at the United States Attorney’s Office,
Western District of Kentucky, 510 W.
Broadway, Louisville, KY 40202, ATTN:
Jay Gilbert, and at U.S. EPA Region 4,
at 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303,
ATTN: Ellen Rouch. During the public
comment period, the Consent Decree
may also be examined on the following
Department of Justice Web site: https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_
Decrees.html. A copy of the consent
decree may also be obtained by mail
from the Consent Decree Library, P.O.
Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by
faxing or emailing a request to Tonia
Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov),
fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone
confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In
requesting a copy, please enclose a
check in the amount of $9.25 payable to
the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax,
forward a check in that amount to the
Consent Decree Library at the stated
address.
Maureen M. Katz,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. E9–20989 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. Microsemi
Corporation; 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 and Competitive Impact
Statement have been filed with the
United States District Court for the
Central District of California in United
States v. Microsemi Corporation, Civil
Action No. 8:09–CV–00275–AG–AN. On
December 18, 2008, the United States
filed a Complaint alleging Microsemi
Corporation’s July 14, 2008 acquisition
of the assets of Semicoa violated Section
7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
2. The United States alleged that this
acquisition enabled Microsemi to
eliminate or reduce competition in the
development, manufacture, and sale of
certain small signal transistors and
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes used
in military and space programs. The
proposed Final Judgment, filed on
August 20, 2009, requires that
Microsemi divest all of the assets it
acquired from Semicoa. A Competitive
Impact Statement filed by the United
States describes the Complaint, the
proposed Final Judgment, the industry,
and the remedies available to private
litigants who may have been injured by
the alleged violation.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed
Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact
Statement are available for inspection at
the Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, Antitrust Documents Group,
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 Central District of
California, Southern Division. 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
sixty (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. In
order to comply with publication
criteria for the Federal Register, please
provide comments in an electronic word
processing format (preferably Word
Perfect or Microsoft Word). Comments
should be directed to Maribeth Petrizzi,
Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 8700,
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202–
307–0924).
J. Robert Kramer, II,
Director of Operations and Civil Enforcement.
In the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia Alexandria
Division
United States of America, Plaintiff, V.
Microsemi Corporation, Defendant. Civil
Action No.: 1:08cv1311, Judge: Trenga,
Anthony J., Date: December 18, 2008
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Verified Complaint
The United States of America, acting under
the direction of the Attorney General of the
United States, brings this civil antitrust
action to obtain a temporary restraining
order, preliminary injunction, and equitable
and other relief against defendant Microsemi
Corporation (‘‘Microsemi’’) to remedy the
harm to competition caused by Microsemi’s
acquisition of assets of Semicoa, Inc.
(‘‘Semicoa’’). The United States alleges as
follows:
I. Nature of Action
1. This lawsuit challenges Microsemi’s July
14, 2008 acquisition of substantially all of the
assets of Semicoa, which has significantly
harmed competition in the development,
manufacture and sale of certain specialized
high reliability electronic components used
in aerospace and military applications. The
transaction eliminated all competition for
several types of transistors used in such
applications—known as JANS and JANTXV
small signal transistors—and substantially
lessened competition for one type of diode
used in such applications—known as JANS
and JANTXV 5811 diodes. The high
reliability transistors and diodes affected by
the transaction are manufactured to exacting
standards to ensure high performance under
the most demanding conditions, subject to a
U.S. government system of qualification and
certification that is relied upon to assure the
required degree of reliability. These
components are used by customers that
include the military services and the national
security agencies of the United States in a
wide range of critical applications in space,
in the air, on land, and on and under the sea.
The largest and most complex military
applications ever designed, ranging from
satellites to submarines, depend on these
components. Civilian space projects ranging
from communications satellites to the
spacecraft under development to return
astronauts to the moon also require these
components. Because failure of even a single
one of these components could result in the
failure of a vital, multibillion dollar
mission—and potentially cost the lives of
American servicemen and women and
astronauts—components with lesser degrees
of reliability cannot be substituted for the
products at issue in this case.
2. The JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors and the JANTXV and JANS 5811
diodes at issue in this case are hereinafter
referred to collectively as the ‘‘relevant
products.’’ Through its acquisition of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:18 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
Semicoa assets, Microsemi reduced the
number of suppliers of JANTXV and JANS
small signal transistors from two to one, and
thereby acquired monopolies in the
development, manufacture and sale of those
products. The acquisition also substantially
reduced competition for JANTXV and JANS
5811 diodes by terminating Semicoa’s
attempt to enter into the manufacture and
sale of these diodes. The acquisition has thus
created monopolies in the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS
small signal transistors, and has substantially
lessened competition in the development,
manufacture and sale of all relevant
products.
3. As a result of the transaction, prices for
the relevant products have increased and
likely will continue to increase, delivery
times have become less reliable, and terms of
service likely will become less favorable.
Accordingly Microsemi’s acquisition of the
Semicoa assets violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. The United States brings this action
against defendant Microsemi under Section 4
of the Sherman Act and Section 15 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 4 and 25, as amended,
to prevent and restrain Microsemi from
continuing to violate Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
5. Microsemi develops, manufactures and
sells the relevant products in the flow of
interstate commerce. Microsemi’s activities
in developing, manufacturing and selling the
relevant products substantially affect
interstate commerce. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this action and over
the defendant pursuant to Section 4 of the
Sherman Act and Section 15 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 4 and 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331,
1337(a), and 1345.
6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant
to Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c), and venue is
proper in this Division pursuant to Local
Rule 3(C). Defendant is a corporation that
transacts business within this judicial district
and Division, including by making sales to
customers located within this judicial district
and Division.
III. Parties to the Transaction
7. Microsemi is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Irvine,
California. Microsemi’s sales were
approximately $514 million in fiscal year
2008. Microsemi manufactures a range of
high reliability semiconductors, including
JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors
and JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes.
Microsemi’s facilities for the manufacture of
the relevant products are located in
Massachusetts, California and Arizona.
Microsemi’s relevant products are shipped to
customers throughout the United States,
represent a regular, continuous and
substantial flow of interstate commerce, and
have a substantial effect upon interstate
commerce.
8. Semicoa was a California corporation
with its principal place of business in Costa
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45243
Mesa, California. Semicoa’s sales in the
United States were approximately $14.7
million in 2007. Prior to the acquisition,
Semicoa’s products included a range of high
reliability semiconductors. Semicoa’s
facilities for the manufacture of the relevant
products were located in Costa Mesa,
California. Its relevant products were
shipped to customers throughout the United
States and represented a regular, continuous
and substantial flow of interstate commerce
and had a substantial effect upon interstate
commerce. After the sale of the high
reliability semiconductor assets to
Microsemi, the remainder of the Semicoa
business was renamed Array Optronics, Inc..
IV. The Transaction
9. On July 14, 2008, Microsemi and
Semicoa completed an asset sale by which
Microsemi acquired from Semicoa all of its
business engaged in the development,
manufacture and sale of the relevant
products. Microsemi announced plans to
release most of Semicoa’s employees and to
relocate its operations within a year to
Microsemi facilities.
V. Trade and Commerce
The Relevant Product Markets
10. Transistors and diodes are
semiconductor devices used to control the
flow of electric current. In their simplest
forms, transistors can be viewed as switches
and diodes can be viewed as one-way valves.
Both products begin as silicon wafers
produced in a furnace, typically referred to
as a foundry. They are then cut into small
sections known as dies. These dies are
packaged in various ways into transistors and
diodes.
11. Small signal transistors are a class of
transistors commonly used in
communications and other signal processing
applications. Small signal transistors operate
at low power levels and are used to amplify
electrical signals in a wide range of products,
including critical military and civilian
applications ranging from satellites to
nuclear missile systems. Small signal
transistors are produced using equipment,
processes and skill sets specific to this type
of transistor. Other types of transistors have
different characteristics and cannot perform
the tasks required of small signal transistors.
A small but significant increase in the price
of small signal transistors would not cause
customers to switch to other types of
transistors.
12. Rectifier diodes are a class of diodes
also commonly used in communications and
other signal processing applications. Rectifier
diodes operate at low power levels and are
used to convert alternating current to direct
current in a wide range of products,
including critical military and civilian
applications ranging from satellites to
nuclear missile systems. Ultrafast recovery
rectifier diodes, of which the 5811 type
(‘‘5811 diode’’) is among the most common,
are distinguished from other rectifier diodes
by their extremely high alternating speeds,
which minimize power loss and waste heat
generation. Their ability to perform
efficiently and without generating excess
heat is especially important in applications
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
45244
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
such as satellites and missiles, where power
availability is strictly limited and heat
dissipation is challenging. The 5811 diode
performs a specific set of functions not
performed by other ultrafast recovery rectifier
diodes; while there are other types of
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes, those
diodes have different characteristics and
cannot perform the functions required of
5811 diodes. A small but significant increase
in the price of 5811 diodes would not cause
customers to switch to other types of diodes.
13. Highly reliable performance under
demanding conditions is absolutely essential
in military and space systems, where failure
of a single component could result in failure
of the mission. To ensure reliability and
proper performance, production of these
components for use in United States military
and space applications is supervised by the
Defense Supply Center Columbus (‘‘DSCC’’),
a component of the Department of Defense.
DSCC maintains a list of qualified
components and their suppliers generally
known as the Qualified Manufacturers List,
or QML. While the QML is specifically
intended for reference by military
contractors, civilian space system
manufacturers also require highly reliable
components for use in a demanding
environment, and therefore make use of the
QML system and specify QML qualified
components.
14. Products listed on the QML are
organized into ‘‘slash sheets,’’ which denote
groups of components with similar
characteristics. Microsemi and Semicoa were
the only manufacturers on the QML slash
sheets for small signal transistors. This
Complaint hereinafter uses the term ‘‘small
signal transistors’’ to describe the products
on these slash sheets.
15. DSCC grants certifications and
qualifications for different grades of QML
components, known as Joint Army-Navy
categories. These grades in general represent
different levels of reliability. The highest
reliability grade is Joint Army-Navy Space
(‘‘JANS’’); one level below JANS is Joint
Army-Navy Technical Exchange-Visual
Inspection (‘‘JANTXV’’). There are two grades
below JANTXV, but the distinction between
those grades and JANTXV is not as stark as
between JANTXV and JANS. Therefore, the
term JANTXV will be used to refer to all
QML grades other than JANS.
16. Manufacturers pursuing JANTXV
qualification for their components must be
audited by DSCC. DSCC audits the
manufacturer’s facility, including fabrication,
assembly and testing processes. If satisfied
that the manufacturer is able to produce
consistently reliable components at the
highest levels of quality and performance,
DSCC will issue a certification for those
processes and authorize production of a
particular component for qualification
testing. The manufacturer produces a sample
lot and submits test results to DSCC. Once
satisfied with the manufacturer’s test
results—which may take several rounds of
submissions and required corrections—DSCC
will place the particular component from that
manufacturer on the QML with a JANTXV
qualification.
17. JANS grade products are required by
customers for systems that demand the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:53 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
utmost reliability, such as satellites and
nuclear missile systems. Components used in
space must be of the highest quality and
performance, because the space environment
exposes components to extremes of
temperature, pressure, radiation, and
vibration during launch. Moreover, because
failures in space are generally beyond reach
of repair, these components must be
extremely reliable.
18. Thus, while JANS components may
perform functions similar to JANTXV
components, obtaining JANS certification
requires extensive additional qualification
and testing beyond that required to obtain
JANTXV certification. Each step in the
manufacture of each JANS product must be
thoroughly documented to ensure traceability
in the event of a manufacturing defect. In
addition, suppliers of JANS products must
undergo far more demanding ongoing
manufacturing and testing requirements than
suppliers of other QML components. As a
result, JANS components are regarded by
buyers as being substantially more reliable
than JANTXV components and are much
more expensive than JANTXV components.
19. Components for use in commercial
applications differ substantially from their
JANTXV or JANS counterparts. JANTXV and
JANS components are produced to very
narrow tolerances. Commercial components,
in contrast, are produced to much wider
tolerances and lack the extensive production
control, testing and documentation of
JANTXV and JANS components. Moreover,
commercial components are often encased in
plastic, whereas JANTXV and JANS
components are hermetically sealed in glass
or metal cases, a far more expensive and
demanding process that ensures greater
reliability. Because of these significant
differences in production and quality control,
JANTXV and JANS components are much
more reliable and substantially more
expensive than commercial components.
20. Customers determine whether their
projects require commercial grade, JANTXV,
or JANS components. Those customers that
choose JANTXV or JANS components need
their reliability and assured performance
characteristics, as evidenced by their
willingness to pay the much higher cost of
these components compared to commercial
grade components.
21. Commercial grade components lack the
reliability and assured performance of
JANTXV components because they have not
been produced following the thorough and
reliable procedures mandated by DSCC for
JANTXV components. While extensive
testing of commercial grade components
might reduce the risk of failure posed by the
use of such components, such testing would
be costly and time consuming. It would delay
the project, some degree of risk would still
remain, and the cost associated with such
extensive testing in practice would make use
of the commercial grade far more costly than
use of a JANTXV component. Customers
therefore do not consider the cost or
availability of commercial grade components
when designing systems requiring JANTXV
components.
22. Because JANS components are much
more expensive than JANTXV components,
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
customers whose needs can be met with
JANTXV components have no economic
incentive to substitute JANS components.
23. A small but significant increase in the
price of JANTXV small signal transistors
would not cause customers to substitute
commercial grade small signal transistors or
JANS small signal transistors to an extent
that would make such a price increase
unprofitable. Accordingly, the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV small
signal transistors is a separate and distinct
line of commerce and a relevant product
market for the purpose of analyzing the
effects of the acquisition under Section 7 of
the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.
24. A small but significant increase in the
price of JANTXV 5811 diodes would not
cause customers to substitute commercial
grade 5811 diodes or JANS 5811 diodes to an
extent that would make such a price increase
unprofitable. Accordingly, the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV 5811
diodes is a separate and distinct line of
commerce and a relevant product market for
the purpose of analyzing the effects of the
acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton
Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
25. Customers specifying JANS small
signal transistors and JANS 5811 diodes for
their projects will not substitute JANTXV
components for JANS components because
they do not have the extra reliability of JANS
components, which results from the much
more demanding and extensive testing and
process control required of JANS
components. While extensive testing of
JANTXV components might reduce the risk
of failure posed by the use of such
components, such testing would be costly
and time consuming. It would delay the
project, some degree of risk would still
remain, and the cost associated with such
extensive testing in practice would make use
of the JANTXV component far more costly
than use of a JANS component. Thus, when
JANS parts are available, customers do not
consider JANTXV components substitutes
when designing systems requiring JANS
components or purchasing components to
build such systems. Because commercial
grade components are of even lower quality,
customers specifying JANS components also
will not substitute commercial components.
26. A small but significant increase in the
price of JANS small signal transistors would
not cause customers to substitute commercial
grade or JANTXV small signal transistors to
an extent that would make such a price
increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the
development, manufacture and sale of JANS
small signal transistors is a separate and
distinct line of commerce and a relevant
product market for the purpose of analyzing
the effects of the acquisition under Section 7
of the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.
27. A small but significant increase in the
price of JANS 5811 diodes would not cause
customers to substitute commercial grade or
JANTXV 5811 diodes to an extent that would
make such a price increase unprofitable.
Accordingly, the development, manufacture
and sale of JANS 5811 diodes is a separate
and distinct line of commerce and a relevant
product market for the purpose of analyzing
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
the effects of the acquisition under Section 7
of the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act.
28. To the extent there were some
customers that could substitute JANTXV
components in response to a small but
significant and nontransitory price increase
on JANS small signal transistors or JANS
5811 diodes, Microsemi would be able to
identify those customers and charge them a
lower price in order to avoid losing sales to
them, while still raising the price to those
customers who would not switch. Microsemi
would not need to charge the lower price to
all customers in order to avoid losing
contested sales.
The Relevant Geographic Market
29. Customers that require JANTXV or
JANS small signal transistors are located
throughout the United States. Microsemi
would be able to identify these customers
and increase prices to them for JANTXV and
JANS small signal transistors. Thus, under
Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 2
of the Sherman Act, the relevant geographic
market for JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors is the United States.
30. Customers that require JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes are located throughout the
United States. Microsemi would be able to
identify these customers and increase prices
to them for JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes.
Thus, under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the relevant
geographic market for JANTXV and JANS
5811 diodes is the United States.
Market Concentration
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
JANTXV and JANS Small Signal Transistors
31. Prior to the acquisition, Microsemi and
Semicoa were the only suppliers of JANTXV
small signal transistors in the world.
Microsemi and Semicoa combined sold
approximately $15 million of JANTXV small
signal transistors annually. The transaction
was a merger to monopoly, and Microsemi
faces no current competition.
32. Prior to the acquisition, Microsemi and
Semicoa were the only suppliers of JANS
small signal transistors in the world.
Microsemi had approximately $3.5 million in
annual sales and Semicoa had approximately
$3 million in annual sales. The transaction
was a merger to monopoly, and Microsemi
faces no current competition.
JANTXV and JANS 5811 Diodes
33. Microsemi manufactured JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes until 2004, when it
attempted to shift production from a plant in
California to a plant in Arizona. Difficulties
associated with that shift caused Microsemi
to lose its JANTXV and JANS QML
qualifications for that diode. As a result,
there was no other firm qualified to make
JANS 5811 diodes for several years. However,
prior to 2004, Microsemi had built up its
inventory of JANS 5811 diodes and
continued to sell these products after its
disqualification, making it the dominant
supplier of these products since 2004.
34. After 2004, Microsemi’s delivery times
became very long. Customers who were
unable to delay their programs further were
forced to use less reliable commercial grade
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:53 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
5811 diodes at increased cost due to the need
for additional testing. Microsemi produced
almost all of the commercial grade products
used by those customers.
35. In the meantime, Semicoa took
significant steps to enter the production of
JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes in
competition with Microsemi. The shortage
led Semicoa to begin developing its own
5811 diodes to compete with Microsemi,
with the assistance of a major customer that
was dissatisfied with Microsemi as its sole
source of supply. By July 2008, Semicoa was
testing its 5811 diode and, had Microsemi
not acquired Semicoa’s assets later that
month, Semicoa likely would have obtained
JANTXV and JANS qualification and
competed with Microsemi for JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes. Semicoa already had
received $3 million in orders. One other
manufacturer, with manufacturing operations
based in Mexico, is JANTXV qualified for
5811 diodes and may obtain JANS
qualification, but would not be capable of
satisfying those customers that require
products manufactured in the United States,
as discussed in Paragraph 41 below.
36. Microsemi regained JANTXV and JANS
qualifications for its 5811 diodes in October
2008 after more than three years of effort.
Had Microsemi not acquired the Semicoa
assets in July 2008, Microsemi and Semicoa
would have competed for the sale of these
products.
Anticompetitive Effects of the Acquisition
JANTXV and JANS Small Signal Transistors
37. Prior to the acquisition, Semicoa was
the only alternative source to Microsemi for
JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors,
and customers benefitted from robust
competition between the firms. In the two
years preceding the acquisition, Semicoa
made significant investments in capacity
expansion, purchasing new equipment and
increasing its workforce to increase
production and improve delivery times.
Semicoa’s shipments of JANTXV and JANS
small signal transistors rose by more than 40
percent between 2005 and 2007. Semicoa
aggressively priced its small signal transistors
to take business from Microsemi,
constraining Microsemi’s prices.
38. Post-acquisition, Microsemi has raised
prices significantly on JANTXV and JANS
small signal transistors. Without Semicoa as
a competitive constraint, Microsemi has the
power to selectively raise prices to customers
that Microsemi is aware cannot substitute
lower grade components for JANTXV and
JANS small signal transistors. In addition,
Microsemi has announced that it intends to
impose on these JANTXV and JANS
customers less favorable terms of service than
were provided before the acquisition.
Customers will not be able to avoid these
terms because they no longer possess an
alternative to Microsemi to ensure timely
delivery of their small signal transistors. The
acquisition is likely to lead to lengthened
delivery times and less certain delivery,
imposing huge risks and delays on critical
military and space-related programs.
39. Through its acquisition of the Semicoa
assets, Microsemi has substantially lessened
competition in the markets for JANTXV and
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45245
JANS small signal transistors, in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18,
and willfully acquired a monopoly in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. 2.
JANTXV and JANS 5811 Diodes
40. 5811 diodes are produced using
processes, skill sets and equipment unique to
this kind of diode. Microsemi is the sole
supplier of JANS 5811 diodes, and one of
only two suppliers of JANTXV 5811 diodes.
Before the acquisition, Semicoa had the
capability to enter the markets for JANTXV
and JANS 5811 diodes, and was well along
the way toward completing that entry.
Microsemi’s purchase of the Semicoa assets
eliminated Semicoa’s likely entry to these
markets, thereby leaving Microsemi alone in
the market, and facing the potential entry of
only one other firm, which would
manufacture these products in Mexico. As a
result, the transaction reduced from three to
two the number of competitors that were
likely to compete in these markets.
41. Competition from the firm with
manufacturing facilities in Mexico will not
be sufficient to constrain Microsemi’s ability
to raise the prices of JANTXV and JANS 5811
diodes. As the only other domestic supplier
of JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes, Semicoa
would have been the best alternative source
to Microsemi for these customers. Because of
concerns relating to classified data, sensitive
end uses, and lack of the ability of the United
States government to prioritize delivery of
product, many customers will hesitate to
purchase these products from the firm with
manufacturing facilities in Mexico.
42. Semicoa’s entry into the market for
JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes likely would
have benefited customers with lower prices,
shorter delivery times, and more favorable
terms of service, just as Semicoa’s
competition for sales of JANTXV and JANS
small signal transistors benefited customers
for those products. Microsemi’s acquisition
of the Semicoa assets prevented this entry
and therefore substantially lessened
competition in the markets for JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes, in violation of Section 7
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
Entry into the Development, Manufacture
and Sale of the Relevant Products
43. Entry into the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV small
signal transistors and JANTXV 5811 diodes
will not be timely, likely, and sufficient to
counter the anticompetitive effects of the
acquisition. The process required to obtain
QML certification and DSCC qualification for
JANTXV small signal transistors and
JANTXV 5811 diodes is lengthy. Entry
resulting in significant market impact likely
would take more than two years.
44. Entry into the development,
manufacture and sale of JANS small signal
transistors and JANS 5811 diodes sold to
United States is even less likely to be timely,
likely, and sufficient to counter the
anticompetitive effects of the acquisition.
The additional process required to obtain
DSCC certification and qualification at the
JANS level would require at least another
year following JANTXV certification and
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
45246
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
qualification. Moreover, because JANS parts
are used for the most demanding and critical
applications, customers are unlikely to shift
significant amounts of JANS purchases to an
entrant until that entrant has established a
record of quality, consistency, and reliability
at the JANS level. Entry resulting in
significant market impact likely would take
more than three years for firms that, unlike
Semicoa as to 5811 diodes, did not already
have JANS qualification for other products
and significant backing from important
customers.
45. The uncertainties and risks associated
with any entry, and the likelihood that such
entry would not be timely in any event, is
demonstrated by Microsemi’s own inability
to transfer production of JANTXV and JANS
5811 diodes without losing QML
qualification. Although Microsemi is a large
and diversified manufacturer of QML
products, and attempted to transfer
production to a facility in Arizona from a
facility that it had used to manufacture QML
components for many years, Microsemi lost
its qualification and needed three to four
years to requalify to produce these
components.
46. Further, to provide the degree of price
competition that would have existed absent
the acquisition, entrants would have to reach
a scale sufficient to achieve production costs
comparable to those of Semicoa. This would
require significant investment, particularly in
equipment dedicated to automated
production, and is unlikely to occur given
the small size of the potential markets.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
VI. First Cause of Action
(Violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act)
47. The United States incorporates the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 above.
48. Microsemi’s acquisition of the assets of
Semicoa used in the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS
small signal transistors and JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes has substantially lessened
competition in interstate trade and commerce
in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
49. The transaction has had the following
effects, among others:
a. Competition between Microsemi and
Semicoa in the development, manufacture
and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors and JANTXV and JANS 5811
diodes has been eliminated;
b. prices for JANTXV and JANS small
signal transistors and JANTXV and JANS
5811 diodes have increased and likely will
continue to increase, delivery times likely
will lengthen, and terms of service likely will
become less favorable.
VII. Second Cause of Action
(Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act)
50. The United States incorporates the
allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 above.
51. On or about July 14, 2008, Microsemi
willfully obtained monopoly power by
acquiring the assets of Semicoa used in the
development, manufacture and sale of
JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors.
Semicoa was Microsemi’s only competitor,
and the effect of this acquisition has been to
create a monopoly in violation of Section 2
of the Sherman Act.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:05 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
52. The transaction has had the following
effects, among others:
a. The combination created a monopoly for
the development, manufacture and sale of
JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors;
b. Competition between Microsemi and
Semicoa in the development, manufacture
and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors has been eliminated; and
c. Prices for JANTXV and JANS small
signal transistors have increased and likely
will continue to increase, delivery times
likely will lengthen, and terms of service
likely will become less favorable.
XII. Requested Relief
53. The United States requests that this
Court:
a. Adjudge and decree the acquisition of
the assets of Semicoa by defendant
Microsemi to violate Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18 and Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2;
b. Compel Microsemi to divest all of
Semicoa’s tangible and intangible assets
related to the development, manufacture and
sale of the relevant products, and to take any
further actions necessary to restore the
markets to the competitive position that
existed prior to the acquisition;
c. Award such temporary and preliminary
injunctive and ancillary relief as may be
necessary to avert the likelihood of the
dissipation of Semicoa’s tangible and
intangible assets during the pendency of this
action and to preserve the possibility of
effective final relief;
d. Award the United States the cost of this
action; and
e. Grant the United States such other and
further relief as the case requires and the
Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: December 18, 2008.
Helena M. Gardner,
Jay D. Owen,
Rachel J. Adcox,
Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division,
Litigation II Section,
1401 H Street NW., Suite 3000,
Washington, DC 20530.
United States District Court Central District
of California
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
Microsemi Corporation, Defendant. Case No.:
8:09–cv–00275–AG–AN.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Hon. Andrew J. Guilford.
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of
America, filed its Complaint on December 18,
2008, and the United States and Microsemi
Corporation (‘‘Microsemi’’), 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, Microsemi agrees 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 and assets by
Microsemi to assure that competition is
substantially restored;
And whereas, Microsemi has represented
to the United States that the divestiture
required below can and will be made and
that Microsemi will later raise no claim of
hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking
the Court to modify any of the provisions
contained below;
For Plaintiff United States:
Now therefore, before any testimony is
/s/ lllllllllllllllllll
taken, without trial or adjudication of any
Deborah A. Garza,
issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
parties, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:
lll/s/lll
I. Jurisdiction
David L. Meyer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject
/s/ lllllllllllllllllll matter of and each of the parties to this
J. Robert Kramer II,
action. The Complaint states a claim upon
Director of Operations.
which relief may be granted against
/s/ lllllllllllllllllll Microsemi under Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, as amended, and Section
Maribeth Petrizzi,
2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
Chief, Litigation II Section.
/s/ lllllllllllllllllll II. Definitions
Dorothy B. Fountain,
As used in this Final Judgment:
Assistant Chief, Litigation II Section.
A. ‘‘Microsemi’’ means defendant
/s/ lllllllllllllllllll Microsemi Corporation, a Delaware
Lowell R. Stern (VA Bar #33460),
corporation with its headquarters in Irvine,
Trial Attorney,
California, its successors and assigns, and its
Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section,
subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington,
partnerships, and joint ventures, and their
DC 20530,
directors, officers, managers, agents, and
(202) 514–3676, (202) 307–6283 (fax),
employees.
Lowell.Stern@usdoj.gov.
B. ‘‘Semicoa’’ means Semicoa, a California
corporation with its headquarters in Costa
lll/s/lll
Mesa, California, its successors and assigns,
Kevin C. Quin,
and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
Robert W. Wilder (VA Bar #14479),
affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures,
Janet A. Nash,
and their directors, officers, managers,
Stephanie A. Fleming,
agents, and employees.
Christine A. Hill,
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
C. ‘‘Acquirer’’ means the entity to whom
defendant divests the Divestiture Assets.
D. ‘‘Divestiture Assets’’ means all assets
acquired by Microsemi from Semicoa on July
14, 2008, including but not limited to:
(1) All specifications, manufacturing plans,
assembly instructions, standard operating
procedures, and work instructions related to
the manufacturing process, including all
right, title and interest in or to all other assets
of every kind and nature used or intended to
be used in the operation of Semicoa’s
business, including, but not limited to, any
finished or unfinished devices, any materials,
data or know-how wherever found or of
whatever kind reasonably required to
manufacture and sell the goods and services
previously produced by Semicoa, as well as
all books and records, and all files,
documents, papers and agreements that are
material to the continuing operation of
Semicoa’s business;
(2) All finished goods, works in progress,
piece parts and materials inventory,
packaging, and labels, supplies and other
related personal property, except that which
has been sold since the closing of the July 14,
2008 transaction between Microsemi and
Semicoa;
(3) All equipment, machinery or software
used in the development, design,
manufacturing and testing of goods
previously manufactured by Semicoa;
(4) All right, title and interest in, and all
information related to, any tooling, molds,
equipment and proprietary specifications
Semicoa previously had with any and all
vendors from which Semicoa purchased
goods or services, whether or not there are
any ‘‘open’’ purchase orders issued to such
vendors, as well as names and other
information concerning any vendor that
provides goods or services that were material
to the operation of Semicoa’s business;
(5) any list of customers to which Semicoa
previously sold products or provided
services over the three years prior to July 14,
2008, whether or not there are any ‘‘open’’
sales orders from such customers;
(6) all sales, marketing and promotional
literature, cost and pricing data, promotion
list, marketing data and other compilations of
names and requirements, customer lists and
other sales-related materials;
(7) all intellectual property (‘‘IP’’) assets or
rights that have been used in the
development, production, servicing, and sale
of QML Small Signal Transistors and QML
Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes,
including but not limited to: All licenses,
rights, and sublicenses, trademarks, trade
names, service marks, service names,
technical information, computer software
and related documentation, know-how, trade
secrets, approvals, certifications, advertising
literature, and all manuals and technical
information provided to the employees,
customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees of
Semicoa and used in connection with the
development, design, manufacture, testing,
markets, sale, or distribution of QML Small
Signal Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes;
(8) all rights under all contracts, licenses,
sublicenses, agreements, leases, building
leases, commitments, purchase orders, bids
and offers; and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:18 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
(9) all rights acquired pursuant to
municipal, state and federal franchises,
permits, licenses, agreements, waivers and
authorizations.
E. ‘‘QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier
Diode’’ means each JAN, JANS, JANTX, and
JANTXV part listed on slash sheets 477 and
590 in the Qualified Products Database
maintained by the Defense Supply Center
Columbus.
F. ‘‘QML Small Signal Transistor’’ means
each JAN, JANS, JANTX, and JANTXV part
listed on slash sheets 182, 251, 253, 255, 270,
290, 291, 301, 317, 336, 349, 354, 366, 374,
376, 382, 391, 392, 394, 395, 423, 455, 512,
534, 535, 544, 545, 558, 559, 560, and 561 in
the Qualified Products Database maintained
by the Defense Supply Center Columbus.
III. Applicability
This Final Judgment applies to Microsemi,
as defined above, and all other persons in
active concert or participation with it who
receive actual notice of this Final Judgment
by personal service or otherwise.
IV. Divestiture
A. Microsemi is hereby ordered and
directed, within thirty (30) calendar days
after the filing of the proposed Final
Judgment 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 to an Acquirer
in a manner consistent with this Final
Judgment. The United States, in its sole
discretion, may agree to one extension of this
time period, not to exceed thirty (30)
calendar days, and shall notify the Court of
such extension. Microsemi agrees to use its
best efforts to divest the Divestiture Assets as
expeditiously as possible.
B. Microsemi shall provide the Acquirer
and the United States information relating to
the personnel involved in the development,
production, operation, testing, management,
or sales at the Divestiture Assets to enable the
Acquirer to make offers of employment.
Microsemi will not interfere with any
negotiations by the Acquirer to employ any
Microsemi employee whose primary
responsibility was the development,
production, operation, testing, management,
or sales at the Divestiture Assets.
C. Microsemi shall permit the Acquirer to
have reasonable access to personnel and to
make inspections of the physical facilities
included in the Divestiture Assets; access to
any and all environmental, zoning, and other
permit documents and information; and
access to any and all financial, operational,
or other documents and information
customarily provided as part of a due
diligence process.
D. Microsemi shall warrant to the Acquirer
that each asset will be operational on the date
of sale.
E. Microsemi shall not take any action that
will impede in any way the permitting,
operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture
Assets.
F. Microsemi shall warrant to the Acquirer
that there are no material defects in the
environmental, zoning, permitting,
qualification, or other permits pertaining to
the operation of the Divestiture Assets, and
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45247
that following the sale of the Divestiture
Assets, Microsemi will not undertake directly
or indirectly, any challenges to the
environmental, zoning, or other permits
relating to the operation of the Divestiture
Assets.
G. Unless the United States otherwise
consents in writing, the divestiture pursuant
to Section IV 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 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 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 business of developing,
producing, and selling QML Small Signal
Transistors and QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes; 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 and Microsemi give Microsemi
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
in the business of developing, producing and
selling QML Small Signal Transistors or QML
Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes.
V. Appointment of Trustee to Effect
Divestiture
A. If Microsemi has not divested the
Divestiture Assets within the time period
specified in Section IV(A), Microsemi 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
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 Microsemi 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 divestiture.
C. Microsemi shall not object to a sale by
the trustee on any ground other than the
trustee’s malfeasance. Any such objections by
Microsemi 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.
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
45248
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and
expense of Microsemi, on such terms and
conditions as the United States approves, and
shall account for all monies derived from the
sale of the Divestiture Assets 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
Microsemi 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. Microsemi shall use its best efforts to
assist the trustee in accomplishing the
required divestiture. 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 business to be divested, and Microsemi
shall develop financial and other information
relevant to such business as the trustee may
reasonably request, subject to reasonable
protection for trade secret or other
confidential research, development, or
commercial information. Microsemi shall
take no action to interfere with or to impede
the trustee’s accomplishment of the
divestiture.
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 divestiture 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
divestiture 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
divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the trustee’s
judgment, why the required divestiture has
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 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,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:18 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 Divestiture
A. Within two (2) business days following
execution of a definitive divestiture
agreement, Microsemi or the trustee,
whichever is then responsible for effecting
the divestiture required herein, shall notify
the United States of any proposed divestiture
required by Section IV or V of this Final
Judgment. If the trustee is responsible, it
shall similarly notify Microsemi. The notice
shall set forth the details of the proposed
divestiture and list the name, address, and
telephone number of each person not
previously identified who offered or
expressed an interest in or desire to acquire
any ownership interest in the Divestiture
Assets, together with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of
receipt by the United States of such notice,
the United States may request from
Microsemi, the proposed Acquirer, any other
third party, or the trustee, if applicable,
additional information concerning the
proposed divestiture and the proposed
Acquirer. Microsemi 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 Microsemi, the proposed
Acquirer, any third party, and the trustee,
whichever is later, the United States shall
provide written notice to Microsemi and the
trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not
it objects to the proposed divestiture. If the
United States provides written notice that it
does not object, the divestiture may be
consummated, subject only to Microsemi’s
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 shall
not be consummated. Upon objection by
Microsemi under Section V(C), a divestiture
proposed under Section V shall not be
consummated unless approved by the Court.
VII. Financing
Microsemi shall not finance all or any part
of any purchase or divestiture made pursuant
to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
VIII. Preserving and Maintaining Divestiture
Assets
Until the divestiture required by this Final
Judgment has been accomplished, Microsemi
shall take all steps necessary to comply with
the Order Approving Stipulation Modifying
Order to Preserve and Maintain Assets and
Stipulation Modifying Order to Preserve and
Maintain Assets. Microsemi shall take no
action that would jeopardize the divestiture
ordered by this Court.
IX. Affidavits
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the
filing of the proposed Final Judgment in this
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days
thereafter until the divestiture has been
completed under Section IV or V, Microsemi
shall deliver to the United States an affidavit
as to the fact and manner of its compliance
with Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
Each such affidavit shall include the name,
address, and telephone number of each
person who, during the preceding thirty (30)
calendar days, made an offer to acquire,
expressed an interest in acquiring, entered
into negotiations to acquire, or was contacted
or made an inquiry about acquiring, any
interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall
describe in detail each contact with any such
person during that period. Each such
affidavit shall also include a description of
the efforts Microsemi has 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 Microsemi,
including limitation on information, shall be
made within fourteen (14) calendar days of
receipt of such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the
filing of the proposed Final Judgment in this
matter, Microsemi shall deliver to the United
States an affidavit that describes in
reasonable detail all actions Microsemi has
taken and all steps Microsemi has
implemented on an ongoing basis to comply
with Section VIII of this Final Judgment.
Microsemi shall deliver to the United States
an affidavit describing any changes to the
efforts and actions outlined in Microsemi’s
earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section
within fifteen (15) calendar days after the
change is implemented.
C. Microsemi shall keep all records of all
efforts made to preserve and divest the
Divestiture Assets until one year after such
divestiture has 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 Antitrust Division,
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 Microsemi, be
permitted:
(1) Access during Microsemi’s office hours
to inspect and copy, or at the option of the
United States, to require Microsemi to
provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all
books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and
documents in the possession, custody, or
control of Microsemi, relating to any matters
contained in this Final Judgment; and
(2) To interview, either informally or on
the record, Microsemi’s officers, employees,
or agents, who may have their individual
counsel present, regarding such matters. The
interviews shall be subject to the reasonable
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
convenience of the interviewee and without
restraint or interference by Microsemi.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
B. Upon the written request of an
authorized representative of the Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust
Division, Microsemi shall submit written
reports or response to written interrogatories,
under oath if requested, relating to any of the
matters contained in this Final Judgment as
may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained
by the means provided in this section shall
be divulged by the United States to any
person other than an authorized
representative of the executive branch of the
United States, 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 Microsemi to the United
States, Microsemi represents and identifies in
writing the material in any such information
or documents to which a claim of protection
may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
Microsemi marks each pertinent page of such
material, ‘‘Subject to claim of protection
under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure,’’ then the United States
shall give Microsemi ten (10) calendar days
notice prior to divulging such material in any
legal proceeding (other than a grand jury
proceeding).
XI. Notification
Unless such transaction is otherwise
subject to the reporting and waiting period
requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. 18a (the ‘‘HSR Act’’),
Microsemi, without providing advance
notification to the Antitrust Division, shall
not directly or indirectly acquire any assets
of or any interest, including any financial,
security, loan, equity or management interest,
in any entity engaged in the development,
production, or sale of QML Small Signal
Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes during the term of this Final
Judgment.
Such notification shall be provided to the
Antitrust Division in the same format as, and
per the instructions relating to, the
Notification and Report Form set forth in the
Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as amended, except
that the information requested in Items 5
through 9 of the instructions must be
provided only about QML Small Signal
Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes. Notification shall be
provided at least thirty (30) calendar days
prior to acquiring any such interest, and shall
include, beyond what may be required by the
applicable instructions, the names of the
principal representatives of the parties to the
agreement who negotiated the agreement,
and any management or strategic plans
discussing the proposed transaction. Early
termination of the waiting periods in this
paragraph may be requested and, where
appropriate, granted in the same manner as
is applicable under the requirements and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:18 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
provisions of the HSR Act and rules
promulgated thereunder. This Section shall
be broadly construed and any ambiguity or
uncertainty regarding the filing of notice
under this Section shall be resolved in favor
of filing notice.
XII. No Reacquisition
Microsemi may not reacquire any part of
the Divestiture Assets during the term of this
Final Judgment.
XIII. 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.
XIV. Expiration of Final Judgment
Unless this Court grants an extension, this
Final Judgment shall expire ten (10) years
from the date of its entry.
XV. 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: ____, 2009
Court approval subject to procedures of the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15
U.S.C. § 16.
lllllllllllllllllllll
Honorable Andrew J. Guilford,
United States District Judge.
LOWELL R. STERN,
lowell.stern@usdoj.gov,
United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, 450 5th Street, NW., Suite
8700, Washington, DC 20530,
Telephone: (202) 307–0922,
Facsimile: (202) 307–6283, Attorney for
Plaintiff.
United States District Court Central District
of California
United States of America, Plaintiff, v.
Microsemi Corporation, Defendant.
Case No.: 8:09–cv–00275–AG–AN
Competitive Impact Statement
Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45249
I. Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding
On July 14, 2008, defendant Microsemi
Corporation (‘‘Microsemi’’) acquired most of
the assets of Semicoa. After investigating the
competitive impact of that acquisition, the
United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint
on December 18, 2008, seeking an order
compelling Microsemi to divest the Semicoa
assets and other relief to restore competition.
The Complaint alleges that the acquisition
significantly lessened competition in the
development, manufacture and sale of certain
high reliability small signal transistors and
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes used in
aerospace and military applications, in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. 2. As a result of the acquisition,
prices for these products did or would have
increased, delivery times would have
lengthened, and terms of service would have
become less favorable. Pursuant to an Order
to Preserve and Maintain Assets, which was
entered on December 24, 2008 and modified
on August 6, 2009, Microsemi may not,
without written consent of the United States,
dispose of the acquired assets prior to
resolution of this proceeding.
Concurrent with the filing of this
Competitive Impact Statement, the United
States and Microsemi have filed a Stipulation
Regarding Proposed Final Judgment and a
proposed Final Judgment. These filings are
designed to restore competition through a
divestiture of the acquired assets. The
proposed Final Judgment, which is explained
more fully below, requires Microsemi to
divest the Semicoa assets, thus restoring the
competition that was lost as a result of the
acquisition.
The United States and Microsemi have
stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment
may be entered after compliance with the
APPA. Entry of the Final Judgment would
terminate this action, except that the Court
would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify,
or enforce the provisions of the Final
Judgment and to punish violations thereof.
II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to
the Alleged Violation
A. Microsemi and the Semicoa Acquisition
Microsemi is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Irvine,
California. Microsemi’s sales were
approximately $514 million in fiscal year
2008. Microsemi’s products include a range
of electronic components, including high
reliability small signal transistors and
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes.
Semicoa was a California corporation that
operated from a manufacturing facility in
Costa Mesa, California. Semicoa’s sales were
approximately $14.7 million in 2007.
Semicoa manufactured a range of high
reliability electronic devices for the military,
aerospace, and satellite markets, including
high reliability small signal transistors and
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes.
On July 14, 2008, Microsemi acquired
substantially all of the assets of Semicoa. The
transaction was not subject to the Hart-ScottRodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976,
which requires companies to notify and
provide information to the Department of
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
45250
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Justice and the Federal Trade Commission
before consummating certain acquisitions. As
a result, the Department of Justice did not
learn of the transaction until after it had been
consummated.
B. The Competitive Impact of the Acquisition
on the Markets for QML Small Signal
Transistors and QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes
Transistors and diodes are semiconductor
devices used to control the flow of electric
current. In their simplest forms, transistors
can be viewed as switches and diodes can be
viewed as one-way valves. Both products
begin as silicon wafers produced in a
furnace, typically referred to as a foundry.
They are then cut into small sections known
as dies. These dies are packaged in various
ways into transistors and diodes.
Small signal transistors are a class of
transistors commonly used in
communications and other signal processing
applications. Small signal transistors operate
at low power levels and typically are used to
amplify electrical signals in a wide range of
products, including critical military and
civilian applications ranging from satellites
to nuclear missile systems.
Rectifier diodes are a class of diodes also
commonly used in communications and
other signal processing applications. Rectifier
diodes operate at low power levels and are
used to convert alternating current to direct
current in a wide range of products,
including critical military and civilian
applications ranging from satellites to
nuclear missile systems. Ultrafast recovery
rectifier diodes are distinguished from other
rectifier diodes by their extremely high
alternating speeds, which minimize power
loss and waste heat generation. Their ability
to perform efficiently and without generating
excess heat is especially important in
applications such as satellites and missiles,
where power availability is strictly limited
and heat dissipation is challenging.
Highly reliable performance under
demanding conditions is absolutely essential
in military and space systems, where failure
of a single component could result in failure
of the mission. To ensure reliability and
proper performance, production of these
components for use in United States military
and space applications is supervised by the
Defense Supply Center Columbus (‘‘DSCC’’),
a component of the Department of Defense.
DSCC maintains a list of qualified
components and their suppliers generally
known as the Qualified Manufacturers List,
or QML. Manufacturers seeking placement on
the QML must pass rigorous audits of their
facilities, production processes, assembly
and test procedures, equipment,
documentation, and personnel.
Prior to the acquisition, Microsemi and
Semicoa were the only QML-listed
manufacturers of small signal transistors. In
addition, Semicoa and Microsemi were both
poised to obtain QML listing for ultrafast
recovery rectifier diodes, which at the time
were in critically short supply.1 While a firm
1 Products listed on the QML are organized into
‘‘slash sheets,’’ which generally denote groups of
components produced by similar processes and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:53 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
with production facilities in Mexico did
produce some QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes, concerns related to
classified data, sensitive end uses, and the
inability of the United States government to
prioritize product deliveries beyond the
nation’s borders make many customers
reluctant to purchase such products from
non-domestic sources.
As discussed in the Complaint, customers
benefitted from robust competition between
the two firms. In the two years before the
acquisition, Semicoa expanded its capacity,
improved delivery times, and priced
aggressively to take business from Microsemi.
As a result, it increased its shipments by
more than 40 percent between 2005 and
2007. Without the constraining effect of
Semicoa, Microsemi has the power to raise
prices and lengthen delivery times on QML
Small Signal Transistors and QML Ultrafast
Recovery Rectifier Diodes.2
There are no practical substitutes for QML
Small Signal Transistors or QML Ultrafast
Recovery Rectifier Diodes. While commercial
grade analogues of these components exist,
such components are produced to much
wider tolerances than QML components, and
lack the extensive production control, testing
and documentation—and thus the reliability
and guaranteed performance—of QML
components. While extensive testing of
commercial grade components might
somewhat reduce the risk of failure posed by
the use of such components, such testing
would be costly and time consuming, and
some risk would still remain. Military and
aerospace customers therefore do not regard
commercial grade components as viable
substitutes for QML components.
Entry of new firms into the production of
QML Small Signal Transistors or QML
Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes is highly
unlikely to alleviate the harm to competition
resulting from Microsemi’s acquisition of
Semicoa. Obtaining QML listing is a lengthy
and uncertain process. Even at the lowest
QML reliability grades, entry resulting in
sufficient market impact likely would take
more than two years. Moreover, entry on a
scale sufficient to match the competitive
impact of Semicoa prior to the acquisition
would require significant investment,
particularly in equipment dedicated to
automated production, and is unlikely to
having somewhat similar characteristics. Small
signal transistors are denoted on slash sheets 182,
251, 253, 255, 270, 290, 291, 301, 317, 336, 349,
354, 366, 374, 376, 382, 391, 392, 394, 395, 423,
455, 512, 534, 535, 544, 545, 558, 559, 560, and 561.
Ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes are denoted on
slash sheets 477 and 590. This Competitive Impact
Statement will hereinafter refer to the products on
these slash sheets as ‘‘QML Small Signal
Transistors’’ and ‘‘QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier
Diodes.’’
2 The Complaint describes the various reliability
grades of QML products. In particular, it
distinguishes products qualified for use in space
(‘‘JANS’’) from lower reliability grades (collectively
referred to in the Complaint as ‘‘JANTXV’’). The
terms of the proposed Final Judgment, however, do
not vary among the different QML reliability grades.
Therefore, this Competitive Impact Statement uses
the terms ‘‘QML Small Signal Transistors’’ and
‘‘QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes’’ to
include products of all QML reliability grades.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
occur given the small size of the potential
markets.
III. Explanation of the Proposed Final
Judgment
The divestiture required by the proposed
Final Judgment will eliminate the
anticompetitive effects of the acquisition in
the markets for QML Small Signal Transistors
and QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes
by reestablishing Semicoa as an independent
and economically viable competitor. The
assets to be divested include essentially all
of the assets 3 acquired by Microsemi in the
July 14, 2008 transaction. The divestiture
provisions of the proposed Final Judgment
will eliminate the anticompetitive effects of
the acquisition in the provision of QML
Small Signal Transistors and QML Ultrafast
Recovery Rectifier Diodes.
The proposed Final Judgment requires
Microsemi, within thirty (30) days after the
filing of the proposed Final Judgment, or five
(5) calendar days after notice of the entry of
the Final Judgment by the Court, whichever
is later, to divest the Semicoa assets as a
viable ongoing business. The United States
may, in its discretion, extend this period by
an additional period of up to thirty (30) days.
The assets must be divested in such a way
as to satisfy the United States, in its sole
discretion, that the assets can and will be
operated by the purchaser as a viable,
ongoing business that can compete
effectively in the relevant markets.
Microsemi must use its best efforts to
accomplish the divestiture as expeditiously
as possible and shall cooperate with
prospective purchasers.
In the event that Microsemi does not
accomplish the divestiture within the periods
prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment,
the proposed Final Judgment provides that
the Court will appoint a trustee selected by
the United States to effect the divestiture. If
a trustee is appointed, the Final Judgment
provides that Microsemi 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 divestiture is accomplished. After his or
her appointment becomes effective, the
trustee will file monthly reports with the
Court and the United States setting forth his
or her efforts to accomplish the divestiture.
At the end of six (6) months, if the divestiture
has not been accomplished, the trustee and
the United States will make
recommendations to the Court, which shall
enter such orders as appropriate, in order to
carry out the purpose of the trust, including
extending the trust or the term of the trustee’s
appointment.
In addition to the divestiture provisions,
the proposed Final Judgment, in Section XI,
provides that Microsemi will provide the
United States at least thirty (30) days’
advance notice of any acquisition of the
assets of, or any interest in, any entity
3 Inventory and/or work-in-progress that
Microsemi sold in the ordinary course of business
after the July 14, 2008 acquisition of the Semicoa
assets are excluded from the divestiture. The
Acquirer will acquire all of the assets necessary to
restore competition in the relevant markets.
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
engaged in the development, production or
sale of QML Small Signal Transistors or QML
Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes. The
notification shall be provided in the same
format as, and per the instructions relating to,
the Notification and Report Form set forth in
the Appendix to Part 803 of Title 16 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as amended,
except that the information requested in
Items 5 through 9 of the instructions need be
provided only for QML Small Signal
Transistors and QML Ultrafast Recovery
Rectifier Diodes.
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 the
defendant.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
V. Procedures Available for Modification of
the Proposed Final Judgment
The United States and Microsemi have
stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment
may be entered by the Court after compliance
with the provisions of the APPA, provided
that the United States has not withdrawn its
consent. The APPA conditions entry upon
the Court’s determination that the proposed
Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least
sixty (60) days preceding the effective date of
the proposed Final Judgment within which
any person may submit to the United States
written comments regarding the proposed
Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to
comment should do so within sixty (60) days
of the date of publication of this Competitive
Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or
the last date of publication in a newspaper
of the summary of this Competitive Impact
Statement, whichever is later. All comments
received during this period will be
considered by the Department of Justice,
which remains free to withdraw its consent
to the proposed Final Judgment at any time
prior to the Court’s entry of judgment. The
comments and the response of the United
States will be filed with the Court and
published in the Federal Register.
Written comments should be submitted to:
Maribeth Petrizzi, Chief, Litigation II Section,
Antitrust Division, United States Department
of Justice, Liberty Square Building, 450 5th
Street, NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC
20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that
the Court retains jurisdiction over this action,
and the parties may apply to the Court for
any order necessary or appropriate for the
modification, interpretation, or enforcement
of the Final Judgment.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:09 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 Microsemi.
The United States could have continued the
litigation and sought divestiture of the
Semicoa assets. The United States is
satisfied, however, that the divestiture of the
assets in the manner prescribed in the
proposed Final Judgment will restore
competition in the markets for QML Small
Signal Transistors and QML Ultrafast
Recovery Rectifier Diodes. The proposed
Final Judgment would achieve all of the
relief the government 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 sixty-day 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 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).4
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,
4 The 2004 amendments substituted ‘‘shall’’ for
‘‘may’’ in directing relevant factors for the 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45251
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:
[t]he balancing of competing social and
political interests affected by a proposed
antitrust consent decree must be left, in the
first instance, to the discretion of the
Attorney General. The court’s role in
protecting the public interest is one of
insuring that the government has not
breached its duty to the public in consenting
to the decree. The court is required to
determine not whether a particular decree is
the one that will best serve society, but
whether the settlement is ‘‘within the reaches
of the public interest.’’ More elaborate
requirements might undermine the
effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by
consent decree.
Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added)
(citations omitted).5 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-Daniels-Midland Co.,
272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting
that the court should grant due respect to the
United States’s 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, 103 S. Ct. 1240,
75 L.Ed.2d 472 (1983); see also United States
5 Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the
court’s ‘‘ultimate authority under the [APPA] is
limited to approving or disapproving the consent
decree’’); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp.
713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way,
the court is constrained to ‘‘look at the overall
picture not hypercritically, nor with a microscope,
but with an artist’s reducing glass’’). See generally
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (discussing whether ‘‘the
remedies [obtained in the decree are] so
inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall
outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest’ ’’).
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
45252
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 168 / Tuesday, September 1, 2009 / Notices
v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 605 F. Supp. 619,
622 (W.D. Ky. 1985), (approving the consent
decree even though the court would have
imposed a greater remedy). To meet this
standard, the United States ‘‘need only
provide a factual basis for concluding that
the settlements are reasonably adequate
remedies for the alleged harms.’’ SBC
Commc’ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17.
Moreover, the court’s role under the APPA
is limited to reviewing the remedy in
relationship to the violations that the United
States has alleged in its Complaint, and does
not authorize the court to ‘‘construct [its]
own hypothetical case and then evaluate the
decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d
at 1459. Because the ‘‘court’s authority to
review the decree depends entirely on the
government’s exercising its prosecutorial
discretion by bringing a case in the first
place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only
authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and
not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to
inquire into other matters that the United
States did not pursue. Id. at 1459–60. As
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.’’ 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 11.6
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
VIII. Determinative Documents
There are no determinative materials or
documents within the meaning of the APPA
6 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,
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.’’).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:09 Aug 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
that were considered by the United States in
formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: August 20, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
By: lll/s/lll
Lowell R. Stern, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on the 20th day
of August, 2009, I will electronically file
the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF system, which will
then send a notification of such filing
(NEF) to the following:
Brett J. Williamson,
Darin J. Glasser,
O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 610 Newport
Center Drive, 17th Floor, Newport
Beach, CA 92660–6429.
Michael E. Antalics,
Benjamin G. Bradshaw,
O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1625 Eye
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
lll/s/lll
Lowell R. Stern,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
[FR Doc. E9–21051 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–11–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Job Corps: Preliminary Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Project located
at Westover Job Corp Center, 103
Johnson Drive, Chicopee, MA
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,
Department of Labor.
Recovery: This project will be wholly
funded under the American Recovery
and Reconstruction Act of 2009.
ACTION: Preliminary Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for Solar PV
Panel Installation to be located at the
Westover Job Corp Center, 103 Johnson
Drive, Chicopee, Massachusetts.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40
CFR part 1500–08) implementing
procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Department of Labor, Office of the
Secretary (OSEC) in accordance with 29
CFR 11.11(d), gives notice that an
Environmental Assessment (EA) has
been prepared for a proposed Solar PV
Project to be located at the Westover Job
Corp Center, 103 Johnson Drive,
Chicopee, Massachusetts, and that the
proposed plan for the construction of
solar PV panels at the Westover Job
Corps Center will have no significant
environmental impact. This Preliminary
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) will be made available for
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
public review and comment for a period
of 30 days.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by
October 1, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Any comment(s) are to be
submitted to William A. Dakshaw, P.E.,
Division of Facilities and Asset
Management, Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N–
4460, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693–
2867 (this is not a toll-free number).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the EA are available to
interested parties by contacting William
A. Dakshaw, P.E., Division of Facilities
and Asset Management, Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room N–4460, Washington, DC 20210,
(202) 693–2867 (this is not a toll-free
number).
This EA
summary addresses the proposed
construction of approximately 1.5 acres
of stationary solar photovoltaic (PV)
panels to create a 150 to 200 kilowatt
system connected to the closest
electrical terminal at the Westover Job
Corps Center. The solar panels will
produce clean energy for the Westover
Job Corps Center, demonstrate
renewable energy capabilities to Job
Corps Students and help the program
meet Federal requirements in Executive
Order 13423 for renewable energy
production. This project is not expected
to have a negative impact on population
demographics, the surrounding area,
environmental quality, or natural
systems and heritage.
Based on the information gathered
during the preparation of the EA, the
construction of the Solar PV Project at
Westover Job Corp Center, 103 Johnson
Drive, Chicopee, Massachusetts will not
create any significant adverse impacts
on the environment.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: August 25, 2009.
Lynn Intrepidi,
Interim National Director of Job Corps.
[FR Doc. E9–20969 Filed 8–31–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–23–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Job Corps: Preliminary Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the
Edison Job Corps Center Solar PV
Project located at the Edison Job
Corps Center
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary,
Department of Labor.
E:\FR\FM\01SEN1.SGM
01SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 168 (Tuesday, September 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45242-45252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21051]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. Microsemi Corporation; 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 and
Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States
District Court for the Central District of California in United States
v. Microsemi Corporation, Civil Action No. 8:09-CV-00275-AG-AN. On
December 18, 2008, the United States filed a Complaint alleging
Microsemi Corporation's July 14, 2008 acquisition of the assets of
Semicoa violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. The United States alleged
that this acquisition enabled Microsemi to eliminate or reduce
competition in the development, manufacture, and sale of certain small
signal transistors and ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes used in
military and space programs. The proposed Final Judgment, filed on
August 20, 2009, requires that Microsemi divest all of the assets it
acquired from Semicoa. A Competitive Impact Statement filed by the
United States describes the Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment, the
industry, and the remedies available to private litigants who may have
been injured by the alleged violation.
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive
Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 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 Central District of California, Southern Division. 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 sixty (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. In order to comply with
publication criteria for the Federal Register, please provide comments
in an electronic word processing format (preferably Word Perfect or
Microsoft Word). Comments should be directed to Maribeth Petrizzi,
Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust
[[Page 45243]]
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite
8700, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-307-0924).
J. Robert Kramer, II,
Director of Operations and Civil Enforcement.
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia Alexandria Division
United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Microsemi Corporation,
Defendant. Civil Action No.: 1:08cv1311, Judge: Trenga, Anthony J.,
Date: December 18, 2008
Verified Complaint
The United States of America, acting under the direction of the
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil antitrust
action to obtain a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and equitable and other relief against defendant
Microsemi Corporation (``Microsemi'') to remedy the harm to
competition caused by Microsemi's acquisition of assets of Semicoa,
Inc. (``Semicoa''). The United States alleges as follows:
I. Nature of Action
1. This lawsuit challenges Microsemi's July 14, 2008 acquisition
of substantially all of the assets of Semicoa, which has
significantly harmed competition in the development, manufacture and
sale of certain specialized high reliability electronic components
used in aerospace and military applications. The transaction
eliminated all competition for several types of transistors used in
such applications--known as JANS and JANTXV small signal
transistors--and substantially lessened competition for one type of
diode used in such applications--known as JANS and JANTXV 5811
diodes. The high reliability transistors and diodes affected by the
transaction are manufactured to exacting standards to ensure high
performance under the most demanding conditions, subject to a U.S.
government system of qualification and certification that is relied
upon to assure the required degree of reliability. These components
are used by customers that include the military services and the
national security agencies of the United States in a wide range of
critical applications in space, in the air, on land, and on and
under the sea. The largest and most complex military applications
ever designed, ranging from satellites to submarines, depend on
these components. Civilian space projects ranging from
communications satellites to the spacecraft under development to
return astronauts to the moon also require these components. Because
failure of even a single one of these components could result in the
failure of a vital, multibillion dollar mission--and potentially
cost the lives of American servicemen and women and astronauts--
components with lesser degrees of reliability cannot be substituted
for the products at issue in this case.
2. The JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors and the JANTXV
and JANS 5811 diodes at issue in this case are hereinafter referred
to collectively as the ``relevant products.'' Through its
acquisition of the Semicoa assets, Microsemi reduced the number of
suppliers of JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors from two to
one, and thereby acquired monopolies in the development, manufacture
and sale of those products. The acquisition also substantially
reduced competition for JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes by terminating
Semicoa's attempt to enter into the manufacture and sale of these
diodes. The acquisition has thus created monopolies in the
development, manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors, and has substantially lessened competition in the
development, manufacture and sale of all relevant products.
3. As a result of the transaction, prices for the relevant
products have increased and likely will continue to increase,
delivery times have become less reliable, and terms of service
likely will become less favorable. Accordingly Microsemi's
acquisition of the Semicoa assets violated Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. The United States brings this action against defendant
Microsemi under Section 4 of the Sherman Act and Section 15 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 4 and 25, as amended, to prevent and restrain
Microsemi from continuing to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
5. Microsemi develops, manufactures and sells the relevant
products in the flow of interstate commerce. Microsemi's activities
in developing, manufacturing and selling the relevant products
substantially affect interstate commerce. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over this action and over the defendant pursuant
to Section 4 of the Sherman Act and Section 15 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. 4 and 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 12 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c), and venue is
proper in this Division pursuant to Local Rule 3(C). Defendant is a
corporation that transacts business within this judicial district
and Division, including by making sales to customers located within
this judicial district and Division.
III. Parties to the Transaction
7. Microsemi is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in Irvine, California. Microsemi's sales were
approximately $514 million in fiscal year 2008. Microsemi
manufactures a range of high reliability semiconductors, including
JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors and JANTXV and JANS 5811
diodes. Microsemi's facilities for the manufacture of the relevant
products are located in Massachusetts, California and Arizona.
Microsemi's relevant products are shipped to customers throughout
the United States, represent a regular, continuous and substantial
flow of interstate commerce, and have a substantial effect upon
interstate commerce.
8. Semicoa was a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Costa Mesa, California. Semicoa's sales in the United
States were approximately $14.7 million in 2007. Prior to the
acquisition, Semicoa's products included a range of high reliability
semiconductors. Semicoa's facilities for the manufacture of the
relevant products were located in Costa Mesa, California. Its
relevant products were shipped to customers throughout the United
States and represented a regular, continuous and substantial flow of
interstate commerce and had a substantial effect upon interstate
commerce. After the sale of the high reliability semiconductor
assets to Microsemi, the remainder of the Semicoa business was
renamed Array Optronics, Inc..
IV. The Transaction
9. On July 14, 2008, Microsemi and Semicoa completed an asset
sale by which Microsemi acquired from Semicoa all of its business
engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of the relevant
products. Microsemi announced plans to release most of Semicoa's
employees and to relocate its operations within a year to Microsemi
facilities.
V. Trade and Commerce
The Relevant Product Markets
10. Transistors and diodes are semiconductor devices used to
control the flow of electric current. In their simplest forms,
transistors can be viewed as switches and diodes can be viewed as
one-way valves. Both products begin as silicon wafers produced in a
furnace, typically referred to as a foundry. They are then cut into
small sections known as dies. These dies are packaged in various
ways into transistors and diodes.
11. Small signal transistors are a class of transistors commonly
used in communications and other signal processing applications.
Small signal transistors operate at low power levels and are used to
amplify electrical signals in a wide range of products, including
critical military and civilian applications ranging from satellites
to nuclear missile systems. Small signal transistors are produced
using equipment, processes and skill sets specific to this type of
transistor. Other types of transistors have different
characteristics and cannot perform the tasks required of small
signal transistors. A small but significant increase in the price of
small signal transistors would not cause customers to switch to
other types of transistors.
12. Rectifier diodes are a class of diodes also commonly used in
communications and other signal processing applications. Rectifier
diodes operate at low power levels and are used to convert
alternating current to direct current in a wide range of products,
including critical military and civilian applications ranging from
satellites to nuclear missile systems. Ultrafast recovery rectifier
diodes, of which the 5811 type (``5811 diode'') is among the most
common, are distinguished from other rectifier diodes by their
extremely high alternating speeds, which minimize power loss and
waste heat generation. Their ability to perform efficiently and
without generating excess heat is especially important in
applications
[[Page 45244]]
such as satellites and missiles, where power availability is
strictly limited and heat dissipation is challenging. The 5811 diode
performs a specific set of functions not performed by other
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes; while there are other types of
ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes, those diodes have different
characteristics and cannot perform the functions required of 5811
diodes. A small but significant increase in the price of 5811 diodes
would not cause customers to switch to other types of diodes.
13. Highly reliable performance under demanding conditions is
absolutely essential in military and space systems, where failure of
a single component could result in failure of the mission. To ensure
reliability and proper performance, production of these components
for use in United States military and space applications is
supervised by the Defense Supply Center Columbus (``DSCC''), a
component of the Department of Defense. DSCC maintains a list of
qualified components and their suppliers generally known as the
Qualified Manufacturers List, or QML. While the QML is specifically
intended for reference by military contractors, civilian space
system manufacturers also require highly reliable components for use
in a demanding environment, and therefore make use of the QML system
and specify QML qualified components.
14. Products listed on the QML are organized into ``slash
sheets,'' which denote groups of components with similar
characteristics. Microsemi and Semicoa were the only manufacturers
on the QML slash sheets for small signal transistors. This Complaint
hereinafter uses the term ``small signal transistors'' to describe
the products on these slash sheets.
15. DSCC grants certifications and qualifications for different
grades of QML components, known as Joint Army-Navy categories. These
grades in general represent different levels of reliability. The
highest reliability grade is Joint Army-Navy Space (``JANS''); one
level below JANS is Joint Army-Navy Technical Exchange-Visual
Inspection (``JANTXV''). There are two grades below JANTXV, but the
distinction between those grades and JANTXV is not as stark as
between JANTXV and JANS. Therefore, the term JANTXV will be used to
refer to all QML grades other than JANS.
16. Manufacturers pursuing JANTXV qualification for their
components must be audited by DSCC. DSCC audits the manufacturer's
facility, including fabrication, assembly and testing processes. If
satisfied that the manufacturer is able to produce consistently
reliable components at the highest levels of quality and
performance, DSCC will issue a certification for those processes and
authorize production of a particular component for qualification
testing. The manufacturer produces a sample lot and submits test
results to DSCC. Once satisfied with the manufacturer's test
results--which may take several rounds of submissions and required
corrections--DSCC will place the particular component from that
manufacturer on the QML with a JANTXV qualification.
17. JANS grade products are required by customers for systems
that demand the utmost reliability, such as satellites and nuclear
missile systems. Components used in space must be of the highest
quality and performance, because the space environment exposes
components to extremes of temperature, pressure, radiation, and
vibration during launch. Moreover, because failures in space are
generally beyond reach of repair, these components must be extremely
reliable.
18. Thus, while JANS components may perform functions similar to
JANTXV components, obtaining JANS certification requires extensive
additional qualification and testing beyond that required to obtain
JANTXV certification. Each step in the manufacture of each JANS
product must be thoroughly documented to ensure traceability in the
event of a manufacturing defect. In addition, suppliers of JANS
products must undergo far more demanding ongoing manufacturing and
testing requirements than suppliers of other QML components. As a
result, JANS components are regarded by buyers as being
substantially more reliable than JANTXV components and are much more
expensive than JANTXV components.
19. Components for use in commercial applications differ
substantially from their JANTXV or JANS counterparts. JANTXV and
JANS components are produced to very narrow tolerances. Commercial
components, in contrast, are produced to much wider tolerances and
lack the extensive production control, testing and documentation of
JANTXV and JANS components. Moreover, commercial components are
often encased in plastic, whereas JANTXV and JANS components are
hermetically sealed in glass or metal cases, a far more expensive
and demanding process that ensures greater reliability. Because of
these significant differences in production and quality control,
JANTXV and JANS components are much more reliable and substantially
more expensive than commercial components.
20. Customers determine whether their projects require
commercial grade, JANTXV, or JANS components. Those customers that
choose JANTXV or JANS components need their reliability and assured
performance characteristics, as evidenced by their willingness to
pay the much higher cost of these components compared to commercial
grade components.
21. Commercial grade components lack the reliability and assured
performance of JANTXV components because they have not been produced
following the thorough and reliable procedures mandated by DSCC for
JANTXV components. While extensive testing of commercial grade
components might reduce the risk of failure posed by the use of such
components, such testing would be costly and time consuming. It
would delay the project, some degree of risk would still remain, and
the cost associated with such extensive testing in practice would
make use of the commercial grade far more costly than use of a
JANTXV component. Customers therefore do not consider the cost or
availability of commercial grade components when designing systems
requiring JANTXV components.
22. Because JANS components are much more expensive than JANTXV
components, customers whose needs can be met with JANTXV components
have no economic incentive to substitute JANS components.
23. A small but significant increase in the price of JANTXV
small signal transistors would not cause customers to substitute
commercial grade small signal transistors or JANS small signal
transistors to an extent that would make such a price increase
unprofitable. Accordingly, the development, manufacture and sale of
JANTXV small signal transistors is a separate and distinct line of
commerce and a relevant product market for the purpose of analyzing
the effects of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
24. A small but significant increase in the price of JANTXV 5811
diodes would not cause customers to substitute commercial grade 5811
diodes or JANS 5811 diodes to an extent that would make such a price
increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the development, manufacture and
sale of JANTXV 5811 diodes is a separate and distinct line of
commerce and a relevant product market for the purpose of analyzing
the effects of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
25. Customers specifying JANS small signal transistors and JANS
5811 diodes for their projects will not substitute JANTXV components
for JANS components because they do not have the extra reliability
of JANS components, which results from the much more demanding and
extensive testing and process control required of JANS components.
While extensive testing of JANTXV components might reduce the risk
of failure posed by the use of such components, such testing would
be costly and time consuming. It would delay the project, some
degree of risk would still remain, and the cost associated with such
extensive testing in practice would make use of the JANTXV component
far more costly than use of a JANS component. Thus, when JANS parts
are available, customers do not consider JANTXV components
substitutes when designing systems requiring JANS components or
purchasing components to build such systems. Because commercial
grade components are of even lower quality, customers specifying
JANS components also will not substitute commercial components.
26. A small but significant increase in the price of JANS small
signal transistors would not cause customers to substitute
commercial grade or JANTXV small signal transistors to an extent
that would make such a price increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the
development, manufacture and sale of JANS small signal transistors
is a separate and distinct line of commerce and a relevant product
market for the purpose of analyzing the effects of the acquisition
under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
27. A small but significant increase in the price of JANS 5811
diodes would not cause customers to substitute commercial grade or
JANTXV 5811 diodes to an extent that would make such a price
increase unprofitable. Accordingly, the development, manufacture and
sale of JANS 5811 diodes is a separate and distinct line of commerce
and a relevant product market for the purpose of analyzing
[[Page 45245]]
the effects of the acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act
and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
28. To the extent there were some customers that could
substitute JANTXV components in response to a small but significant
and nontransitory price increase on JANS small signal transistors or
JANS 5811 diodes, Microsemi would be able to identify those
customers and charge them a lower price in order to avoid losing
sales to them, while still raising the price to those customers who
would not switch. Microsemi would not need to charge the lower price
to all customers in order to avoid losing contested sales.
The Relevant Geographic Market
29. Customers that require JANTXV or JANS small signal
transistors are located throughout the United States. Microsemi
would be able to identify these customers and increase prices to
them for JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors. Thus, under
Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the
relevant geographic market for JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors is the United States.
30. Customers that require JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes are
located throughout the United States. Microsemi would be able to
identify these customers and increase prices to them for JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes. Thus, under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the relevant geographic market for
JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes is the United States.
Market Concentration
JANTXV and JANS Small Signal Transistors
31. Prior to the acquisition, Microsemi and Semicoa were the
only suppliers of JANTXV small signal transistors in the world.
Microsemi and Semicoa combined sold approximately $15 million of
JANTXV small signal transistors annually. The transaction was a
merger to monopoly, and Microsemi faces no current competition.
32. Prior to the acquisition, Microsemi and Semicoa were the
only suppliers of JANS small signal transistors in the world.
Microsemi had approximately $3.5 million in annual sales and Semicoa
had approximately $3 million in annual sales. The transaction was a
merger to monopoly, and Microsemi faces no current competition.
JANTXV and JANS 5811 Diodes
33. Microsemi manufactured JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes until
2004, when it attempted to shift production from a plant in
California to a plant in Arizona. Difficulties associated with that
shift caused Microsemi to lose its JANTXV and JANS QML
qualifications for that diode. As a result, there was no other firm
qualified to make JANS 5811 diodes for several years. However, prior
to 2004, Microsemi had built up its inventory of JANS 5811 diodes
and continued to sell these products after its disqualification,
making it the dominant supplier of these products since 2004.
34. After 2004, Microsemi's delivery times became very long.
Customers who were unable to delay their programs further were
forced to use less reliable commercial grade 5811 diodes at
increased cost due to the need for additional testing. Microsemi
produced almost all of the commercial grade products used by those
customers.
35. In the meantime, Semicoa took significant steps to enter the
production of JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes in competition with
Microsemi. The shortage led Semicoa to begin developing its own 5811
diodes to compete with Microsemi, with the assistance of a major
customer that was dissatisfied with Microsemi as its sole source of
supply. By July 2008, Semicoa was testing its 5811 diode and, had
Microsemi not acquired Semicoa's assets later that month, Semicoa
likely would have obtained JANTXV and JANS qualification and
competed with Microsemi for JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes. Semicoa
already had received $3 million in orders. One other manufacturer,
with manufacturing operations based in Mexico, is JANTXV qualified
for 5811 diodes and may obtain JANS qualification, but would not be
capable of satisfying those customers that require products
manufactured in the United States, as discussed in Paragraph 41
below.
36. Microsemi regained JANTXV and JANS qualifications for its
5811 diodes in October 2008 after more than three years of effort.
Had Microsemi not acquired the Semicoa assets in July 2008,
Microsemi and Semicoa would have competed for the sale of these
products.
Anticompetitive Effects of the Acquisition
JANTXV and JANS Small Signal Transistors
37. Prior to the acquisition, Semicoa was the only alternative
source to Microsemi for JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors,
and customers benefitted from robust competition between the firms.
In the two years preceding the acquisition, Semicoa made significant
investments in capacity expansion, purchasing new equipment and
increasing its workforce to increase production and improve delivery
times. Semicoa's shipments of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors rose by more than 40 percent between 2005 and 2007.
Semicoa aggressively priced its small signal transistors to take
business from Microsemi, constraining Microsemi's prices.
38. Post-acquisition, Microsemi has raised prices significantly
on JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors. Without Semicoa as a
competitive constraint, Microsemi has the power to selectively raise
prices to customers that Microsemi is aware cannot substitute lower
grade components for JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors. In
addition, Microsemi has announced that it intends to impose on these
JANTXV and JANS customers less favorable terms of service than were
provided before the acquisition. Customers will not be able to avoid
these terms because they no longer possess an alternative to
Microsemi to ensure timely delivery of their small signal
transistors. The acquisition is likely to lead to lengthened
delivery times and less certain delivery, imposing huge risks and
delays on critical military and space-related programs.
39. Through its acquisition of the Semicoa assets, Microsemi has
substantially lessened competition in the markets for JANTXV and
JANS small signal transistors, in violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and willfully acquired a monopoly in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
JANTXV and JANS 5811 Diodes
40. 5811 diodes are produced using processes, skill sets and
equipment unique to this kind of diode. Microsemi is the sole
supplier of JANS 5811 diodes, and one of only two suppliers of
JANTXV 5811 diodes. Before the acquisition, Semicoa had the
capability to enter the markets for JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes, and
was well along the way toward completing that entry. Microsemi's
purchase of the Semicoa assets eliminated Semicoa's likely entry to
these markets, thereby leaving Microsemi alone in the market, and
facing the potential entry of only one other firm, which would
manufacture these products in Mexico. As a result, the transaction
reduced from three to two the number of competitors that were likely
to compete in these markets.
41. Competition from the firm with manufacturing facilities in
Mexico will not be sufficient to constrain Microsemi's ability to
raise the prices of JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes. As the only other
domestic supplier of JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes, Semicoa would have
been the best alternative source to Microsemi for these customers.
Because of concerns relating to classified data, sensitive end uses,
and lack of the ability of the United States government to
prioritize delivery of product, many customers will hesitate to
purchase these products from the firm with manufacturing facilities
in Mexico.
42. Semicoa's entry into the market for JANTXV and JANS 5811
diodes likely would have benefited customers with lower prices,
shorter delivery times, and more favorable terms of service, just as
Semicoa's competition for sales of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors benefited customers for those products. Microsemi's
acquisition of the Semicoa assets prevented this entry and therefore
substantially lessened competition in the markets for JANTXV and
JANS 5811 diodes, in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18.
Entry into the Development, Manufacture and Sale of the Relevant
Products
43. Entry into the development, manufacture and sale of JANTXV
small signal transistors and JANTXV 5811 diodes will not be timely,
likely, and sufficient to counter the anticompetitive effects of the
acquisition. The process required to obtain QML certification and
DSCC qualification for JANTXV small signal transistors and JANTXV
5811 diodes is lengthy. Entry resulting in significant market impact
likely would take more than two years.
44. Entry into the development, manufacture and sale of JANS
small signal transistors and JANS 5811 diodes sold to United States
is even less likely to be timely, likely, and sufficient to counter
the anticompetitive effects of the acquisition. The additional
process required to obtain DSCC certification and qualification at
the JANS level would require at least another year following JANTXV
certification and
[[Page 45246]]
qualification. Moreover, because JANS parts are used for the most
demanding and critical applications, customers are unlikely to shift
significant amounts of JANS purchases to an entrant until that
entrant has established a record of quality, consistency, and
reliability at the JANS level. Entry resulting in significant market
impact likely would take more than three years for firms that,
unlike Semicoa as to 5811 diodes, did not already have JANS
qualification for other products and significant backing from
important customers.
45. The uncertainties and risks associated with any entry, and
the likelihood that such entry would not be timely in any event, is
demonstrated by Microsemi's own inability to transfer production of
JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes without losing QML qualification.
Although Microsemi is a large and diversified manufacturer of QML
products, and attempted to transfer production to a facility in
Arizona from a facility that it had used to manufacture QML
components for many years, Microsemi lost its qualification and
needed three to four years to requalify to produce these components.
46. Further, to provide the degree of price competition that
would have existed absent the acquisition, entrants would have to
reach a scale sufficient to achieve production costs comparable to
those of Semicoa. This would require significant investment,
particularly in equipment dedicated to automated production, and is
unlikely to occur given the small size of the potential markets.
VI. First Cause of Action
(Violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act)
47. The United States incorporates the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 46 above.
48. Microsemi's acquisition of the assets of Semicoa used in the
development, manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors and JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes has substantially
lessened competition in interstate trade and commerce in violation
of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
49. The transaction has had the following effects, among others:
a. Competition between Microsemi and Semicoa in the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors and
JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes has been eliminated;
b. prices for JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors and
JANTXV and JANS 5811 diodes have increased and likely will continue
to increase, delivery times likely will lengthen, and terms of
service likely will become less favorable.
VII. Second Cause of Action
(Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act)
50. The United States incorporates the allegations of paragraphs
1 through 46 above.
51. On or about July 14, 2008, Microsemi willfully obtained
monopoly power by acquiring the assets of Semicoa used in the
development, manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal
transistors. Semicoa was Microsemi's only competitor, and the effect
of this acquisition has been to create a monopoly in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
52. The transaction has had the following effects, among others:
a. The combination created a monopoly for the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors;
b. Competition between Microsemi and Semicoa in the development,
manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors has
been eliminated; and
c. Prices for JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors have
increased and likely will continue to increase, delivery times
likely will lengthen, and terms of service likely will become less
favorable.
XII. Requested Relief
53. The United States requests that this Court:
a. Adjudge and decree the acquisition of the assets of Semicoa
by defendant Microsemi to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. 18 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2;
b. Compel Microsemi to divest all of Semicoa's tangible and
intangible assets related to the development, manufacture and sale
of the relevant products, and to take any further actions necessary
to restore the markets to the competitive position that existed
prior to the acquisition;
c. Award such temporary and preliminary injunctive and ancillary
relief as may be necessary to avert the likelihood of the
dissipation of Semicoa's tangible and intangible assets during the
pendency of this action and to preserve the possibility of effective
final relief;
d. Award the United States the cost of this action; and
e. Grant the United States such other and further relief as the
case requires and the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: December 18, 2008.
For Plaintiff United States:
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah A. Garza,
Acting Assistant Attorney General.
------/s/------
David L. Meyer,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Robert Kramer II,
Director of Operations.
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Maribeth Petrizzi,
Chief, Litigation II Section.
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy B. Fountain,
Assistant Chief, Litigation II Section.
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell R. Stern (VA Bar 33460),
Trial Attorney,
Antitrust Division, Litigation II Section,
1401 H Street, NW., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20530,
(202) 514-3676, (202) 307-6283 (fax), Lowell.Stern@usdoj.gov.
------/s/------
Kevin C. Quin,
Robert W. Wilder (VA Bar 14479),
Janet A. Nash,
Stephanie A. Fleming,
Christine A. Hill,
Helena M. Gardner,
Jay D. Owen,
Rachel J. Adcox,
Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division,
Litigation II Section,
1401 H Street NW., Suite 3000,
Washington, DC 20530.
United States District Court Central District of California
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Microsemi Corporation,
Defendant. Case No.: 8:09-cv-00275-AG-AN.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Hon. Andrew J. Guilford.
Final Judgment
Whereas, plaintiff, United States of America, filed its
Complaint on December 18, 2008, and the United States and Microsemi
Corporation (``Microsemi''), 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, Microsemi agrees 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 and assets by Microsemi to
assure that competition is substantially restored;
And whereas, Microsemi has represented to the United States that
the divestiture required below can and will be made and that
Microsemi will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as
grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the provisions
contained below;
Now therefore, before any testimony is taken, without trial or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the
parties, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each
of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon
which relief may be granted against Microsemi under Section 7 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, as amended, and Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. 2.
II. Definitions
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. ``Microsemi'' means defendant Microsemi Corporation, a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Irvine, California,
its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups,
affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors,
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
B. ``Semicoa'' means Semicoa, a California corporation with its
headquarters in Costa Mesa, California, its successors and assigns,
and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships,
and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents,
and employees.
[[Page 45247]]
C. ``Acquirer'' means the entity to whom defendant divests the
Divestiture Assets.
D. ``Divestiture Assets'' means all assets acquired by Microsemi
from Semicoa on July 14, 2008, including but not limited to:
(1) All specifications, manufacturing plans, assembly
instructions, standard operating procedures, and work instructions
related to the manufacturing process, including all right, title and
interest in or to all other assets of every kind and nature used or
intended to be used in the operation of Semicoa's business,
including, but not limited to, any finished or unfinished devices,
any materials, data or know-how wherever found or of whatever kind
reasonably required to manufacture and sell the goods and services
previously produced by Semicoa, as well as all books and records,
and all files, documents, papers and agreements that are material to
the continuing operation of Semicoa's business;
(2) All finished goods, works in progress, piece parts and
materials inventory, packaging, and labels, supplies and other
related personal property, except that which has been sold since the
closing of the July 14, 2008 transaction between Microsemi and
Semicoa;
(3) All equipment, machinery or software used in the
development, design, manufacturing and testing of goods previously
manufactured by Semicoa;
(4) All right, title and interest in, and all information
related to, any tooling, molds, equipment and proprietary
specifications Semicoa previously had with any and all vendors from
which Semicoa purchased goods or services, whether or not there are
any ``open'' purchase orders issued to such vendors, as well as
names and other information concerning any vendor that provides
goods or services that were material to the operation of Semicoa's
business;
(5) any list of customers to which Semicoa previously sold
products or provided services over the three years prior to July 14,
2008, whether or not there are any ``open'' sales orders from such
customers;
(6) all sales, marketing and promotional literature, cost and
pricing data, promotion list, marketing data and other compilations
of names and requirements, customer lists and other sales-related
materials;
(7) all intellectual property (``IP'') assets or rights that
have been used in the development, production, servicing, and sale
of QML Small Signal Transistors and QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier
Diodes, including but not limited to: All licenses, rights, and
sublicenses, trademarks, trade names, service marks, service names,
technical information, computer software and related documentation,
know-how, trade secrets, approvals, certifications, advertising
literature, and all manuals and technical information provided to
the employees, customers, suppliers, agents, or licensees of Semicoa
and used in connection with the development, design, manufacture,
testing, markets, sale, or distribution of QML Small Signal
Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes;
(8) all rights under all contracts, licenses, sublicenses,
agreements, leases, building leases, commitments, purchase orders,
bids and offers; and
(9) all rights acquired pursuant to municipal, state and federal
franchises, permits, licenses, agreements, waivers and
authorizations.
E. ``QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diode'' means each JAN,
JANS, JANTX, and JANTXV part listed on slash sheets 477 and 590 in
the Qualified Products Database maintained by the Defense Supply
Center Columbus.
F. ``QML Small Signal Transistor'' means each JAN, JANS, JANTX,
and JANTXV part listed on slash sheets 182, 251, 253, 255, 270, 290,
291, 301, 317, 336, 349, 354, 366, 374, 376, 382, 391, 392, 394,
395, 423, 455, 512, 534, 535, 544, 545, 558, 559, 560, and 561 in
the Qualified Products Database maintained by the Defense Supply
Center Columbus.
III. Applicability
This Final Judgment applies to Microsemi, as defined above, and
all other persons in active concert or participation with it who
receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or
otherwise.
IV. Divestiture
A. Microsemi is hereby ordered and directed, within thirty (30)
calendar days after the filing of the proposed Final Judgment 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 to an Acquirer in a manner consistent with this
Final Judgment. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree
to one extension of this time period, not to exceed thirty (30)
calendar days, and shall notify the Court of such extension.
Microsemi agrees to use its best efforts to divest the Divestiture
Assets as expeditiously as possible.
B. Microsemi shall provide the Acquirer and the United States
information relating to the personnel involved in the development,
production, operation, testing, management, or sales at the
Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer to make offers of
employment. Microsemi will not interfere with any negotiations by
the Acquirer to employ any Microsemi employee whose primary
responsibility was the development, production, operation, testing,
management, or sales at the Divestiture Assets.
C. Microsemi shall permit the Acquirer to have reasonable access
to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities
included in the Divestiture Assets; access to any and all
environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and information;
and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents
and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence
process.
D. Microsemi shall warrant to the Acquirer that each asset will
be operational on the date of sale.
E. Microsemi shall not take any action that will impede in any
way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture
Assets.
F. Microsemi shall warrant to the Acquirer that there are no
material defects in the environmental, zoning, permitting,
qualification, or other permits pertaining to the operation of the
Divestiture Assets, and that following the sale of the Divestiture
Assets, Microsemi will not undertake directly or indirectly, any
challenges to the environmental, zoning, or other permits relating
to the operation of the Divestiture Assets.
G. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the
divestiture pursuant to Section IV 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 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 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 business of developing,
producing, and selling QML Small Signal Transistors and QML
Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes; 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 and Microsemi give Microsemi 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 in the business of developing, producing and selling QML
Small Signal Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes.
V. Appointment of Trustee to Effect Divestiture
A. If Microsemi has not divested the Divestiture Assets within
the time period specified in Section IV(A), Microsemi 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 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 Microsemi
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 divestiture.
C. Microsemi shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any
ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objections by
Microsemi 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.
[[Page 45248]]
D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of Microsemi,
on such terms and conditions as the United States approves, and
shall account for all monies derived from the sale of the
Divestiture Assets 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 Microsemi 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. Microsemi shall use its best efforts to assist the trustee in
accomplishing the required divestiture. 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 business to be divested, and
Microsemi shall develop financial and other information relevant to
such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to
reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information. Microsemi shall
take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's
accomplishment of the divestiture.
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 divestiture 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 divestiture 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
divestiture; (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the
required divestiture has 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 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 Divestiture
A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a
definitive divestiture agreement, Microsemi or the trustee,
whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required
herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture
required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee
is responsible, it shall similarly notify Microsemi. The notice
shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the
name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously
identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to
acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together
with full details of the same.
B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United
States of such notice, the United States may request from Microsemi,
the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the trustee, if
applicable, additional information concerning the proposed
divestiture and the proposed Acquirer. Microsemi 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 Microsemi, the
proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the trustee, whichever is
later, the United States shall provide written notice to Microsemi
and the trustee, if there is one, stating whether or not it objects
to the proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written
notice that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated,
subject only to Microsemi's 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 shall not be consummated. Upon objection by
Microsemi under Section V(C), a divestiture proposed under Section V
shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.
VII. Financing
Microsemi shall not finance all or any part of any purchase or
divestiture made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.
VIII. Preserving and Maintaining Divestiture Assets
Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been
accomplished, Microsemi shall take all steps necessary to comply
with the Order Approving Stipulation Modifying Order to Preserve and
Maintain Assets and Stipulation Modifying Order to Preserve and
Maintain Assets. Microsemi shall take no action that would
jeopardize the divestiture ordered by this Court.
IX. Affidavits
A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the
proposed Final Judgment in this matter, and every thirty (30)
calendar days thereafter until the divestiture has been completed
under Section IV or V, Microsemi shall deliver to the United States
an affidavit as to the fact and manner of its compliance with
Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall
include the name, address, and telephone number of each person who,
during the preceding thirty (30) calendar days, made an offer to
acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into
negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about
acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall
describe in detail each contact with any such person during that
period. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the
efforts Microsemi has 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 Microsemi, including limitation on information, shall be made
within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of such affidavit.
B. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the
proposed Final Judgment in this matter, Microsemi shall deliver to
the United States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail
all actions Microsemi has taken and all steps Microsemi has
implemented on an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this
Final Judgment. Microsemi shall deliver to the United States an
affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined
in Microsemi's earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section
within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
C. Microsemi shall keep all records of all efforts made to
preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such
divestiture has 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 Antitrust Division, 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 Microsemi, be permitted:
(1) Access during Microsemi's office hours to inspect and copy,
or at the option of the United States, to require Microsemi to
provide hard copy or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers,
accounts, records, data, and documents in the possession, custody,
or control of Microsemi, relating to any matters contained in this
Final Judgment; and
(2) To interview, either informally or on the record,
Microsemi's officers, employees, or agents, who may have their
individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews
shall be subject to the reasonable
[[Page 45249]]
convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference
by Microsemi.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of
the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division,
Microsemi shall submit written reports or response to written
interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the
matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in
this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person
other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of
the United States, 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
Microsemi to the United States, Microsemi represents and identifies
in writing the material in any such information or documents to
which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Microsemi marks each
pertinent page of such material, ``Subject to claim of protection
under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,''
then the United States shall give Microsemi ten (10) calendar days
notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding
(other than a grand jury proceeding).
XI. Notification
Unless such transaction is otherwise subject to the reporting
and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvements Act of 1976, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18a (the ``HSR
Act''), Microsemi, without providing advance notification to the
Antitrust Division, shall not directly or indirectly acquire any
assets of or any interest, including any financial, security, loan,
equity or management interest, in any entity engaged in the
development, production, or sale of QML Small Signal Transistors or
QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes during the term of this
Final Judgment.
Such notification shall be provided to the Antitrust Division in
the same format as, and per the instructions relating to, the
Notification and Report Form set forth in the Appendix to Part 803
of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as amended, except
that the information requested in Items 5 through 9 of the
instructions must be provided only about QML Small Signal
Transistors or QML Ultrafast Recovery Rectifier Diodes. Notification
shall be provided at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to
acquiring any such interest, and shall include, beyond what may be
required by the applicable instructions, the names of the principal
representatives of the parties to the agreement who negotiated the
agreement, and any management or strategic plans discussing the
proposed transaction. Early termination of the waiting periods in
this paragraph may be requested and, where appropriate, granted in
the same manner as is applicable under the requirements and
provisions of the HSR Act and rules promulgated thereunder. This
Section shall be broadly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty
regarding the filing of notice under this Section shall be resolved
in favor of filing notice.
XII. No Reacquisition
Microsemi may not reacquire any part of the Divestiture Assets
during the term of this Final Judgment.
XIII. 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.
XIV. Expiration of Final Judgment
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall
expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.
XV. 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: --------, 2009
Court approval subject to procedures of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Andrew J. Guilford,
United States District Judge.
LOWELL R. STERN,
lowell.stern@usdoj.gov,
United States Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, 450 5th Street, NW., Suite 8700, Washington, DC
20530,
Telephone: (202) 307-0922,
Facsimile: (202) 307-6283, Attorney for Plaintiff.
United States District Court Central District of California
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Microsemi Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.: 8:09-cv-00275-AG-AN
Competitive Impact Statement
Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
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. Sec. 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
On July 14, 2008, defendant Microsemi Corporation
(``Microsemi'') acquired most of the assets of Semicoa. After
investigating the competitive impact of that acquisition, the United
States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on December 18, 2008,
seeking an order compelling Microsemi to divest the Semicoa assets
and other relief to restore competition. The Complaint alleges that
the acquisition significantly lessened competition in the
development, manufacture and sale of certain high reliability small
signal transistors and ultrafast recovery rectifier diodes used in
aerospace and military applications, in violation of Section 7 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. 2. As a result of the acquisition, prices for these products
did or would have increased, delivery times would have lengthened,
and terms of service would have become less favorable. Pursuant to
an Order to Preserve and Maintain Assets, which was entered on
December 24, 2008 and modified on August 6, 2009, Microsemi may not,
without written consent of the United States, dispose of the
acquired assets prior to resolution of this proceeding.
Concurrent with the filing of this Competitive Impact Statement,
the United States and Microsemi have filed a Stipulation Regarding
Proposed Final Judgment and a proposed Final Judgment. These filings
are designed to restore competition through a divestiture of the
acquired assets. The proposed Final Judgment, which is explained
more fully below, requires Microsemi to divest the Semicoa assets,
thus restoring the competition that was lost as a result of the
acquisition.
The United States and Microsemi have stipulated that the
proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the
APPA. Entry of the Final Judgment would terminate this action,
except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, modify,
or enforce the provisions of the Final Judgment and to punish
violations thereof.
II. Description of the Events Giving Rise to the Alleged Violation
A. Microsemi and the Semicoa Acquisition
Microsemi is a Delawa