United States: Five Million Penalty Is Stark Reminder About "Gun Jumping"

On November 7, 2014, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced that it had imposed a civil penalty of $3.8M and disgorgement of $1.15M in profits on Flakeboard America Limited (and its parent company) for "gun jumping," that is, assuming beneficial and operational control over the seller, in this case SierraPine, in violation of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR Act") and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This case is notable because it marks the first "gun jumping" enforcement action in several years and the first time disgorgement has been obtained in the context of a gun jumping violation.1 In addition, the asset purchase agreement ("APA") contained an unusual provision requiring the seller to shut one of its mill operations priorto closing. The case thus provided the DOJ with an opportunity to provide some basic guidance for the conduct of a buyer and seller prior to reaching a definitive agreement and, after a definitive agreement is reached, prior to closing a purchase or merger transaction.


The HSR Act requires parties to transactions meeting certain dollar thresholds to notify the antitrust enforcement agencies and observe a waiting period prior to closing. One purpose of the Act is to allow the competition agencies an opportunity to review the competitive effects of a transaction prior to its closing. Under the Act, the acquiring party may not take actual operational control or beneficial control over the target until the statutory waiting period expires or terminates. Moreover, even after the HSR waiting period expires, if the merging parties fail to operate as competitors, they may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act,2 proscribing unreasonable contracts in restraint of trade. In short, until closing, the parties to a transaction must remain independent competitors and the failure to do so is known as "gun jumping."


The Flakeboard Case arose out of Flakeboard's agreement to acquire from SierraPine, a competitor mill operator, two particleboard mills in Springfield, Oregon, and Martell, California, and a medium-density fiberboard mill in Medford, Oregon. Before negotiating the APA, SierraPine had no plans to shut down its Springfield mill. During negotiations, however, Flakeboard advised SierraPine that it would not operate Springfield after the transaction closed and insisted that SierraPine close the mill before the transaction was consummated. Accordingly, as part of the APA, SierraPine agreed to "take such actions as are reasonably necessary to shut down and close all business operations at its Springfield, Oregon facility" before the transaction closed.3 However, the APA also provided that "in no event shall [SierraPine] be required to shut down or close its business operations at its Springfield, Oregon facility" until "[a]ny required waiting periods and approvals...under applicable Antitrust Law shall have expired or been terminated."4 Thus, when the parties executed the APA, they anticipated that SierraPine would announce and implement the Springfield mill closure after the HSR waiting period expired but before the transaction was consummated.5

The transaction was subject to HSR review and the parties filed notification under the Act. The Antitrust Division of the DOJ subsequently issued a request for additional information and documentary material, commonly known as a Second Request. The transaction was later abandoned by the parties in response to competitive concerns raised by the DOJ.6

Unlawful Conduct

The Complaint alleges that instead of preserving SierraPine as an independent business, the parties prematurely coordinated their activities and operations. Specifically, rather than waiting until the HSR waiting period expired as the APA required, Flakeboard assumed operational control of SierraPine before the end of the HSR waiting period by entering into a series of agreements to close SierraPine's Springfield mill and move the mill's customers to Flakeboard.7 Moreover, SierraPine did not compete for most of the Springfield customers from its remaining mill in Martell, California, but instead directed them to Flakeboard.8 SierraPine further told its customers that Flakeboard would match its prices. Finally, SierraPine gave Flakeboard competitively sensitive information about its Springfield customers—including the name, contact information, and types and volume of products purchased by each of them. Flakeboard gave this information to its sales employees.9 Thus, "[w]ith SierraPine's assistance, Flakeboard successfully secured a substantial amount of Springfield's business, including a significant number of new customers that Flakeboard had not previously served and additional business from customers that Springfield and Flakeboard's Albany mill both previously served. The increased sales volumes from SierraPine's Springfield customers significantly increased Flakeboard's profits."10

Disgorgement and Civil Penalty

The Proposed Final Judgment, which is a negotiated settlement, requires Flakeboard to disgorge the profits that it earned as a result of its unlawful agreement with SierraPine.11 In its Competitive Impact Statement, the DOJ explained that disgorgement of profits was appropriate because it was impractical to reopen the mill, which had been closed for several months and all of its employees had either left the mill or had been terminated.12 In addition, the DOJ believed that disgorgement would "deter Flakeboard and others from participating in anticompetitive conduct in the context of a pending transaction," including transactions not subject to the HSR notification thresholds.13

Disgorgement remedies the Sherman Act violation, but not the HSR Act violation. A person or entity that fails to comply with the HSR Act is also liable for a civil penalty of not more than $16,000 for each day that the person is in violation of the Act.14 The Complaint alleged that the defendants were in violation of the HSR Act for 223 days, and therefore defendants could have received a fine of $3.568M. The DOJ agreed to a lower penalty because Flakeboard and SierraPine cooperated with the DOJ during its investigation.15

Key Lessons

While reaffirming much of the current M&A thinking and practice, the Proposed Final Judgment provides some key basic guidance in three areas: (a) investigatory due diligence; (b) appropriate business covenants in purchase agreements; and (c) plant closings and other pre-closing restructurings.16

A. Investigatory Due Diligence

The Proposed Final Judgment specifically allows the parties to engage in reasonable and customary due diligence relating to a pending transaction as long as such disclosures are:

  • reasonably related to a party's understanding of future earnings and prospects;
  • made pursuant to a non-disclosure agreement that limits use of the information to conducting due diligence in anticipation of the transaction, and
  • not given to any employee of the receiving party who is directly responsible for the marketing, pricing, or sales of competing products.17

B. Appropriate Business Covenants in Purchase Agreement

The Proposed Final Judgment reaffirms that the typical pre-closing business conduct covenants do not raise HSR gun jumping or Sherman Act concerns. The agencies appreciate the need for such covenants to protect the benefit of the buyer's bargain. Accordingly, the Proposed Final Judgment includes provisions specifically permitting the following conduct:18

  • Entering into an agreement that a party to a transaction must continue operating in the ordinary course of business;19
  • Entering into an agreement that a party to a transaction forego conduct that would cause a material adverse change in the value of to-be-acquired assets;
  • Disclosing confidential business information related to competing products, subject to a protective order, in the context of litigation or settlement discussions; or
  • Entering into a vendor/vendee relationship with a potential merger partner during the pendency of the transaction.

C. Plant Closings and other Pre-closing Restructuring

There may be occasions when business needs and exigent circumstances require the parties to an agreement to restructure the acquired business prior to closing the transaction to protect against loss or disruption at a target business. In Competitive Impact Statement commenting on the Proposed Final Judgment section outlining prohibited conduct,20 the DOJ obliquely states that this type of coordinated conduct, e.g., "to close a production facility before a transaction is consummated, may be permissible under certain circumstances."21 The CIS, however, does not specifically delineate the permissible circumstances.22 In the context of a merger agreement, however, restructuring prior to closing at a minimum requires notification to the competition authorities. Thus, the Proposed Final Judgment provides that Flakeboard (and its parent company) in future transactions may not close "a Production Facility that produces a Competing Product without prior written notice to and written approval from the DOJ."23

Finally, the Proposed Final Judgment also reiterates that during the negotiation of an agreement and in the interim period before closing, the parties to a transaction may not fix prices or restrict output related to a competing product or allocate or move customers related to a competing product.


[1] In the HSR context, disgorgement as a remedy has also been used in a case where the parties failed to disclose required documents in an HSR filing for a transaction that was later found to be anticompetitive. See United States v. The Hearst Trust and The Hearst Corporation, 2001, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f9200/9288.htm.

[2] 15 U.SD.C. §1.

[3] Competitive Impact Statement (N.D. Cal filed Nov. 7, 2014) ("CIS"), p. 4, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f309700/309790.pdf.

[4] Complaint, U.S. v. Flakeboard America Ltd., Case No. 3:14-cv-4949 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov.7, 2014), at ¶ 17, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f309700/309788.pdf, ("Complaint").

[5] CIS at 4.

[6] CIS at 2.

[7] Complaint at ¶ 18.

[8] Id. ¶ 24

[9] CIS at 6.

[10] Complaint at ¶ 25.

[11] Proposed Final Judgment. (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 7, 2014), at § VI, available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f309700/309796.pdf.

[12] CIS at 11.

[13] Id.

[14] See Section 7A(g)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(1).

[15] CIS at 13-14.

[16] An important area not discussed in the Proposed Final Judgment (because it was outside the scope of the case) is pre-closing integration planning. The parties may engage in general planning for and exchange information reasonably related to "Day One" post-closing operations. Discussion of these matters and exchange of information should be solely for the purpose of planning for integration and should be limited to a small transition team and information about the other company should not be shared with personnel directly responsible for sales, marketing, or customer or supplier relationships.

[17] Proposed Final Judgment, at § VIII. Information exchanges reasonably necessary for post-merger integration are also permissible.

[18] Id. at § VIII.

[19] What is in the ordinary course depends on the facts. For example, APA provisions requiring buyer approval to enter into loans above a certain dollar value, long-term supply contracts, or certain marketing activities may constitute gun jumping. See, e.g., United States v. Computer Associates Int'l Inc., 2002-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 73,883, at 95,249 (D.D.C. 2002); United States v. Gemstar-TV Guide Int'l, Inc., 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 74,082 at 96,764 (D.C.C.2003); United States v. Smithfield, (E.D. Va. 2010), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f206300/206374.htm.

[20] Proposed Final Judgment at §VII.

[21] CIS at 12. Of course, when restructuring is done unilaterally it likely would not raise meaningful concerns.

[22] The Complaint at ¶16 alleges that Flakeboard did not want to manage the shutdown and its parent company, Arauco, was concerned that its reputation might be harmed if it announced the closure. It is not immediately obvious that these are the types of circumstances that would provide a justification for this type of pre-closing conduct.

[23] Proposed Final Judgment at §VII.4.

Five Million Penalty Is Stark Reminder About "Gun Jumping"

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions