United States: "Not So Fast!" District Court Orders Divestiture Of Assets In Private Clayton Act Case Six Years After DOJ Clears Deal

Increasingly, the antitrust agencies have been challenging unreported transactions post-closing under the Clayton Act, seeking an unwinding of the transactions or at least divestitures of some of the assets purchased. Until recently, however, the threat that a private plaintiff would obtain a court order requiring an unwinding or divestiture once the deal has closed has been more theoretical than real. The threat may now be more real than theoretical. In what is the first decision of its kind, a federal district court has ordered a defendant in a private action brought, in part, under Clayton Act Section 16 to divest assets approximately six years after they were purchased. In that case, the defendant, a door manufacturer and door component supplier, had acquired a competitor in 2012 in a transaction that was reviewed without a challenge by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division. Yet on October 5, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the defendant, in a case brought by a competitor/customer that had previously been awarded $175 million in damages, to sell key door component manufacturing assets that the defendant had acquired as part of the 2012 transaction. If allowed to stand, the decision could mean that, going forward, acquirers can be less confident about the finality of their acquisitions post-closure.

In February of this year, following a trial in Steves and Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., a jury awarded plaintiff Steves and Sons, Inc. (Steves) over $12 million in past damages and over $46 million in damages in future lost profits (pre-trebling) for injuries arising from the 2012 acquisition of Craftmaster International (CMI) by JELD-WEN. Steves manufactures and sells interior molded doors, and it purchases interior molded doorskins as a necessary component to manufacture its doors. As of 2012, CMI and JELD-WEN were two of the three U.S. manufacturers from which Steves and other door manufacturers could purchase interior molded doorskins. All three of the doorskin manufacturers were vertically integrated, manufacturing and selling interior molded doors in addition to the doorskins.

In anticipation of its acquisition of CMI, JELD-WEN entered into long-term supply agreements in early 2012 with a number of interior molded doorskin customers, including Steves. The Steves agreement included provisions: (1) limiting the prices that JELD-WEN could charge based upon a contractually defined formula relating to key input costs, and (2) providing for lengthy termination notice periods (seven years for JELD-WEN to terminate). Shortly after, the DOJ closed an investigation of the transaction in September 2012, and the deal closed in October 2012.

Steves filed suit against JELD-WEN in 2016, alleging that within a few years of the close of the deal, JELD-WEN began to wield its increased market power arising from the merger to harm competition, including by breaching the parties’ 2012 contract. For example, Steves alleged that JELD-WEN increased the prices it charged Steves – in violation of the contractually defined formula – even though key input costs that determined price in the formula were actually declining. Steves also alleged that JELD-WEN began to add a “capital” charge on sales to Steves, despite not being allowed to do so by contract. Because JELD-WEN was its only viable supplier, Steves continued to do business with JELD-WEN. Finally, in July 2014, JELD-WEN gave notice to Steves of its intention to terminate the supply agreement in 2021.

Following a jury verdict in favor of Steves under Clayton Act Section 7 awarding past damages and future lost profits, Steves sought – in lieu of the award of future damages – equitable relief in the form of the divestiture of JELD-WEN’s Towanda plant, an interior molded doorskins manufacturing facility that JELD-WEN acquired when it purchased CMI. On October 5, Judge Payne issued an order partially granting the motion by Steves and ordering JELD-WEN to divest the Towanda plant.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that “may [] substantially lessen competition, or [] tend to create a monopoly.” While the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are expressly given the power to enforce the Clayton Act on behalf of the federal government, the Act also enables private plaintiffs to seek damages under Section 4 and equitable relief, including divestitures if appropriate, under Section 16, for mergers violating Section 7. But private plaintiffs – in addition to proving the elements of a Section 7 claim and satisfying the test for the award of injunctive relief – must also establish standing to seek injunctive relief and withstand equitable defenses and other equitable considerations, barriers the government does not face in its enforcement of Section 7. Indeed, as the court made clear, “divestiture is not as easy a remedy [in a private action] as it is in a government action.”1 In fact, the court observed that the case was the first ever Section 16 claim to “have gone to verdict, and in which a private party [] sought a divestiture.”

To establish standing under Section 16, a plaintiff must demonstrate antitrust injury, which is “threatened loss or damage of the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”3 Steves asserted that it would likely go out of business at the termination of its supply agreement with JELD-WEN in 2021, as it would have no other supplier of interior molded doorskins. The court held that the jury’s finding of damages for future lost profits operated as a finding of fact that Steves would face antitrust injury from the threatened loss of their business, and therefore, Steves had standing under Section 16 to pursue a divestiture.

A Section 16 plaintiff must also show that the divestiture is “appropriate in light of equitable principles.”4 Arguing that Steves did not meet the standard for granting an injunction, JELD-WEN reasoned that the jury’s award of future lost profits was an adequate remedy that showed Steves’ injury was not irreparable. The court held otherwise, citing evidence of the “incalculable” loss to Steves, such as the “independent value to continuing Steves as family operation [after 150 years in business]” and the family’s “deep connection with Steves’ business.”5 Further, the court noted that Steves’ loss of its business was a more serious harm than JELD-WEN’s potential loss of value on their investment in CMI,6 and it concluded that the public interest would be served by a divestiture, “restor[ing]competition [in the doorskin market] that the merger lessened.”7 JELD-WEN also asserted equitable defenses, arguing that Steves unreasonably delayed its suit against JELD-WEN by filing nearly four years after the consummation of the merger, but the court disagreed, noting that Steves “took every reasonable step to try to secure a reliable supply of doorskins that was essential for its survival” instead of immediately initiating a lawsuit.8 For these reasons, the court concluded that the divestiture of the Towanda plant was an appropriate remedy, and this notable decision has several important ramifications for those considering a merger or those who have merged within the past four years.

First , the JELD-WEN decision could encourage similar challenges to other recently consummated mergers. Post-merger companies that may have benefited from a change in their market position after a merger or have engaged in conduct that invites a challenge have always faced risk of challenge under both Clayton Act Section 7 and Sherman Act Section 2, with the attendant risk of the award of damages. And the antitrust agencies have the authority to challenge an un-reviewed merger post-closing and seek an unwinding of the deal or divestitures: a power that both the FTC and the DOJ have been wielding with increasing frequency. However, while merged firms have faced a risk of a Section 16 divestiture order in a private case since the Supreme Court held in 1990 that such relief was available,9 no plaintiff has successfully cleared the various hurdles that stand between a proposed divestiture order and obtaining such relief. The court’s decision in the JELD-WEN case could make that theoretical threat far more real, encouraging other aggrieved private parties to sue under Section 7 and seek an order of divestiture (or, even, unwinding) under Section 16.

Second, merged firms that took steps to assuage the concerns of customers and/or others about the effects of the proposed transaction – by, for example, entering into long-term supply contracts – would be wise not to unduly provoke such third-parties post-closing into challenging the transaction under the Clayton Act. It is common practice for merging parties to contact suppliers and customers and make them comfortable with a planned merger to reduce the risk of a complaint to the antitrust enforcers, as JELD-WEN had done with Steves and others. But post-merger, the court found that JELD-WEN violated and sought to terminate their contract with Steves and as a result, Steves brought a lawsuit challenging JELD-WEN’s acquisition of CMI. Thus, even parties that have cleared merger review must be careful to not breach commitments they made to suppliers and customers when they were still seeking merger clearance.

Third, this decision should serve as a reminder that closing a transaction does not mean that a transaction is safe from a future challenge. The DOJ and FTC have recently made severable notable challenges to consummated transactions, and the success of this private suit signals yet another risk for consummated mergers: even mergers closed years earlier. If this case is allowed to stand, merged firms may wish to be that much more mindful about how they wield their power in the relevant market(s), if any, arising from the transaction, even if the transaction was the subject of antitrust agency review. Indeed, even assuming that the merged firm lacks market power, and the transaction did not substantially lessen competition, the cost alone of defending an antitrust case against a challenge to the transaction might be reason enough to take care post-merger not to provoke such a claim.


1 Steves and Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-545 at 66 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2018).

2 Id. at 51.

3 Id. at 70 (citations omitted).

4 Id. at 69 (citations omitted).

5 Id. at 77-78.

6 Id. at 95-96.

7 Id. at 106.

8 Id. at 140-41.

9 California v. American Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271, 275 (1990) (in case brought by State of California, reversing Ninth Circuit and reinstating injunction issued by district court ordering hold separate and divestitures of grocery stores under Section 16).

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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