Reckitt & Colman PLC

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MA TTER OF RECKlTT & COLMAN PLC SET ASIDE ORDER IN REGARD TO ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEe. 7 OF THE CLAYTON ACT AND SEC. 5 OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT Docket C-3571 Consent Order, April 1995--5et Aside Order, March 1998 This order reopens and sets aside a 1995 consent order with Reckitt & Colman (119 FTC 380), thus removing the Commssion s prior approval requirement for acquiring the assets of or the rights related to any carpet deordorizer businesses in the United States.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE ORDER On December 5 , 1997, Reckitt & Colman pic ("R&C" ), the respondent named in the above-referenced consent order ("order issued by the Commission on April 4, 1995, filed its Petition to Reopen and Modify Consent Order ("Petition ) in this matter. R&C asks that the Commission reopen and modify the order pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S. c. 45(b), and Section 2. 51 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16 CFR 2. , and consistent with the Statement of Federal Trade Commission Concerning Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions, issued on June 21 , 1995 ("Prior Approval Policy Statement" ' The Petition requests that the Commission reopen and modify the order to eliminate the prior approval provision set forth in paragraph VI of the order, or, in the alternative, substitute a prior notification requirement for the prior approval requirement. The thirty-day public comment period on the Petition ended on January , 1998. No comments were received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission has detennined to grant R&C's Petition. The complaint in this matter alleges that R&C's agreement with Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak"), L&F Products, Inc. ("L&F" a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kodak, and Sterling Winthrop Inc. , a wholly-owned subsidiar ofl&F, to acquire the household products professional products and personal products businesses of L&F violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15 U.S. c. 45 , and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended 60 Fed. Reg. 39 745-47 (Aug. 3, 1995); 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) 13,241. . .

RECKITT & COLMAN PLC 491 490 Set Aside Order 15 U.S. c. 18, by lessening competition and tending to create a monopoly in the carpet deodorizer products business in the United States. The order required R&C to divest the " Caret Deodorizer Assets and "Rug Cleaning Assets " as defined in paragraphs LH and IJ respectively, of the order3 On February 23 1995, the Commission approved R&C's application to divest the "Rug Cleaning Assets" to Playtex Products, Inc. On August 21 , 1995 , the Commission approved R&C's application to divest the " Caret Deodorizer Assets to Block Drug Co., Inc. Under the order, R&C is prohibited for a ten-year period from acquiring without the prior approval of the Commission any stock orrelated assets of any concern engaged in the Carpet Deodorizer Products" business in the United States The Commission, in its Prior Approval Policy Statement concluded that a general policy of requiring prior approval is no longer needed " citing the availability of the premerger notification and waiting period requirements of Section 7 A of the Clayton Act commonly referred to as the Hart-Scott-Rodino ("I-SR") Act, 15 c. 18a, to protect the public interest in effective merger law enforcement.' The Commission announced that it will "henceforth rely on the HSR process as its principal means of learning about and reviewing mergers by companies as to which the Commission had previously found a reason to believe that the companies had engaged or attempted to engage in an i11legal merger. " As a general matter Commission orders in such cases will not include prior approval or prior notification requirements. ,,6 The Commission stated that it will continue to fashion remedies as needed in the public interest, including ordering narrow prior approval or prior notification requirements in certain limited circumstances. The Commission said in its Prior Approval Policy Statement that "a narow prior approval provision may be used where there is a credible risk that a company that engaged or attempted to engage in an anticompetitive merger would, but for the provision attempt the same or approximately the same merger. " The Commission also said that "a narrow prior notification provision may be used where there is a credible risk that a company that engaged or Complaint -: V and VII.

Order l.H and I., II and JI Ordcr !VI Pllor Approval Policy Statement at 2.

6 !d.

, Set Aside Order 125 FTC attempted to engage in an anticompetitive merger would, but for an order, engage in an otherwise uneportable anticompetitive merger. ,,7 As explained in the Prior Approval Policy Statement, the need for a prior notification requirement will depend on circumstances such as the structural characteristics of the relevant markets, the size and other characteristics of the relevant markets, the size and other characteristics of the market participants, and other relevant factors. The Commission also announced, in its Prior Approval Policy Statement, its intention "to initiate a process for reviewing the retention or modification of these existing requirements" and invited respondents subject to such requirements "to submit a request to reopen the order."g The Commission detennined that when a petition is filed to reopen and modify an order pursuant to . . . (the Prior Approval Policy Statements, the Commission will apply a rebuttable presumption that the public interest requires reopening of the order and modification of the prior approval requirement consistent with the policy announced" in the Statement. The presumption is that setting aside the general prior approval requirement of paragraph VI is in the public interest. There is no evidence in the record that suggests that this matter presents any of the circumstances identified by the Prior Approval Policy Statement as appropriate for retaining a narow prior approval provision, nor is there any indication of the circumstances that would warrant the substitution of a prior notice provision for the prior approval provision. There is nothing to suggest that the respondent would attempt the same or essentially the same merger that gave rise to the original complaint. In addition, it appears likely that future mergers within the relevant market would be HSR reportable. R&C completed the divestitures required by the order. Accordingly, nothing to overcome the presumption having been presented, and because the only remaining obligation under the order is the prior approval requirement in paragraph VI and the attendant reporting requirements, the Commission has detennined to reopen the proceeding in Docket No. C-3571 and set aside the order. Accordingly, It is hereby ordered That this matter be, and it hereby is, reopened, and that the Commission s order issued on April , 1995 , be, and it hereby is, set aside as of the effective date of this order.

1d. at 3 It!. at 4 1d.

HAROLD A. HONICKMAN, ET AL. 493 493 Set Aside Order