MAR-14(1)

In this issue:

The recent DOJ court victory throwing out the 2012 merger of Bazaarvoice and PowerReviews involved several meaty antitrust questions: unwinding a consummated merger (here, one that was exempt from HSR reporting) and related remedies; the presence of “hot” documents and intent as a dispositive factor; the value of customer testimony; post-acquisition, “arguably manipulable” evidence; the suitability of traditional merger analysis for high-tech mergers; DOJ’s inclinations to go to trial. Our authors, invited by Danny Sokol, evaluate these questions and bring a variety of opinions to the table. Pull up a seat and dive in.

The Bazaarvoice Case

Pete Levitas, Mar 13, 2014

Some Lessons from Bazaarvoice

Bazaarvoice was a big victory for the Antitrust Division, and it offers important guidance on a number of substantive antitrust issues. Peter J. Levitas (Arnold & Porter)

Timothy Muris, Christine Wilson, Mar 13, 2014

Bazaarvoice: Protecting Consumers by Silencing the Customer?

Bazaarvoice is remarkable more for its reasoning rather than its result. Tim Muris & Christine Wilson (Kirkland & Ellis)

Matthew Adler, Thomas Dillickrath, Mar 13, 2014

Blind Umps & Blown Calls: The Troubling Decision to Ignore “Arguably Manipulable” Evidence in United States v. Bazaarvoice

Indeed, the case suggests that parties can take no comfort in real-world post-merger experiences. Thomas Dillickrath & Matthew B. Adler (Baker Botts)

Gregory Leonard, Parker Norman

ACCESS TO THIS ARTICLE IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS

Please sign in or join us
to access premium content!