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