In an unsurprising yet monumental ruling, the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Kroger and Albertsons will be allowed to proceed with the grocers’ $24.6 billion dollar merger, after a bid from consumers for a preliminary injunction to halt the merger was dismissed.
According to Bloomberg, the ruling was issued by Judge Vince Chhabria and it outlined the consumers’ inability to provide sufficient personal information on how the merger would affect them.
During the lawsuit, filed in February by a group of consumers, it was claimed that the deal would create a monopoly between two of the largest US supermarkets. Joe Alioto, attorney for the plaintiffs, stated in an interview, “The merger would result in higher food prices and thousands of layoffs between the two grocers’ networks.”
Read more: US Unions Talk Out Against The Albertsons-Kroger Merger
However, Judge Chhabria stated that the plaintiffs had ‘not come close to providing the information necessary to determine whether concern [about the merger] is truly warranted’. He also granted Kroger and Albertsons’ motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. This was in relation to a lawsuit by consumersw which was also targeted the Cerberus Capital Management LP, an Albertsons investor receiving more than a third of a related $4 billion ‘special dividend’, the deal’s most contentious provision.
In a statement, Judge Chhabria said, ‘The merger may be concerning from an antitrust perspective, however, the court is not in a position to make a decision on whether the merger should go ahead or be blocked; that is something that must be determined elsewhere.’
Although the outcome may seem disheartening for the consumers seeking to enforce the injunction, Judge Chhabria’s ruling bookmarks a momentous occasion. It is the first step in determining the outcomes of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures between two of the US’s largest supermarkets, and sets a precedent to future legal challenges faced against similar multinational deals.
Source: News Bloomberg Law
Featured News
Federal Judge Orders Google to Open Android App Store Amid Antitrust Pressure
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Greenlights FTC’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon, Tosses Some State Claims
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh