94-23411. U.S. v. Outdoor Systems, Inc.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-23411]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: September 23, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    
    Antitrust Division
    
     
    
    U.S. v. Outdoor Systems, Inc.; Proposed Final Judgment and 
    Competitive Impact Statement
    
        Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
    Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, 
    Stipulation and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the 
    United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in 
    United States of America v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., Civil No. P1-94-CV-
    2393-CC.
        The Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition by Outdoor 
    Systems, Inc. of the outdoor advertising business of Capitol Outdoor 
    Advertising, Inc. may be substantially to lessen competition in outdoor 
    advertising in the Atlanta area in violation of section 7 of the 
    Clayton Act.
        The Proposed Final Judgment provides that Outdoor Systems, Inc. may 
    acquire the outdoor advertising business of Capitol Outdoor 
    Advertising, Inc. but that Outdoor Systems, Inc. must divest the assets 
    of its existing outdoor advertising business in the Atlanta area within 
    six months of the entry of the Final Judgment.
        Public comment on the proposed Final Judgment is invited within the 
    statutory 60-day comment period. Such comments and responses thereto 
    will be published in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. 
    Comments should be directed to John T. Orr, Chief, Atlanta Field 
    Office, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Suite 1176, Richard 
    B. Russell Federal Building, 75 Spring Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 
    (telephone: (404) 331-7100).
    Constance K. Robinson,
    Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
    
    United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta 
    Division
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., 
    Defendant. Civil No. 94-      . Filed: September 8, 1994.
    
    Stipulation
    
        It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties, by their 
    respective attorneys, that:
        1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this 
    action and over each of the parties hereto, and venue of this action is 
    proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
    Georgia, Atlanta Division;
        2. The parties to this Stipulation consent that a Final Judgment in 
    the form attached may be filed and entered by the Court, upon any 
    party's or the Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with 
    the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 
    U.S.C. 16), and without further notice to any party or other 
    proceedings, provided that plaintiff has not withdrawn its consent, 
    which it may do at any time before entry of the proposed Final Judgment 
    by serving notice on the defendant and by filing that notice with the 
    Court;
        3. Defendant agrees to be bound by the provisions of the proposed 
    Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court. If plaintiff 
    withdraws its consent or the proposed Final Judgment is not entered 
    pursuant to this Stipulation, this Stipulation shall be of no effect 
    whatever and its making shall be without prejudice to any party in this 
    or any other proceeding; and
        4. This Stipulation and the Final Judgment to which it relates are 
    for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by 
    defendant in this or any other proceeding that Section 7 of the Clayton 
    Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, or any other provision of law, has been violated.
        Dated:
    Anne K. Bingaman,
    Assistant Attorney General.
    Steven C. Sunshine,
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
    Constance K. Robinson
    Director of Operations.
    John T. Orr,
    Chief, Atlanta Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 
    Division.
    Mark W. Ryan by David H. Fin
    With express authorization Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, 1600 Candler 
    Bldg, Atlanta, GA 30303-1845, 404-681-3450, GA. Bar, No. 264600.
    Mark W. Ryan,
    Counsel For defendant.
    Mayer, Brown & Platt, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 
    20006, (202) 778-0627.
    Justin M. Nicholson,
    William G. Traynor
    Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Richard B. 
    Russell Building, 75 Spring Street, SW., Suite 1176, Atlanta, Georgia 
    30303, (404) 331-7100.
    
    United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta 
    Division
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., 
    Defendant. Civil No. 94-      . Filed: September 8, 1994.
    
    Final Judgment
    
        Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on 
    September 8, 1994. Plaintiff and defendant, by their respective 
    attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without 
    trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment 
    shall not constitute any evidence against, or an admission by, any 
    party with respect to any issue of law or fact. Defendant has agreed to 
    be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval 
    by the Court. Prompt and certain diverstiture is the essence of this 
    agreement, and defendant has represented to plaintiff that the 
    diverstiture required below can and will be made and that defendant 
    will later raise no claims of hardship or difficulty as grounds for 
    asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained 
    below. Therefore, before the taking of any testimony, and without trial 
    or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the 
    parties.
        It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:
    
    I
    
    Jurisdiction
    
        This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action 
    and over each of the parties consenting to this Final Judgment. The 
    Compliant states a claim upon which relief may be granted against 
    defendant under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 
    18).
    
    II
    
    Definitions
    
        As used in this Final Judgment:
        A. ``Capitol'' shall mean Capitol Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 
    Capitol Outdoor Leasing Co., Inc., each of their subsidiaries and 
    affiliates and each officer, director, employee, attorney, agent or 
    other person acting for or on behalf of any of them. Such term shall 
    also mean the entity owned by defendant that acquires the assets of 
    Capitol Outdoor Advertising, Inc. and Capitol Outdoor Leasing Co., 
    Inc.;
        B. ``OSI-Atlanta'' shall mean the entity conducting the outdoor 
    advertising business of Outdoor Systems, Inc. as of the date of the 
    entry of this Final Judgment, or any successor entity, in the greater 
    Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area, each of their subsidiaries and 
    affiliates and each officer, director, employee, attorney, agent or 
    other person acting for or on behalf of any of them;
        C. ``Holding Company'' or ``defendant'' shall mean defendant 
    Outdoor Systems, Inc., each of its subsidiaries and affiliates and each 
    officer, director, employee, attorney, agent or other person acting for 
    or on behalf of any of them;
        D. ``Separated Assets'' shall mean (1) all of the outdoor 
    advertising billboards (including bulletins and poster panels), 
    structures and leases of OSI-Atlanta, (2) all contracts, including but 
    not limited to advertising contracts, agreements, invoices, ledgers and 
    other books and records relating to the business of OSI-Atlanta and (3) 
    such equipment currently owned or operated by Capitol as the purchaser 
    may select that would provide the purchaser with the functional 
    equivalent of the equipment owned or operated by OSI-Atlanta;
        E. ``Separated Business'' shall mean Capitol or OSI-Atlanta, as the 
    case may be;
        F. ``Purchaser'' shall mean an independent third party, not 
    connected or affiliated in any way with Capitol, OSI-Atlanta or Holding 
    Company, that acquires the Separated Assets; and
        G. ``Person'' shall mean any natural person, corporation, 
    association, firm, partnership or other business or legal entity.
    
    III
    
    Applicability
    
        A. The provisions of this Final Judgment shall apply to defendant, 
    to its successors and assigns, to its subsidiaries, affiliates, 
    directors, officers, managers, agents and employees and to all other 
    persons in active concert or participation with any of them who shall 
    have received actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service 
    or otherwise.
        B. Nothing herein shall suggest that any portion of this Final 
    Judgment is or has been created for the benefit of any third party, and 
    nothing herein shall be construed to provide any rights to any third 
    party.
    
    IV
    
    Divestiture of OSI-Atlanta
    
        A. Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to divest all of its 
    direct and indirect ownership and control of the Separated Assets to a 
    purchaser within six (6) months of the entry of this Final Judgment. In 
    addition, defendant shall offer to any purchaser of the Separated 
    Assets the opportunity, which may be exercised in the purchaser's sole 
    and absolute discretion, (1) To make offers of employment to all or any 
    of the employees currently employed by Capitol and (2) to assume the 
    lease of the facility now operated by Capitol in the conduct of its 
    outdoor advertising business. The obligation to divest shall be 
    satisfied if, within six (6) months of the entry of this Final 
    Judgment, defendant has entered into a binding contract with a 
    qualified purchaser for the sale of the Separated Assets according to 
    terms approved by plaintiff that are contingent upon compliance with 
    the terms of this Final Judgment and that specify a prompt and 
    reasonable date for the closing and if the sale is completed pursuant 
    to the contract.
        B. Defendant agrees to take all reasonable steps to accomplish the 
    divestiture as quickly as possible. In carrying out the divestiture of 
    the Separated Assets, defendant may divest the Separated Assets alone, 
    or may divest along with the Separated Assets any other assets of 
    defendant.
        C. In accomplishing the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment, 
    defendant promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the 
    availability of the Separated Assets for sale and the opportunities 
    described in Paragraph IV.A. above. Defendant shall notify any person 
    making an inquiry regarding the possible purchase of the Separated 
    Assets that the sale is being made pursuant to this Final Judgment and 
    provide such person with a copy of the Final Judgment, if requested. 
    Defendant shall also offer to furnish to all bona fide prospective 
    purchasers of the Separated Assets, subject to customary 
    confidentiality assurances, all pertinent information regarding OSI-
    Atlanta, except information subject to attorney-client privilege or 
    attorney work product privilege. Defendant shall make available to 
    plaintiff, upon plaintiff's request, such information as is made 
    available to such potential purchasers. Defendant shall permit 
    prospective purchasers of the Separated Assets to have access to 
    personnel at the business and to make such inspection of physical 
    facilities and any and all financial, operational, or other documents 
    and information as may be relevant and customary to the sale of an 
    outdoor advertising business.
        D. The divestiture required by this Final Judgment shall be 
    accomplished in such a way as to satisfy plaintiff, in its sole 
    discretion, that the Separated Assets can and will be operated by the 
    purchaser as a viable, ongoing business. Divestiture shall be made to a 
    purchaser for whom it is demonstrated to plaintiff's satisfaction that 
    (1) The purchase is for the purpose of competing effectively in the 
    outdoor advertising business in the greater Atlanta, Georgia 
    metropolitan area, and (2) the purchaser has the managerial, 
    operational, and financial capability to compete effectively in the 
    outdoor advertising business.
    
    V
    
    Financing
    
        With prior consent of plaintiff, defendant may finance all or any 
    part of any purchase made pursuant to this Final Judgment.
    
    VI
    
    Appointment of Trustee for OSI-Atlanta
    
        A. If defendant has not accomplished the divestiture required by 
    Section IV. of this Final Judgment within five (5) months of the entry 
    of this Final Judgment, then defendant shall notify plaintiff of that 
    fact. Within ten (10) days after notification, plaintiff shall provide 
    defendant with written notice of the names and qualifications of not 
    more than two (2) nominees for the position of trustee for the required 
    divestiture. Defendant shall notify plaintiff within ten (10) days 
    thereafter whether either or both of such nominees are acceptable. If 
    either or both of such nominees are acceptable to defendant, plaintiff 
    shall notify the Court of the person upon whom the parties have agreed 
    and the Court shall appoint that person as the trustee. If neither of 
    such nominees is acceptable to defendant, it shall furnish to 
    plaintiff, within ten (10) days after plaintiff provides the names of 
    its nominees, written notice of the names and qualifications of not 
    more than two (2) nominees for the position of trustee for the required 
    divestiture. If either or both of such nominees are acceptable to 
    plaintiff, plaintiff shall notify the Court of the person upon whom the 
    parties have agreed and the Court shall appoint that person as the 
    trustee. If neither of such nominees is acceptable to plaintiff, it 
    shall furnish the Court the names and qualifications of its proposed 
    nominess and the names and qualifications of the nominees proposed by 
    defendant. The Court may hear the parties as to the qualifications of 
    the nominees and shall appoint one of the nominees as the trustee.
        B. If defendant has not accomplished the required divestiture at 
    the expiration of the period specified in paragraph IV.A. of this Final 
    Judgment, the appointment by the Court of the trustee shall become 
    effective. The trustee shall then take steps to effect divestiture of 
    the Separated Assets.
        C. After the trustee's appointment has become effective, only the 
    trustee shall have the right to sell the Separated Assets and to offer 
    any prospective purchasers the same opportunities as defendant is 
    obligated to extend as provided in paragraph IV.A. The trustee shall 
    have the power and authority to accomplish the divestiture to a 
    purchaser acceptable to plaintiff at such price and on such terms as 
    are then obtainable upon a reasonable effort by the trustee, subject to 
    the provisions of paragraph IX.A. of this Final Judgment, and shall 
    have such other powers as this Court shall deem appropriate. Defendant 
    shall not object to a sale of the Separated Assets by the trustee on 
    any grounds other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objection by 
    defendant must be conveyed in writing to plaintiff and the trustee 
    within fifteen (15) days after the trustee has notified defendant of 
    the proposed sale.
        D. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of defendant, 
    shall receive compensation based on a fee arrangement providing an 
    incentive based on the price and terms of the divestiture and the speed 
    with which it is accomplished and shall serve on such other terms and 
    conditions as the Court may prescribe; provided, however, that the 
    trustee shall receive no compensation, nor incur any costs or expenses, 
    prior to the effective date of his or her appointment. The trustee 
    shall account for all monies derived from a sale of the Separated 
    Assets and all costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith. 
    After approval by the Court of the trustee's accounting, including fees 
    for the trustee's services, all remaining monies shall be paid to 
    defendant and the trust shall then be terminated.
        E. Defendant shall take no action to interfere with or impede the 
    trustee's accomplishment of the divestiture of the Separated Assets and 
    shall use its best efforts to assist the trustee in accomplishing the 
    required divestiture. The trustee shall have full and complete access 
    to the personnel, books, records and facilities of OSI-Atlanta.
        F. After his or her appointment becomes effective, the trustee 
    shall file monthly reports with the parties and the Court setting forth 
    the trustee's efforts to accomplish divestiture of the Separated Assets 
    as contemplated under this Final Judgment; provided, however, that to 
    the extent such reports contain information that the trustee deems 
    confidential, such reports shall not be filed in the public docket of 
    the Court. Such reports shall include the name, address and telephone 
    number of each person who, during the preceding thirty (30) days, made 
    an offer to acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into 
    negotiations to acquire or was contacted or made an inquiry about 
    acquiring any ownership interest in the Separated Assets, and shall 
    describe in detail each contact with any such person during that 
    period. The trustee shall maintain full records of all efforts made to 
    divest these operations.
        G. Within six (6) months after his or her appointment has become 
    effective, if the trustee has not accomplished the divestiture required 
    by this Final Judgment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court 
    a report setting forth (1) the trustee's efforts to accomplish the 
    required divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why 
    the required divestiture has not been accomplished and (3) the 
    trustee's recommendations; provided, however, that to the extent such 
    reports contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such 
    reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The 
    trustee shall at the same time furnish such report to the parties, who 
    shall each have the right to be heard and to make additional 
    recommendations consistent with the purpose of the trust. The Court 
    shall thereafter enter such orders as it shall deem appropriate in 
    order to carry out the purpose of the trust, which shall, if necessary, 
    include extending the trust and the term of the trustee's appointment.
    
    VII
    
    Notification
    
        Immediately following entry of a binding contract, contingent upon 
    compliance with the terms of this Final Judgment, to effect the 
    proposed divestiture pursuant to Section IV. or VI. of this Final 
    Judgment, defendant or the trustee, whichever is then responsible for 
    effecting the divestiture, shall notify plaintiff of the proposed 
    divestiture. If the trustee is responsible, it shall similarly notify 
    defendant. The notice shall set forth the details of the proposed 
    transaction and list the name, address and telephone number of each 
    person not previously identified who offered to, or expressed an 
    interest in the business that is the subject of the binding contract, 
    together with full details of same. Within fifteen (15) days of receipt 
    by plaintiff of such notice, plaintiff may request additional 
    information concerning the proposed divestiture and the proposed 
    purchaser. Defendant and/or the trustee shall furnish any additional 
    information requested within twenty (20) days of the receipt of the 
    request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree. Within thirty (30) 
    days after receipt of the notice or within twenty (20) days after 
    plaintiff has been provided the additional information requested 
    (excluding any additional information requested of persons other than 
    defendant or the trustee), whichever is later, plaintiff shall provide 
    written notice to defendant and the trustee, if there is one, stating 
    whether or not it objects to the proposed divestiture. If plaintiff 
    provides written notice to defendant or the trustee that it does not 
    object, then the divestiture may be consummated, subject only to 
    defendant's limited right to object to the sale under the provisions in 
    Section VI.C. Absent written notice that the plaintiff does not object 
    to the proposed purchaser, a divestiture under Section IV. shall not be 
    consummated. Upon objection by plaintiff, or by defendant under the 
    proviso in Section IV.C., a divestiture proposed under Section VI. 
    shall not be consummated.
    
    VIII
    
    Affidavits
    
        Upon filing of this Final Judgment and every thirty (30) days 
    thereafter until the divestiture has been completed or authority to 
    effect divestiture passes to the trustee pursuant to Section VI. of 
    this Final Judgment, defendant shall deliver to plaintiff an affidavit 
    as to the fact and manner of compliance with Section IV. of this Final 
    Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, address and 
    telephone number of each person who, at any time after the period 
    covered by the last such report, made an offer to acquire, expressed an 
    interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire or was 
    contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring any ownership interest in 
    the Separated Assets and shall describe in detail each contact with any 
    such person during that period. Defendant shall maintain full records 
    of all efforts made to divest the Separated Assets.
    
    IX
    
    Preservation of Assets
    
        A. The Holding Company shall be created and take all steps 
    necessary to assure that Capitol and OSI-Atlanta will be maintained as 
    separate, independent and economically viable, ongoing businesses with 
    their assets, management and operations separate, distinct and apart 
    from one another. Without limitation of the foregoing, the Holding 
    Company and the Separated Businesses shall comply with the following 
    provisions during the pendency of this Final Judgment:
        1. The Holding Company and the Separated Businesses shall refrain 
    from causing or permitting any commingling of the assets of one 
    Separated Business with those of the other Separated Business; 
    provided, however, that financial statements may be consolidated at the 
    Holding Company, subject to the accounting provisions set forth herein.
        2. The Holding Company and the Separated Businesses shall assure 
    that neither Separated Business, nor any of its directors, officers, 
    employees or agents, influences or attempts to influence, directly or 
    indirectly, any operational, marketing or financial decisions of the 
    other Separated Business.
        3. a. Within five (5) days of the entry of this Final Judgment, the 
    Holding Company shall establish a Sales Committee (``Holding Company 
    Sales Committee''), consisting of not less than two (2) members of the 
    current Board of Directors of the Holding Company, or their designees, 
    who are not involved in the management of the Holding Company or of 
    either of the Separated Businesses.
        b. The Holding Company shall designate an ``Operating President'' 
    for each of OSI-Atlanta and Capitol and said Operating Presidents shall 
    serve in those capacities for the respective Separated Businesses until 
    the divestiture required by this Final Judgment shall have been 
    accomplished.
        c. Without limiting his or her other responsibilities, each 
    Operating President shall be responsible to supervise and assist in the 
    respective Separated Business's outdoor advertising businesses and 
    shall exercise such authority and responsibilities without consulting 
    with any officer, director or employee of the other Separated Business 
    regarding the terms and conditions of the operation of the other 
    Separated Business.
        d. Insofar as any contract or proposal of either Separated Business 
    shall entail actions that would otherwise require approval by either 
    the Chief Executive Officer or Board of Directors of the Holding 
    Company, the Operating President of the Separated Business shall report 
    the proposal to the Holding Company Sales Committee for its 
    consideration and any requisite action. With respect to matters that 
    are brought to it pursuant to the terms of this subsection, the Holding 
    Company Sales Committee shall be authorized to bind the Holding 
    Company.
        e. Insofar as either Separated Business anticipates a need to 
    exceed the amounts provided in its annual budget for capital 
    expenditures, authority for such additional expenditures shall be 
    sought and first obtained by the Operating President of the Separated 
    Business from the Holding Company Sales Committee.
        4. Except as expressly allowed by the terms of this Final Judgment, 
    neither Separated Business, nor any of its directors, officers, 
    employees or agents, shall provide to the other Separated Business, or 
    any director, officer, employee or agent of the other Separated 
    Business, any competitively sensitive information, including but not 
    limited to actual or proposed prices, costs, bids, contract terms, 
    financial data or profit data (other than aggregated monthly or 
    quarterly results provided to the Board of Directors of the Holding 
    Company). The Holding Company and the independent accounting firm 
    referred to in this Final Judgment shall not provide any competitively 
    sensitive information relating to one Separated Business to any 
    director, officer or employee of the other Separated Business.
        5. Except as authorized by the terms of this Final Judgment, 
    Capitol and OSI-Atlanta shall not permit the use of the other's 
    trademarks or otherwise identify the relationship of these Separated 
    Businesses in their advertising, sales or promotional materials. In 
    dealing with third parties, the Separated Business shall indicate and 
    make clear that the Separated Businesses are being operated as discrete 
    and separate business entities during the pendency of this Final 
    Judgment.
        6. Each Separated Business shall compete with the other Separated 
    Business in the same fashion as it competes with other outdoor 
    advertising businesses in the greater Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan 
    area.
        7. Each Separated Business shall keep and maintain in accordance 
    with generally accepted accounting principles, separate financial 
    statements and records, including separate unaudited monthly and 
    quarterly financial statements. Additionally, the Holding Company shall 
    assure that an independent certified public accountant shall prepare 
    certified annual financial statements for each Separated Business.
        8. Paragraph IX.E. of this Final Judgment shall not preclude Arte 
    Moreno from performing the following functions in his capacity as the 
    Chief Operating Officer of the Holding Company:
        a. Participating in decisions regarding the management of the cash 
    and short-term assets of the Holding Company and the Separated 
    Businesses, subject to all of the explicit limitations contained in 
    this Final Judgment;
        b. Participating in decisions regarding the deployment of existing 
    equipment of either Separated Business in servicing contracts that have 
    been awarded to that Separated Business;
        c. Participating in decisions regarding the employment and 
    redeployment of staff and administrative personnel within each 
    Separated Business, as well as all personnel at the Holding Company 
    level; and
        d. Participating in decisions regarding employee compensation and 
    employee benefits within the Holding Company.
        B. The Holding Company and the Separated Businesses shall refrain 
    from taking any action that would jeopardize the sale or operation of 
    either Separated Business or would otherwise adversely affect the 
    capability of either Separated Business to compete effectively in the 
    sale of outdoor advertising, including but not limited to the 
    following:
        1. The Holding Company and the Separated Businesses shall refrain 
    from taking any action, directly or indirectly, that would cause any 
    material adverse change or alteration to be made in the operations of 
    each Separated Business that would impair the ability of the Holding 
    Company to sell or dispose of such Separated Business;
        2. Except as incident to obtaining financing or refinancing of the 
    transaction pursuant to which the Holding Company acquired Capitol, the 
    Holding Company and each Separated Business shall refrain from 
    disposing of, mortgaging, pledging or otherwise encumbering any of the 
    assets of the Separated Businesses, other than in the ordinary course 
    of business of the Holding Company or the respective Separated 
    Businesses; and
        3. Upon the entry of this Final Judgment, the Holding Company may 
    move current employees of OSI-Atlanta a Capitol, but each employee 
    moved from OSI-Atlanta to Capitol must be replaced at OSI-Atlanta by an 
    employee of similar job description and experience. Replacement 
    employees may come from Capitol.
        C. Each Separated Business shall maintain, in accordance with usual 
    industry standards, all outdoor advertising structures owned or 
    operated by it.
        D. The Separated Businesses shall have such outside financing for 
    capital improvements and working capital available as is consistent 
    with their budgets and past practices. Holding Company shall provide, 
    consistent with the budgets established for the respective Separated 
    Businesses prior to the date of this Final Judgment, funds for 
    necessary capital improvements.
        E. No director, officer or employee of one Separated Business shall 
    also serve as a director, officer or employee of the other Separated 
    Business. To the extent any director, officer or employee of the 
    Holding Company is also a director, officer or employee of a Separated 
    Business, that person may not receive any competitively sensitive 
    information provided to the Board of Directors of the Holding Company 
    by the other Separated Business.
    
    X
    
    Modifications
    
        To the extent that either party later determines that modifications 
    of this Final Judgment are necessary or appropriate, the parties shall 
    first discuss any such proposed modifications among themselves, and 
    shall present to the Court any such proposed modifications on which 
    they agree in a form that they recommend the Court approve. In the 
    event the parties cannot agree on any such modifications, either party 
    may file a motion to the Court seeking a modification of this Final 
    Judgment only after having provided the other party fifteen days' 
    advance written notice of intention to seek such modification.
    
    XI
    
    Compliance Inspection
    
        A. For purposes of determining or securing compliance with this 
    Final Judgment and subject to any legally recognized privilege, from 
    time to time, duly authorized representatives of the Department of 
    Justice shall, upon written request of the Assistant Attorney General 
    in charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to 
    defendant made to its principal office, be permitted:
        1. access during office hours of defendant to inspect and copy all 
    books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other records 
    and documents in the possession or under the control of defendant, who 
    may have counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this 
    Final Judgment; and
        2. subject to the reasonable convenience of defendant and without 
    restraint or interference from it to interview officers, employees and 
    agents of defendant, who may have counsel present, regarding any such 
    matters.
        B. Upon the written request of the Assistant Attorney General in 
    charge of the Antitrust Division made to defendant's principal office, 
    defendant shall submit such written reports, under oath if requested, 
    with respect to any of the matters contained in this Final Judgment as 
    may be requested.
        C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in 
    this Section XI shall be divulged by a representative of the Department 
    of Justice to any person other than a duly authorized representative of 
    the Executive Branch of the United States, except in the course of 
    legal proceedings to which the United States is a party (including 
    grand jury proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with 
    this Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
        D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by 
    defendant to plaintiff, defendant represents and identifies in writing 
    the material in any such information or documents to which a claim of 
    protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of 
    Civil Procedures, and defendant marks each pertinent page of such 
    material, ``Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(7) of the 
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,'' governing protection of trade 
    secrets and confidential commercial information, then ten days notice 
    shall be given by plaintiff to defendant prior to divulging such 
    material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding ).
    
    XII
    
    Retention of Jurisdiction
    
        Jurisdiction is retained by this Court for the purpose of enabling 
    any of the parties to this Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any 
    time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or 
    appropriate for the construction or carrying out of this Final 
    Judgment, for the modification of any of the provisions hereof, for the 
    enforcement of compliance herewith, and for the punishment of any 
    violations hereof.
    
    XIII
    
    Termination
    
        This Final Judgment will expire upon consummation of the 
    divestiture of the Separated Assets in accordance with the terms 
    herein.
    
    XIV
    
    Public Interest
    
        Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
    
        So ordered.
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    United States District Judge, Northern District of Georgia.
    
        Dated:
    
    United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta 
    Division
    
        United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., 
    Defendant. Civil No. 1-94-CV-2393-CC, Filed: September 8, 1994.
    
    Competitive Impact Statement
    
        Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 
    Act (``APPA''), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), the United States submits this 
    Competitive Impact Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment 
    submitted for entry with the consent of Outdoor Services, Inc., in this 
    civil antitrust proceeding.
    
    I
    
    Nature and Purpose of the Proceeding
    
        On September 8, 1994, the United States filed a civil antitrust 
    complaint, under Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, against 
    Outdoor Services, Inc., alleging that the proposed acquisition by 
    Outdoor Services, Inc. (``OSI'') of the outdoor advertising business of 
    Capitol Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (``Capitol'') would violate Section 7 
    of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The Complaint alleges that the effect 
    of the merger may be substantially to lessen competition in outdoor 
    advertising in the Atlanta area. The Complaint seeks, among other 
    relief, a permanent injunction preventing defendant from combining its 
    outdoor advertising business with that of Capitol.
        Also on September 8, 1994, the United States and OSI filed a 
    Stipulation by which they consented to the entry of a proposed Final 
    Judgment designed to preserve competition in the outdoor advertising 
    business in the Atlanta area. The proposed Final Judgment, as explained 
    more fully below, would allow OSI to acquire the outdoor advertising 
    business of Capitol but orders OSI to divest its own outdoor 
    advertising business in the Atlanta area within six months. The Final 
    Judgment also provides that pending the sale of OSI's outdoor 
    advertising business, a holding company will be established to hold 
    separate the businesses of OSI and Capitol.
        The United States and OSI have stipulated that the proposed Final 
    Judgment may be entered after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the 
    proposed Final Judgment will terminate this action, except that the 
    Court will retain jurisdiction to construe, modify and enforce the 
    Final Judgment and to punish violations of the Final Judgment.
    
    II
    
    Background to the Alleged Violation
    
        On or about July 27, 1994, OSI and Capitol entered into a purchase 
    agreement under which the two companies would merge and OSI would 
    become the sole surviving entity. This acquisition would, if 
    unchallenged, effectively merge all of the business of OSI and Capitol. 
    The purchase price was approximately $40 million.
        OSI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 
    State of Delaware. It maintains its principal offices at 2502 North 
    Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, Arizona. OSI is in the business of 
    providing outdoor advertising services in the Atlanta area. OSI's 
    Atlanta area office is located at 3745 Atlanta Industrial Drive, N.W., 
    Atlanta, Georgia. OSI had outdoor advertising revenues in the Atlanta 
    area of about $7.4 million in 1993.
        Capitol is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 
    the State of Delaware. It maintains its principal offices at 732 Ashby 
    Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia. Capitol is in the business of providing 
    outdoor advertising services in the Atlanta area. Capitol had outdoor 
    advertising revenues in the Atlanta area of about $17.1 million in 
    1992.
        The Complaint alleges that OSI and Capital are significant 
    competitors in the outdoor advertising market in the Atlanta area. 
    Outdoor advertising is another name given to standardized billboard 
    advertising in the United States. There are several types of 
    billboards. The largest type of billboard is the ``bulletin,'' which 
    comes in two standard sizes, 14' tall by 48' long, or 20' high by 60' 
    long. If painting is the method of reproduction, the bulletin is called 
    a ``paint'' or a ``painted bulletin.'' If posting is the method of 
    reproduction, the bulletin is called a ``posted bulletin.'' Bulletin 
    billboards are frequently sold singly to advertisers at negotiated 
    rental prices that depend primarily on each billboard's location. 
    Bulletins sold in this fashion are called ``permanent bulletins'' and 
    command, on average, the highest rent of any type of billboard. 
    Bulletins are also rented as part of ``rotary'' plans by billboard 
    companies. A rotary plan consists of rotating an advertiser's bulletin 
    message to a number of well distributed bulletin locations within a 
    metropolitan area. Usually located adjacent to interstate highways and 
    high traffic arterials, bulletins are typically sold to advertisers for 
    longer contract periods than other types of billboards because of the 
    high initial expense in painting or posting the advertiser's message or 
    illustration.
        A second type of standardized billboard is the ``poster panel,'' 
    which comes in one size, 12' high by 25' long and which is customarily 
    sold in packages called ``showings.'' A ``100 showing'' of poster 
    panels means that the billboard company will provide enough 
    geographically distributed poster panels to deliver in one day a number 
    of exposure opportunities, as measured by the traffic count past all 
    the poster panels included in the showing, equal to 100% of the 
    population of that particular market. In the Atlanta area, for example, 
    a 100 showing requires approximately 120 poster panels. The advertising 
    message on a poster panel billboard is carried on a printed paper 
    poster. Poster panels are nearly always sold in groups by billboard 
    companies and usually for a shorter contract period than painted 
    bulletin billboards. Poster panels are generally located adjacent to 
    primary arterial roads and busy secondary streets. The rental price for 
    each poster panel is a showing averages about one-fifth of the rental 
    price for each painted bulletin in a rotary.
        A third type of standardized billboard is the ``8-sheet,'' 
    sometimes referred to as a ``junior billboard.'' An 8-sheet is 
    approximately 6' high by 12' long. An advertiser's message on an 8-
    sheet is usually carried on a printed paper poster. In the Atlanta 
    area, nearly all 8-sheet locations are in inner city areas, and 8-
    sheets are usually sold in packages directed to residents of the areas 
    in which they are located. An 8-sheet rents, on average, for less than 
    one-third the rental price of a poster panel.
        Many customers who use outdoor advertising also advertise in other 
    media, especially radio, television, newspapers and magazines, but use 
    outdoor advertising when they want a large number of exposures to 
    consumers at a low cost per exposure. Since exposure is necessarily 
    brief, outdoor advertising is most suitable for highly visual, limited 
    informational advertising. Outdoor advertising's particular 
    characteristics make it a type of advertising for which there are no 
    close substitutes. The Complaint alleges that the customers who want or 
    need to use outdoor advertising would not switch to another advertising 
    medium in response to a small but significant increase in outdoor 
    advertising rental prices.
        The Atlanta area includes the City of Atlanta and the five populous 
    counties that include and surround that city. The vast majority of the 
    population of the greater Atlanta region lives or works in the Atlanta 
    area and most of that region's commercial activity occurs in the 
    Atlanta area. Advertisers who desire to employ outdoor advertising to 
    reach the Atlanta consumer market have no reasonable substitute for 
    billboards located within the Atlanta area; in particular, a small but 
    significant increase in the price of outdoor advertising in the Atlanta 
    area would not cause advertisers to turn to billboards located in more 
    rural counties outside of the Atlanta area. About 93% of Capitol's and 
    OSI's billboard sites are located in the Atlanta area. The Atlanta area 
    constitutes a section of the country and relevant geographic market for 
    antitrust purposes.
        OSI and Capitol are the only companies that offer a full line of 
    billboards in the Atlanta area. Together, OSI and Capitol control over 
    63% of all billboards in the Atlanta area. They are the only sellers of 
    poster panel billboards and are two of only four sellers of bulletin 
    rotary billboard service in the Atlanta area. A combined OSI-Capitol 
    entity would control about 4,000 bulletin and poster panel billboards 
    in the Atlanta area, over six times the total of the next largest 
    outdoor advertising company in the Atlanta area and approximately 
    eleven times the total of the third largest. The proposed acquisition 
    of Capitol by OSI would raise OSI's market share of the outdoor 
    advertising business in the Atlanta area, based upon the number of 
    billboards, from approximately 24% to approximately 63%.
        The Complaint further alleges that successful new entry into the 
    outdoor advertising market in the Atlanta area is not easy, due in part 
    to the increasing amount of government regulation limiting billboard 
    construction, the scarcity of suitable billboard sites within in the 
    Atlanta area, paticularly within the I-285 Perimeter around Atlanta, 
    and the necessity of obtaining a sufficient number and geographic 
    dispersion of billboard sites in order to be an effective competitor.
        OSI regularly contracts with customers outside the State of Georgia 
    for the sale of outdoor advertising in the Atlanta area and regularly 
    receives outdoor advertising materials from outside of Georgia. OSI is 
    engaged in interstate commerce, and its activities are in the flow of, 
    and substantially affect, interstate commerce.
    
    III
    
    Effect on Competition
    
        The effect of OSI's acquisition of Capitol's outdoor advertising 
    business in the Atlanta area may be substantially to lessen competition 
    in outdoor advertising in the Atlanta area because actual and potential 
    competition between OSI and Capitol in outdoor advertising in the 
    Atlanta area will be eliminated, and competition generally in outdoor 
    advertising in the Atlanta area may be substantially lessened.
    
    IV
    
    Explanation of the Proposed Final Judgment
    
        The United States brought this action because the effect of the 
    proposed merger of OSI and Capitol may be substantially to lessen 
    competition, in violation of Section 7, in the Atlanta area outdoor 
    advertising market. The risk posed to competition by this transaction, 
    however, would be substantially eliminated were defendant OSI to divest 
    its outdoor advertising business to a purchaser that would operate it 
    as an active, independent and financially viable competitor in the 
    Atlanta area. To this end, the provisions of the proposed Final 
    Judgment are designed to accomplish the sale of OSI's outdoor 
    advertising business and to prevent the anticompetitive effects of the 
    proposed acquisition.
        The Final Judgment allows OSI to acquire the outdoor advertising 
    business of Capitol, but requires OSI to sell its Atlanta outdoor 
    advertising business to an independent third party within six months. 
    The United States has the right to approve the purchaser. If OSI does 
    not accomplish the sale within six months, a trustee will be appointed 
    by the Court with full powers to make the sale. Pending the sale of 
    OSI's Atlanta outdoor advertising business, a holding company will be 
    established to preserve and hold separate the assets and business 
    operations of OSI and Capitol. The proposed Final Judgment should 
    ensure that an appropriate purchaser will obtain OSI's divested outdoor 
    advertising business and operate it as a competitive member of the 
    Atlanta area outdoor advertising market.
    
    V
    
    Remedies Available to Potential Litigants
    
        Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, provides that any 
    person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the 
    antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times 
    the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable 
    attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will neither 
    impair not assist the bringing of any private antitrust actions. Under 
    the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 
    Sec. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in 
    any private lawsuit that may be brought against the defendant.
    
    Procedures Available for Modification of the Proposed Final Judgment
    
        The United States and OSI have stipulated that the Court may enter 
    the proposed Final Judgment after compliance with the APPA. The 
    stipulation provides that entry of the Final Judgment does not 
    constitute any evidence or admission by any party with respect to any 
    issue of fact or law. Under the provisions of the APPA, the proposed 
    Final Judgment may not be entered unless the Court finds that entry is 
    in the public interest. The Department believes that the proposed Final 
    Judgment provides an adequate remedy for the alleged violation and is 
    in the public interest. The term of the proposed Final Judgment is 
    until the divestiture of OSI's Atlanta business is accomplished.
        As provided by the APPA, any person believing that the proposed 
    Final Judgment should be modified may submit written comments within 
    the sixty-day period from the date of publication in the Federal 
    Register to John T. Orr, Chief, Atlanta Field Office, Antitrust 
    Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Suite 1176, 75 Spring Street, 
    SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. These comments, and the Department's responses, 
    will be filed with the Court and published in the Federal Register. All 
    comments will be given due consideration by the Department of Justice, 
    which remains free to withdraw its consent at any time prior to entry. 
    The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains 
    jurisdiction over these actions, and any party may apply to the Court 
    for any other necessary or appropriate for their modification, 
    interpretation or enforcement.
    
    VII
    
    Alternatives to the Proposed Final Judgment
    
        The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed 
    Final Judgment, litigation to enjoin the major. The United States 
    rejected that alternative because the relief in the proposed Final 
    Judgment should prevent the possible occurrence of conduct the effect 
    of which may be substantially to lessen competition in the outdoor 
    advertising industry in the Atlanta area. The United States believes 
    that in the hands of the appropriate purchaser, the outdoor advertising 
    business that is divested will likely maintain the present level of 
    competition in the Atlanta area.
    
    VIII
    
    Determinative Documents
    
        No documents were determinative in the formulation of the proposed 
    Final Judgment. Consequently, the United States has not attached any 
    such documents to the proposed Final Judgment.
    
        Dated: September 8, 1994.
    John T. Orr,
    Georgia Bar No.: 554625.
    Justin M. Nicholson,
    William G. Traynor,
    Attorney, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Richard B. 
    Russell Building, 75 Spring Street SW., Suite 1176, Atlanta, Georgia 
    30303, (404) 331-7100.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-23411 Filed 9-22-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
09/23/1994
Department:
Antitrust Division
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Document Number:
94-23411
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: September 23, 1994