US Vs. Minco Case Summary

1093 Words5 Pages
U.S. V. HERAEUS ELECTRO-NITE CO., LLC.

Overview

The case open date was on Thursday, January 2nd, 2014. United States of America U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division was “the plaintiff” vs Heraeus Electro-Nite Co., Llc. “The defendant”. The complaint was about the company “Heraeus” wanted to acquire the Midwest Instrument Company, Inc. (“Minco”).

The Heraeus Electro-Nite Co., Llc. U.S. market for single-use sensors and instruments used to measure and monitor the temperature and chemical composition of molten steel (“S&I”) and found that its once-commanding 85% market share had been reduced to an estimated 60%, while its closest competitor, Minco, had gained substantially, reaching about a 35% share. Consequently, Heraeus decided to restore its “market leadership” in the
…show more content…
customers could turn to Minco as a viable alternative source of S&I, which forced Heraeus to compete with Minco on price, service and innovation. Customers benefitted from this robust competition between Heraeus and Minco.

Establishing a reputation for dependable, accurate supply and service is critical to success in the S&I market. A track record and reputation for reliability must be earned over years

Final decision

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Heraeus under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. § 18).

Since the court made his decision towards the defendant, a divestiture of the acquisition should be made having 60 calendar days (plus 30 optional days of extension) to complete
Open Document