Lock maker Assa Abloy violating antitrust settlement, US Justice Dept says
By Mike Scarcella
July 3 (Reuters) -The U.S. Justice Department has accused global lock maker Assa Abloy ASSAb.ST of violating the terms of a settlement that let it complete a $4.3 billion acquisition of Spectrum Brands' SPB.N hardware and home improvement unit last year.
Justice Department lawyers said in a Washington, D.C. court filing on Tuesday that Sweden’s Assa Abloy was failing to pay a court-appointed monitor supervising the company’s compliance with the settlement, which resolved government antitrust claims.
Assa Abloy stopped making payments in February to the monitor, Hausfeld’s Melinda Coolidge, according to the filing, which accused the company of reneging on its obligations.
The settlement came last year in a Justice Department lawsuit seeking to block Assa Abloy’s purchase of assets from U.S.-based Spectrum, which the government said would lead to higher prices. The deal, which did not include an admission of wrongdoing, came in the middle of a trial before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes.
Assa Abloy and Coolidge did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department declined to comment.
Reyes has scheduled a hearing for July 9 on the government's request for an order forcing Assa Abloy to resume payments.
Assa Abloy makes Yale, August and EMTEK brands, and Spectrum's division makes the Baldwin and Kwikset brands.
Some U.S. settlements include court-approved monitorships to supervise and investigate a company's compliance. Coolidge, the U.S. managing partner of Hausfeld, one of the country’s largest plaintiffs firms, is charging $920 hourly for her monitor work.
Coolidge in an April letter to Assa Abloy called its objections to her work "unfounded."
Assa Abloy objected to Coolidge's fees in June, arguing that its payments would “exceed a jaw-dropping $20 million over the course of the monitorship.”
The company also asked the court to direct the monitor to stay within boundaries of the settlement, asserting that Coolidge had exceeded her authority by proposing to conduct an industry-wide, five-year study on smart locks.
The Justice Department countered that Assa Abloy was trying to stop Coolidge from completing a “key part” of her work.
The case is United States v. Assa Abloy and Spectrum Brands, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:22-cv-02791-ACR.
For U.S.: Matthew Huppert and Miranda Isaacs of the Justice Department
For Assa Abloy: Justin Bernick and Lauren Battaglia of Hogan Lovells
Read more:
US legal team in Live Nation lawsuit includes veteran plaintiffs' attorney
Assa, Spectrum Brands reach settlement with US on deal
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
