Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

THE LATEST: Entanglements and Concentrated Markets Require Divestiture in the Dairy Industry

By Mary Strimel & McDermott Will & Emery on April 13, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On July 6, 2016, Danone S.A. (Danone) agreed to acquire The WhiteWave Foods Company (WhiteWave) for $12.5 billion.

WhiteWave is the leading manufacturer of fluid organic milk in the United States and one of the top purchasers of raw organic milk. Danone is the leading US manufacturer of organic yogurt (Stonyfield). Nearly 90 percent of the raw organic milk used by Danone to manufacture organic yogurt is supplied via a strategic agreement by CROPP Cooperative (CROPP). As of 2009, the strategic supply agreement between Danone and CROPP also includes Danone providing CROPP with an exclusive license for the production and sale of Stonyfield branded fluid organic milk.

WhiteWave and CROPP are the two largest purchasers and top competitors for purchasing raw organic milk from farmers in the Northeast US. Additionally, WhiteWave, CROPP and Danone-CROPP are the only nationwide competitors for the sale of fluid organic milk to retailers and have a 91 percent share of nationwide branded fluid organic milk: Horizon (WhiteWave), Organic Valley (CROPP) and Stonyfield (Danone-CROPP).

After the Danone-WhiteWave deal was announced, organic farming groups protested that the acquisition would result in less competition to buy organic raw milk from dairy farms in the Northeast because Danone-Whitewave would no longer be incentivized to compete aggressively with CROPP for the purchase of raw organic milk. The groups argued that the reduced competition would drive wholesale raw milk prices below a competitive level and even below cost. Organic food advocates also raised competitive concerns about placing the two top nationwide organic milk brands in the same hands.

WHAT HAPPENED:

  • On April 3, 2017, US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a proposed settlement that requires divestiture of Danone’s Stonyfield Farms business to an independent buyer approved by DOJ.
  • In a complaint filed with the proposed settlement, DOJ alleges that CROPP and WhiteWave would have been able to reduce competition between them for milk purchases from dairy farmers in the Northeast US. The proposed divestiture is designed to solve that problem by “sever[ing] Danone’s and CROPP’s strategic partnership thereby eliminating the entanglements between CROPP and the merged firm.”
  • DOJ alleged that through years of operational cooperation, Danone and CROPP depended on each other for supply and revenue. The long-standing relationship between Danone and CROPP has also included the sharing of competitively sensitive information. These allegations supported the decision to require divestiture of the entire Stonyfield Farms business.
  • Further, the DOJ’s complaint alleges that downstream markets for fluid milk are transparent, in that competitors can observe each other’s customer relationships from the farm to the retail level. Companies can identify their rivals in each competitive interaction, which supports DOJ’s allegation of potential coordinated effects from an increase in concentration.

WHAT THIS MEANS:

  • DOJ will remedy harms to sellers–in this instance, dairy farmers–when it believes that a transaction will substantially lessen competition in markets that they sell to. This is most likely to be the case in agriculture where geographic markets are narrow.
  • The proposed settlement follows the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) guide on Negotiating Merger Remedies and its Merger Remedies Study, which we previously covered. The DOJ and FTC are more likely to accept a divestiture package when it includes an autonomous, on-going, operable business unit. Here, DOJ required divestiture of the entire Stonyfield Farms business, which included products outside of milk, such as yogurt. The DOJ remedy went beyond simply ending the Danone-CROPP relationship.
  • In industries with few players, merging parties should expect concerns about coordinated effects to be a focus of the government’s investigation.
Photo of Mary Strimel Mary Strimel

Mary Strimel advises and defends clients on mergers, acquisitions, criminal price-fixing, class actions and other antitrust investigations before the US Department of Justice, the US Federal Trade Commission, and state and federal courts. Her criminal and civil antitrust work has spanned a wide…

Mary Strimel advises and defends clients on mergers, acquisitions, criminal price-fixing, class actions and other antitrust investigations before the US Department of Justice, the US Federal Trade Commission, and state and federal courts. Her criminal and civil antitrust work has spanned a wide range of industries, including transportation, software, financial markets, data publishing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, glass, industrial products, alcoholic beverages and telecommunications. Read Mary Strimel’s full bio.

Read more about Mary StrimelEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    Antitrust Alert
  • Organization:
    McDermott Will & Emery
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo