Displaying items by tag: Federal Trade Commission

US: Peru-based UNACEM has entered into a definitive agreement with Martin Marietta Materials to acquire its Tehachapi cement plant in California. North Carolina-based Martin Marietta Materials reported the value of the deal as US$317m. The companies expect to close the deal in mid-late 2023.

Taiheiyo Cement subsidiary CalPortland previously terminated its deal to buy the Tehachapi plant, along with two local cement terminals, in April 2023. Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement said that the parties had been unable to obtain necessary approvals from the US Federal Trade Commission within a suitable timeframe.

Eagle Materials announced this week that it had completed the acquisition of Martin Marietta’s cement import business in the north of California. A key part of the deal includes the sale of a cement terminal at Stockton. No value for the transaction has been disclosed.

The agreement prompts discussion for two immediate reasons. Firstly, it continues the enlargement of Eagle Materials’ cement business with its second terminal in California. The company operates its cement business in a band running almost right across the US. It runs seven cement plants in seven different states and jointly operates, with Heidelberg Materials, a plant in Texas too. It also runs a network of 25 cement terminals, including the new acquisition, stretching from California in the west to Pennsylvania in the east.

Eagle Materials’ focus on the cement sector also harks back to its previous plans to separate its various businesses. In 2019 it approved a plan to split its heavy materials and light materials businesses into two publicly-traded entities. The decision was made in response to pressure by shareholder Sachem Head Capital Management to make the company, in its view, more valuable. A strategic portfolio review followed but the planned separation was subsequently delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and poor market conditions, amongst other reasons. The board of the company then cancelled the proposed separation in 2021 citing the financial benefits of a diversified business, opportunities for strategic growth and the divestment of its oil and gas proppants business.

The other talking point is that the Eagle Materials transaction follows a positive response by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to the abandonment of CalPortland’s attempt to buy the Tehachapi cement plant in southern California and two related terminals from Martin Marietta. CalPortland’s parent company Taiheiyo Cement said in late April 2023 that it had terminated the acquisition agreement originally announced in mid-2022 due to its inability to obtain approval from the FTC in a timely manner. Whilst the FTC did not say if it had directly tried to block the proposed deal it did say, “The abandonment is a victory for consumers and preserves competition for a key component of Southern California’s construction and infrastructure industries.”

The FTC argued that the transaction would have reduced the number of cement suppliers in Southern California from five to four, further concentrating an already concentrated market, and was “presumptively illegal.” It noted that the Tehachapi plant was only about 20km away from CalPortland’s Mojave cement plant. It went on to say that, if the deal had gone ahead, CalPortland was poised to own half of the cement plants serving the Southern California market. It added that it would have been well-placed to raise its prices and that, “the transaction would have also increased the likelihood for coordinated action between the remaining competitors in this concentrated market.”

The de-facto block by the FTC of the Tehachapi sale now opens up the question of who Martin Marietta might try to sell it to next. Cemex, Mitsubishi Cement and National Cement (Vicat) are the obvious contenders given that they each also run integrated plants in the state. Of course another company, especially one with some form of existing distribution network, may express interest. Given its enlarged presence in Northern California, Eagle Materials springs to mind. Other potential buyers are, of course, available.

US: CalPortland and Martin Marietta Materials have cancelled a deal under which CalPortland was set to acquire the Tehachapi cement plant and other assets worth US$350m in Southern California. The US government's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) described the cancelled deal as 'presumptively illegal.'

FTC Bureau of Competition director Holly Vedova said “Following an in-depth investigation by FTC staff of the Mergers Division and Bureau of Economics, along with the California Attorney General’s Office, CalPortland and Martin Marietta have announced that they have abandoned their planned transaction. The transaction would have reduced the number of cement suppliers in Southern California from five to four, further concentrating an already concentrated market." Vedova concluded "The abandonment is a victory for consumers and preserves competition for a key component of Southern California’s construction and infrastructure industries."

US: Taiheiyo Cement says that its subsidiary CalPortland has terminated its deal to buy the Tehachapi cement plant from Martin Marietta Materials. It has blamed the situation on the two parties being unable to “timely obtain the necessary approval by the US Federal Trade Commission.” The deal was originally announced in August 2022 with CalPortland agreeing to buy the integrated plant in California and two terminals.

US: HeidelbergCement subsidiary Lehigh Cement and Keystone Cement have stepped away from an agreement to merge their businesses. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to challenge the proposed merger in late May 2021.

FTC Bureau of Competition acting director Maribeth Petrizzi said, “This is great news for cement customers in eastern Pennsylvania and western New Jersey. The FTC voted 4-0 to challenge this transaction because it would have reduced the number of significant competitors in the market for grey Portland Cement in this region from four to three. I’m grateful to the bureau’s staff for their tireless efforts throughout this investigation, but also to our partners in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, who worked closely with us to ensure that cement customers in this region will continue to benefit from competition between Lehigh and Keystone.”

US: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed an administrative complaint and authorised a legal suit against Lehigh Cement’s acquisition of Keystone Cement. The HeidelbergCement subsidiary acquired the subsidiary of Mexico-based Elementia in September 2019. The commission said that the acquisition may be harmful to competition in the grey cement market in Pennsylvania and New Jersey as it reduces the number of competitors to three from four and enlarges the largest. It added that Keystone Cement’s aggressive pricing had previously caused Lehigh Cement to lower its prices.

The case will go to trial at administrative court in November 2021.

US: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has approved a final order settling changes for Ireland’s CRH acquisition of Ash Grove Cement following a period for public comment. The FTC issued its consent for the transaction in June 2018 on the condition that CRH sell the Three Forks cement plant in Montana to Mexico’s Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC).

Also under the settlement, because the CRH cement plant in Montana currently sells a significant amount of cement into Canada through two CRH terminals in Alberta, GCC will have the option to use those terminals for three years. CRH also has agreed to purchase, at GCC’s option, cement produced at the plant for distribution in Canada for up to three years. The FTC also forced CRH to sell other assets in Montana, Nebraska and Kansas.

US: The Federal Trade Commission has forced CRH to sell the Three Forks cement plant in Montana as part of its proposed acquisition of Ash Grove Cement. The plant and its quarry will be sold to Mexico’s Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC). Also under the settlement, because the CRH cement plant in Montana currently sells a significant amount of cement into Canada through two CRH terminals in Alberta, GCC will have the option to use those terminals for three years. CRH also has agreed to purchase, at GCC’s option, cement produced at the plant for distribution in Canada for up to three years.

The commissions ruled that the acquisition would harm competition in Montana, Nebraska and Kansas. Other divestments the Irish building materials company has agreed to include selling two sand-and-gravel plants, one sand-and-gravel pit, three limestone quarries and two hot-mix asphalt plants.

Following the agreed divestments, the FTC has issued its consent for CRH’s proposed acquisition of Ash Grove Cement. No further regulatory approvals are now outstanding for the transaction. The acquisition is expected to complete in June 2018. Ireland’s CRH agreed to buy Ash Grove Cement for US$3.5bn in mid-2017.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gave HeidelbergCement permission to complete its acquisition of Italcementi assets in the US on 17 June 2016. This was the second and final major competition body that could have challenged the purchase, following approval by the European Commission in late May 2016. Although the FTC consent now faces a month for comment the deal is looking likely to complete towards the end of the summer.

HeidelbergCement and Italcementi have gotten away with having to sell just one cement plant and 11 terminals in the US. The Lafarge-Holcim merger in 2015 had it tougher. Those companies were forced to sell two cement plants, two slag grinding plant and a host of terminals. Admittedly LafargeHolcim is now the biggest cement producer in the US (and the world) but HeidelbergCement will hold more integrated cement plants in the US following its acquisition.

As predicted the FTC took exception with the proximity of the company’s assets in West Virginia and Pennsylvania following the acquisition. So the parties have agreed to sell the Essroc Martinsburg integrated cement plant in West Virginia. When Global Cement visited the plant in late 2013 the staff told us that cement from the plant was distributed from central Ohio eastwards to western Pennsylvania and south to southern Virginia. The plant also switched over to a FLSmidth dry production line in 2010 giving it a clinker production capacity of 1.6Mt/yr, making it one of the newer plants in the Essroc stable.

The FTC also flagged up competition concerns in five metropolitan areas: Baltimore-Washington, DC; Richmond, Virginia; Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Virginia; Syracuse, New York; and Indianapolis, Indiana. In light of this the proposed consent agreement requires the merged company to divest seven Essroc terminals in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania and a Lehigh terminal in Solvay, New York. Two additional Essroc terminals in Columbus and Middlebranch, Ohio are to be sold at the option of the buyer and subject to FTC approval. Finally, Essroc’s terminal in Indianapolis is to be sold to Cemex.

Funnily enough, the FTC took about a year to approve both the merger of Lafarge and Holcim and HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi. This compares to the European Commission which took nine months to approve the Lafarge-Holcim deal but which took 11 months to clear the HeidelbergCement-Italcementi one. Given the greater overlap of assets of the Lafarge-Holcim merger in both Europe and the US one might have thought that the approval process would have taken longer. Or maybe bureaucracy moves at a speed all of its own. Read into this what you will. The creation of the world’s second largest multinational cement producer draws closer.

HeidelbergCement released more detail on its plans to buy Italcementi last week. The main points were that Italcementi’s operations in Belgium will be sold, the Italcementi brand will be retained, its research and development (R&D) centre will assume responsibilities for the entire group and up to 260 job losses are expected in Bergamo. The integration plan is expected to be complete by 2020.

Following an update in HeidelbergCement’s preliminary financial results for 2015 in February 2016, this was more focused on the practicalities of taking over a company. Sales of assets in Belgium were expected from the moment the deal was announced in July 2015. Between them the two companies operate three of the country’s four cement plants, holding 73% of the market by cement production capacity. Selling up Italcementi’s Belgian subsidiary Compagnie des Ciments Belges will maintain the existing market balance. Once this is done, from a cement sector perspective, interaction from the European Commission on the deal should merely be a formality.

Interestingly, no plans to sell assets in the US were announced. This is more ambitious on HeidelbergCement’s part because the acquisition has far bigger implications in that country. Merging Italcementi’s Essroc subsidiary and HeidelbergCement’s Lehigh Hanson subsidiary will see HeidelbergCement become the new second largest cement producer in the US with around 16.4Mt/yr. LafargeHolcim had a relatively easy ride from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) having to sell two integrated cement plants, two slag grinding plants and a series of terminals. As HeidelbergCement will become the second largest cement producer it seems unlikely that the FTC will be too demanding. However, post-acquisition the cement producer will own cement plants within 75 miles of each other in Pennsylvania and in Maryland and West Virginia. The FTC may take exception to this but perhaps HeidelbergCement is trying their luck to see if it can get away with it.

The decision to retain Italcementi’s i.Lab R&D centre in Bergamo, Italy raises questions about what will happen to the Heidelberg Technology Centre (HTC) in Leimen, Germany. The focus here is on making Bergamo the ‘product’ R&D division for the entire group. i.Lab was opened in early 2012 to fanfare, based in a building designed by architect Richard Meier and it cost Euro40m to build. How this fits with HeidelbergCement’s existing Global R&D team at the HTC remains to be seen.

Job losses of up to 260 personnel at Bergamo are regrettable but hardly unexpected. It may not be much comfort for any staff members facing redundancy but this figure is well below the figures bandied about in the media in late 2015 of first around 1000 and then nearer 500. Another 170 personnel will also be offered relocation packages taking the impact of the reorganisation up to about 400 of Italcementi’s 2500 workforce in Italy.

Looking at the wider situation with the acquisition this week, HeidelbergCement announced a record contract for Norcem, its Norwegian subsidiary, to supply 280,000t of cement over three years for an infrastructure project. Then, Carlo Pesenti, the chief executive officer of Italcementi, was reported making comments about the business’ expansion plans in Thailand and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Projects in Myanmar and Cambodia look likely once the acquisition is complete. Finally, the ratings agency Moody’s was drumming up attention for a market report by pointing out the implications for the multinational cement producers in India if a proposed rise in infrastructure spending gets approved. In summary HeidelbergCement and Italcementi are unlikely to benefit due to their southern Indian spread of assets and local production overcapacity.

HeidelbergCement may not be getting it all its own way but the acquisition of Italcementi remains on track so far. All eyes will be on how the US FTC responds to the deal.