Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.

Volume 140 · 140 F.T.C. 1152

Citation
140 F.T.C. 1152
Decision
not printed in the source
Document type
interlocutory order
Case type
antitrust
Outcome
other
Relief
other
Order term (years)
2
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

merger acquisition

Cite this decision

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., 140 F.T.C. 1152 (2005). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v140-0027

Report an error in this record (decision id v140-0027)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF MATERIAL PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.45(b), Respondents Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (“CB&I” or “the Respondents”) have filed a Motion for In Camera Treatment of Material Previously Designated as Confidential (“the Motion”). The materials for which CB&I seeks in camera treatment consist of Attachment B to Complaint Counsel’s Response to CB&I Respondents’ Further Briefing on Specific Remedy Issues (“Response”), discussions on pages 7, 13, and 14 of the Response that were redacted from the public version of the Response, and portions of the Motion and Exhibit A of the Motion (Affidavit of David Bordages). CB&I seeks in camera treatment of these materials for a period of five years. CB&I asserts that the public disclosure of this material would damage CB&I’s business and the information meets the Commission’s criteria for granting in camera treatment. Motion at 4. Complaint Counsel does not oppose Respondents’ Motion to the extent it seeks in camera treatment for the material on pages 13 and 14 of Complaint Counsel’s Response and portions of CB&I’s Motion and Exhibit A of the Motion. However, Complaint Counsel point out that CB&I has not provided a justification for in camera treatment of the material on page 7 and Attachment B of Complaint Counsel’s Response and thus argue that those materials should be placed on the public record. The Commission finds that CB&I has satisfied the standard set forth in Commission Rule 3.45(b) for those materials on pages 13 and 14 of Complaint Counsel’s Response and portions of CB&I’s Motion and Exhibit A of the Motion and shown that the disclosure VOLUME 140 Order of this information would likely result in “clearly defined, serious injury.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(b). See H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 58 F.T.C. 1184, 1188 (1961); Bristol-Myers Co., 90 F.T.C. 455, 456 (1977); General Foods Corp., 95 F.T.C. 352, 355 (1980). Although we recognize that Respondents have not established that Attachment B to Complaint Counsel’s Response meets this standard, the Commission believes this failure may have been inadvertent, and we have therefore granted in camera status for six months for this material. At the end of this period, CB&I may move to have the in camera period extended or, in the absence of such a motion, the material will be unsealed. The Commission has determined to make public the material on page 7, which merely references [ REDACTED ]. This material is available from public sources and therefore is not eligible for in camera status. See Tr. at 2957-58, 6869-73. Finally, the Commission is not persuaded that in camera treatment should be granted for the five-year period requested by CB&I. The information for which such treatment is being granted is temporal in nature, and its competitive sensitivity is likely to diminish over time. The Commission thus believes that a twoyear period is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the material on pages 13 and 14 of Complaint Counsel’s Response that was redacted from the public version of the Response and portions of CB&I’s Motion and Exhibit A thereto that were redacted in the public version of the Motion shall be afforded in camera treatment for a period of two years from the date of this Order, at which time Respondents may show cause why those materials should not be made public; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Attachment B to Complaint Counsel’s Response shall be afforded in camera treatment for a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of this Order, at which time Respondents may show cause why those materials should not be made public; and VOLUME 140 Order IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondents’ Motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks in camera treatment for the material on page 7 of Complaint Counsel’s Response that was redacted from the public version.

VOLUME 140 Order

← 140 F.T.C. 1142 · 140 F.T.C. 1155 →