T-Mobile, Sprint Want to Merge. What Should Their Law Departments Do Next?
Legal departments at both companies will have plenty of issues to think through, including the deal's potential effect on the U.S. telecom market as well as its possible international implications.
May 02, 2018 at 07:22 PM
4 minute read
Free (Handout).
Two of the United States' largest telecom companies, Bellevue, Washington-based T-Mobile USA Inc. and Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint Corp., recently announced their decision to merge, a move that would reduce the number of major telecom competitors in the country from four to three.
The announcement made on Sunday raised eyebrows due to potential antitrust concerns. According to lawyers and other antitrust experts following the case, the legal departments at both companies will have plenty of issues to think through, including the deal's potential effect on the U.S. telecom market as well as its possible international implications.
Andre Barlow, a partner at Doyle, Barlow & Mazard focused on antitrust law, said it's likely lawyers on both sides have been busy for a while prepping for the M&A announcement.
“A merger like this, where we're talking Sprint and T-Mobile, requires a lot of advanced planning, because on its face it raises significant antitrust concerns,” Barlow said.
He said that in-house teams should be brought in as soon as possible in a potential merger situation. Legal should be considering due diligence issues and preparing Hart–Scott–Rodino Act documents and other antitrust filings required in the United States and abroad. Barlow said it also falls on the seller's counsel to ensure that the company doesn't share information that could give the buyer a competitive edge in the market too soon, in case the deal fails.
“[Lawyers] have to prepare all the arguments to get the deal through the regulatory process,” Barlow said. “Not only do you have to work on the competitive analysis, you also have to start working on the efficiencies and synergies that the deal may provide.”
Regardless of how well in-house lawyers have prepped for the merger announcement and subsequent investigations, there's still work to be done, according to Shannon Zollo, a corporate partner at Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton.
Zollo noted that before the deal's announced, in-house lawyers should be designing and distributing nondisclosure agreements and managing and populating a data room, which can store data, and facilitate document exchange and legal transactions.
But even after the deal's disclosed, the data-related work doesn't stop.
“They've signed the merger agreement, now [the companies are in] this review process,” Zollo said. “Lawyers are going to be managing massive amounts of data, schedules and disclosures.”
The companies' legal teams will also be working to get the deal approved by regulators by persuading them that the merger wouldn't violate antitrust laws.
It's possible that T-Mobile and Sprint argue that they could provide stronger competition against leading providers AT&T and Verizon as one stronger company, versus two smaller ones, said Richard Epstein, a professor and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
Epstein said T-Mobile could argue that Sprint is a failing company and convince regulators that without a merger, Sprint would collapse, reducing the number of main players in the industry to three.
T-Mobile already argued earlier this week that the merger would help the United States beat China in the race to 5G innovation, an argument that could win the favor of regulators who blocked an earlier Broadcom Corp. takeover of Qualcomm Inc. for fear of exporting U.S. 5G advances to Asia.
Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, said the deal may be more likely to pass muster than AT&T's attempt to purchase T-Mobile in 2011.
“The elephant in the room is the failed AT&T takeover of T-Mobile, which foundered on antitrust challenges,” he said in an email.
“I think the key for Sprint and T-Mobile will be persuading the agencies that this combination will strengthen an upstart challenger and offer real competition to AT&T and Verizon, as opposed to AT&T, which was buying them essentially to prevent their disruptive competition,” he added.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250