Attorney General Kris Mayes is standing shoulder to shoulder with her counterparts from across the nation in pushing back against what they allege to be a nefarious approval of the HPE/Juniper Networks merger by the Justice Department, a deal worth a hefty $14 billion. According to a statement from Mayes' office, this group of legal enforcers is sounding the alarm over a possible increase in consumer costs by 14% as a direct outcome of this merger—highlighting that the real winners here may just be a select crew of wealthy individuals and big corporations instead of the American people they are meant to serve.
In the wake of these suspicions, the state attorneys general have come together, calling for the judge in control of the case to set a hearing on whether the merger aligns with public interest and if its roots sprouted from unsavory backroom deal-making. They hinge their concerns on the Tunney Act, a piece of legislation born out of the Watergate scandal designed to prevent exactly this sort of influence peddling; they want the court to probe the dealings leading to the proposed settlement, to shine a light on the legitimacy—or lack thereof—of the process. Their suggestion hints at a deep-seated belief that the deal may have been signed off by the riding high on privileges political appointees rather than on its merits though the Department of Justice’s trial staff and the senior leadership at its Antitrust Division were reportedly not on board with this settlement according to public reports, those voices were muffled and ignored by higher echelon officials who were swayed after lobbying efforts by individuals with tight connections to the Trump administration.
Critics of the current settlement have raised questions about the efficacy of the required divestitures, suggesting that the concessions demanded of HPE are not enough to neutralize the potential harm to competition. After all, the anticipated aftermath of the merger would be a market where HPE and Cisco dominate more than three-quarters of the share, potentially leaving consumers at the mercy of price increases.
As this corporate drama unfolds, it has claimed casualties with the firing of two senior Antitrust Division attorneys who dared oppose the HPE settlement voicing their concerns, these judicial warriors have been ousted from their positions—an act that one of them bluntly labeled as a "scandal" and accused it of representing the "Rule of Lobbyists" instead of the "Rule of Law," adding fuel to the already raging fire. In the throes of pushback against what they deem as undue influence, the attorneys general are pressing the issue with fervor, urging the court to adopt an aggressive stand by demanding an evidentiary hearing to delve into the depths of the settlement and to scrap it if it is proven to be born of undue influence, as they outlined in their multiparty letter to the court.
The opposition to the merger was voiced by Mayes along with attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}