Companies to Divest Newsprint Mill in Arizona to Preserve Competition
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.25.07
U.S. Dept. of Justice News Release
The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday that it will require two of the nation's largest newsprint manufacturers – Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. and Bowater Inc.– to divest a newsprint mill in Arizona in order to proceed with their proposed $1.6 billion transaction. The Department said that the merger, as originally proposed, would have substantially lessened competition in the production and sale of newsprint in North America.
Under the proposed consent decree, Abitibi and Bowater agree to divest Abitibi's newsprint mill in Snowflake, Arizona. The Snowflake mill is one of the largest and most profitable newsprint mills in North America. In addition, the merged company will be required to notify the Department before acquiring an additional interest in any mill or machine that is currently jointly-owned by either Abitibi or Bowater with any third party, if the value of the acquisition exceeds $2 million.
Abitibi is a Canadian corporation based in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Abitibi owns 12 paper mills worldwide that produce newsprint, including 11 in the United States and Canada. In 2006, Abitibi reported worldwide sales of approximately $4.8 billion, including about $1.7 billion in North American newsprint sales.
Bowater is a Delaware corporation based in Greenville, S.C. Bowater owns nine mills that produce newsprint, eight of which are in the United States and Canada. In 2006, Bowater reported total sales of approximately $3.5 billion, including approximately $1.1 billion in North American newsprint sales.
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
