U.S. DOJ Requires Divestiture by Mittal Steel to Preserve Competition in the Tin Mill Products Industry
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.20.07
On Tuesday, February 20, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it will require Mittal Steel Company N.V. to divest its Sparrows Point facility in Maryland to counteract competitive harm resulting from Mittal's recently proposed $33 billion acquisition of Arcelor S.A. According to the DOJ, Mittal's acquisition would have substantially lessened competition in the market for tin mill products in the eastern United States. Therefore, the DOJ's proposed consent decree will require Mittal to divest Dofasco Inc., a Canadian company owned by Arcelor, which the DOJ recognized may not be possible due to Arcelor's placement of legal title of Dofasco into a Dutch foundation in an attempt to defeat Mittal's hostile takeover bid. Thus, the DOJ proposed that if the sale of Dofasco cannot be carried out, then the DOJ will require Mittal to divest its Sparrows Point mill.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
