[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 234 (Friday, December 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72203-72213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28585]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


United States v. Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc., Mission 
Broadcasting, Inc., Communications Corporation of America and Silver 
Point Capital Fund, L.P.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive 
Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, 
Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, and Competitive Impact Statement 
have been filed with the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia in United States of America v. Nexstar Broadcasting Group, 
Inc., Mission Broadcasting, Inc., Communications Corporation of America 
and Silver Point Capital Fund, L.P., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-02007. On 
November 26, 2014, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that 
Nexstar's proposed acquisition of Communications Corporation of America 
(CCA), by the acquisition of control of WEVV-TV in Evansville, Indiana, 
would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed 
Final Judgment, filed the same time as the Complaint, requires Nexstar 
to divest WEVV-TV to Bayou City Broadcasting Evansville, Inc. or an 
alternative buyer approved by the United States.
    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and Competitive 
Impact Statement are available for inspection at the Department of 
Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust Documents Group, 450 Fifth 
Street NW., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-2481), 
on the Department of Justice's Web site at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr, 
and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for 
the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained 
from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee 
set by Department of Justice regulations.
    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this 
notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and 
responses thereto, will be posted on the Department of Justice, 
Antitrust Division's internet Web site, filed with the Court and, under 
certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments 
should be directed to Scott A. Scheele, Chief, Telecommunications & 
Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-514-5621).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 5th Street N.W., Suite 7000
Washington, D.C. 20530

Plaintiff,

v.

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC.,
545 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 700
Irving, Texas 75062

MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.,
30400 Detroit Road
Westlake, Ohio 44145

CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
700 Saint John Street
Suite 300
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501

and

SILVER POINT CAPITAL FUND, L.P.,
2 Greenwich Plaza, 1st Floor
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

Defendants.

Case: 1:14-cv-02007

COMPLAINT

    The United States of America, acting under the direction of the 
Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to 
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Communications Corporation of 
America (CCA), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Silver Point Capital Fund, 
L.P., by Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. (Nexstar) and Mission Broadcasting, 
Inc. (Mission) (Nexstar and Mission are referred to collectively as the 
Buyers), and to obtain other equitable relief. The transaction would 
likely lessen competition substantially in the sale of broadcast 
television spot advertising in the Evansville, Indiana Designated 
Marketing Area (DMA) of the United States in violation of Section 7 of 
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The United States alleges as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated April 24, 2013, 
Nexstar and Mission will acquire all of the issued and outstanding 
voting securities of CCA for $270 million. Both Nexstar and CCA own or 
operate many broadcast television stations in multiple television DMAs 
across the United States. Through various local services agreements, 
Nexstar sells the advertising for all of the television stations owned 
by Mission, which Nexstar effectively controls.
    2. In Evansville, Indiana, Nexstar owns and operates WEHT, an ABC 
broadcast network affiliate. As the owner-operator of that station, 
Nexstar sells WEHT's advertising. Pursuant to a local services 
agreement, Nexstar also sells the advertising of WTVW, a CW broadcast 
network affiliate in Evansville that is owned by Mission. Accordingly, 
WEHT and WTVW do not meaningfully compete with one another for 
advertisers.
    3. In Evansville, CCA owns and operates WEVV, a CBS broadcast 
network affiliate. WEVV also operates a digital subchannel on which it 
runs television programming affiliated with the FOX broadcast network. 
Although Nexstar and Mission intend to transfer CCA's WEVV license to a 
related third party, the third party is expected to have Nexstar sell 
its advertising pursuant to a local services or similar agreement. 
Nexstar would likely have effective control of this third party as it 
does of Mission.
    4. Currently, Nexstar (on behalf of WEHT and WTVW) and CCA (on 
behalf of WEVV) compete for the business of local and national 
advertisers that seek spot advertising on broadcast television stations 
in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Advertisers benefit from this 
competition.
    5. If consummated, Nexstar's acquisition of control of CCA's 
advertising would result in Nexstar controlling the sale of advertising 
for three out of four major broadcast network affiliates (WEHT (ABC) 
and WEVV (CBS & FOX)) and a fourth network affiliation (WTVW (CW)) in 
the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Nexstar's already high market share of 
spot advertising in the DMA would increase from approximately 42 to 60 
percent.
    6. The transaction would eliminate head-to-head competition between 
Nexstar and CCA and all the benefits from this competition. Unless the 
transaction is blocked, it will lead to higher prices for broadcast 
television spot advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA in violation 
of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    7. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 15 of 
the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain 
Defendants from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
    8. Nexstar and CCA sell broadcast television spot advertising, a 
commercial activity that substantially

[[Page 72204]]

affects, and is in the flow of, interstate commerce. The Court has 
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 15 of 
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
    9. Nexstar transacts business and is found in the District of 
Columbia. Defendants have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction 
in this District. Therefore, venue is proper in this District under 
Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(c). 
Venue is also proper in the District of Columbia for defendant Nexstar 
under 28 U.S.C. 1391(d).

III. THE DEFENDANTS

    10. Nexstar, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Irving, 
Texas, owns or operates 72 broadcast television stations located in 41 
DMAs in 18 states. Nexstar reported revenues of $378 million for 2013.
    11. Mission, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Westlake, 
Ohio, owns 17 broadcast television stations. Nexstar receives 
substantially all of Mission's available cash and is deemed to have a 
controlling interest in Mission under generally accepted accounting 
principles. Accordingly, Mission's economic incentives are aligned with 
Nexstar's.
    12. CCA, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Lafayette, 
Louisiana, owns or operates 25 broadcast television stations in 10 DMAs 
throughout Louisiana, Texas, and Indiana. CCA reported revenues of 
$98.3 million for 2012.
    13. Silver Point Capital Fund, L.P., based in Greenwich, 
Connecticut, controls and is the ultimate parent entity of CCA.

IV. TRADE AND COMMERCE

A. Broadcast Television Spot Advertising Is a Relevant Product Market

    14. Broadcast television stations attract viewers through their 
programming, which is delivered for free over the air or retransmitted 
to viewers, mainly through wired cable or other terrestrial television 
systems and through satellite television systems. Broadcast television 
stations then sell advertising time to businesses that want to 
advertise their products to television viewers. Broadcast television 
``spot'' advertising is sold directly by the station itself or through 
its national representative on a localized basis and is purchased by 
advertisers who want to target potential customers in specific 
geographic areas. Spot advertising differs from network and syndicated 
television advertising, which are sold by the major television networks 
and producers of syndicated programs on a nationwide basis and 
broadcast in every geographic area where the network or syndicated 
program is aired.
    15. Broadcast television spot advertising possesses a unique 
combination of attributes that sets it apart from advertising using 
other types of media. Television combines sight, sound, and motion, 
thereby creating a more memorable advertisement. Moreover, of all 
media, broadcast television spot advertising reaches the largest 
percentage of all potential customers in a particular target geographic 
market and is therefore especially effective in introducing, 
establishing, and maintaining the image of a product or service. For a 
significant number of advertisers, broadcast television spot 
advertising, because of its unique attributes, is an advertising medium 
for which there is no close substitute. Advertisers generally do not 
consider other media, such as radio, newspapers, or outdoor billboards, 
to be desirable substitutes for broadcast television advertising. None 
of these media can provide the important combination of sight, sound, 
and motion that makes television unique and impactful as a medium for 
advertising.
    16. Like broadcast television, subscription television channels, 
such as those carried over cable or satellite television, combine 
elements of sight, sound, and motion, but they are not generally 
considered within the advertising industry as a desirable substitute 
for broadcast television spot advertising for two important reasons. 
First, satellite, cable, and other subscription content delivery 
systems do not generally have the ``reach'' of broadcast television. 
Typically in the United States, broadcast television can reach well 
over 90% of homes in a DMA, while cable television often reaches fewer 
homes. Second, because subscription services may offer more than 100 
channels, they fragment the audience into small demographic segments. 
Because broadcast television programming typically has higher rating 
points than subscription television programming, broadcast television 
is generally viewed as providing a much easier and more efficient means 
for an advertiser to reach a high proportion of its target demographic. 
Generally in the industry, media buyers purchase time on subscription 
television channels not so much as a substitute for broadcast 
television, but rather to supplement a broadcast television message, to 
reach a narrow demographic (e.g., 18-24 year olds) with greater 
frequency, or to target narrow geographic areas within a DMA.
    17. Typically, advertisers do not consider internet-based media to 
be a substitute for broadcast television spot advertising. Although 
online video distributors (OVDs) such as Netflix and Hulu are important 
sources of video programming, as with cable television advertising, the 
local video advertising of OVDs lacks the reach of broadcast television 
spot advertising. And non-video internet advertising (e.g., Web site 
banner advertising) lacks the important combination of sight, sound, 
and motion that gives television its impact. Consequently, the typical 
local media advertiser purchases internet-based advertising primarily 
as a supplement to broadcast television spot advertising.
    18. Consequently, a small but significant increase in the price of 
broadcast television spot advertising is unlikely to cause a sufficient 
number of broadcast television spot advertising customers to switch 
enough of their advertising purchases to other media such that the 
price increase would be unprofitable.
    19. The sale of broadcast television spot advertising is a line of 
commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act and a relevant product 
market for purposes of analyzing the proposed transaction under Section 
7 of the Clayton Act.

B. The Evansville, Indiana DMA Is the Relevant Geographic Market

    20. A Designated Marketing Area or DMA is a geographic unit defined 
by A.C. Nielsen Company, a firm that surveys television viewers and 
furnishes broadcast television stations, advertisers, and advertising 
agencies in a particular area with data to aid in evaluating audience 
size and composition. The Evansville, Indiana DMA encompasses 21 
counties in Indiana, Kentucky, and Illinois. Signals from broadcast 
television stations located in the Evansville, Indiana DMA reach 
viewers located throughout the DMA, but signals from broadcast 
television stations located outside the DMA reach few viewers within 
the DMA. DMAs are used to analyze revenues and shares of broadcast 
television stations in the Investing in Television BIA Market Report 
2014 (1st ed.), a standard industry reference.
    21. Advertisers use broadcast television stations within the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA to reach the largest possible number of viewers 
within the entire DMA. Some of these advertisers are located in the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA and need to reach customers there; others are 
regional or national businesses that want to target

[[Page 72205]]

consumers in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Advertising on television 
stations outside the Evansville, Indiana DMA is not an alternative for 
these advertisers because such stations cannot be viewed by the vast 
majority of potential customers within the DMA. Thus, if there were a 
small but significant increase in broadcast television spot advertising 
prices within the Evansville, Indiana DMA, advertisers would not switch 
enough advertising purchases to television stations outside the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA to render the price increase unprofitable.
    22. The Evansville, Indiana DMA is a section of the country under 
Section 7 of the Clayton Act and a relevant geographic market for the 
sale of broadcast television spot advertising for the purposes of 
analyzing the proposed transaction under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

C. The Transaction Will Lead to Harm to Competition in the Evansville, 
Indiana DMA

    23. Broadcast television stations compete for advertisers by 
offering programs that attract viewers to their stations. Broadcast 
television stations select programs that appeal to the greatest number 
of viewers and that differentiate their stations from other stations by 
appealing to specific demographic groups. Advertisers, in turn, are 
interested in using broadcast television spot advertising to reach a 
large audience, as well as to reach a high proportion of the type of 
viewers that are most likely to buy their products.
    24. By virtue of its ownership and operation of WEHT and the 
existing local services agreement with Mission to sell the advertising 
of WTVW, Nexstar currently controls the advertising of two broadcast 
television stations in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Post-transaction, 
the market would effectively become a duopoly, with Nexstar controlling 
the advertising of three of the four major network affiliates (WEHT 
(ABC) and WEVV (CBS & FOX)) and a fourth network affiliation (WTVW 
(CW)) in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Nexstar's market share of 
broadcast television spot advertising revenue in the Evansville, 
Indiana DMA would increase from 42 to 60 percent. A single television 
station would control the vast majority of the remaining 40 percent.
    25. Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a standard measure 
of market concentration (defined and explained in Appendix A), the 
proposed transaction would increase substantially the already high 
concentration in the Evansville, Indiana DMA broadcast television spot 
advertising market. The post-transaction HHI would be approximately 
5100, representing an increase of about 1500 points. Under the 
Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the Department of Justice and 
Federal Trade Commission, mergers resulting in highly concentrated 
markets (with an HHI in excess of 2500) with an increase in the HHI of 
more than 200 points are presumed to be likely to enhance market power.
    26. In the Evansville, Indiana DMA, Nexstar and CCA compete head-
to-head against each other in the sale of broadcast television spot 
advertising and are close substitutes for a significant number of 
advertisers. Advertisers benefit from this competition. The proposed 
transaction would end this competition and thereby adversely affect a 
substantial volume of interstate commerce.
    27. After the transaction, a significant number of Evansville, 
Indiana DMA advertisers would not be able to reach their desired 
audiences with equivalent efficacy unless they advertised on the 
television stations controlled by Nexstar. Advertisers would have 
available only one alternative broadcast channel. The transaction, 
therefore, will enable Nexstar unilaterally to raise prices. Given the 
structure of the Evansville, Indiana DMA, the economics of this 
industry suggest that the remaining major competitor will have 
substantial incentives to follow suit.

D. Entry

    28. De novo entry into the Evansville, Indiana DMA is unlikely as 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates entry through the 
issuance of broadcast television spectrum licenses, which are difficult 
to obtain. Even if a new license became available, commercial success 
would come, at best, over a period of many years. Thus, entry into the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA broadcast television spot advertising market 
would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter post-merger 
anticompetitive effects.

E. Absence of Efficiencies

    29. Defendants cannot demonstrate cognizable, merger-specific 
efficiencies that are sufficient to reverse the anticompetitive effects 
of the proposed transaction.

V. VIOLATION ALLEGED

    30. The United States hereby repeats and realleges the allegations 
of paragraphs 1 through 29 as if fully set forth herein.
    31. The Buyers' proposed acquisition of CCA would likely lessen 
competition substantially in interstate trade and commerce in violation 
of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and would likely have 
the following effects, among others:
    (a) Competition in the sale of broadcast television spot 
advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA would be lessened 
substantially;
    (b) Competition in the Evansville, Indiana DMA between Nexstar and 
CCA in the sale of broadcast television spot advertising would be 
eliminated; and
    (c) The prices for broadcast television spot advertising in the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA would likely increase.

VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

    32. The United States requests:
    (a) That the Court adjudge the proposed transaction to violate 
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;
    (b) That the Court permanently enjoin and restrain the Defendants 
from carrying out the proposed transaction or from entering into or 
carrying out any other agreement, understanding, or plan by which CCA 
would be acquired by, acquire, or merge with the Buyers;
    (c) That the Court award the United States the costs of this 
action; and
    (d) That the Court award such other relief to the United States as 
the Court may deem just and proper.
    Respectfully submitted,
FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Baer (D.C. Bar #324723)

Assistant Attorney General

/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Overton (D.C. Bar #454493)

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia A. Brink

Director of Civil Enforcement

/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Scheele (D.C. Bar #429061)

Chief, Telecom & Media Section

/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence M. Frankel (D.C. Bar #441532)

Assistant Chief, Telecom & Media Section

/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew C. Hammond *

Trial Attorney, Telecom & Media Section.

United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth 
Street N.W., Suite 7000, Washington, D.C. 20530, Phone: 202-305-
8541, Facsimile: 202-514-6381, Email: [email protected].

* Attorney of Record

Dated: November 26, 2014

APPENDIX A

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

    The tern ``HHI'' means the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, a 
commonly accepted

[[Page 72206]]

measure of market concentration. The HHI is calculated by squaring 
the market share of each firm competing in the market and then 
summing the resulting numbers. For example, for a market consisting 
of four firms with shares of 30, 30, 20, and 20 percent, the HHI is 
2,600 (30\2\ + 30\2\ + 20\2\ + 20\2\ = 2,600). The HHI takes into 
account the relative size distribution of the firms in a market. It 
approaches zero when a market is occupied by a large number of firms 
of relatively equal size and reaches its maximum of 10,000 points 
when a market is controlled by a single firm. The HHI increases both 
as the number of firms in the market decreases and as the disparity 
in size between those firms increases. Markets in which the HHI is 
between 1,500 and 2,500 points are considered to be moderately 
concentrated, and markets in which the HHI is in excess of 2,500 
points are considered to be highly concentrated. See U.S. Department 
of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines 
Sec.  5.3 (2010). Transactions that increase the HHI by more than 
200 points in highly concentrated markets presumptively raise 
antitrust concerns under the Guidelines. See id.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
450 5th Street N.W., Suite 7000
Washington, D.C. 20530

Plaintiff,

v.

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC.,
545 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 700
Irving, Texas 75062

MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.,
30400 Detroit Road
Westlake, Ohio 44145

COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
700 Saint John Street, Suite 300
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501

and

SILVER POINT CAPITAL FUND, L.P.,
2 Greenwich Plaza, 1st Floor
Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

Defendants.

Case: 1:14-cv-02007

COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT

    Plaintiff United States of America (United States), pursuant to 
Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (APPA or 
the Tunney Act), 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), files this Competitive Impact 
Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for 
entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING

    Pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated April 24, 2013, 
Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. (Nexstar) and Mission Broadcasting 
Inc. (Mission) will acquire all of the issued and outstanding voting 
securities of Communications Corporation of America (CCA) for $270 
million. Both Nexstar and CCA own or operate many broadcast 
television stations in multiple television Designated Marketing 
Areas (DMAs) across the United States. Through various local 
services agreements, Nexstar sells the advertising for all of the 
television stations owned by Mission, which Nexstar effectively 
controls.
    In Evansville, Indiana, Nexstar owns and operates WEHT, an ABC 
broadcast network affiliate. As the owner-operator of that station, 
Nexstar sells WEHT's advertising. Pursuant to a local services 
agreement, Nexstar also sells the advertising of WTVW, a CW 
broadcast network affiliate in Evansville that is owned by Mission. 
Accordingly, WEHT and WTVW do not meaningfully compete with one 
another for advertisers.
    In Evansville, CCA owns and operates WEVV, a CBS broadcast 
network affiliate. WEVV also operates a digital subchannel on which 
it runs television programming affiliated with the FOX broadcast 
network. Although Nexstar and Mission intend to transfer CCA's WEVV 
license to a related third party, the third party is expected to 
have Nexstar sell its advertising pursuant to a local services or 
similar agreement. Nexstar would likely have effective control of 
this third party as it does of Mission.
    Currently, Nexstar (on behalf of WEHT and WTVW) and CCA (on 
behalf of WEVV) compete for the business of local and national 
advertisers that seek spot advertising on broadcast television 
stations in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Advertisers benefit from 
this competition. If consummated, Nexstar's acquisition of control 
of CCA's advertising would result in Nexstar controlling the sale of 
advertising for three out of four major broadcast network affiliates 
(WEHT (ABC) and WEVV (CBS & FOX)) and a fourth network affiliation 
(WTVW (CW)) in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Nexstar's already high 
market share of spot advertising in the DMA would increase from 
approximately 42 to 60 percent. Thus, the transaction would 
eliminate head-to-head competition between Nexstar and CCA and all 
the benefits from this competition, leading to higher prices for 
broadcast television spot advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA 
in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.
    The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on November 
26, 2014, seeking to enjoin the proposed transaction. The Complaint 
alleges that the likely effect of this transaction would be to 
lessen competition substantially for broadcast television spot 
advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA in violation of Section 7 
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. This loss of competition likely 
would result in advertisers paying higher prices.
    At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also 
filed a Hold Separate Stipulation and Order (Hold Separate Order) 
and proposed Final Judgment, which are designed to eliminate the 
anticompetitive effects of the transaction. Under the proposed Final 
Judgment, which is explained more fully below, Defendants are 
required to divest WEVV located in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. 
Under the terms of the Hold Separate Order, Defendants are required 
to take certain steps to ensure that WEVV is operated as a 
competitively independent, economically viable, and ongoing business 
concern, that will remain independent and uninfluenced by the 
consummation of the transaction, and that competition is maintained 
during the pendency of the ordered divestiture.
    The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the 
proposed Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the 
APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment would terminate this 
action, except that the Court would retain jurisdiction to construe, 
modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and 
to punish violations thereof.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION

A. The Defendants and the Proposed Transaction

    Nexstar, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Irving, 
Texas, owns or operates 72 broadcast television stations located in 
41 DMAs in 18 states. Nexstar reported revenues of $378 million for 
2013. Mission, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Westlake, 
Ohio, owns 17 broadcast television stations. Nexstar receives 
substantially all of Mission's available cash and is deemed to have 
a controlling interest in Mission under generally accepted 
accounting principles. Accordingly, Mission's economic incentives 
are aligned with Nexstar's.
    CCA, a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Lafayette, 
Louisiana, owns or operates 25 broadcast television stations in 10 
DMAs throughout Louisiana, Texas, and Indiana. CCA reported revenues 
of $98.3 million for 2012. Silver Point Capital Fund, L.P., based in 
Greenwich, Connecticut, controls and is the ultimate parent entity 
of CCA.
    The proposed transaction, as initially agreed to by Defendants, 
would lessen competition substantially in broadcast television spot 
advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA as a result of Nexstar's 
acquisition of CCA. This transaction is the subject of the Complaint 
and proposed Final Judgment filed by the United States on November 
26, 2014.

B. Anticompetitive Consequences of the Proposed Transaction

1. The Relevant Product Market

    The Complaint alleges that the sale of broadcast television spot 
advertising constitutes a relevant product market for analyzing this 
transaction under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Broadcast television 
stations attract viewers through their programming, which is 
delivered for free over the air or retransmitted to viewers, mainly 
through wired cable or other terrestrial television systems and 
through satellite television systems. Broadcast television stations 
then sell advertising time to businesses that want to advertise 
their products to television viewers. Broadcast television ``spot'' 
advertising is sold directly by the station itself or through its 
national representative on a localized basis and is purchased by 
advertisers who want to target potential customers in specific 
geographic areas. Spot advertising differs from network and 
syndicated television advertising, which are sold by the major 
television networks and producers of syndicated programs on a 
nationwide basis and broadcast in every geographic area where the 
network or syndicated program is aired.
    Broadcast television spot advertising possesses a unique 
combination of attributes that sets it apart from advertising using 
other

[[Page 72207]]

types of media. Television combines sight, sound, and motion, 
thereby creating a more memorable advertisement. Moreover, of all 
media, broadcast television spot advertising reaches the largest 
percentage of all potential customers in a particular target 
geographic market and is therefore especially effective in 
introducing, establishing, and maintaining the image of a product or 
service. For a significant number of advertisers, broadcast 
television spot advertising, because of its unique attributes, is an 
advertising medium for which there is no close substitute. 
Advertisers generally do not consider other media, such as radio, 
newspapers, or outdoor billboards, to be desirable substitutes for 
broadcast television advertising. None of these media can provide 
the important combination of sight, sound, and motion that makes 
television unique and impactful as a medium for advertising.
    Like broadcast television, subscription television channels, 
such as those carried over cable or satellite television, combine 
elements of sight, sound, and motion, but they are not generally 
considered within the advertising industry as a desirable substitute 
for broadcast television spot advertising for two important reasons. 
First, satellite, cable, and other subscription content delivery 
systems do not generally have the ``reach'' of broadcast television. 
Typically in the United States, broadcast television can reach well 
over 90% of homes in a DMA, while cable television often reaches 
fewer homes. Second, because subscription services may offer more 
than 100 channels, they fragment the audience into small demographic 
segments. Because broadcast television programming typically has 
higher rating points than subscription television programming, 
broadcast television is generally viewed as providing a much easier 
and more efficient means for an advertiser to reach a high 
proportion of its target demographic. Generally in the industry, 
media buyers purchase time on subscription television channels not 
so much as a substitute for broadcast television, but rather to 
supplement a broadcast television message, to reach a narrow 
demographic (e.g., 18-24 year olds) with greater frequency, or to 
target narrow geographic areas within a DMA.
    Typically, advertisers do not consider internet-based media to 
be a substitute for broadcast television spot advertising. Although 
online video distributors (OVDs) such as Netflix and Hulu are 
important sources of video programming, as with cable television 
advertising, the local video advertising of OVDs lacks the reach of 
broadcast television spot advertising. And non-video internet 
advertising (e.g., Web site banner advertising) lacks the important 
combination of sight, sound, and motion that gives television its 
impact. Consequently, the typical local media advertiser purchases 
internet-based advertising primarily as a supplement to broadcast 
television spot advertising.
    Consequently, a small but significant price increase in 
broadcast television spot advertising is unlikely to cause enough 
advertising customers to switch advertising purchases to other media 
to make the price increase unprofitable.

2. The Relevant Geographic Market

    The Complaint alleges that the Evansville, Indiana DMA 
constitutes a relevant geographic market for purposes of analyzing 
this acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. A Designated 
Marketing Area or DMA is a geographic unit defined by A.C. Nielsen 
Company, a firm that surveys television viewers and furnishes 
broadcast television stations, advertisers, and advertising agencies 
in a particular area with data to aid in evaluating audience size 
and composition. DMAs are used to analyze revenues and shares of 
broadcast television stations in the Investing in Television BIA 
Market Report 2014 (1st ed.), a standard industry reference. The 
Evansville, Indiana DMA encompasses 21 counties in Indiana, 
Kentucky, and Illinois. Signals from broadcast television stations 
located in the Evansville, Indiana DMA reach viewers throughout the 
DMA, but signals from broadcast television stations located outside 
the DMA reach few viewers within the DMA.
    Advertisers can use television stations in the DMA to target the 
largest possible number of viewers within the DMA. Some of these 
advertisers are located in the Evansville, Indiana DMA and are 
trying to reach consumers that live in the DMA; others are regional 
or national businesses wanting to target consumers in the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA. Advertising on television stations outside 
each of the Evansville, Indiana DMA is not an alternative for either 
local, regional, or national advertisers, because signals from 
television stations outside of the DMA reach relatively few viewers 
within the DMA. Thus, advertising on those stations outside the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA does not reach a significant number of 
potential customers within the DMA.
    Consequently, a small but significant increase in broadcast 
television spot advertising prices within the Evansville, Indiana 
DMA would not cause advertisers to switch enough advertising 
purchases to television stations outside the Evansville, Indiana DMA 
to render the price increase unprofitable.

3. Harm to Competition in the Evansville, Indiana DMA

    The Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would likely 
lessen competition substantially in interstate trade and commerce, 
in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, and 
likely would have the following effects, among others:
    (a) competition in the sale of broadcast television spot 
advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA would be lessened 
substantially;
    (b) competition in the Evansville, Indiana DMA between Nexstar 
and CCA in the sale of broadcast television spot advertising would 
be eliminated; and
    (c) the prices for broadcast television spot advertising on 
broadcast television stations in the Evansville, Indiana DMA likely 
would increase.
    By virtue of its ownership and operation of WEHT and the 
existing local services agreement with Mission to sell the 
advertising of WTVW, Nexstar currently controls the advertising of 
two broadcast television stations in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. 
Post-transaction, the market would effectively become a duopoly, 
with Nexstar controlling the advertising of three of the four major 
network (WEHT (ABC) and WEVV (CBS & FOX)) and a fourth network 
affiliation (WTVW (CW)) in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Nexstar's 
market share of broadcast television spot advertising revenue in the 
DMA would increase from 42 to 60 percent. A single television 
station would control the vast majority of the remaining 40 percent.
    Using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a standard measure 
of market concentration (defined and explained in Appendix A to the 
Complaint), the proposed transaction would increase substantially 
the already high concentration in the Evansville, Indiana DMA 
broadcast television spot advertising market. The post-transaction 
HHI would be approximately 5100, representing an increase of about 
1500 points. Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued by the 
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, mergers 
resulting in highly concentrated markets (with an HHI in excess of 
2500) with an increase in the HHI of more than 200 points are 
presumed to be likely to enhance market power.
    In the Evansville, Indiana DMA, Nexstar and CCA compete head-to-
head against each other in the sale of broadcast television spot 
advertising. They are close substitutes for each other for a 
significant number of advertisers. Moreover, advertisers typically 
find it cost-effective to reach their target audience by buying time 
from multiple stations in a DMA. In negotiating rates with any one 
television station, advertisers benefit from competition between 
stations because they can put together an ad buy with the other 
stations in the DMA. The proposed transaction would end this type of 
competition between Nexstar and CCA and thereby adversely affect a 
substantial volume of interstate commerce. After the transaction, it 
is likely that a significant number of Evansville, Indiana DMA 
advertisers would not be able to reach their desired audiences with 
equivalent efficacy unless they advertised on the television 
stations controlled by Nexstar. By leaving advertisers with only one 
alternative broadcast channel, the transaction will enable Nexstar 
unilaterally to raise prices. Given the structure of the Evansville, 
Indiana DMA, the economics of this industry suggest that the 
remaining major competitor will have substantial incentives to 
follow suit.

4. Lack of Countervailing Factors

    The Complaint alleges that entry in the Evansville, Indiana 
DMA's broadcast television spot advertising market would not be 
timely, likely, or sufficient to prevent any anticompetitive 
effects. New entry is unlikely since any new station would require a 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, which is difficult 
to obtain. Even if a new station became operational, commercial 
success would come over a period of many years. In addition, there 
are no merger-specific efficiencies that would alleviate the harm 
from the transaction.

[[Page 72208]]

III. EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The divestiture requirement of the proposed Final Judgment will 
eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the transaction in the 
Evansville, Indiana DMA by establishing a new, independent, and 
economically viable competitor, which will maintain the status quo 
in the DMA. The proposed Final Judgment requires Defendants to 
divest the Divestiture Assets to Bayou City Broadcasting Evansville, 
Inc. (Bayou City), an acquirer selected by Defendants and approved 
by the United States, in a manner consistent with the Final Judgment 
and the Hold Separate Order in this case. If Bayou City is unable to 
complete the purchase, the Defendants would be required to divest 
the Divestiture Assets to another buyer, approved by the United 
States in its sole discretion. Defendants are required to use their 
best efforts to accomplish the divestitures ordered by this Final 
Judgment as expeditiously as possible and in such a way as to 
satisfy the United States in its sole discretion that the operations 
can and will be operated by the purchaser as a viable, ongoing 
business that can compete effectively in the relevant market. 
Because the transfer of the Divestiture Assets to Bayou City 
requires Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval, 
Defendants are specifically required to use their best efforts to 
obtain all necessary FCC approvals as expeditiously as possible. The 
divestiture pursuant to this Section shall take place within five 
(5) calendar days of entry of the Final Judgment or within 90 days 
of the filing of the Complaint, whichever is later. Defendants must 
take all reasonable steps necessary to accomplish the divestiture 
quickly and shall cooperate with prospective purchasers.
    In the event that Defendants do not accomplish the divestiture 
within the periods prescribed in the proposed Final Judgment, or it 
becomes apparent that Bayou City is unwilling or unable to complete 
its purchase of the Divestiture Assets, the Final Judgment provides 
that the Court will appoint a trustee selected by the United States 
to effect the divestiture. The United States may, after three 
months, determine not to seek appointment of a trustee if it 
believes the circumstances warrant allowing the Defendants more 
time. Under such circumstances, however, the United States may, at 
any time, exercise its right to select a trustee for the Court to 
appoint. If a trustee is appointed, the proposed Final Judgment 
provides that Defendants will pay all costs and expenses of the 
trustee. The trustee's commission will be structured so as to 
provide an incentive for the trustee based on the price obtained and 
the speed with which the divestiture is accomplished. After his or 
her appointment becomes effective, the trustee will file monthly 
reports with the Court and the United States setting forth his or 
her efforts to accomplish the divestiture. At the end of six (6) 
months, if the divestiture has not been accomplished, the trustee 
and the United States will make recommendations to the Court, which 
shall enter such orders as appropriate, in order to carry out the 
purpose of the trust, including extending the trust or the term of 
the trustee's appointment.
    The divestiture provisions of the proposed Final Judgment will 
eliminate the anticompetitive effects of the transaction in 
broadcast television spot advertising in the Evansville, Indiana 
DMA.
    The proposed Final Judgment also bars Nexstar from reacquiring 
the Divestiture Assets for the ten-year period of the decree. 
Nexstar can only affiliate with either FOX or CBS (WEVV's current 
network affiliates) a year or more from the filing of the Complaint, 
contingent on the United States' approval in its sole discretion.

IV. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO POTENTIAL PRIVATE LITIGANTS

    Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any 
person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the 
antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three 
times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and 
reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment 
will neither impair nor assist the bringing of any private antitrust 
damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie 
effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against 
Defendants.

V. PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States and Defendants have stipulated that the 
proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance 
with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has 
not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the 
Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the 
public interest.
    The APPA provides a period of at least sixty (60) days preceding 
the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any 
person may submit to the United States written comments regarding 
the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should 
do so within sixty (60) days of the date of publication of this 
Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register, or the last 
date of publication in a newspaper of the summary of this 
Competitive Impact Statement, whichever is later. All comments 
received during this period will be considered by the United States 
Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent to 
the proposed Final Judgment at any time prior to the Court's entry 
of judgment. The comments and the response of the United States will 
be filed with the Court. In addition, comments will be posted on the 
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division's internet Web site 
and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register.
    Written comments should be submitted to: Scott A. Scheele, 
Chief, Telecom & Media Enforcement Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 7000, Washington, 
DC 20530.
    The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains 
jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the 
Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, 
interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.

VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The United States considered, as an alternative to the proposed 
Final Judgment, a full trial on the merits against Defendants. The 
United States could have continued the litigation and sought 
preliminary and permanent injunctions against the contemplated 
transaction. The United States is satisfied, however, that the 
divestiture of assets described in the proposed Final Judgment will 
preserve competition for the sale of broadcast television spot 
advertising in the Evansville, Indiana DMA. Thus, the proposed Final 
Judgment would achieve all or substantially all of the relief the 
United States would have obtained through litigation, but avoids the 
time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits of the 
Complaint.

VII. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE APPA FOR THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    The Clayton Act, as amended by the APPA, requires that proposed 
consent judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States be 
subject to a sixty-day comment period, after which the court shall 
determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment ``is in the 
public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, 
the court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is 
required to consider:
    (A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including 
termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and 
modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of 
alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are 
ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the 
adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a 
determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public 
interest; and
    (B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the 
relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and 
individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth 
in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if 
any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1)(A) & (B). In considering these statutory factors, 
the court's inquiry is necessarily a limited one as the government 
is entitled to ``broad discretion to settle with the defendant 
within the reaches of the public interest.'' United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see generally 
United States v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007) 
(assessing public interest standard under the Tunney Act); United 
States v. U.S. Airways Group, Inc., No. 13-cv-1236(CKK), 2014-1Trade 
Cas. (CCH) ] 78,748, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57801, at *7 (D.D.C. Apr. 
25, 2014) (noting court has broad discretion to review adequacy of 
relief at issue); United States v. InBev N.V./S.A., No. 08-1965(JR), 
2009-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ] 76,736, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at 
*3, (D.D.C. Aug. 11,

[[Page 72209]]

2009) (noting that court's review of a consent judgment is limited 
and only inquires ``into whether the government's determination that 
the proposed remedies will cure the antitrust violations alleged in 
the complaint was reasonable, and whether the mechanism to enforce 
the final judgment are clear and manageable'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2004 amendments to the APPA substituted ``shall'' for 
``may'' in directing relevant factors for court to consider and 
amended the list of factors to focus on competitive considerations 
and to address potentially ambiguous judgment terms. Compare 15 
U.S.C. 16(e) (2004), with 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1) (2006); see also SBC 
Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (concluding that the 2004 amendments 
``effected minimal changes'' to APPA review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among 
other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the 
specific allegations set forth in the government's complaint, 
whether the decree is sufficiently clear, whether enforcement 
mechanisms are sufficient, and whether the decree may positively 
harm third parties. See Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1458-62. With respect 
to the adequacy of the relief secured by the decree, a court may not 
``engage in an unrestricted evaluation of what relief would best 
serve the public.'' United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 462 
(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Bechtel Corp., 648 F.2d 
660, 666 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460-62; 
United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 2d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2001); 
InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *3. Courts have held that:
    [t]he balancing of competing social and political interests 
affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the 
first instance, to the discretion of the Attorney General. The 
court's role in protecting the public interest is one of insuring 
that the government has not breached its duty to the public in 
consenting to the decree. The court is required to determine not 
whether a particular decree is the one that will best serve society, 
but whether the settlement is ``within the reaches of the public 
interest.'' More elaborate requirements might undermine the 
effectiveness of antitrust enforcement by consent decree.

Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).\2\ In 
determining whether a proposed settlement is in the public interest, 
a district court ``must accord deference to the government's 
predictions about the efficacy of its remedies, and may not require 
that the remedies perfectly match the alleged violations.'' SBC 
Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17; see also U.S. Airways, 2014 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 57801, at *16 (noting that a court should not reject the 
proposed remedies because it believes others are preferable); 
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (noting the need for courts to be 
``deferential to the government's predictions as to the effect of 
the proposed remedies''); United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland 
Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (noting that the court 
should grant due respect to the United States' prediction as to the 
effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, 
and its views of the nature of the case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cf. BNS, 858 F.2d at 464 (holding that the court's 
``ultimate authority under the [APPA] is limited to approving or 
disapproving the consent decree''); United States v. Gillette Co., 
406 F. Supp. 713, 716 (D. Mass. 1975) (noting that, in this way, the 
court is constrained to ``look at the overall picture not 
hypercritically, nor with a microscope, but with an artist's 
reducing glass''). See generally Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 
(discussing whether ``the remedies [obtained in the decree are] so 
inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the 
`reaches of the public interest''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Courts have greater flexibility in approving proposed consent 
decrees than in crafting their own decrees following a finding of 
liability in a litigated matter. ``[A] proposed decree must be 
approved even if it falls short of the remedy the court would impose 
on its own, as long as it falls within the range of acceptability or 
is `within the reaches of public interest.''' United States v. Am. 
Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 (D.D.C. 1982) (citations 
omitted) (quoting United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. 713, 
716 (D. Mass. 1975)), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 
U.S. 1001 (1983); see also U.S. Airways, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 
57801, at *8 (noting that room must be made for the government to 
grant concessions in the negotiation process for settlements (citing 
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461); United States v. Alcan Aluminum Ltd., 
605 F. Supp. 619, 622 (W.D. Ky. 1985) (approving the consent decree 
even though the court would have imposed a greater remedy). To meet 
this standard, the United States ``need only provide a factual basis 
for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies 
for the alleged harms.'' SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 17.
    Moreover, the court's role under the APPA is limited to 
reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the 
United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize 
the court to ``construct [its] own hypothetical case and then 
evaluate the decree against that case.'' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; 
see also U.S. Airways, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57801, at *9 (noting 
that the court must simply determine whether there is a factual 
foundation for the government's decisions such that its conclusions 
regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 U.S. 
Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (``the `public interest' is not to be 
measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint 
against those the court believes could have, or even should have, 
been alleged''). Because the ``court's authority to review the 
decree depends entirely on the government's exercising its 
prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,'' it 
follows that ``the court is only authorized to review the decree 
itself,'' and not to ``effectively redraft the complaint'' to 
inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. 
Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459-60. As this Court confirmed in SBC 
Communications, courts ``cannot look beyond the complaint in making 
the public interest determination unless the complaint is drafted so 
narrowly as to make a mockery of judicial power.'' SBC Commc'ns, 489 
F. Supp. 2d at 15.
    In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its 
intent to preserve the practical benefits of utilizing consent 
decrees in antitrust enforcement, adding the unambiguous instruction 
that ``[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the 
court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to 
permit anyone to intervene.'' 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also U.S. 
Airways, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57801, at *9 (indicating that a court 
is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit 
intervenors as part of its review under the APPA). The language 
wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it enacted the 
APPA in 1974, as Senator Tunney explained: ``[t]he court is nowhere 
compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which 
might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less 
costly settlement through the consent decree process.'' 119 Cong. 
Rec. 24,598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). Rather, the procedure 
for the public interest determination is left to the discretion of 
the court, with the recognition that the court's ``scope of review 
remains sharply proscribed by precedent and the nature of Tunney Act 
proceedings.'' SBC Commc'ns, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 11.\3\ A court may 
make its public interest determination based on the competitive 
impact statement and response to public comments alone. U.S. 
Airways, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57801, at *9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See United States v. Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 10, 17 
(D.D.C. 2000) (noting that the ``Tunney Act expressly allows the 
court to make its public interest determination on the basis of the 
competitive impact statement and response to comments alone''); 
United States v. Mid-Am. Dairymen, Inc., No. 73-CV-681-W-1, 1977-1 
Trade Cas. (CCH) ] 61,508, at 71,980, *22 (W.D. Mo. 1977) (``Absent 
a showing of corrupt failure of the government to discharge its 
duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . 
carefully consider the explanations of the government in the 
competitive impact statement and its responses to comments in order 
to determine whether those explanations are reasonable under the 
circumstances.''); S. Rep. No. 93-298, at 6 (1973) (``Where the 
public interest can be meaningfully evaluated simply on the basis of 
briefs and oral arguments, that is the approach that should be 
utilized.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS

    There are no determinative materials or documents within the 
meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in 
formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
    Respectfully submitted,
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew C. Hammond

Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 
Telecom & Media, 450 5th Street NW., Suite 7000, Washington, DC 
20530, Phone: 202-305-8541, Fax: 202-514-6381, Email: 
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff United States of America

Dated: November 26, 2014

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEXSTAR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC.,
MISSION BROADCASTING, INC.,
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

and

SILVER POINT CAPITAL FUND, L.P.,

Defendants.


[[Page 72210]]


Case: 1:14-cv-02007

PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    WHEREAS, plaintiff, the United States of America, having filed 
its Complaint on _--, and plaintiff and defendants Nexstar 
Broadcasting Group, Inc. (``Nexstar''); Mission Broadcasting, Inc. 
(``Mission''); Communications Corporation of America (``CCA'') and 
Silver Point Capital Fund, L.P., by their respective attorneys, 
having consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial 
or adjudication of any issue of fact or law herein, and without this 
Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or an admission by 
any party with respect to any issue of law or fact herein;
    AND WHEREAS, defendants have agreed to be bound by the 
provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
    AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt 
and certain divestiture of the Divestiture Assets to assure that 
competition is not substantially lessened;
    AND WHEREAS, the United States requires certain divestitures to 
be made for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged 
in the Complaint;
    AND WHEREAS, defendants have represented to the United States 
that the divestitures required below can and will be made, and that 
defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as 
grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture 
provisions contained below;
    NOW, THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or 
adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the 
parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

I. Jurisdiction

    This Court has jurisdiction over each of the parties hereto and 
over the subject matter of this action. The Complaint states a claim 
upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 
of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18.

II. Definitions

    As used in this Final Judgment:
    A. ``Nexstar'' means defendant Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc., 
a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Irving, Texas, its 
successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 
affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, 
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
    B. ``Mission'' means defendant Mission Broadcasting, Inc. a 
Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Westlake, Ohio, its 
successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 
affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, 
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
    C. ``CCA'' means Communications Corporation of America, a 
Delaware corporation headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, its 
successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 
affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, 
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
    D. ``Silver Point'' means Silver Point Capital Fund, L.P., a 
Delaware limited partnership headquartered in Greenwich, 
Connecticut, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, 
divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and 
their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
    E. ``Acquirer'' means BCBE, or another entity to which the 
defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.
    F. ``BCBE'' means Bayou City Broadcasting Evansville, Inc., a 
Delaware corporation headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, its 
successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 
affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, 
officers, managers, agents, and employees.
    G. ``WEVV-TV'' means the broadcast television station located in 
the Evansville, Indiana DMA owned by defendant CCA operating on 
virtual Channel 44.
    H. ``Divestiture Assets'' means all of the assets, tangible or 
intangible, used in the operation of WEVV-TV, including, but not 
limited to, all real property (owned or leased) used in the 
operation of the station, all broadcast equipment, office equipment, 
office furniture, fixtures, materials, supplies, and other tangible 
property used in the operation of the station; all licenses, 
permits, authorizations, and applications therefore issued by the 
Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') and other government 
agencies related to that station; all contracts (including 
programming contracts and rights), agreements, network affiliation 
agreements, leases and commitments and understandings of defendant 
CCA relating to the operation of WEVV-TV; all trademarks, service 
marks, trade names, copyrights, patents, slogans, programming 
materials, and promotional materials relating to WEVV-TV; all 
customer lists, contracts, accounts, and credit records; and all 
logs and other records maintained by defendant CCA in connection 
with WEVV-TV.
    I. ``DMA'' means designated market area as defined by A.C. 
Nielsen Company based upon viewing patterns and used by the 
Investing In Television BIA Market Report 2014 (1st ed.). DMAs are 
ranked according to the number of households therein and are used by 
broadcasters, advertisers and advertising agencies to aid in 
evaluating television audience size and composition.

III. Applicability

    A. This Final Judgment applies to Nexstar, Mission, CCA, and 
Silver Point as defined above, and all other persons in active 
concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice 
of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
    B. If, prior to complying with Sections IV and V of this Final 
Judgment, defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or 
substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that 
include the defendants' Divestiture Assets, they shall require the 
purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. 
Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the Acquirer of 
the assets divested pursuant to the Final Judgment.

IV. Divestitures

    A. Defendants are ordered and directed to divest the Divestiture 
Assets to an Acquirer acceptable to the United States in its sole 
discretion, in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment and the 
Hold Separate Stipulation and Order in this case. The divestiture 
pursuant to this Section shall take place within ninety (90) 
calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter or 
five (5) days after notice of entry of this Final Judgment by the 
Court, whichever is later. The United States, in its sole 
discretion, may agree to an extension of this time period not to 
exceed thirty (30) calendar days, and shall notify the Court in such 
circumstances. Defendants shall use their best efforts to accomplish 
the divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment as expeditiously as 
possible, including using their best efforts to obtain all necessary 
FCC approvals as expeditiously as possible.
    B. In the event that defendants are attempting to divest the 
assets to an Acquirer other than BCBE, in accomplishing the 
divestiture ordered by this Final Judgment,
    (1) Defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary 
means, the availability of the Divestiture Assets;
    (2) Defendants shall inform any person making inquiry regarding 
a possible purchase of the Divestiture Assets that they are being 
divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person 
with a copy of this Final Judgment;
    (3) Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective 
Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all 
information and documents relating to the Divestiture Assets 
customarily provided in a due diligence process except such 
information or documents subject to the attorney-client privileges 
or work-product doctrine; and
    (4) Defendants shall make available such information to the 
United States at the same time that such information is made 
available to any other person.
    C. Defendants shall provide the Acquirer and the United States 
information relating to the personnel involved in the operation and 
management of the Divestiture Assets to enable the Acquirer to make 
offers of employment. Defendants shall not interfere with any 
negotiations by the Acquirer to employ or contract with any employee 
of any defendant whose primary responsibility is the operation or 
management of the Divestiture Assets.
    D. Defendants shall permit the Acquirer of the Divestiture 
Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make 
inspections of the physical facilities of WEVV-TV; access to any and 
all environmental, zoning, and other permit documents and 
information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or 
other documents and information customarily provided as part of a 
due diligence process.
    E. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer that each asset will 
be operational on the date of sale.
    F. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any 
way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the Divestiture 
Assets.
    G. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer that there are no 
material defects in the environmental, zoning, or other permits 
pertaining to the operation of each asset, and

[[Page 72211]]

that following the sale of the Divestiture Assets, defendants will 
not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the 
environmental, zoning, or other permits relating to the operation of 
the Divestiture Assets.
    H. Unless the United States otherwise consents in writing, the 
divestiture pursuant to Section IV, or by trustee appointed pursuant 
to Section V of this Final Judgment, shall include the entire 
Divestiture Assets, and be accomplished in such a way as to satisfy 
the United States, in its sole discretion, that the Divestiture 
Assets can and will be used by the Acquirer as part of a viable, 
ongoing commercial television broadcasting business and the 
divestiture of such assets will achieve the purposes of this Final 
Judgment and remedy the competitive harm alleged in the Complaint. 
The divestiture, whether pursuant to Section IV or Section V of this 
Final Judgment:
    (1) shall be made to an Acquirer that, in the United States' 
sole judgment, has the intent and capability (including the 
necessary managerial, operational, technical, and financial 
capability) of competing effectively in the television broadcasting 
business in the Evansville, Indiana DMA; and
    (2) shall be accomplished so as to satisfy the United States, in 
its sole discretion, that none of the terms of any agreement between 
the Acquirer and defendants gives defendants the ability 
unreasonably to raise the Acquirer's costs, to lower the Acquirer's 
efficiency, or otherwise to interfere in the ability of the Acquirer 
to compete effectively.

V. Appointment of Trustee

    A. If either (a) the defendants have not divested the 
Divestiture Assets within the time period specified in Paragraph 
IV(A), or (b) the defendants have reason to believe that BCBE may be 
unable to complete the purchase of the Divestiture Assets, 
defendants shall notify the United States of that fact in writing.
    B. If (a) the defendants have not divested the Divestiture 
Assets within the time period specified in Paragraph IV(A), or (b) 
the United States decides in its sole discretion that BCBE is likely 
to be unable to complete the purchase of the Divestiture Assets, 
upon application of the United States in its sole discretion, the 
Court shall appoint a trustee selected by the United States and 
approved by the Court to effect the divestiture of the Divestiture 
Assets.
    C. After the appointment of a trustee becomes effective, only 
the trustee shall have the right to sell the Divestiture Assets. The 
trustee shall have the power and authority to accomplish the 
divestiture to an Acquirer, and in a manner, acceptable to the 
United States in its sole discretion at such price and on such terms 
as are then obtainable upon reasonable effort by the trustee, 
subject to the provisions of Sections IV, V, and VI of this Final 
Judgment, and shall have such other powers as this Court deems 
appropriate. Subject to Paragraph V(D) of this Final Judgment, the 
trustee may hire at the cost and expense of defendants any 
investment bankers, attorneys, or other agents, who shall be solely 
accountable to the trustee, reasonably necessary in the trustee's 
judgment to assist in the divestiture. Defendants shall inform any 
person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the 
Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this 
Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final 
Judgment and contact information for the trustee.
    D. Defendants shall not object to a sale by the trustee on any 
ground other than the trustee's malfeasance. Any such objection by 
defendants must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the 
trustee within ten (10) calendar days after the trustee has provided 
the notice required under Section VI.
    E. The trustee shall serve at the cost and expense of 
defendants, on such terms and conditions as the United States 
approves, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of 
interest certifications. The trustee shall account for all monies 
derived from the sale of the assets sold by the trustee and all 
costs and expenses so incurred. After approval by the Court of the 
trustee's accounting, including fees for its services yet unpaid and 
those of any professionals and agents retained by the trustee, all 
remaining money shall be paid to defendants and the trust shall then 
be terminated. The compensation of the trustee and any professionals 
and agents retained by the trustee shall be reasonable in light of 
the value of the Divestiture Assets and based on a fee arrangement 
providing the trustee with an incentive based on the price and terms 
of the divestiture and the speed with which it is accomplished, but 
timeliness is paramount. If the trustee and Defendants are unable to 
reach agreement on the trustee's compensation or other terms and 
conditions within fourteen (14) calendar days of appointment of the 
trustee, the United States may, in its sole discretion, take 
appropriate action, including making a recommendation to the Court.
    F. Defendants shall use their best efforts to assist the trustee 
in accomplishing the required divestiture. The trustee and any 
consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other persons retained by 
the trustee shall have full and complete access to the personnel, 
books, records, and facilities of the business to be divested, and 
defendants shall develop financial and other information relevant to 
such business as the trustee may reasonably request, subject to 
reasonable protection for trade secret or other confidential 
research, development, or commercial information. Defendants shall 
take no action to interfere with or to impede the trustee's 
accomplishment of the divestiture.
    G. After his or her appointment, the trustee shall file monthly 
reports with the United States and, as appropriate, the Court 
setting forth the trustee's efforts to accomplish the divestiture 
ordered under this Final Judgment. To the extent such reports 
contain information that the trustee deems confidential, such 
reports shall not be filed in the public docket of the Court. Such 
reports shall include the name, address, and telephone number of 
each person who, during the preceding month, made an offer to 
acquire, expressed an interest in acquiring, entered into 
negotiations to acquire, or was contacted or made an inquiry about 
acquiring, any interest in the Divestiture Assets, and shall 
describe in detail each contact with any such person. The trustee 
shall maintain full records of all efforts made to divest the 
Divestiture Assets.
    H. If the trustee has not accomplished the divestiture ordered 
under this Final Judgment within six (6) months after its 
appointment, the trustee shall promptly file with the Court a report 
setting forth: (1) The trustee's efforts to accomplish the required 
divestiture, (2) the reasons, in the trustee's judgment, why the 
required divestiture have not been accomplished, and (3) the 
trustee's recommendations. To the extent that such report contains 
information that the trustee deems confidential, such report shall 
not be filed in the public docket of the Court. The trustee shall at 
the same time furnish such report to the United States, which shall 
have the right to make additional recommendations consistent with 
the purpose of the trust. The Court thereafter shall enter such 
orders as it shall deem appropriate to carry out the purpose of the 
Final Judgment, which may, if necessary, include extending the trust 
and the term of the trustee's appointment by a period requested by 
the United States.
    I. If the United States determines that the trustee has ceased 
to act or failed to act diligently or in a reasonably cost-effective 
manner, it may recommend the Court appoint a substitute trustee.

VI. Notice of Proposed Divestiture

    A. Within two (2) business days following execution of a 
definitive divestiture agreement, defendants or the trustee, 
whichever is then responsible for effecting the divestiture required 
herein, shall notify the United States of any proposed divestiture 
required by Section IV or V of this Final Judgment. If the trustee 
is responsible, it shall similarly notify defendants. The notice 
shall set forth the details of the proposed divestiture and list the 
name, address, and telephone number of each person not previously 
identified who offered or expressed an interest in or desire to 
acquire any ownership interest in the Divestiture Assets, together 
with full details of the same.
    B. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt by the United 
States of such notice, the United States may request from 
defendants, the proposed Acquirer, any other third party, or the 
trustee if applicable, additional information concerning the 
proposed divestiture, the proposed Acquirer, and any other potential 
Acquirer. Defendants and the trustee shall furnish any additional 
information requested within fifteen (15) calendar days of the 
receipt of the request, unless the parties shall otherwise agree.
    C. Within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the notice 
or within twenty (20) calendar days after the United States has been 
provided the additional information requested from defendants, the 
proposed Acquirer, any third party, and the trustee, whichever is 
later, the United States, in its sole discretion, shall provide 
written notice to defendants and the trustee, if there is one, 
stating whether or not it objects to the

[[Page 72212]]

proposed divestiture. If the United States provides written notice 
that it does not object, the divestiture may be consummated, subject 
only to defendants' limited right to object to the sale under 
Paragraph V(D) of this Final Judgment. Absent written notice that 
the United States does not object to the proposed Acquirer or upon 
objection by the United States, a divestiture proposed under Section 
IV or Section V shall not be consummated. Upon objection by 
defendants under Paragraph V(D), a divestiture proposed under 
Section V shall not be consummated unless approved by the Court.

VII. Financing

    Defendants shall not finance all or any part of any purchase 
made pursuant to Section IV or V of this Final Judgment.

VIII. Hold Separate

    Until the divestiture required by this Final Judgment has been 
accomplished, defendants shall take all steps necessary to comply 
with the Hold Separate Stipulation and Order entered by this Court. 
Defendants shall take no action that would jeopardize the 
divestiture ordered by this Court.

IX. Affidavits

    A. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the 
Complaint in this matter, and every thirty (30) calendar days 
thereafter until the divestiture has been completed under Section IV 
or V, defendants shall deliver to the United States an affidavit as 
to the fact and manner of their compliance with Section IV or V of 
this Final Judgment. Each such affidavit shall include the name, 
address, and telephone number of each person who, during the 
preceding thirty (30) days, made an offer to acquire, expressed an 
interest in acquiring, entered into negotiations to acquire, or was 
contacted or made an inquiry about acquiring, any interest in the 
Divestiture Assets, and shall describe in detail each contact with 
any such person during that period.
    B. Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the 
efforts defendants have taken to complete the sale of the 
Divestiture Assets--including efforts to secure regulatory 
approvals--and to provide required information to prospective 
Acquirers, including the limitations, if any, on such information. 
Assuming the information set forth in the affidavit is true and 
complete, any objection by the United States to information provided 
by defendants, including limitation on information, shall be made 
within fourteen (14) days of receipt of such affidavit.
    C. Within twenty (20) calendar days of the filing of the 
Complaint in this matter, each defendant shall deliver to the United 
States an affidavit that describes in reasonable detail all actions 
defendants have taken and all steps defendants have implemented on 
an ongoing basis to comply with Section VIII of this Final Judgment. 
Each such affidavit shall also include a description of the efforts 
defendants have taken to complete the sale of the Divestiture 
Assets, including efforts to secure FCC or other regulatory 
approvals. Defendants shall deliver to the United States an 
affidavit describing any changes to the efforts and actions outlined 
in defendants' earlier affidavits filed pursuant to this section 
within fifteen (15) calendar days after the change is implemented.
    D. Defendants shall keep all records of all efforts made to 
preserve and divest the Divestiture Assets until one year after such 
divestiture has been completed.

X. Compliance Inspection

    A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with 
this Final Judgment, or of any related orders such as any Hold 
Separate Order, or of determining whether the Final Judgment should 
be modified or vacated, and subject to any legally recognized 
privilege, from time to time duly authorized representatives of the 
United States Department of Justice, including consultants and other 
persons retained by the United States, shall, upon written request 
of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General in 
charge of the Antitrust Division, and on reasonable notice to 
defendants, be permitted:
    (1) access during defendants' office hours to inspect and copy, 
or at the option of the United States, to require defendants to 
provide hard copies or electronic copies of, all books, ledgers, 
accounts, records, data and documents in the possession, custody or 
control of defendants, relating to any matters contained in this 
Final Judgment; and
    (2) to interview, either informally or on the record, 
defendants' officers, employees, or agents, who may have their 
individual counsel present, regarding such matters. The interviews 
shall be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee 
and without restraint or interference by defendants.
    B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative the 
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division, 
defendants shall submit such written reports or responses to written 
interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any of the 
matters contained in this Final Judgment as may be requested.
    C. No information or documents obtained by the means provided in 
this section shall be divulged by the United States to any person 
other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of 
the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to 
which the United States is a party (including grand jury 
proceedings), or for the purpose of securing compliance with this 
Final Judgment, or as otherwise required by law.
    D. If at the time information or documents are furnished by 
defendants to the United States, defendants represent and identify 
in writing the material in any such information or documents to 
which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and defendants mark each 
pertinent page of such material, ``Subject to claim of protection 
under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,'' 
then the United States shall give defendants ten (10) calendar days 
notice prior to divulging such material in any legal proceeding 
(other than a grand jury proceeding).

XI. No Reacquisition

    A. Defendants may not (1) reacquire any part of the Divestiture 
Assets, (2) acquire any option to reacquire any part of the 
Divestiture Assets or to assign the Divestiture Assets to any other 
person, (3) enter into any local marketing agreement, joint sales 
agreement, other cooperative selling arrangement, or shared services 
agreement, or conduct other business negotiations jointly with the 
Acquirer with respect to the Divestiture Assets, or (4) provide 
financing or guarantees of financing with respect to the Divestiture 
Assets, during the term of this Final Judgment. The shared services 
prohibition does not preclude Defendants from continuing or entering 
into agreements in a form customarily used in the industry to (1) 
share news helicopters or (2) pool generic video footage that does 
not include recording a reporter or other on-air talent, and does 
not preclude defendants from entering into any non-sales-related 
shared services agreement that is approved in advance by the United 
States in its sole discretion.
    B. Notwithstanding any prohibition in this section, Defendants 
may acquire an affiliation with the FOX or CBS broadcast networks 
serving the Evansville, Indiana DMA during the period of this Final 
Judgment only if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) at least one year has elapsed from the date of the filing of 
the Complaint in this matter;
    (2) Defendants notify the Department of Justice in writing of 
their intention to acquire the FOX or CBS affiliation in Evansville; 
and
    (3) the Department of Justice acting in its sole discretion 
gives its approval for the Defendants to acquire the FOX or CBS 
affiliation in Evansville.
    Within ten (10) business days of receiving notice from the 
Defendants, the Department will respond in writing giving its 
approval or requesting additional information from the Defendants. 
Within fifteen (15) business days of receiving the requested 
additional information, the Department will respond in writing 
either giving or withholding its approval.

XII. Retention of Jurisdiction

    This Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this 
Final Judgment to apply to this Court at any time for further orders 
and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or 
construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to 
enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.

XIII. Expiration of Final Judgment

    Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment shall 
expire ten (10) years from the date of its entry.

XV. Public Interest Determination

    Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The 
parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust 
Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including making copies 
available to the public of this Final Judgment, the Competitive 
Impact Statement, and any comments thereon, and the United States'

[[Page 72213]]

responses to comments. Based upon the record before the Court, which 
includes the Competitive Impact Statement and any comments and 
responses to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final 
Judgment is in the public interest.

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

    Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Judge

[FR Doc. 2014-28585 Filed 12-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P