Despite the fact that over a month has passed since Amazon announced that it would be purchasing Whole Foods for $13.4 billion, lawmakers are still worried about the changes this potential move could bring.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) has requested a subcomittee hearing on the purchase in the U.S. House of Representative due to concerns over depressed wages and stifled innovation.

“Amazon’s proposed purchase of Whole Foods could impact neighborhood grocery stores and hardworking consumers across America,” Cicilline, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel, said in a statement released Friday. “Congress has a responsibility to fully scrutinize this merger before it goes ahead.”

Cicilline basically cites Amazon’s movement toward automation as to why this merger may be dangerous. He adds that the markets indicated initial fears that Whole Foods would run away with all of the market share in the U.S. grocery market. The day the purchase was announced, Target shares dropped by 9 percent, WalMart dropped 5 percent, and Kroger dropped 13 percent. It is worth noting, however, that Whole Foods only controls 1.7 percent of the current market.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently reviewing the proposed merger, meaning there still is time for the deal to fall apart–or for Washington officials to step in and stop it. But precedent indicates that that may not be likely.

Lina Khan, an associate research scholar with Yale Law School, published a lengthy analysis of Amazon’s business practices and how it has avoided antitrust issues. One of her key arguments is that since the Reagan Administration, antitrust enforcement has focused on the final price of goods for consumers. Before that, regulators would analyze the structure of a market a merger was entering into and check to see how possible it was for new competitors to enter. Since Amazon is quite good at providing lower prices to its customers, the FTC has turned a blind eye to the company’s growth.

This may lead some to believe that the Amazon-Whole Foods merger will become another example of this trend, as both companies have presented evidence that price increases are unlikely. However, Cicilline is working to change what he believes is the increasingly narrow mentality of the subcommittee. He said in his statement:

Although the role of employment and inequality in antitrust enforcement has declined in recent decades, the Subcommittee should have an active oversight role in determining whether this trend serves the public interest, is faithful to the legislative intent of the antitrust laws, or whether additional enforcement is warranted to reverse the harmful effects of consolidation on workers and labor inequality.

Cicilline is not the first lawmaker to raise concerns with the merger. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) called on the Department of Justice and FTC to review the merger–which he said could impact jobs and wages–the day the merger was announced.

“We need to reorient antitrust policy to factor in the harm that economic concentration causes for American workers,” he told Vice News. “We also need to be mindful that concentrated industries stifle innovation.”

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Concerns Continue to Grow Over Amazon’s Whole Foods Purchase appeared first on Law Street.

AT&T’s $85.4 billion deal to buy Time Warner turned media consolidation into a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans this past weekend. 

The biggest deal of the year–announced just over two weeks before the November 8 U.S. election–received backlash from critics who believe the combination of AT&T’s millions of wireless and pay-television subscribers with Time Warner’s stable of TV networks and programming would reduce competition and hurt consumers.

Any merger would have to be reviewed and approved by federal antitrust regulators. The announcement caused a stir in Washington and led the candidates to criticize the status quo on antitrust and regulatory enforcement.

Donald Trump’s campaign has remained vocal about its distaste for the media and proposed merger did not sit well with the billionaire mogul.

“As an example of the power structure I’m fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few,” Trump said during a speech on Saturday.

The Republican candidate has been vocal about the “disgusting and corrupt” media. The campaign’s economic advisor Peter Navarro criticized the new media oligopolies for unduly influencing America’s political process.

“AT&T, the original and abusive ‘Ma Bell’ telephone monopoly, is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal because it concentrates too much power in the hands of the too and powerful few,” Navarro said in a statement on Sunday.

Trump said that if he is elected, he would look at breaking up the 2011 merger of Comcast and NBCUniversal. The Obama administration approved the merger with some restrictions in 2011.

Trump said of Comcast-NBCUniversal, “We’ll look at breaking that deal up, and other deals like that. This should never, ever have been approved in the first place.”

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hasn’t yet weighed in on the merger plan, but her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he shared “concerns and questions” raised by fellow Senator Al Franken, a Democrat representing Minnesota. Franken, a member of the antitrust subcommittee, said in a statement that huge media mergers “can lead to higher costs, fewer choices, and even worse service for consumers.”

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders joined the political opposition and urged the Obama administration to kill the deal. He tweeted:

The administration should kill the Time Warner-AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 23, 2016

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The AT&T-Time Warner Deal Quickly Becomes a Campaign Issue appeared first on Law Street.

After a lot of speculation and scrutiny, the Comcast/Time Warner Cable deal is officially dead in the water. The proposed acquisition deal, which would have brought 30 million customers into the folds of a single company, had raised concerns for many about the potential of a monopoly. Now, however, those concerns are no longer relevant, as both companies have announced that they won’t be moving forward with the $45.2 billion deal.

The companies appear to have been scared off after moves by the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rumors indicated that DOJ wasn’t too happy with the proposed merger–Attorney General Eric Holder was allowing a lawsuit to move forward that could block the merger. The FCC was also leaning toward holding a hearing on it. Usually FCC hearings aren’t a great sign when it comes to these kinds of deals, after all, it was viewed as the proverbial nail in the coffin to the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger a few years ago.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler spoke after the companies announced their intentions to abandon the deal, saying:

Today, an online video market is emerging that offers new business models and greater consumer choice. The proposed merger would have posed an unacceptable risk to competition and innovation, including to the ability of online video providers to reach and serve consumers.

Holder also applauded the decision the companies had made not to move forward.

Individuals and advocacy groups alike argued against the merger, claiming that it would hurt consumers. Advocacy group Common Cause’s President Miles Rapoport stated about the end to the merger:

As we saw in February when the FCC adopted strong rules to protect the free flow of information online, citizen voices can still make a difference in our government’s decision making. More than 800,000 Americans told the FCC that the Comcast/Time Warner Cable merger would be bad for competition and innovation; their arguments were well-founded and have now carried the day. This is their victory.

So what’s next for the cable industry? Those in the know have speculated that Time Warner Cable may seek a merger with Charter Communications instead, under the assumption that two smaller companies combining would set off fewer red flags. That seems like a relatively likely outcome. John Malone who heads up the group that owns Charter Communications said last November, “Hell, yes” he’d buy Time Warner Cable if the Comcast deal fell through. If those two were to combine, Charter would become the second largest cable company in the United States–Comcast would still hold the number one seat. Conversely, others are speculating that Time Warner Cable will acquire a smaller company itself. Regardless of whether or not this particular deal has fallen through, we should probably still expect to see mergers between big cable and internet companies.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comcast, Time Warner Cable Merger is Off appeared first on Law Street.

Back in February, I brought you the news that William Mitchell College of Law and Hamline University School of Law had signed an agreement to merge together to create Mitchell | Hamline School of Law. The goal of the merger was to help alleviate competition in the region and mitigate the effects of declining law school enrollment over the last several years. Unfortunately, that merger has started to get a little messy, in light of a lawsuit filed by some of William Mitchell’s professors.

One thing that was still up in the air back in February was the fate of the faculty and staff from both of these schools. Officials stated that there would need to be cuts, but they had hoped that most of these cuts would be voluntary.

It seems however, that things did no go as they had hoped. Two William Mitchell professors, Carl Moy and John Radsan, are now accusing the school of proposing “unacceptable changes” to its tenure policy in order to accommodate the necessary cuts in staff to move forward with the merger.

The two professors are alleging that William Mitchell could not find enough faculty to voluntarily take part-time positions or retire altogether as the school had hoped. The complaint says that in response, the school is trying to change tenure code in order to allow the dismissal of more faculty.

In their complaint filed with the Ramsey County District Court, professors Moy and Radsan are asking the court to rule that the school’s attempt to change tenure rules breaches their contracts. They are also asking that the court award them with costs, disbursements, and “further relief as the court deems just.”

According to the suit, the “defendant’s proposed amendment would alter the tenure code so that it would deny otherwise-tenured faculty ‘tenure…defendant would be able to terminate a tenured faculty member without adequate cause …” Essentially, these faculty members could be let go regardless of whether or not they have tenure. This directly contradicts the entire purpose of tenure, which is designed to promote job security. While it’s standard practice at most institutions to let the non-tenured faculty go first, according to Radsan, the Board of Trustees is refusing to do so in this situation.

Currently, the school’s tenure code only allows tenured faculty to be let go if they can’t or don’t perform their job, or if there is a financial crisis. However, according to the complaint, the proposed changes would allow William Mitchell to “terminate tenured faculty, without adequate cause and without declaring a financial exigency, and without paying the terminated tenured faculty member at least one year’s salary and benefits beyond the effective date of the termination.”

They are also alleging that William Mitchell’s president and dean Eric Janus and Associate Dean Mary Pat Byrn had expressed that decisions about faculty cuts would be made with some “degree of favoritism.” The complaint states that “Janus would decide what faculty members would stay or go based on the member’s personal loyalty to Janus, their support for the administration’s policies and proposals, and whether the faculty member had a ‘poor attitude.'”

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out, what effects it will have on the impending merger, and whether it will affect the likelihood of any other schools getting involved in mergers like this moving forward.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post William Mitchell Law Professors File Lawsuit Over Possible Tenure Changes appeared first on Law Street.

On February 12, 2015, Hamline University School of Law and William Mitchell College of Law signed an agreement that will merge them into one law school. The newly formed Minnesota school will be known as Mitchell | Hamline School of Law, and will be situated at William Mitchell’s Saint Paul campus. Both of these law schools will continue to operate separately until the merger is approved by the American Bar Association.

The merged law school will be staffed by faculty from both William Mitchell Law and Hamline law, and will encompass programs from both as well. The new combined law school will provide students with several programs to get their J.D., including full-time and part-time programs, as well as online and weekend options. William Mitchell actually just launched an innovative new online legal education program, so it seems they will be continuing that program under the new banner. According to William Mitchell Dean Eric Janus, these negotiations have been in the works for months.

According to the Dean of Hamline’s Law School, Jean Holloway, the two schools are combining because their missions are a good fit and the merger will help students gain a stronger legal education. She said, “certainly given the legal education market we can do it better than we can do it alone.”

In their joint statement, the schools announced that the president and dean of the new law school will be Mark C. Gordon, the newly appointed dean of William Mitchell. As of now, it’s unclear what role, if any, current Hamline Law School Dean Jean Halloway will have at the school once the merger is complete.

The impending merger will also have significant effects on the staffs of both of these schools. Officials report that cuts are going to need to be made to accomidate the merger, however, they hope that most of these will be voluntary.

However, one has to wonder if this merger has anything to do with the drastic decline in law school applicants over the recent years. According to the American Bar Association, law school enrollment in the United States is down nearly 30 percent from its peak in 2010, and is lower than it has been since 1973. The American Bar Association has also reported that Hamline’s 2014 entering class was only 90 students, making it one of just 25 law schools in the country to have an incoming class with fewer than 100 students.

In addition to the overall drop in law school applicants, the schools’ locations make it difficult to keep enrollment up. There are four law schools–University of St. Thomas Law, University of Minnesota Law, Hamline Law, and William Mitchell Law–all located in the Twin Cities region of Minnesota. With this much competition in one small region, it’s likely that all four of these schools have suffered. While, according to the president of the Minnesota State Bar Association, Richard Kyle, this merger is a “bold move,” it is one that makes sense given the high number of law schools in the Twin Cities.

It will be interesting to see the effects of the merger play out. Even with reduced competition in the region now, Mitchell | Hamline Law will still have an uphill battle in terms of enrollment. It will likely take the new school years to establish the reputation that will allow it to attract top students from across the country.

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hamline Law and William Mitchell Law Announce Plans for a Merger appeared first on Law Street.