The Teamsters asked the F.T.C. to pause review of the deal. In a letter sent today to the agency’s acting chairwoman, Rebecca Slaughter, the union requested that the agency wait for one of two things:
-
Congress passes a bill by Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, that would make broad changes to antitrust rules. The legislation would change the framework used by the F.T.C. to evaluate the deal, allowing the regulator to reject transactions based on the possibility of competitive harm instead of a determination that it will create such harm.
-
Or, at the least until the agency ensures “that all competitive effects from the transaction have been fully considered and remedied.”
There are other issues at play. Marathon has locked out 200 union workers at a refinery in Minnesota. And unions have had an often tense relationship with activist hedge funds like Elliott, whom they have accused of calling for layoffs that affect union members. (In its letter to the F.T.C., the Teamsters union criticized what it called “Elliott’s singular desire to liquidate Marathon’s assets to fund enormous share buybacks and special dividends.”)
But the agency is already far along in its review. Marathon executives, who hope to close the deal by the end of the first quarter, confirmed on a call with analysts last month that they had responded to a second request for information from the F.T.C. and were working on solutions. (The proposed buyer of Speedway, Seven and I, is reportedly looking to sell up to 300 gas stations to ease the agency’s concerns.)
-
The F.T.C. must follow statutory timelines for reviewing deals, which means the agency can delay its examination only for so long, even if it wanted to. And it’s not clear whether Ms. Klobuchar’s bill will pass, or in what form it might do so.
“It’s taken me 27 years to become an overnight sensation.”
— David Nussbaum, the investment banker who co-created the SPAC in 1993, on how his financial innovation has become a hot trend on Wall Street
The year of corporate transparency
Companies are increasingly under public pressure to be more open, with political spending getting particular attention since the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Proponents of greater transparency say that demand is growing: “The disclosure train will be leaving the station,” Bruce Freed, the president of the nonprofit Center for Political Accountability, told DealBook.
The SEC is all about E.S.G. Transparency around political giving is considered a governance issue. Last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission said it would form a task force focused on issues around climate and environmental, social and governance concerns, making both priorities for its examinations division. And corporate disclosures — particularly around political spending — were a recurring theme in the testimony of Gary Gensler, President Biden’s pick to lead the S.E.C., in his Senate confirmation hearing.
This year “is going to be really transformative,” said Josh Levin, the C.E.O. of the investment platform OpenInvest, which lets financial advisers adjust client portfolios based on companies’ openness on political spending. The platform uses an annual ranking of S&P 500 companies based on their politics and lobbying disclosure policies.