Source: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/sungarddataredactedmemorandum
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:40:12+00:00

Document:
The United States' Redacted Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order : U.S. v. SunGard Data Systems, Inc. and Comdisco, Inc.
Today, numerous businesses, government agencies and other entities depend on computer data processing systems to run mission-critical operations.(4) In many instances, these companies run their most vital computer applications on IBM mainframe and other high-end computing platforms because the operations they perform require the high levels of performance and reliability provided by such systems. These functions include processing and storing transaction information, maintaining customer accounts, controlling production resources, inventory and shipping, and maintaining financial and administrative records. Because of the essential role in their operations played by the applications run on mainframe and other high-end computing platforms, companies require an effective disaster recovery plan to reduce the potentially devastating impact on their business of a disaster that destroys or disables their computer capacity.(5) Recent events have underscored the types of risks that are present, and the importance of disaster recovery services.
SunGard and Comdisco are two of only three significant vendors in North America that offer shared hotsite disaster recovery services to companies that utilize large scale enterprise and/or mixed platform data processing centers. The proposed transaction will create a duopoly in which SunGard will have a greater than % market share with significant barriers to entry. If completed, the transaction is likely substantially to lessen the competition that has provided customers with competitive prices and services in the shared hotsite services market.
A TRO is warranted because (1) the United States is likely to prevail on the merits of its Section 7 action; (2) without a TRO, the public will suffer irreparable harm from lost competition between the parties and the lack of an effective remedy once SunGard acquires Comdisco's disaster recovery solutions and Comdisco ceases to operate as an independent business; (3) granting the TRO will not substantially harm the defendants; and (4) the TRO will further a strong public interest by maintaining competition in the shared hotsite services market.
Unless a TRO is granted, the defendants will close as soon as the sale is authorized by the Court on Tuesday, October 23, 2001. The United States has conducted an accelerated review of this matter. An investigation was opened on August 18, 2001 and the parties submitted their Hart-Scott-Rodino filings three days later. The United States rapidly served subpoenas on the parties, conducted numerous interviews and reviewed hundreds of boxes of documents. By way of comparison, a typical investigation of this complexity takes four to five months. This past weekend, the Department conducted two depositions of two high-level Comdisco employees that were important to the Department's analysis. Upon reviewing these depositions and the other materials submitted, the Department then filed this action.
SunGard is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wayne, Pennsylvania. SunGard is a major supplier of information technology. These solutions include investment support systems, trade processing, risk and asset management, as well as business continuity or disaster recovery services. SunGard is a large provider of shared hotsite disaster recovery services, deriving approximately $ million in revenues from this business.(7) SunGard now is seeking to further consolidate its already strong position in the shared hotsite services market by purchasing Comdisco's assets.
On July 15, 2001, Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") entered into an acquisition agreement to purchase substantially all of the assets of Comdisco's business that provides disaster recovery planning and services ("Availability Solutions") for $610 million. On July 16, 2001, Comdisco filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 01-24795). By Order of the Bankruptcy Court, dated August 9, 2001, Comdisco's assets were set to be sold by auction on October 11, 2001. The order provided that the HP agreement constituted the auction floor.
SunGard was selected as the successful bidder. SunGard's acquisition proposal will be presented to the Bankruptcy Court for approval at the Sale Hearing scheduled for October 23, 2001.
Disaster recovery services encompass a range of solutions that allow firms to restore their business data processing and communications at another location if their primary data center becomes inaccessible because of a natural disaster, fire, terrorist act, or other cause. The firms continue their operations at this alternate location until their primary data center can be restored or rebuilt. Business data processing and communications applications vary in both (1) the types of computer platforms on which they run and (2) the degree to which they are mission-critical. Some applications are so critical that they require virtually instantaneous recovery, others may be restored within a few days, and still others have a "recovery time objective" ("RTO") of a week or more. To meet these various needs, there are different types of disaster recovery services and technologies, ranging from those that provide nearly immediate restoration of critical applications to services which require several months to implement. Accordingly, businesses often utilize a mix of solutions to meet their varying criticality and RTOs.
There are only three major providers of shared hotsite services -- SunGard, Comdisco and IBM. Their respective hotsite businesses' each have multiple facilities that house a broad range of computers and storage devices for multiple platforms, and are interconnected with high-speed, high-bandwidth communications networks. These assets cost each company hundreds of millions of dollars.
Section § 15 of the Clayton Act authorizes courts to issue temporary restraining orders to prevent violations of the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 25. Courts in this Circuit determine whether preliminary relief is warranted by considering: (1) if there is a substantial likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff will be irreparably injured if an injunction is not granted; (3) the injunctions' impact on the non-moving parties; and (4) whether an injunction furthers the public interest. See Mova Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1998).(39) These factors are not considered in isolation from one another, and no one factor is necessarily dispositive. See City Federal Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Rather, the factors "interrelate on a sliding scale and must be balanced against each other." Serono Laboratories v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1318 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Thus, "[i]njunctive relief may be granted with either a high likelihood of success and some injury, or vice versa." Population Institute v. McPherson, 797 F.2d 1062, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Here, each factor strongly supports granting a TRO. First, there is a substantial likelihood that the United States will prevail on the merits because the SunGard/Comdisco transaction is substantially likely to lessen competition in the shared hotsite services market, thus violating § 7 of the Clayton Act. Second, if the transaction is not enjoined, the public will be irreparably harmed because SunGard and Comdisco will cease to compete, customers will pay higher prices which cannot be recouped, and SunGard will commingle Comdisco's assets with its own, precluding the United States from obtaining an adequate remedy. Third, an injunction will not unduly harm the parties because it will simply maintain the status quo for a short period until a preliminary hearing can be held. Fourth, the injunction will further the public interest by enabling the United States to preserve competition that will be lost if the transaction is completed.
Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits acquisitions "in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce . . . [if] the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." 15 U.S.C. § 18. To establish a § 7 violation, the government must only show that it is reasonably likely that the acquisition will cause anticompetitive effects. See United States v. Penn-Olin Chemical Co., 378 U.S. 158, 171 (1964) (these "requirements [are] . . . satisfied when . . . the 'reasonable likelihood' of a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market is shown"); FTC v. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("Congress used the words 'may be substantially to lessen competition' . . . , to indicate that its concern was with probabilities, not certainties.") (quoting Brown Shoe Co. vs. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 323 (1962)). "Section 7 does not require proof that a merger or other acquisition [will] cause higher prices in the affected market. All that is necessary is that the merger create an appreciable danger of such consequences in the future." Hospital Corp. of Am. v. FTC, 807 F.2d 1381, 1389 (7th Cir. 1986). "A predictive judgment, necessarily probabilistic and judgmental rather than demonstrable . . . , is called for." Id. (citing United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 362 (1963)).
To predict whether an acquisition may substantially lessen competition, the court must determine: (1) the product market in which to assess the transaction; (2) the geographic market in which to assess the transaction, and (3) the transaction's probable effect on competition in the product and geographic markets. See United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc., 418 U.S. 602, 618-23 (1974); FTC v. Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp.2d 151, 156 (D.D.C. 2000); FTC v. Staples, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 1066, 1072-73 (D.D.C 1997).
Merger analysis begins by determining the relevant product market. Brown Shoe, 370 at 324; FTC v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 34, 46 (D.D.C. 1998). "The outer boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of use [by consumers] or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it." Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325; see United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956) ("Commodities reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes" constitute a product market for antitrust purposes.). Interchangeability of use and cross-elasticity of demand concern (1) the availability of products that are similar in character or use to the product in question and (2) the degree to which buyers are willing to substitute those similar products for the product. Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp.2d at 157 (citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 351 U.S. at 393). The market "must be drawn narrowly to exclude any other product to which, within reasonable variations in price, only a limited number of buyers will turn." Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 612 n.31 (1953). Thus, the pivotal question in product market definition is whether an increase in price for one product would cause enough buyers to turn to other products so as to make the price increase unprofitable. Du Pont, 351 U.S. at 400; see Staples, 970 F. Supp. at 1074 ("[T]he general question is 'whether two products can be used for the same purpose, and if so, whether and to what extent purchasers are willing to substitute one for the other.'").
See generally Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp. 2d at 163 (although functionally interchangeable, loose leaf and moist snuff tobacco not in the same market because of "limited amount of price based substitution") Staples, 970 F. Supp. at 1074-78 (products that are functionally interchangeable are not in the same antitrust market if their prices have little effect on each other, i.e., a low cross elasticity of demand).
While there are other disaster recovery services, each of these have substantially different capabilities (i.e., RTOs) and cost structures than shared hotsite services. Such processes include: 1) expedited recovery using all or partly dedicated recovery systems; (2) "quick-ship" services; (3) "coldsites"; (4) "work area recovery"; and (5) "mobile hot site recovery."
Customers that use shared hotsite services are unlikely to switch in significant numbers to dedicated processing services if the prices of shared hotsite services increased by a small but significant amount.
A geographic market is that area beyond which a customer would not practically turn for an alternative supplier. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 359; see Staples, 970 F. Supp. at 1073 ("A geographic market is that geographic area 'to which consumers can practically turn for alternative sources of the product and in which the antitrust defendant faces competition.'") (quoting Morgenstern v. Wilson, 29 F.3d 1291, 1296 (8th Cir. 1994)). If consumers in a given geographic area do not consider products from outside that area as reasonable, practical alternatives, then that geographic area is a relevant geographic market. See Hospital Corp., 807 F.2d at 1388. The Merger Guidelines identify the relevant geographic market as "a region such that a hypothetical monopolist that was the only present or future producer of the relevant product at locations in that region would profitably impose at least a 'small but significant and nontransitory' increase in price, holding constant the terms of sale for all products produced elsewhere." Merger Guidelines ¶ 1.21.
A transaction is presumed illegal under § 7 of the Clayton Act if the transaction produces "a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market . . . ." Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363-65; United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., 908 F.2d 981, 982 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("showing that a transaction will lead to undue concentration in the market for a particular product in a particular geographic area . . . establishes a presumption that the transaction will substantially lessen competition.").
Market concentration is often measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ("HHI"). Heinz, 246 F.3d at 716; PPG Indus., 798 F.2d at 1506.(59) The HHI for a market is calculated by summing the squares of the individual market shares of all firms participating in the market. Merger Guidelines ¶ 1.5. Under the Merger Guidelines, markets with an HHI below 1000 are deemed "unconcentrated;" those with an HHI between 1000 and 1800 are "moderately concentrated;" and those with an HHI above 1800 are considered "highly concentrated." Id. at ¶ 1.51. In cases were the post-merger market is "highly concentrated," and an acquisition would result in an increase of more than 50 points in the HHI, the acquisition is presumed to "raise significant competitive concerns." Id. ¶ 1.51(c). "Sufficiently large HHI figures establish [a] . . . prima facie case that a merger is anti-competitive." Heinz, 246 F.3d at 716.
Although this market is broader than the relevant market, the market shares are good proxies for the shares in the relevant market.
The deal will produce high market concentration levels. Even today, the HHI in the shared hotsite services is , reflecting a highly concentrated market. The proposed acquisition would further increase the HHI by , to approximately . This HHI level and SunGard's resulting market share far exceed the thresholds required to produce a presumption that the SunGard/Comdisco transaction will substantially reduce competition in the shared hotsite services market. See, e.g., Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363 (merger producing firm with 30% market share in market where four firms had 78% of the sales was presumptively illegal); Heinz, 246 F.3d at 716 (3 to 2 merger that increased HHI from 4775 by 510 points created by "wide margin" presumption of anticompetitive effects); PPG Indus., 798 F.2d at 1502-03, 1506 (53% market share and HHI of 3295 left "no doubt that . . . Commission [entitled] to some preliminary relief"); Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp.2d at 166-67 (60% market share and 4733 HHI established presumption); Staples, 970 F. Supp. at 1082 (average HHI increase of 2715 shows "a 'reasonable probability' that the proposed merger would have an anticompetitive effect").
Notably, a Comdisco internal E-mail from May 24, 2001, closely tracks the government's analysis of the transaction's impact.
Worsening the transaction's likely anticompetitive effects is that for many customers, Comdisco and SunGard are viewed as the two best vendors, and sometimes the only bidders, because of either price, proximity of hotsite locations, terms of service, platform focus and capabilities.(66) Further, for some customers, IBM is already a major equipment vendor or a significant business competitor on whom they are unwilling to become dependent for shared hotsite services. For these buyers, the proposed acquisition combines the only two viable vendors, substantially lessening their ability to leverage competition between vendors.
Once the United States establishes a presumptive violation of the Clayton Act, the defendants may introduce evidence to attempt to rebut that presumption. United States v. General Dynamics, 415 U.S. 486, 497-98 (1974); Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363. However, the Supreme Court has directed that the presumption will not easily be overcome. See Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363. To rebut the presumption, the defendants must produce evidence that "show[s] that the market-share statistics [give] an inaccurate account of the acquisitions' probable effects on competition." United States v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 422 U.S. 86, 120 (1975); Heinz, 246 F.3d at 715 (quoting Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank).
The presence of such substantial entry barriers, combined with the transactions' reducing the number of competitors from three to two, are overwhelming evidence that the transaction will substantially lessen competition and should be enjoined. As the D.C. Circuit recently held in a case with a similar market structure, "as far as we can determine, no court has ever approved a merger to duopoly under similar circumstances." Heinz, 246 F.3d at 717.
In Heinz, the D.C. Circuit set forth the principles for considering efficiencies in merger cases. 246 F.3d at 721-22. The court held that efficiencies must be "merger-specific to be cognizable as a defense. That is, they must be efficiencies that cannot be achieved by either company alone because, if they can, the merger's asserted benefits can be achieved without the concomitant loss of a competitor." Id.; see also FTC v. University Health, Inc. 938 F.2d 1206, 1222 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1991) ("[O]nce it is determined that a merger would substantially lessen competition, expected economies, however great, will not insulate the merger from a section 7 challenge."). The Merger Guidelines also allow for consideration of verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies that are generated in the relevant product market, if the "efficiencies are of a character and magnitude such that the merger is not likely to be anticompetitive in any relevant market" but caution that "[e]fficiencies almost never justify a merger to monopoly or near-monopoly." Merger Guidelines ¶ 4.
Second, if a TRO is not issued, it is doubtful that the United States would ever be able to obtain an adequate remedy if it prevails on its Section 7 claim. See Heinz, 246 F.3d at 726 ("Section 13(b) [of the Clayton Act] itself embodies congressional recognition that divestiture is an inadequate and unsatisfactory remedy in a merger case."). SunGard intends to assume control of Comdisco's Availability Solution business as soon as SunGard is approved by the Bankruptcy Court as the successful bidder. At that moment, the assets will be permanently separated from Comdisco's other operations and will no longer be protected by the Bankruptcy Court for sale to another bidder. SunGard will have immediate access to confidential competitor information concerning the large number of pending transactions for which SunGard and Comdisco are the two closest competitors. Moreover, SunGard will control operating resources made available for Comdisco's disaster recovery business. SunGard may then terminate or reassign Comdisco employees, close Comdisco's facilities and/or sell certain Comdisco assets. The inevitable consequence from these actions is that it will become virtually impossible to structure a sufficient remedy to alleviate the transaction's anticompetitive effects.
Because of such difficulties, courts and commentators have repeatedly determined that, when, as is the case here, a divestiture remedy is unlikely to be effective, temporarily enjoining a likely anticompetitive transaction is warranted. Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp.2d at 173 ("absence of an injunction will also make it impossible to accomplish full relief"); United States v. Ivaco, Inc., 704 F. Supp. 1409, 1429 (W.D. Mich. 1989) (concluding that subsequent divestiture requirements are "typically rejected by the courts as ineffective."); Consolidated Gold Fields v. Christian Schmidt Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 600 F. Supp. 1326, 1332 (E.D. Mich. 1985) ("If preliminary relief is not awarded and the merger is subsequently found to be unlawful, it would be extremely difficult, if at all possible, to remedy effectively the unlawful merger."); IVA Areeda, et al., Antitrust Law ¶ 990c (rev. ed. 1998).
Nor would any form of preliminary relief less than a complete injunction be adequate. A hold separate order, no matter how well crafted, will not protect the public against interim competitive harm or ensure the adequacy of final relief. See PPG Indus., 798 F.2d at 1507-08; Allied Signal v. B.F. Goodrich, 183 F.3d 568, 576 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that district court judge did not abuse discretion in issuing preliminary injunction where defendant offered to hold division of company separate, as "this might unduly prejudice the scope of a possible remedy should the merger ultimately be found to violate Section 7"). Under a hold separate order there also exists the possibility that trade secrets and sensitive customer information or market analyses may pass between the parties. The harm caused by transfer of this kind of information cannot be undone by a subsequent order of divestiture.
The defendants will not suffer any serious harm if the acquisition is temporarily enjoined. Entering a TRO simply would maintain the status quo for the limited time period until a preliminary injunction hearing. The United States will promptly confer with the defendants to agree on a proposed scheduling order for discovery and preliminary injunction hearing that allows sufficient time for the Court to resolve this matter before the December 5 deadline. At most, the defendants can claim only private harm to their respective businesses that may result from a short delay in making the acquisition in the unlikely event that they prevail on the merits. Such private financial interests yield to the public interest in competition. Weyerhaeuser Co., 665 F.2d 1072, 1083 n.26 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (courts "do not rank as a private equity meriting weight a mere expectation of private gain from a transaction shown likely to violate the antitrust laws").
Lastly, preservation of SunGard and Comdisco as independent competitors further the public interest. "By enacting Section 7, Congress declared that the preservation of competition is always in the public interest." Ivaco, 704 F. Supp. at 1430; see Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp. 2d at 173 ("There is a strong public interest in effective enforcement of the antitrust laws . . . .") Here, as shown above, an injunction will prevent the considerable loss of competition that will result if SunGard consummates its agreement with Comdisco.
For the foregoing reasons, the United States requests that this Court issue the attached temporary restraining order barring SunGard from completing its acquisition of Comdisco's assets or otherwise obtaining control of Comdisco's disaster recovery solutions assets, pending a hearing on the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction.
1. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rule 65.1(a), the United States gave counsel for both defendants actual notice of the time of making this application, and provided them with copies of pleadings and papers filed in this action to date.
2. App. A, Tab 12, Doc. 3, at SDS-CC8-M00412. In support of this motion, the United States has submitted documents and 14 sworn statements from disaster recovery customers and industry participants, and a letter from another individual. The documents are grouped together and attached to the Brown Affidavit at Appendix A, Tabs 1 through 25. The sworn statements are in Appendices B through O, and the letter is in Appendix P. The statement in Appendix A identifies each of the persons whose sworn statements are in Appendices B through O and the individual whose letter is in Appendix P.
No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the . . . assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where . . . in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.
4. See SunGard Interrogatory Response to United States' CID Interrogatory Specification 3(b) (App. A, Tab 23, Doc. 2).
7. App. A, Tab 23, Doc. 1 (SunGard Response to Interrogatory 3(a)).
8. App. A, Tab 23, Doc. 5 (Comdisco's Revised Response to Interrogatory 3(a)).
21. App. A, Tab 24, Doc. 1, at 7, SunGard's Form 10-K Annual Report for the Year Ending 12/31/00.
22. App. A, Tab 18, Doc. 13, SunGard Second Request Response, Specification 4(b)(2) (Attachment entitled SunGard Recovery Services spending re: equipment for hotsite services, 09/20/01).
23. App. A, Tab 25, Doc. 1, at 10, Comdisco's Form 10-K Annual Report for the Year Ending 12/31/00; App. A, Tab 18, Doc. 6, at 5, Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Filings for HP/Comdisco Transaction, Comdisco Document 4(c)(5).
25. Comdisco 10-K (September 30, 2000) (App. A, Tab 25, Doc. 1, at 13) ("In continuity services, the Company believes that its major domestic competitors are IBM and SunGard Data Systems, Inc."); SunGard 10-K (December 31, 2001) (App. A, Tab 24, Doc. 1, at 10) ("SunGard's principle competitors in this business [continuity business] are Comdisco, Inc. and IBM Corporation.").
27. App. A, Tab 13, Doc. 1, Attachment to August 30, 2001 letter from Neal K. Stoll to Kent Brown.
28. E.g.,Dave Beckman, SunGard, Competitive Overview (Oct. 26, 2000) (App. A, Tab 14, Doc. 5) (competitive analysis focusing only on SunGard, Comdisco and IBM); Industry Comparison (App. A, Tab 14, Doc. 4) (same); Chart at App. A, Tab. 12, Doc. 6 ("Three Main Players: SunGard -- Comdisco -- IBM BRS."). Tab 14 contains 15 additional documents from the parties reflecting that SunGard, Comdisco and IBM are the major competitors in the shared hotsite services market.
29. E-mail from Brett W. Orr, Senior Vice President, Comdisco, to John Hamilton, UniGroup (Apr. 17, 2001, 7:55) (App. H, Tab 12, Doc. 4, at SDS-RW-M-000601).
For documents describing numerous additional instances of aggressive price competition between Comdisco, SunGard, and sometimes IBM, see documents in Tabs 4, 5 and 6.
see also documents in App. A, Tab 1.
39. The court considers the same factors in ruling on a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction. Morgan Stanley DW Inc. v. Rohe, 150 F. Supp. 2d 67, 72 (D.D.C. 2001).
40. See, e.g., Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp. 2d at 1560 (applying Merger Guidelines 5% price increase test); Staples, 970 F. Supp. at 1076 (same).
59. As noted, a growing number of courts, including those in the D.C. Circuit, apply the Herfindal-Hirschman Index ("HHI"). See supra note 40.
62. Neither Weyerhauser nor HP are suitable for the large majority of shared hotsite services customers.
64. See App. A, Tab 4 (numerous documented instances in which customers benefitted from price competition among the disaster recovery hotsite providers).
68. Entry is timely if a new entrant would have a significant market impact within two years. Merger Guidelines § 3.2. Entry is likely only if it "would be profitable at premerger prices." Id. at § 3.3. Entry is sufficient if it would be on a large enough scale to counteract the anticompetitive effects of the transaction. Id. at § 3.4.
78. SunGard itself apparently is hard-pressed to articulate how the transaction will produce efficiencies.

References: v. 
 § 15
 § 25
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 18
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3