Antitrust

The last week of January was notably active for the U.S. federal antitrust agencies, with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) together announcing three merger settlements across a range of industries. The agencies resolved challenges to Reddy Ice/Arctic Glacier, Columbus McKinnon/Kito Crosby, and Sevita/ResCare, each through negotiated remedies rather than outright blocks. Together, these settlements offer a useful snapshot of where merger enforcement stands right now and where it may be headed.

The Settlements

Reddy Ice / Arctic Glacier (DOJ)

Reddy Ice sought to acquire Arctic Glacier from the Carlyle Group for ~$126 million. DOJ required divestiture of several of Reddy Ice’s packaged-ice manufacturing facilities and customer contracts in certain local markets, including parts of California, the Pacific Northwest, and major East Coast metropolitan areas. DOJ alleged that in these markets, Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier were the only, or two of only a few, viable suppliers for certain customers, and their combination would have thereby reduced competition.

Columbus McKinnon / Kito Crosby (DOJ)

Industrial equipment manufacturer Columbus McKinnon (CMCO) agreed to combine with Kito Crosby in February 2025 for $2.7 billion. Nearly one year later, the parties entered into a negotiated consent with DOJ, requiring divestiture of certain overlapping product lines. DOJ alleged specifically that the merger would substantially lessen competition for electric chain hoists and overhead lifting chain. The settlement required divestiture of the overlapping product lines to private equity buyer, Pacific Avenue Capital Partners.

Sevita / ResCare (FTC)

Sevita Health announced in January 2025 that it had agreed to acquire BrightSpring’s community living business, ResCare, for $835 million. One year later, the parties entered into a negotiated consent with the FTC requiring, among other things, divestiture of 128 intermediate care facilities in Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas. The FTC alleged that in these states the parties competed closely to provide residential services for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Notably, the FTC did not allege price effects; instead, the complaint emphasized reduced quality of care and diminished choice for patients and families.

Takeaways

1. Remedies are officially back on the table

After several years in which the U.S. agencies were openly skeptical of merger remedies—particularly divestitures—these settlements offer further confirmation of an increased willingness to resolve cases through negotiated relief, a trend which we have discussed in a previous post. Whether this shift reflects ideological recalibration, practical resource constraints, or a response to recent litigation losses (including GTCR/Surmodics) is open to debate, but the signal to dealmakers is clear: remedies are back on the table.

2. Deal size is not a proxy for scrutiny

None of these transactions was a “mega-deal.” In fact, Reddy Ice’s acquisition of Arctic Glacier may not even have been notifiable were it signed in 2026 in light of the recent adjustments to the HSR Act filing thresholds. Yet all three deals drew close agency scrutiny and required divestitures to secure clearance, which is reminder that small and mid-sized transactions may end up in enforcement crosshairs.

3. Continued focus on non-price harms

Sevita/ResCare is the clearest example of the U.S. agencies’ sustained emphasis on non-price competition. Because rates for the parties’ services are set by Medicaid agencies, the FTC’s complaint did not allege price increases; instead, the complaint focused on reduced quality of care, diminished service options, and weakened incentives to compete for vulnerable populations. This framing is increasingly common in healthcare transactions where the agencies may assess quality, access, and choice on par with price.

4. It’s business as usual for timing in consent cases

These transactions demonstrate that negotiated consents can take roughly nine to twelve months from signing to settlement, accounting for the HSR filing with one or two waiting periods, Second Request compliance, and remedy negotiations. While it may be possible to accelerate, parties should have this timeline in mind for any transactions where settlements may be required.

5. Private equity is no longer the bogeyman, but healthcare remains a focus

A private equity firm was chosen as the divestiture buyer in CMCO/Kito Crosby. This is a far cry from the intense skepticism private equity faced during the last administration, both generally and, more specifically, as divestiture buyers (particularly in the wake of the 2017 Merger Remedies Report). Consistent with Chair Ferguson’s call for private equity to be afforded the same treatment as any other buyer, the CMCO/Kito Crosby settlement may suggest a renewed posture: PE buyers are once again welcome divestiture buyers, at least where the assets and incentives line up.

At the same time, healthcare markets remain a clear enforcement priority. The FTC’s press release announcing the Sevita/ResCare settlement reinforced that transactions affecting healthcare services will continue to receive heightened attention. For example, the Director of the Bureau of Competition vowed that “the FTC will continue to actively review acquisitions in healthcare markets to ensure competition is driving higher quality care for all Americans—including some of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.”

Closing thoughts

These settlements suggest a more flexible, remedial approach from the U.S. agencies than we’ve seen in recent years. For companies contemplating transactions in concentrated markets, the message is nuanced: scrutiny is real and deal size will not save you, but well-structured remedies may once again offer a viable path forward.