United States v. Verizon Communications Inc.

607 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2009 WL 910169
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMarch 5, 2009
Docket1:08-cv-01878 (EGS)
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 607 F. Supp. 2d 1 (United States v. Verizon Communications Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Verizon Communications Inc., 607 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2009 WL 910169 (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

FINAL JUDGMENT

EMMET G. SULLIVAN, District Judge.

WHEREAS, plaintiffs, United States of America, State of Alabama, State of California, State of Iowa, State of Kansas, State of Minnesota, State of North Dakota, and .State of South Dakota, filed their Complaint on October 30, 2008, plaintiffs and defendants, Verizon Communications Inc. (“Verizon”) and Alltel Corporation (“Alltel”), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

AND WHEREAS, defendants agree 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 lessened;

AND WHEREAS, plaintiffs require defendants to make certain divestitures for *2 the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;

AND WHEREAS, defendants have represented to plaintiffs 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 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

I. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to 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. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means the entity or entities to whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.

B. “Alltel” means Alltel Corporation, a subsidiary of Atlantis Holdings LLC, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

C J “CMA” means cellular market area which is used by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to define cellular license areas and which consists of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”) -and Rural Service Areas (“RSAs”).

D. “Divestiture Assets” means each mobile wireless telecommunications services business to be divested under this Final Judgment, including all types of assets, tangible and intangible, used by defendants in the operation of the mobile wireless telecommunications services businesses to be divested. To ensure that the divested mobile wireless telecommunications services businesses remain viable, ongoing businesses, the terra “Divestiture Assets” shall be construed broadly to accomplish the complete divestiture, as required by this Final Judgment, of the entire business of:

1) Alltel in each of the following CMA license areas:

(a) Lima OH MSA (CMA 158);
(b) Hickory NC MSA (CMA 166);
(c) Fargo-Moorhead ND-MN MSA (CMA 221);
(d) Mansfield OH MSA (CMA 281);
(e) Dothan AL MSA (CMA 246);
(f) Sioux City IA-NE MSA (CMA 253);
(g) Albany GA MSA (CMA 261);
(h) Danville VA MSA (CMA 262);
(i) Sioux Falls SD MSA (CMA 267);
(j) Billings MT MSA (CMA 268);
(k) Grand Forks ND-MN MSA (CMA 276);
(l) Rapid City SD MSA (CMA 289);
(m) Great Falls MT MSA (CMA 297);
(n) Bismarck ND MSA (CMA 298);
(o) Casper WY MSA (CMA 299);
(p) AL RSA 7 (CMA 313);
(q) AZ RSA 5 (CMA 322);
(r) CA RSA 6 (CMA 341);
(s) CO RSA 4 (CMA 351);
(t) CO RSA 5 (CMA 352);
(u) CO RSA 6 (CMA 353);
*3 (v) CO RSA 7 (CMA 354);
(w) CO RSA 8 (CMA 355);
(x) CO RSA 9 (CMA 356);
(y) GA RSA 6 (CMA 376);
(z) GA RSA 7 (CMA 377); (aa) GA RSA 8 (CMA 378);
(bb) GA RSA 9 (CMA 379);
(ce) GA RSA 10 (CMA 380);
(dd) GA RSA 12 (CMA 382);
(ee) GA RSA 13 (CMA 383);
(ff) ID RSA 2 (CMA 389);
(gg) ID RSA 3 (CMA 390);
(hh) IL RSA 8 (CMA 401);
(ii) IL RSA 9 (CMA 402);
O'j) IA RSA 8 (CMA 419);
(кк) MN RSA 1 (CMA 482);
(11) MN RSA 2 (CMA 483);
(mm) MT RSA 1 (CMA 523);
(nn) MT RSA 2 (CMA 524);
(oo) MT RSA 4 (CMA 526);
(pp) MT RSA 5 (CMA 527);
(qq) MT RSA 6 (CMA 528);
(rr) MT RSA 7 (CMA 529);
(ss) MT RSA 8 (CMA 530);
(tt) MT RSA 9 (CMA 531);
(uu) MT RSA 10 (CMA 532);
(w) NV RSA 2 (CMA 544);
(ww) NV RSA 5 (CMA 547);
(ааа) NC RSA 2 (CMA 566);
(bbb) NC RSA 5 (CMA 569);
(ccc) ND RSA 1 (CMA 580);
(ddd) ND RSA 2 (CMA 581);
(eee) ND RSA 3 (CMA 582);
(fff) ND RSA 4 (CMA 583); (ggg) ND RSA 5 (CMA 584);
(hhh) OH RSA 2 (CMA 586);
(iii) OH RSA 5 (CMA 589);
Cjjj) OH RSA 6 (CMA 590);
(ккк) SC RSA 1 (CMA 625);

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
607 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2009 WL 910169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-verizon-communications-inc-dcd-2009.