You are on page 1of 18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:05CV02041 Judge: Emmet G. Sullivan Deck Type: Antitrust Filed: January 6, 2006 Plaintiff, CAL DIVE INTERNATIONAL, INC., STOLT OFFSHORE S.A., STOLT OFFSHORE, INC., and S&H DIVING, LLC, Defendants. UNITED STATES’ CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE ANTITRUST PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES ACT ‘The United States hereby certifies that it has complied with the provisions of the Antitrust, Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) (“APPA”), and states: 1, The Complaint, proposed Final Judgment and proposed Hold Separate Stipulation and Order were filed with this Court on October 18, 2005. 2. The Competitive Impact Statement was filed with this Court on October 20, 2005. 3. The Amended Proposed Final Judgment was filed with this Court on October 27, 2005. 4, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(b), the proposed Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact ‘Statement were published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 62330). A copy of the Federal Register notice is attached as Exhibit A. 5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(c), a summary of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and 10. ML ‘Competitive Impact Statement were published on seven (7) consecutive days running from October 24, 2005 through October 30, 2005 in The Washington Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the District of Columbia. A copy of the certificate of publication from The Washington Post is attached as Exhibit B. ‘The 60-day comment period specified in 15 U.S.C. § 16(b) commenced on November 1, 2005, and terminated on December 30, 2005. During the 60-day comment period, the United States received no comments from members of the public concerning the Amended Proposed Final Judgment. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(b), the United States furnished copies of the Amended Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement to anyone requesting them. On November 16, 2005, the defendant Cal Dive International complied with the requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) when it filed with the Court a statement indicating that it had not had any communications concerning the Amended Proposed Final Judgment that were reportable under 15 U.S.C. § 16(g). (On November 18, 2005, defendants Stolt Offshore, S.A., Stolt Offshore, Inc. and S&H Diving LLC complied with the requirement of 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) when they filed with the Court a statement indicating that they had not had any communications concerning the Amended Proposed Final Judgment that were reportable under 15 U.S.C. § 16(g). ‘With these steps having been taken, the parties have satisfied their obligations under the APPA. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(e) and to the proposed Hold Separate Stipulation and Order, which was filed on October 18, 2005 and was entered by the Court on October 27, 2005, the Court may now enter the Amended Proposed Final Judgment without further hearings, if it determines that entry of the Amended Proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. For the reasons set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement. which is referenced in Section XV of the Amended Proposed Final Judgment, the United States believes that the proposed Amended Final Judgment satisfies the public interest standard of 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). The United States therefore requests that this Court enter the Amended Final Judgment without further hearings. Dated: January 6, 2006 Respectfully submitted, ae Cihon (OH Bar # 0068404) Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 325 Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-3278 (202) 616-2441 (Fax)