But even if it was an elusive dream — complicated by the realities of dealmaking, brand building and consumer whimsy — it seemed like a dream worth dreaming.is signaling that regulators are going to take a very hard look before allowing any company like that to come together.is and what Kering Group is and what Richemont is — that’s just never going to happen in America,” said attorney Jonathan Lazarow, founding member and co-chair of Ambrose, Mills & Lazarow’s Corporate Group.
It’s a question that is on the minds of bankers and dealmakers throughout an industry that has gotten used to what was effectively a rubber stamp from regulators. The public version of the FTC’s suit redacts key figures on market share, but makes clear that regulators see the deal as creating a “colossus” with the brands collectively “dwarfing all other market players.”
“Historically, the last several decades, this is not the sort of a deal that probably would’ve been challenged,” said antitrust attorney Barry Barnett, a partner at Susman Godfrey. “But that’s mainly because the FTC and the antitrust division are reverting to historical form and that they’re becoming more assertive in enforcing the antitrust laws.”
“The FTC thinks that they are protecting consumers from price gouging and such,” the source said. “What they are more likely doing is dooming all of the accessible luxury brands within both Tapestry and Capri to falling behind upstart competitors. Regardless, Coach is credited as the inventor of the idea of accessible luxury and both Kate Spade and Michael Kors are certainly players.