A federal judge in Pittsburgh, Pa., has denied the Attorney General of Pennsylvania’s request to stop the private equity group Centre Lane Partners from closing the Pyrex glass manufacturing plant in nearby Charleroi, Pa. Citing the federal antitrust Clayton Act, the AG maintains that the merger between Pyrex and Ohio-based Anchor Hocking, another glass manufacturer owned by Centre Lane, would lessen competition.
Centre Lane acquired Corelle Brands and its 130-year-old Pyrex business in March 2024. Centre Lane transferred its ownership of Corelle to Anchor Hocking, also owned by Centre Lane. Anchor Hocking announced in September that it would close the Charleroi Pyrex plant and transfer equipment to Ohio.
Private equity’s role in consolidating industries – particularly in healthcare and real estate – caught the attention of the Biden administration early on. He called on his antitrust law enforcers to go after anticompetitive conduct by PE firms, which they have done. But in Pennsylvania, the manufacturing sector is also vital. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, manufacturing has an economic impact of more than $116 billion and accounts for more than 10% of all jobs in Pennsylvania. More than 566,800 Pennsylvanians work in manufacturing.
After expedited proceedings, the court denied Pennsylvania’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The AG’s office did not establish a prima facie case to support its Clayton Act Section 7 claims that the merger would substantially lessen competition, the court determined.
The state argued that the relevant market is the “glass bakeware market in the United States.” Glass bakeware is different from metal or non-metal bakeware, the state maintains, because it retains heat longer, is superior for different types of baking, and can be used to store food. In addition, consumers prefer certain kinds of bakeware, each of which offers a different customer experience.
The court was not moved, however, saying the state’s claims were not supported by reliable data or sufficient expert analysis. Without a well-defined relevant market, a merger’s competitive effects cannot be determined.
The court also found that the alleged antitrust injury, difficulties with divestiture, dismantling of the Charleroi plant, and loss of jobs were not irreparable, that they could be remedied by damages or other forms of relief.
Finally, the balance of equities and the public interest did not favor granting the injunction, the court determined. The potential burden on the defendants and the lack of a clear public interest in halting the merger weighed against the Attorney General’s motion.
The court ordered the parties to engage in mediation on an expedited basis.