IBJNews

Biglari agrees to antitrust fine in Cracker Barrel deal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Biglari Holdings Inc., a chain-restaurant operator that owns Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake, has agreed to pay $850,000 to settle procedural antitrust violations stemming from its purchase of shares in Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc.

U.S. antitrust regulators alleged Biglari violated pre-merger reporting laws in connection with its 2011 acquisition of a stake in the Lebanon, Tenn.-based restaurant and gift shop operator. Businesses run by San Antonio-based Biglari Holdings also include the Western Sizzlin restaurant chains.

Under reporting requirements for mergers, companies must notify antitrust regulators about transactions exceeding $68.2 million. The law, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, contains an exemption for acquisitions made solely for investment purposes.

“Biglari improperly failed to report the transaction to U.S. antitrust authorities by claiming the purchases were a ‘passive’ investment when, in reality, Biglari intended to become actively involved in the management of Cracker Barrel,” the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said in an e-mailed statement.

The complaint for civil penalties was filed by the Justice Department because the FTC doesn’t have the authority to fine.

In a statement, San Antonio, Texas-based Biglari disputed the FTC’s claims, saying that the company filed for Hart-Scott-Rodino approval in August 2011.

“The comments made by the FTC mischaracterize Biglari Holdings’ investment intent,” according to the statement. “Biglari Holdings has made clear in all of its public filings that it has no intention of becoming actively involved in day-to-day management or in seeking control of the board of Cracker Barrel.”

Biglari Holdings had acquired almost 9 percent of Cracker Barrel’s outstanding voting shares by June 2011, according to the complaint. Biglari Holdings continued to acquire shares through June 13, exceeding the threshold for antitrust filings, which was $66 million at the time.

Cracker Barrel, which has about 620 locations, has been fighting off attempts from Biglari to gain a seat on the dining chain’s board of directors and push for management and strategy changes. Earlier this month, Cracker Barrel said that Biglari Holdings rejected its offer to appoint two independent directors.

Biglari Holdings will nominate Chairman Sardar Biglari and the company’s vice chairman, Philip L. Cooley, for Cracker Barrel’s board at the company’s annual meeting Nov. 15. If a proxy contest ensues, “our business could be adversely affected,” Cracker Barrel said today in a company filing.

‘Our Concerns’

“Our concerns about Mr. Biglari’s intentions are underscored by the finding that Biglari Holdings violated the Hart-Scott-Rodino act in connection with its acquisition of cracker barrel stock,” a Cracker Barrel spokesman said in an e- mail.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT