FTC sues to block Covetrus-MWI merger, citing price war between top two distributors

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit to stop the $3.5 billion Covetrus acquisition of MWI Veterinary Supply, according to a complaint the agency filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What the FTC says the market looks like now

The agency characterized the competition between Covetrus and MWI as an "all-out price war," according to the complaint. That language does not describe a stable duopoly coasting on market share. It describes two distributors fighting hard enough for clinic business that the FTC used war metaphors to explain it to a federal judge.

The complaint describes Covetrus and MWI as "the two largest suppliers of veterinary clinic distribution and large corporate accounts in the United States." Both distributors operate "national networks to deliver pharmaceuticals, vaccines, surgical supplies, and thousands of other products to veterinary practices," the FTC said. The lawsuit, joined by attorneys general from Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas, argues that merging the entities would eliminate that head-to-head competition, which the FTC says would "ultimately drive up costs for clinics while decreasing service quality."

"The transaction would reduce competition in an already concentrated market and drive up prices for veterinarians and their customers," said Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition.

The barrier-to-entry argument the complaint makes

The complaint argues that the market structure itself limits new entry. According to the FTC, the merger would create a highly concentrated environment that meets the threshold for presumptive illegality under current antitrust guidelines, and the agency notes that barriers make it difficult for new competitors or smaller suppliers to establish a foothold.

That means the FTC is not arguing that blocking the deal will invite three new national distributors into the space. It is arguing that the current two-player fight is as good as the structure gets, and that losing one of the two fighters changes things permanently for every practice negotiating a supply contract.

If the lawsuit succeeds, the price war the FTC described continues. If it fails, practices face a combined entity with materially less reason to compete on price, and the complaint suggests no one is coming to replace the competitive pressure MWI provided as a standalone company.

We write one of these every week for people running and working in veterinary practices. subscribe to VeterinaryPracticeNow.

What this means for your next contract renewal

If you are an owner-DVM whose distributor contract comes up for renewal, the lawsuit keeps two aggressive bidders in the market through that negotiation. Supply costs are a major operating expense, and the FTC just told a federal court that the two companies bidding for your business have been in a price war. That is leverage you use.

If you are a practice manager who negotiates distributor contracts, the outcome of this case determines whether you walk into the next renewal with two options that have been fighting for share, or one combined entity that no longer has to.

For associate DVMs, higher supply costs compress practice margin, which shows up in your comp when owners tighten budgets or when you evaluate a practice to buy. The per-unit cost of the supplies you use daily is not an abstraction when it determines how much room a practice has to pay you.

Our read on the supply-side consolidation question

The FTC used the phrase "all-out price war" in a federal complaint, which means the agency believes the current competition has been intense enough to materially benefit buyers. Blocking the deal preserves that. Allowing it ends it, and the complaint argues the market structure makes replacing that competition unlikely.

The complaint is the FTC's case, not a court ruling. Covetrus will defend the deal, and a judge will decide whether the agency's market analysis holds. But the lawsuit does show what federal regulators think the current market delivers for practices, and what they think you lose if the two largest players combine.

The risk in our read: if Covetrus and MWI were genuinely in a price war, one or both may have been pricing below sustainable margin, and the current state may not hold regardless of whether the deal closes. But the FTC's argument is that the fight itself, sustainable or not, has kept costs down for practices, and that losing it changes the baseline every clinic negotiates from.

← Back to the Newsdesk