Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Monday, November 18, 2024

AG Henry's bid to stop closure of Pyrex plant hits road block

Federal Court
Webp 555

Atttorney General Michelle Henry | National Association of Attorneys General

PITTSBURGH - A federal judge won't - for now - block plans that would close a Pyrex plant in Charleroi and jeopardize hundreds of jobs.

Acting on an expedited basis, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan ruled Nov. 14 that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has not yet proved a preliminary injunction should be entered against Anchor Hocking Holdings and Centre Lane Partners, which purchased the plant months ago.

Anchor Hocking plans to shutter the plant and move operations to Ohio before the end of the year. State Attorney General Michelle Henry went to court to stop that from happening.

Ranjan granted her a restraining order that temporarily halted the plan but wouldn't go further, ordering the sides to mediation.

"The reality is that the claims before the Court are not labor claims, they are antitrust ones," he wrote.

"And while the Court is sympathetic to employees whose jobs might be at risk and a long-time local facility that may cease production, in the specific context of this case, the Court must narrowly consider the requirements of federal antitrust law and determine whether they have been met. They have not."

Instant Brands owned Pyrex, which makes glass bakeware, but went through bankruptcy in 2023, emerging as Corelle Brands. Centre Lane bought one-third of the company in February 2024, then bought the rest a month later. It transferred full ownership to Anchor Hocking, part of its portfolio.

Anchor wants to close the Charleroi plant and move equipment to its plant in Lancaster, Ohio.

AG Henry filed the State's complaint on Halloween after learning of the plan, alleging the merger between Corelle Brands and Anchor Hocking violated the Clayton Act because the two are head-to-head competitors in the glass bakeware market.

Ranjan wrote Henry didn't show a likelihood of success on the merits of her argument.

"Most crucially, it falters at the first step of the analysis: defining the relevant market," he wrote.

Henry said the relevant market is over glass bakeware but did not back that claim with reliable data or expert analysis, Ranjan said. She should have performed a hypothetical monopolist test when asking for a preliminary injunction.

One of Henry's experts was Kevin Worth, her office's chief economist who said glass bakeware is different from other bakeware because metal is not a reasonable substitute, ceramic is more expensive and glass is transparent.

"As Defendants' expert economist, Dr. Loren Smith, explained, Mr. Worth's conclusion that glass bakeware is a distinct market is based on picking a group of products based on some product characteristics and his interpretation of consumer preferences; but this approach is problematic because it merely assumes his conclusion," Ranjan wrote.

Henry said her office lacked the proper time and resources to make its argument, so Ranjan ordered mediation.

"The Court is certainly sympathetic to the Commonwealth's data constraints," he wrote. "But it isn't a reason to lower the standard for granting preliminary relief, especially when a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only in limited circumstances."

More News