Justice Department Officials Accused of Allowing Lobbyists to Influence HPE-Juniper Merger Approval

A former Justice Department antitrust deputy, Roger Alford, has accused DOJ officials Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward of allowing lobbyists to prevail over the rule of law in the review of Hewlett Packard Enterprise's acquisition of rival Juniper Networks. Alford hopes the court blocks the merger, calling it a "perverted justice" and a "battle between genuine MAGA reformers and MAGA-In-Name-Only lobbyists." The DOJ did not comment on the matter.

A former Justice Department antitrust deputy, Roger Alford, has publicly accused DOJ officials Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward of allowing lobbyists to influence the review of Hewlett Packard Enterprise's (HPE) acquisition of rival Juniper Networks. Alford, who was dismissed from his role last month, made these allegations during an address at the Tech Policy Institute Aspen Forum on Monday [1].

Alford claimed that the DOJ's decision to green-light the deal was a result of political pressure from lobbyists, rather than a rigorous adherence to antitrust laws. He stated, "It is my opinion that in the HPE/Juniper merger scandal, Chad Mizelle and Stanley Woodward perverted justice and acted inconsistent with the rule of law" [1]. Alford hopes that the court will block the merger, describing it as a "battle between genuine MAGA reformers and MAGA-In-Name-Only lobbyists" [1].

The DOJ has not responded to requests for comment on the matter. The merger, which was initially opposed by the Trump administration, faced resistance before the department announced a settlement in June, allowing the acquisition to proceed with certain conditions [1]. Alford has called for a judicial review of the settlement under the 1974 Tunney Act, which requires companies seeking approval of merger settlements to disclose their settlement-related communications with the executive branch [1].

The controversy has drawn attention from Capitol Hill, with several Senate Democrats calling for an investigation into potential political interference in merger reviews. The DOJ spokesperson dismissed Alford's remarks as "delusional musings of a disgruntled ex," maintaining that the HPE-Juniper settlement was justified by the merits of the deal and national security considerations [2].

Hewlett Packard Enterprise has defended the transaction, stating that it was "appropriately approved with certain remedies" and would strengthen competition in the market [2].

References:
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/court-should-reject-hpe-juniper-merger-former-doj-antitrust-deputy-143943005.html
[2] https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/ex-doj-official-slams-leadership-claims-lobbyists-warped-antitrust-enforcement/