U.S. Justice Department refers local asphalt merger probes to state attorneys general

Traders Union
All News
Regulators
DOJ closes asphalt merger probes

Highlights

Colas's planned acquisition of Suit-Kote in August 2025 triggered antitrust concerns in New York and Pennsylvania, leading to a settlement with divestiture of four facilities as of October 2026.
CRH's $8.5 billion acquisition of Arcosa, announced June 2026, prompted a local referral to the New Jersey Attorney General, resulting in an agreement to divest specific facilities by October 2026.
The U.S. Justice Department targeted only localized competition risks, leveraging state attorneys general for remedies instead of broader federal action in both deals.

State-led remedies in local asphalt markets

As reported by U.S. Department of Justice, the Antitrust Division says its reviews found competition issues only in limited geographic areas and referred those matters to state attorneys general for resolution.

In the Colas/Suit-Kote matter, Bouygues unit Colas announced in August 2025 that it intended to acquire Suit-Kote, and the Division issued Second Requests in October 2025 as it examined overlaps in asphalt pavement products and services in New York and Pennsylvania. After an extensive investigation, the Division says it identified discrete areas where the deal would reduce the number of asphalt suppliers and fully referred the matter to those states so they could engage with the parties on remedies.

The parties and the states later reached a settlement that includes the divestiture of four facilities in New York and Pennsylvania. The Justice Department cites filings dated Oct. 13, 2026, in New York and federal court in western Pennsylvania.

In the CRH/Arcosa transaction, CRH announced in June 2026 that it planned to acquire Arcosa, a U.S.-based infrastructure materials provider, for about $8.5 billion. The Division's preliminary review narrowed potential concerns to a local hot-mix asphalt market in a region of New Jersey, prompting a referral to the New Jersey Attorney General while the federal investigation remained open without a Second Request.

Following that referral, the parties agreed with New Jersey to divest certain facilities in the state. The department references a case filed in federal court in New Jersey on Oct. 20, 2026.

Federal efficiency and state enforcement role

The two cases show how the Antitrust Division is using state partnerships to address localized competition issues rather than pursuing broader federal remedies where concerns are limited in scope. In both investigations, the department says the relevant antitrust risks centered on local asphalt supply, not on nationwide market structure.

The Division says it commends the states and the merging parties for reaching agreements that address competition concerns in their local markets. It adds that it continues to prioritize efficient use of federal enforcement resources and the complementary role of state attorneys general in resolving local matters.

In our earlier article on Malaysia’s tighter oversight of foreign products and businesses entering the domestic market, we covered the government’s push to coordinate enforcement to support fair competition and address SME concerns as digital trade expands. The report also outlined steps such as forming an inter-ministerial working committee, progressing an e-Commerce Bill, and strengthening the “Jom Beli Produk Malaysia” campaign alongside Budget 2027 funding to help local firms compete and reach wider markets.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.