US States Secure Road-Asphalt Divestitures After Federal Antitrust Referrals

The US Justice Department said on 29 October 2026 that two merger investigations involving suppliers of asphalt for public roadworks had been referred to state attorneys general, who negotiated divestitures to address localized competition concerns. The cases concern separate transactions: Colas's acquisition of Suit-Kote in New York and Pennsylvania, and CRH's proposed acquisition of Arcosa affecting New Jersey. The agency did not allege bid-rigging or establish procurement fraud in either matter.

The Colas/Suit-Kote transaction illustrates the impact of supplier concentration on local public budgets. The Justice Department said it had issued additional information requests during its federal review, identified specific geographic areas where the number of asphalt suppliers would decline, and referred the matter to New York and Pennsylvania. The states and companies reached a settlement requiring four facility divestitures.

New York Attorney General Letitia James provided a more detailed explanation in an independently issued 19 October statement. Her office said Colas and Suit-Kote were often the only two regular bidders for turnkey road-maintenance services in nine counties in western and central New York. These services include both supplying asphalt materials and applying them to roads; many local highway departments do not have their own specialized crews and equipment. The proposed merger therefore threatened to remove an existing competitor in public contracting, according to the state's investigation.

Under the agreement described by New York, Colas must sell Suit-Kote's regional headquarters in Jamestown, manufacturing and storage sites in Buffalo and Belmont, and a Colas facility in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, to a qualified buyer. The buyer may also acquire equipment used to transport and apply asphalt. The attorney general presented the measures as protection against potential higher prices, not proof that governments had already been overcharged.

The second merger raised different local concerns. The Justice Department said CRH, an Irish building-materials company, proposed acquiring Arcosa for approximately US$8.5 billion. Federal investigators identified a potential competition problem in a New Jersey hot-mix asphalt market and referred the matter to the state's attorney general. The parties agreed to divest facilities, and the department cited a proposed federal consent judgment filed on 20 October in Davenport v. CRH plc, docket 3:26-cv-13625. The Justice Department said it took no position on the settlement terms.

The distinction between a proposed remedy and an implemented one matters. A settlement can require asset sales, but its effect on public procurement depends on whether those assets pass to a viable independent operator capable of competing for road contracts. The documents reviewed do not establish the completed sale of every affected facility or a measurable reduction in taxpayer expenditure. Nor do they establish collusion by the companies.

The broader governance issue is the division of antitrust enforcement responsibilities. The federal department described the referrals as a means of concentrating federal resources on wider issues while state authorities handle geographically limited markets. For road authorities dependent on a small number of qualified suppliers, the remaining test is whether the resulting market offers genuine competing bids after the divestitures.