FirstAlerts
Regulators & CourtsVersion 4

US Court Blocks Henkel's $725M Acquisition of Liquid Nails

A federal court granted the FTC's request for a permanent injunction, blocking the proposed merger of two major construction adhesive brands.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 17, 2026, 4:09 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 18, 2026, 1:27 a.m. ETUpdated Aug 25, 2026, 10:23 a.m. ET
A U.S. district court has granted the Federal Trade Commission's request for a permanent injunction blocking Henkel's planned $725 million acquisition of Liquid Nails from private equity firm American Industrial Partners, according to reporting by finanznachrichten.de. The outlet reported that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the ruling on August 17, 2026, following seven days of hearings. The FTC argued that the transaction would combine the two largest construction adhesive brands, harming competition and leading to higher prices and lower quality, finanznachrichten.de reported. The National Law Review reported that the FTC alleged the deal would combine "the two biggest brands—by far—of construction adhesives sold domestically at retailers like The Home Depot, Lowe’s, Menards, and Ace Hardware." Official Federal Trade Commission enforcement action records dated August 17, 2026, list proceeding docket number and docket ID 72,037,069, involving Henkel, Liquid Nails, and American Industrial Partners.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 17, 2026, 4:09 p.m. ETFirst report

    FTC Issues Statement on Decision Blocking Loctite and Liquid Nails Merger

    On August 17, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission issued an enforcement action document regarding a decision blocking the Loctite and Liquid Nails construction adhesive merger, according to official agency records. According to official FTC records, the release was published under reference ftc:statement-ftc-win-blocking-loctite-liquid-nails-construction-adhesive-merger.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 425 Aug 2026, 14:23current

    Added the FTC's specific allegation about the two biggest brands as reported by natlawreview.com, and clarified the court ruling date.

  2. Version 318 Aug 2026, 17:25

    Added official docket numbers and court details regarding the Southern District of New York proceedings.

  3. Version 218 Aug 2026, 06:27

    Structured report into headline, dek, and markdown body with explicit attribution by source tier.

  4. Version 118 Aug 2026, 05:55

    First published.

  5. Version 117 Aug 2026, 20:09current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.