ANTITRUST ALERT
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
ANTITRUST ALERT
A Global Resource for Compliance Officers & Legal Advisors
HSR Act
Subscribe to HSR Act's Posts

Understanding How the New HSR Regime Impacts Your Business

by , , , , and | Nov 5, 2024 | ,

During a recent webinar, Jon Dubrow, Greg Heltzer, Lisa Rumin, and Ryan Tisch provided a comprehensive introduction to the new Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules and their impact on the US premerger notification filing process. The program concluded with a Q&A moderated by Reese Poncia and featuring Ty Carson, a former Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office lawyer, who shared his insider’s perspective from six years with the agency.

Access the recording and slides here.



read more

New Premerger Notification Regime to Fundamentally Change M&A Strategy

by , , , , , and | Oct 16, 2024 | ,

On October 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued new final rules governing the US premerger notification filing process. These rules – the first major overhaul to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filing form in the nearly 50-year history of the HSR Act – will fundamentally alter the premerger notification process. While the rules omit some of the more extreme aspects proposed in the 2023 draft rules, they impose substantially more burdens on filing parties than the current filing regime. The changes will have wide-ranging implications for all parties required to notify transactions under the HSR Act.

Read more here.



read more

States Want in on the Merger Review Fun

by , and | Aug 8, 2024 | , , , ,

WHAT HAPPENED

While they have long taken a back seat to federal merger reviews, US states are becoming increasingly involved in merger reviews, including potentially requiring premerger notifications on a broad scale. On July 24, 2024, the Uniform Law Commission adopted its Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act (Model Act) as model legislation for states to use to implement premerger filing regimes.

  • The Act functions as a template for states to adopt their own premerger notification legislation and provides uniform suggested guidance to states that are considering their own premerger notification regimes.
  • The Model Act requires parallel filing of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) form in a state when:
    • The filing person has its principal place of business in the state; or
    • The person “directly or indirectly had annual net sales in [the] state . . . of at least 20 percent” of the threshold mandated under the HSR Act. §3(a)(1)-(2). Under the current HSR thresholds, that means sales of approximately $24 million in a state would satisfy the state-level filing requirement.
  • The Model Act also provides for automatic confidential treatment of materials submitted to the state.
    • Additionally, the attorneys general may communicate with the federal agencies about filing materials.
    • This can avoid the current practice of having to negotiate individual confidentiality agreements with any state interested in reviewing a transaction.
  • The Model Act does not impose any waiting or suspension period for notified transactions.
  • This continues a trend of government agencies obtaining more notice of M&A transactions. At the end of last year, Congress inserted Section 857 into the National Defense Authorization Act, which requires parties to provide their HSR materials to the US Department of Defense (DoD) for any proposed merger or acquisition that will require DoD review.

BACKGROUND

State attorneys general have broad investigatory and enforcement powers with respect to transactions implicating local competition concerns. States generally have the authority to issue investigative subpoenas, compelling production of documents and information to parties who merely sell products in a state without any further physical connection to the state.

  • Typically, states focus their efforts on transactions that have a particular impact on the state’s consumers or an industry important to the state’s economy.
    • For example, transactions involving hospitals or retail locations are traditionally more likely to draw the attention of a state’s attorney general than transactions involving national markets or consumer goods.
  • However, state enforcers have increasingly initiated their own efforts to challenge transactions.
    • This trend is illustrated by the Colorado attorney general’s lawsuit that seeks to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger.
      • Colorado is seeking a nationwide injunction and not merely an injunction on the acquisition in the state, raising a novel question with potentially significant impact on antitrust enforcement by the states.
      • Colorado is [...]

        Continue Reading


read more

Antitrust M&A Snapshot | Q2 2023

by , , , , , and | Jul 31, 2023 | , , , , ,

Topics covered in this edition:

  • FTC Unveils Proposal Detailing Significant Changes to Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Merger Notifications
  • Assa Abloy Settlement Raises Questions on Litigating the Fix and DOJ Consent Decrees
  • Pharmaceutical Industry Remains in Regulators’ Crosshairs
  • “Whole of Government” Competition Mandate Can Impact Deals the FTC and DOJ Do Not Challenge
  • FTC’s Constitutionality Comes Under Fire—Again
  • Divergent Viewpoints in Video Games Sector: Microsoft’s Takeover of Activision Blizzard
  • New Merger Simplification Package from the EC

Access the full issue.



read more

Heard at the 2023 Spring Meeting: Part 1

by , , , , , , , and | Apr 3, 2023 | , , , ,

The American Bar Association’s Antitrust Law Section recently held its annual Spring Meeting in Washington, DC, featuring updates from federal, state, and international antitrust enforcers and in-depth commentary on leading antitrust issues facing the business community today. This post recaps key takeaways from the first portion of the Spring Meeting.

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AND MERGER REVIEW: US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) PRIORITIES

  • Aggressive Enforcement by Any Other Name: DOJ Antitrust Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hetal Doshi characterized DOJ’s enforcement posture as “not aggressive enforcement, just enforcement,” but nevertheless opined that the Department’s past practice of erring on the side of under-enforcement has “ill-served” the public.
  • Whole-of-Government Means Whole-of-Government: The Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Maggie Goodlander and Michael Kades highlighted that various federal statutes other than the antitrust laws confer the power to act to preserve competition. They emphasized DOJ’s intent to pursue sweeping enforcement priorities to execute President Biden’s recent executive order calling for a whole-of-government approach to protecting competition, including by working in conjunction with other federal agencies like the Departments of Defense, Transportation, and Agriculture.
  • Enforcement Priorities Include Technical Violations of HSR Act, Spoliation, Gun-Jumping: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Goodlander emphasized DOJ’s intent to pursue vigorously violations of the HSR Act, including failures to make required premerger notification filings, failures to provide all Item 4 documents, and “gun-jumping” caused by concerted action prior to the satisfaction of the HSR Act’s waiting period. Goodlander also commented on DOJ’s intent to scrutinize merging parties’ conduct during the due diligence phase to investigate whether parties are using due diligence to conceal and accomplish anticompetitive conduct. Other DOJ officials further emphasized that DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are working to ensure that the agencies’ investigations are not harmed by the use of third-party ephemeral communication platforms and to penalize spoliation of evidence contained in such messaging applications.
  • Hostility Toward Freely Granted Divestitures in Merger Investigations: Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Doshi and Andrew Forman conveyed the high bar merging parties face when they offer structural or behavioral remedies, including divestitures, to resolve or head off a DOJ challenge to a merger or acquisition. Doshi and Forman pointed to instances where divestitures and/or carveouts offered in merger transactions have failed and “the American people bear the risk” of anticompetitive harms and asserted that “the idea that a divestiture can cure the feared antitrust issues can’t rest on our hopes of what might happen in the future after the deal and divestiture closes.”
  • Consent Decrees Face Much Stricter Scrutiny: Deputy Assistant Attorneys General Forman, Goodlander, and Kades emphasized the “exacting standard” that must be applied when DOJ is considering entering into a consent decree to resolve a merger challenge. According to the Department officials, the antitrust laws prohibit mergers that may substantially lessen competition, which means that for a consent decree to resolve antitrust concerns, it must eliminate the possibility that a merger could cause harm—an “extremely high bar.”
  • Updated Merger Guidelines to Focus on Relevant [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

FTC “Prior Approval” Policy for Future Transactions Raises Antitrust Risks for Buyers and Sellers

by and | Jul 22, 2021 | ,

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted July 21, 2021, to repeal a 1995 policy statement that eliminated prior approval and prior notice provisions from most merger settlements. In repealing this longstanding policy—and likely insisting on the inclusion of such provisions in future settlements—the FTC will have significantly greater authority to review and block future transactions of companies who enter into consent orders with the FTC. This policy change will have significant implications for the negotiation of antitrust risk provisions in transaction agreements.

WHAT HAPPENED:

  • In its 1995 Policy Statement Concerning Prior Approval and Prior Notice Provisions in Merger Cases, the FTC announced that it would no longer routinely require prior approval of certain future acquisitions in consent orders entered in merger cases.
    • Prior to this statement, FTC consent orders to settle merger reviews routinely required parties to seek and receive the FTC’s prior approval for future acquisitions in the relevant product and geographic markets at issue in the first challenge/consent order for a 10-year period. In some cases, the FTC also included a prior notice provision obligating companies to notify the FTC of any intended transactions that were not subject to the premerger notification and waiting period of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act).
  • On July 21, 2021, the FTC voted 3-2 to rescind its 1995 policy statement, opening the door to requiring prior approval and prior notice provisions in future merger consent orders.

 
WHAT THIS MEANS:

  • This policy change substantially increases the FTC’s merger enforcement authority for companies that settle investigations with a consent order and become subject to prior approval requirements.
    • Prior approval provisions place the burden on companies to demonstrate that their transactions are not anticompetitive.
    • The FTC can deny approval for these future transactions with very little—if any—limits on its discretion.
    • This differs significantly from the enforcement regime under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, where the FTC has the burden of proving that a transaction will substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.
  • Prior notice provisions require companies to provide the FTC with advanced notice of certain transactions—even smaller transactions that typically would fall under the HSR threshold (e.g., transactions valued below $92 million). The notification requirement increases the likelihood of FTC investigation for these transactions.
  • By rescinding the 1995 policy statement, the FTC may seek to impose such provisions in its orders as a routine matter. It remains to be seen under what circumstances the FTC will insist on prior approval or prior notice (or how broad they will be crafted). In supporting the repeal, FTC Chair Lina Khan stated that the FTC will employ these provisions based on “facts and circumstances of the proposed transaction.”
    • These prior approval and/or notice provisions, when previously employed, generally lasted for the term of the order—typically 10 years.
    • Generally, the scope of these provisions was limited to the geographic and product market in which the FTC determined that the [...]

      Continue Reading


read more

What to Expect from FTC’S Big Tech Merger Review

by and | Apr 28, 2020 | , ,

On Feb. 11, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had issued special orders to five large technology companies, requesting information on prior acquisitions completed by the companies during the past 10 years. The FTC’s announcement follows several recent high-profile events relating to technology mergers, including the FTC’s Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century and the FTC’s creation of a Technology Task Force.

The key question driving the FTC’s special orders is whether nonreportable deals might warrant further investigation or challenge. The special orders present challenges and opportunities for the five companies and for other acquisitive companies that may face questions down the road.

To access the full article, featured in Law360, please click here.



read more

FTC Challenges Axon’s Consummated Acquisition of Body-Worn Camera Competitor

by , and | Jan 17, 2020 | ,

The US antitrust regulators continue to challenge consummated transactions. On January 3, 2020, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Axon Enterprise, Inc., challenging its consummated acquisition of VieVu, a body-worn camera competitor, from Safariland. The FTC also challenged non-compete agreements that Axon and Safariland signed in connection with the acquisition. The complaint demonstrates the FTC’s continued focus on challenging consummated transactions, and on defining “price discrimination markets” around sets of customers with unique needs. The FTC’s challenge also shows that merging parties should avoid signing non-compete agreements that are not reasonably limited in scope and duration. If these agreements are not appropriately tailored to achieving a legitimate business interest, the FTC may challenge them as anticompetitive.

(more…)



read more

The Latest: Health Care Transactions Will Require Advance Notice to Washington State AG

by | Jul 8, 2019 | ,

What Happened:

  • On May 7, 2019, Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State signed House Bill 1607 into law. The law goes into effect for transactions closing after January 1, 2020, and requires advance notice to the Washington Attorney General (AG) of certain transactions 60 days in advance of closing the transaction. The intent of the law is “to ensure that competition beneficial to consumers in health care markets across Washington remains vigorous and robust[.]”
  • Parties must file written notice with the AG for any deal that involves two or more hospitals, hospital systems, or other provider organizations that represent seven or more health care providers in contracting with insurance companies or third-party administrators. A “provider” includes a physician, nurse, medical assistant, therapist, midwife, athletic trainer, home care aide, massage therapist, among others.
    • The law can apply to transactions involving very small medical groups, as long as there are seven providers who contract with insurance providers. The law can also apply to transactions with non-Washington parties if the out-of-state party generates $10 million or more in revenue from Washington patients.
  • Given the relatively low thresholds for an AG filing, this law would require notifications for transactions that are not reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act), as well as those that are reportable under the HSR Act.
    • If a transaction is HSR reportable, the parties must submit their HSR filing to the AG.
    • If a transaction is not HSR reportable, parties must submit the following information in writing to the AG:
      • The names and addresses of the parties;
      • The locations where health care services are provided by each party;
      • A brief description of the nature and purpose of the proposed transaction; and
      • The anticipated effective date of the transaction.
    • The notification requirement applies to mergers, acquisitions and contracting affiliations. A contracting affiliation is a “formation of a relationship between two or more entities that permits the entities to negotiate jointly with carriers or third-party administrators over rates for professional medical services” but does not include arrangements among entities under common ownership.
    • The penalty for noncompliance is $200 per day.
    • The AG has 30 days from the date of notice to submit a request to the parties for additional information. If the AG has antitrust concerns, it may serve a civil investigative demand to investigate.

(more…)



read more

THE LATEST: DOJ Announces New Model Timing Agreement for Merger Investigations

by and | Dec 4, 2018 | ,

Consistent with Assistant Attorney General Delrahim’s speech on September 25, 2018, the DOJ released a new Model Timing Agreement which sets out that it will require fewer custodians, take fewer depositions, and commit to a shorter overall review period in exchange for the provision of detailed information from the merging parties earlier in the Second Request process than has previously been required.

WHAT HAPPENED:

  • In November, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published a new Model Timing Agreement (the Model) much like the FTC’s model published earlier this year. Timing agreements are agreements between agency staff and merging parties that outline expected timing for various events (g., production of documents and data, timeline for depositions and front-office meetings if needed) and help provide clarity for the agencies to conduct an orderly investigation during a Second Request.
  • By providing this Model, the DOJ is signaling that it wants certainty on timing during its Second Request reviews and that this Model is a fast way for the parties and the DOJ to come to agreement on these issues.
  • Some highlights of the DOJ Model include:
    • Parties must wait 60 days after substantial compliance to consummate transactions and give 10 days’ notice prior to closing.
    • The Model limits the number of custodians to 20 per party and depositions to 12 per party, except in extenuating circumstances.
    • The Model reserves the DOJ’s ability to add 5 more custodians at any time prior to filing a complaint, with the requirement that parties must produce those individual’s responsive documents within 15 days or the agreed timing will be tolled.
    • For document productions, depending on production method (technology assisted review or linear review), all responsive, non-privileged documents must be produced approximately 30-45 days before substantial compliance. Production of potentially privileged documents ultimately deemed not privileged must be produced approximately 10-25 days before the substantial compliance certification date.
    • Most data productions are required 30-45 days before substantial compliance.

(more…)



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Gregory E. Heltzer

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Ranked In Chambers USA 2022
US Leading Firm 2022

Legal Notices  |  Privacy & Cookies Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2024 McDermott Will & Emery

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery