Early Termination of Merger Reviews "Temporarily" Suspended
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.04.21
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that the agencies will stop granting “early termination” (ET) requests in premerger reviews so they can review the procedures for granting ET. The agencies describe this move as a “temporary suspension,” but did not provide any description of the procedures under review or a timeline for resumption of the normal process.
When the parties to a transaction file a Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act premerger notification form with the FTC and DOJ, they may request that the review be completed before the end of the 30-day waiting period. If a transaction receives ET, the deal may close at any time after that ET notice is received. Grants of ET are entirely discretionary and not guaranteed, but they are routine in transactions (such as private equity investments) that obviously raise no competitive issues.
The FTC cited the transition to a new administration, as well as the record number of HSR filings received at the close of the 2020 calendar year, as reasons for the suspension of ET. In a dissenting statement from two FTC commissioners, the reasoning is further described as “a desire to avoid inadvertently allowing potentially anticompetitive transactions to evade scrutiny during a period of political transition, a heightened number of HSR filings, and the ongoing COVID-19 emergency.” The dissent describes this motivation as “unpersuasive” and argues that transactions with no apparent competitive concern will be delayed, and businesses and consumers will be harmed.
The agencies last issued a temporary suspension of ETs at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, which lasted two weeks (March 16 to March 30, 2020). There has been no indication of when the current suspension will end.
Click here to read the FTC’s press release. Click here to read the dissenting statement by Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson.
Contacts
Counsel
She/Her/Hers
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.16.24
Over the past several years, federal courts have increasingly questioned the authority of administrative law judges (ALJs) to adjudicate alleged violations of certain labor and employment statutes. In the last several weeks, two U.S. district courts in Texas issued decisions halting unfair labor practice proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on the grounds that NLRB ALJs lack the constitutional authority to preside over such actions due to unconstitutional protections against their removal.[1] Similarly, the last year has seen several decisions by courts in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits finding that ALJs, whose decisions are not reviewable by a Presidential appointee, lack constitutional authority under the Appointments Clause to adjudicate claims.[2] The trend illustrated by these decisions, combined with the Supreme Court’s decision in June to abandon the Chevron doctrine of extending deference to federal agency rule-making proceedings, portend significant changes in the way employers interact with federal agencies that enforce labor and employment law.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.15.24
Department of Defense Plans Increased Investment in Clean Energy
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.15.24
