FTC Announces Resumption of Early Termination for HSR Filings
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.30.20
The Federal Trade Commission announced on Friday that it will return to processing requests for early termination for HSR filings following a suspension of such grants for the last two weeks. On March 13, the FTC and DOJ announced the adoption of a temporary e-filing program for HSR filings as part of the agency’s response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic and the agency’s shift to a remote working environment. Among the changes implemented, the agencies announced they would suspend the processing of requests for early termination of the HSR Act’s waiting periods.
Citing success with the temporary e-filing program, the Commission announced that effective Monday, March 30, both the FTC and DOJ will resume the practice of assessing and granting early termination where appropriate. The agency warned, however, that early termination will only be granted as time and resources allow and there are likely to be fewer grants and those grants will likely happen later in the waiting period than they have historically.
Clients should be advised that while this development increases the chances parties can truncate the HSR waiting period, they should continue to be cautious in relying on a likely grant of early termination until the COVID-19 situation is resolved.
Click here to read a full the Commission’s announcement.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
