We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On January 24, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced
revised, higher thresholds for premerger filings
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The
filing thresholds are revised annually, based on the change in
gross national product and will be effective thirty days after
publication in the Federal Register. Publication is expected within
a week, so the new thresholds will most likely become effective in
late February 2012. Acquisitions that have not closed by the
effective date will be subject to the new thresholds.
The HSR Act notification requirements apply to transactions that
satisfy the specified "size of transaction" and
"size of person" thresholds. The key adjusted thresholds
are summarized in the following chart:
Size of Transaction Test
Notification is required if the acquiring person will acquire
and hold certain assets, voting securities, and/or interests in
non-corporate entities valued at more than $68.2 million.
Size of Person Test
(Transactions valued at more than $272.8 million are not subject
to the Size of Person Test and are therefore reportable)
Generally one "person" to the transaction must have at
least $136.4 million in total assets or annual net sales, and the
other must have at least $13.6 million in total assets or annual
net sales.
While the filing thresholds have changed, the filing fees have not,
but will be based on the new thresholds as follows: $45,000 for
transactions valued at more than $68.2 million but less than $136.4
million; $125,000 for transactions valued at more than $136.4
million but less than $682.1 million; and $280,000 for transactions
valued at more than $682.1 million.
The above rules are general guidelines only and their
application may vary depending on the particular transaction.
2. Higher Thresholds For the Prohibition Against
Interlocking Directorates
Also on January 24, 2012, the FTC announced new,
higher thresholds for the prohibition in Section 8
of the Clayton Act against interlocking directorates. Section 8
prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a
director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds
are met. Applying the new thresholds, competitor corporations are
covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus and undivided
profits aggregating more than $27,784,000, with the exception that
no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either
corporation are less than $2,778,400. As with HSR thresholds, the
FTC is required to revise Section 8 thresholds annually based on
gross national product. Section 8 thresholds become effective upon
publication in the Federal Register, which is expected later this
week.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
An interesting and growing debate in the antitrust arena is whether most favored nation ("MFN") pricing provisions are pro-competitive or anticompetitive. For many years, MFN provisions have been considered a fairly noncontroversial contract term included by purchasers in an attempt to assure that other buyers do not receive a more favorable price.
A well-attended program on antitrust treatment of "bundled pricing" and "loyalty discounts" at the American Bar Association Antitrust Section Spring Meeting highlighted the confusion generated by the antitrust law implications.
In remarks made this week at the International Competition Network annual conference, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez stated that health care will continue to be a top priority for the FTC.
An EU General Court (GC) judgment has considered the difficult issue of independent parallel behaviour by competitors under EU competition law, and in particular when this strays into a "concerted practice".
The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has reached a settlement with Anheuser-Busch InBev ("ABI") and Grupo Modelo S.A.B. de C.V. ("Modelo"), requiring ABI to divest Modelo’s entire U.S. business to Constellation Brands Inc. ("Constellation").
Microsoft v. Motorola is precedential only in the Western District of Washington, but at 207 thorough and well-reasoned pages, it provides a valuable roadmap and will likely be quite influential in future RAND cases in other U.S. and foreign jurisdictions.
Nearly a year ago the Kansas Supreme Court issued a ruling that boldly separated Kansas, and its state antitrust law, from prevailing federal antitrust precedent in matters of resale price agreements.
