6 Steps for Quick FTC Antitrust Clearance of Pharma Mergers
Developing an efficient strategy to deal with the Federal Trade Commission and other antitrust agencies reviewing pharmaceutical transactions has never been more important for companies.
May 01, 2015 at 07:15 AM
6 minute read
The “merger wave” in the pharmaceutical industry is underscoring the need to be able to interact with the antitrust regulators at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) effectively and efficiently in order to maximize the chances of obtaining Hart–Scott–Rodino (HSR) clearance quickly. Wave or no wave, merging parties typically wish to secure antitrust clearance as soon as possible to realize the associated synergies and commercial momentum, or to increase the certainty associated with a potential transaction if the target is “in-play.” But the large number of transactions in the industry today underscores the need for speedy clearance so that companies can stay ahead or keep apace of their peers and maximize shareholder benefits. FTC regulators specializing in the pharmaceutical industry have become, and likely will continue to be for the foreseeable future, extremely busy. As a result, developing an efficient strategy to deal with the FTC and other antitrust agencies reviewing pharmaceutical transactions has never been more important for companies.
The guidelines below focus on the common scenario in which the goal is to maximize the chances of obtaining FTC clearance or reducing the scope of a so-called “Second Request” of a pharmaceutical transaction during the initial HSR waiting period.
Of course, we recognize that not all pharmaceutical transactions are alike and differences can impact—sometimes significantly—the parties' FTC strategy and timing. For example, some transactions require clearances from many jurisdictions around the globe, exposing the parties to different regulatory/timing procedures, remedial policies and, potentially, risk profiles. Moreover, some transactions are good candidates for clearance without any remedies, while others have more remedial risk. These and other factors should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the strategy outlined below makes sense for a particular transaction.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250