FTC Signals Harsher Merger Review Stance by Revoking 'Prior Notice' and 'Prior Approval' Policy
In its hearing on July 21, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to rescind its 1995 policy statement, which had limited the Commission's use of "prior notice" and "prior approval" provisions in merger clearance settlements. The reimplementation of such provisions in merger settlements may have the potential to have a chilling effect and unforeseen consequences for any company even contemplating a merger.
September 13, 2021 at 12:00 PM
10 minute read
Building upon its aggressive stance on merger enforcement, in its hearing on July 21, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to rescind its 1995 policy statement, which had limited the Commission's use of "prior notice" and "prior approval" provisions in merger clearance settlements. Although prior notice provisions only require companies to give the FTC advance notice of future transactions, prior approval provisions are much more burdensome, effectively forcing companies to proactively show that a transaction would not reduce competition. The 1995 policy itself revoked a prior FTC policy requiring merging parties, as a condition of FTC approval of a particular merger, to agree in merger settlements to provide the Commission with prior notice of, and obtain prior Commission approval for, all future transactions above a de minimis value in the same product and geographic markets for the next ten years. See Press Release, "FTC Acts To Reduce Prior-Approval Burden on Companies in Merger Cases" (June 22, 1995). Looking ahead, the reimplementation of such provisions in merger settlements may have the potential to have a chilling effect and unforeseen consequences for any company even contemplating a merger.
Background and the 1995 Policy Statement
The FTC uses merger clearance settlements, also called consent decrees, to stipulate the terms by which it will allow parties to close a proposed merger. Generally, these settlements describe the assets that the parties agree to divest and the terms of such divestiture. The 1995 policy statement announced that the FTC would no longer, as a matter of course, include provisions in its merger clearance settlements requiring the settling parties to receive prior approval from the Commission for future transactions in the same market.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readAfter Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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