By Pre-Merger Notification Staff (FTC)
Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act and Rules, parties cannot use a transaction structure for the purpose of avoiding or delaying their premerger filing obligation. If they do, the Commission must ignore the structure and review the substance of the transaction as a whole to determine whether an HSR filing is required. Premerger Notification Office (PNO) staff have recently rethought some prior advice, and today PNO is withdrawing a 2003 informal interpretation relating to special dividends. Our 2003 guidance excluded special dividends categorically from consideration as an avoidance device. Today, we announce that PNO will no longer take the view that such dividends can never be avoidance devices.
First, some background. The HSR Act provides that “no person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of any other person” without first complying with the notification requirements if certain conditions are met. If an acquisition satisfies the size of transaction test and, in certain cases, the parties meet the size of person test (and assuming an exemption does not apply), an acquirer must file an HSR notification and observe a waiting period prior to executing the activities that transfer beneficial ownership. Sometimes, parties mistakenly fail to file; other times, parties purposely fail to file.
Section 801.90 of the HSR Rules states that parties cannot use a transaction structure for the purpose of avoiding or delaying their filing obligation. As noted in a blog post from last fall, restructuring a deal to avoid or delay an HSR filing may subject the merging parties to substantial penalties if the restructured transaction still results in an acquisition.
Featured News
DOJ and FTC Introduce Website for Reporting Anti-Competitive Healthcare Practices
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
US Congress Advances Legislation to Compel TikTok Sale
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
UK Financial Sector Advocates Enhanced Regulatory Accountability
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
Google and All 50 States Defend $700 Million Consumer Settlement
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado Enacts First Law to Protect Consumer Brainwave Data
Apr 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI