Notification and clearance timetable

Filing formalities

What are the deadlines for filing? Are there sanctions for not filing and are they applied in practice?

There is no specific deadline for filing under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the HSR Act). The parties can submit their filings at any time after the execution of a letter of intent (which can be non-binding) or a definitive agreement. However, if a transaction is covered by the HSR Act, it cannot be consummated until all required filings have been made and the applicable waiting periods have been observed. Additionally, even after filings are submitted, it is a violation of the HSR Act for an acquiring party to take steps that have the effect of transferring beneficial ownership of the target business to the acquirer prior to the expiry of the waiting period. Failure to comply with the HSR Act can result in a fine of up to US$43,792 per day (as adjusted) and the agencies may seek to unwind a transaction that has been consummated in violation of the HSR Act.

In general, the level of compliance with the HSR Act has been extremely high. In those instances in which a required filing has not been made, or the waiting period not observed, the agencies have not hesitated to seek significant penalties. The agencies have brought at least 20 failure to file cases in the past 13 fiscal years, and obtained fines ranging from US$180,000 to US$11 million. In 2016, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against ValueAct Capital for failure to make an HSR filing when purchasing over US$2.5 billion of Baker Hughes and Halliburton voting securities. In not making a filing, ValueAct relied on the investment-only exemption, but the DOJ argued that exemption was not applicable when ValueAct tried to influence the companies’ business decisions during the course of their proposed merger. In June 2016, ValueAct agreed to pay a US$11 million fine. In 2017, Duke Energy Corporation was required to pay US$600,000 in civil penalties when it acquired Osprey Energy Center from Calpine Corporation before filing the required notification form and observing the required waiting period under the HSR Act. More specifically, the DOJ alleged that, pursuant to a tolling agreement, Duke Energy acquired beneficial ownership of Osprey’s business before Duke Energy had fulfilled its obligations under the HSR Act.

In 2019, Canon Inc and Toshiba Corporation were fined US$2.5 million each in connection with the acquisition by Canon of Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation (TMSC) from Toshiba. The complaint filed by the DOJ on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged that Canon and Toshiba devised a scheme that ‘had no purpose’ other than to quickly complete the sale of TMSC and avoid the HSR Act’s waiting period requirements. Also in 2019, the DOJ filed suit against Third Point LLC and three funds it manages for failure to file under the HSR Act when the shares of Dow Inc held by the three Third Point funds converted to shares of the newly formed DowDuPont Inc following the merger of Dow Inc and EI du Pont de Nemours & Company. The three Third Point funds were required to collectively pay US$609,810 in civil penalties, and they and Third Point LLC are barred from committing future violations of the HSR Act in connection with corporate consolidations. The three Third Point funds and Third Point LLC were at the time already under federal court order stemming from allegations that they violated the HSR Act in connection with their 2015 acquisitions of voting securities of Yahoo! Inc.

Individual investors are also at risk when not complying with the HSR Act. In January 2017, the FTC charged two individuals in two different cases with violating the HSR Act. In one of the cases, investor Mitchell Rales was fined for failure to file under the HSR Act for acquisitions of company stock post-IPO. The investor’s pre-IPO ownership of Colfax Corporation was above 50 per cent, and therefore any subsequent purchase would have been exempt even though the original acquisition of these shares was also exempt from the HSR Act. However, because of the IPO, his holdings, which were valued in excess of the HSR Act threshold, decreased below the control level to approximately 20.8 per cent. Thus, Rales was required to file and observe the HSR waiting period prior to making any post-IPO purchase of Colfax Corporation voting securities. In the second case, the FTC fined Ahmet Okumus US$180,000 for failing to report his purchases of voting securities in the internet services company Web.com through his hedge fund. Although the Commission found his HSR violation to be inadvertent, it still sought penalties because this was Okumus’s second HSR violation in two years. Similarly, in December 2018, the FTC fined James Dolan, the executive chair and a director of Madison Square Garden Company (MSG) US$609,810 for failing to report his receipt in September 2017 of MSG restricted stock units in connection with his compensation. Dolan had filed HSR in August 2016 for the US$50 million (as adjusted) HSR threshold and was thus permitted under the HSR Act to acquire additional MSG voting securities valued up to the US$100 million (as adjusted) threshold. The MSG shares received by Dolan in September 2017 resulted in Dolan holding MSG shares valued in excess of the US$100 million (as adjusted) threshold. This was Dolan’s second HSR violation.

Which parties are responsible for filing and are filing fees required?

If a transaction is subject to the filing requirements of the HSR Act, buy-side and sell-side parties to the transaction must make separate filings with the antitrust agencies. All acquiring persons that are required to file must pay a filing fee that is calculated according to the total value of the securities or assets to be held as a result of the transaction. The parties may agree to split the fee or even have the acquired person pay the fee. Transactions valued at less than US$184 million are subject to a filing fee of US$45,000. Transactions valued at US$184 million or more but less than US$919.9 million are subject to a filing fee of US$125,000. Transactions valued at US$919.9 million or more are subject to a filing fee of US$280,000. This fee must be submitted at the time the notification form is filed, or the waiting period will not begin.

What are the waiting periods and does implementation of the transaction have to be suspended prior to clearance?

If a transaction is subject to the HSR Act, and a filing is thus required, the acquisition must be delayed for a 30-day period (or, in the case of a cash tender offer or a transfer in bankruptcy covered by 11 USC section 363(b), a 15-day period) while the agencies review it. If the agencies take no action, the transaction may be consummated when the waiting period has expired. The agencies do not issue a formal decision clearing a transaction.

To the extent that a merger is subject to the HSR Act, the initial waiting period generally begins as soon as both parties to the transaction have made the requisite filing with the antitrust agencies. In cases involving tender offers and other acquisitions of voting securities from third parties, the waiting period begins as soon as the acquiring person has made the requisite filing, although the acquired party must file within a prescribed time.

If any deadline for governmental action falls on a weekend or a legal public holiday, the deadline is automatically extended to 11:59pm Eastern Time the next business day.

 

Early termination of the waiting period

The parties may request that the antitrust agencies terminate the waiting period before it has run its full course, and the agencies may, at their discretion, grant such requests. It should be noted that when early termination is granted, the agencies are required to publish notice of their action in the Federal Register. This notification only identifies the acquiring person, the acquired person and the acquired entity. None of the confidential business information filed by the parties is disclosed. On 4 February 2021, the FTC announced that the agencies would temporarily suspend grants of early termination of the waiting period. At the time of writing, the suspension, which was anticipated to be ‘brief’, is still in place.  

 

Extension of the waiting period

The agency responsible for reviewing a particular transaction may, before the end of the initial 30-day waiting period, issue what is generally referred to as a ‘second request’ seeking additional information from the parties to a transaction. The issuance of a second request extends the waiting period to the 30th day (or, in the case of a cash tender offer or a transfer in bankruptcy covered by 11 USC section 363(b), the 10th day) after the date of substantial compliance with the request for additional information. In some cases, the parties may also withdraw and ‘refile’ under the HSR Act, which starts a new initial 30-day (or 15-day) waiting period. This voluntary process gives the agency additional time to review the deal and may avoid the need for a second request.

Pre-clearance closing

What are the possible sanctions involved in closing or integrating the activities of the merging businesses before clearance and are they applied in practice?

A transaction subject to the HSR Act may not close prior to the expiry or early termination of the applicable waiting period. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to US$43,792 per day (as adjusted) and the agencies may seek to unwind a transaction that has been consummated in violation of the Act. The agencies have imposed fines for failure to file and observe the waiting period.

In August 2015, the FTC filed a complaint against Third Point LLC and three affiliated hedge funds (collectively, Third Point) relating to their failure to make an HSR filing and observe the waiting period when acquiring Yahoo! Inc (Yahoo) shares in 2011. The complaint alleged that the investment-only exemption was inapplicable because Third Point took certain actions inconsistent with passivity, such as contacting potential Yahoo board members and making statements about proposing directors for Yahoo. Third Point settled with the FTC and the FTC did not seek civil penalties because the violation was inadvertent and it was Third Point’s first HSR violation. In another case dealing with the investor-only exemption, in September 2015, Leucadia National Corporation (Leucadia) settled a complaint brought by the FTC, where the FTC argued the investment-only exemption did not apply when as a result of a transaction, Leucadia’s ownership interest in Knight Capital Group, Inc converted into shares of a new entity (KCG Holdings) worth approximately US$173 million. The FTC argued that Leucadia should have made an HSR filing and observed the waiting period, because the investment-only exemption does not apply when an institutional investor acquires voting securities of the same type as any entity included within the acquiring person, and in this instance, both the acquiring and acquired persons were broker-dealers. This was Leucadia’s second HSR violation, and it agreed to pay civil penalties of US$240,000.

In October 2015, Len Blavatnik, an investor, agreed to pay civil penalties of US$656,000, settling a complaint brought by the FTC for his failure to make an HSR filing relating to his August 2014 acquisition of TangoMe shares worth approximately US$228 million. Blavatnik previously violated the HSR Act in 2010, and did not consult HSR counsel prior to acquiring TangoMe’s shares.

Merging parties may also be fined for ‘gun jumping’ – taking steps that have the effect of transferring beneficial ownership of the target business prior to the expiry or early termination of the applicable waiting period or periods. In the most recent example of such an enforcement action, in November 2014, a federal court ordered Flakeboard America Limited and SierraPine, both makers of MDF particle board, to pay to the DOJ fines of almost US$5 million for pre-closing actions that allegedly violated HSR gun jumping and Sherman Act laws under a settlement agreement. Additionally, the Antitrust Division, in January 2010, fined Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard Farms for an alleged gun-jumping violation where Smithfield entered into a merger agreement with Premium Standard and reserved for itself the right to review certain contracts of Premium Standard. The Antitrust Division claimed that the parties violated the HSR Act when Premium Standard submitted three large, multi-year contracts to Smithfield for approval, alleging that this action was sufficient to show that the acquirer had taken ‘operational control’ of the target prior to the expiry of the HSR Act waiting period. The parties agreed to pay a US$900,000 fine.

Are sanctions applied in cases involving closing before clearance in foreign-to-foreign mergers?

Unless an exemption applies, sanctions are applied in cases involving closing before clearance in foreign-to-foreign mergers in the same manner as the sanctions are applied to domestic transactions. For example, in 1997, Mahle GmbH (Mahle), a German piston manufacturer, and Metal Leve, SA (Metal Leve), a Brazilian competitor, were each fined US$2.8 million for failure to file and observe the HSR waiting period prior to closing an acquisition by Mahle of 50.1 per cent of Metal Leve. Both companies manufactured diesel engine parts through US subsidiaries. In 2019, two companies headquartered in Japan, Canon Inc and Toshiba Corporation, were fined US$2.5 million each in connection with the acquisition by Canon of a Toshiba subsidiary, Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation (TMSC), a company with operations in the US. The complaint filed by the DOJ on behalf of the FTC alleged that Canon and Toshiba devised a scheme that ‘had no purpose’ other than to quickly complete the sale of TMSC and avoid the HSR Act's waiting period requirements. 

What solutions might be acceptable to permit closing before clearance in a foreign-to-foreign merger?

There are no special remedy rules or practices applicable to foreign-to-foreign mergers. If the transaction gives rise to competitive issues in the United States, those issues must be resolved before the transaction can proceed.

Public takeovers

Are there any special merger control rules applicable to public takeover bids?

The Rules contain provisions that are applicable only to tender offers. If the transaction in question is a cash tender offer (or a transfer in bankruptcy covered by 11 USC section 363(b)), the statutory initial waiting period is 15 days (instead of the usual 30 days). If a second request is issued in such a transaction, the waiting period is extended for 10 days (instead of the usual 30 days) after the date on which the acquiring person substantially complies with the request. Also, for any tender offer, failure to substantially comply with a second request by the acquired person does not extend the waiting period. Further, in cases involving tender offers or other acquisitions of voting securities from third parties, the waiting period begins when the acquiring person files. All other aspects of the HSR Act are equally applicable to public and non-public transactions.

Documentation

What is the level of detail required in the preparation of a filing, and are there sanctions for supplying wrong or missing information?

The Notification and Report Form (the Form) that must be submitted to comply with the HSR Act requires the filing party to provide basic information about its US revenues, corporate organisation and certain minority shareholdings of entities engaged in an industry similar to the target’s operations on a worldwide basis, and the structure of the transaction (including the executed purchase agreement or letter of intent), as well as a variety of business documents. In particular, the parties are required to submit all studies, surveys, analyses and reports prepared by or for any officers or directors (of any entity within the filing party) for the purpose of evaluating or analysing the acquisition with respect to market shares, competition, competitors, markets, potential for sales growth or expansion into product or geographical markets. Documents routinely found to be responsive, and filed by parties, include board and management presentations, confidential information memoranda, synergy and efficiency analyses. Documents need not be formal presentations, and emails may need to be filed if they meet the criteria set forth above.

The antitrust agencies consider these documents highly relevant to their initial evaluation of the antitrust implications of a transaction. The agencies also require submission of certain documents analysing synergies or efficiencies to be achieved in the transaction. Private equity and other investment funds making acquisitions must also include certain activities of ‘associates’ and portfolio investments that are not ‘controlled’ by the acquirer but are engaged in an industry similar to the target’s operations. (Refer to the FTC’s website.)

Unlike, for example, the European Union’s Form CO, completion of the Form does not require any discussion or description of the relevant markets or the competitive conditions in those markets. Preparation of the Form can take a few days to a number of weeks, depending principally on whether the company has submitted a filing in the recent past and on how the company organises its data.

An officer or director must certify under penalty of perjury that the information in the HSR form is true, correct and complete.

Investigation phases and timetable

What are the typical steps and different phases of the investigation?

Once the parties to a transaction file their Forms, the FTC will initially review the Forms to ensure that they are complete and comport with the transmittal rules. Then, the two antitrust agencies decide between themselves which one of them will review the transaction beyond the filings themselves and publicly available information. If either the FTC or the Antitrust Division wants to conduct such further review of the transaction, it notifies the other agency and obtains ‘clearance’. If both agencies want to investigate the merger, the matter is assigned through an internal liaison process. Often, one of the agencies will have greater expertise than the other with respect to a particular industry or company.

Once a transaction has been assigned to a particular agency, a staff attorney will normally contact the parties’ lawyers to ask for additional information. Responding to such a request is not mandatory during the initial waiting period, but a failure to respond may leave the agency with important issues unresolved that may result in the issuance of a formal second request. The FTC and the DOJ have published guidelines listing the types of information and documents that may be useful to provide during the initial waiting period (available on the FTC’s website and on the DOJ’s website).

Often, the information provided to the agency during the initial waiting period will be sufficient to allow the agency to terminate its investigation. It is not uncommon for the parties to submit some form of letter or ‘position paper’ to the agency during the initial waiting period, addressing the questions of the agency and explaining in detail why the transaction will not substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly. It is also very common for the agency to contact the parties’ customers and competitors to obtain additional information regarding the industry, and to interview executives from the merging firms.

For those mergers that continue to raise significant antitrust issues at the end of the initial waiting period, the procedure available to the agencies is to issue a ‘request for additional information and documentary material’ or, as it is more commonly referred to, a ‘second request’. In some cases, the parties may also withdraw and ‘refile’ under the HSR Act, which starts a new initial 30-day (or 15-day) waiting period. This voluntary process gives the agency additional time to review the deal and may avoid the need for a second request.

A second request is a detailed set of interrogatories and document demands designed to provide the agency responsible for reviewing the transaction with information on issues such as market structure, entry conditions, competition, marketing strategies, and the rationale of the acquisition under review.

Compliance with a second request may be a burdensome and time-consuming task, requiring the parties to a transaction to produce substantial volumes of documents and to answer detailed questions. The burden may be particularly great in cases involving parties located outside the United States, because the rules require all documents submitted in response to a second request to be translated into English.

However, the agencies have implemented a number of reforms to the second request process designed to reduce the burdens associated with compliance by, among other things, limiting the scope of initial document requests and the number of company personnel whose files must initially be searched. Parties often negotiate with the reviewing agency to attempt to further limit the scope of material requested.

Either during the period of compliance, or following the submission of the complete response, it is not uncommon for the agency reviewing the transaction to take the sworn testimony of senior executives of the parties to the transaction. These oral examinations, or depositions, can cover a wide range of issues and are usually designed to explore the rationale for the transaction, entry issues, competitive conditions and other strategic issues. The depositions can be useful vehicles for the parties to put forward their views on the likely competitive impact of the transaction.

Following the parties’ compliance with the second request (which can take a number of months), the agency responsible for reviewing the particular transaction must decide whether to let the transaction proceed, or to seek a court order enjoining the transaction, or take other enforcement action for alleged violation of the antitrust laws. Alternatively, the parties and the responsible agency may enter into a ‘consent agreement’ – a form of settlement that is designed to address the anticompetitive effect that the agency believes may result if the transaction proceeds as planned. If the agency in question takes no action, the parties are free to consummate the transaction at the end of the second 30-day waiting period.

What is the statutory timetable for clearance? Can it be speeded up?

If a transaction is subject to the HSR Act, the closing of the transaction must be delayed for an initial 30-day waiting period (or, in the case of a cash tender offer or a transfer in bankruptcy covered by 11 USC section 363(b), a 15-day period) following the filing of the Form. The parties may request that the antitrust agencies terminate the waiting period before it has run its full course, and the agencies may, at their discretion, grant such requests. If the agency decides to issue a request for additional information and documentary material (‘second request’), the applicable waiting period will be extended until the 30th day (or the 10th day in the case of a cash tender offer or a transfer in bankruptcy covered by 11 USC section 363(b)) following substantial compliance with the second request.

Although they have not taken a public position on expediting requests for early termination as a result of economic circumstances, the antitrust agencies have been sensitive to the need to complete investigations of mergers involving distressed firms promptly. The agencies generally grant requests for early termination swiftly for transactions clearly raising no competitive concerns.

Law stated date

Correct on

Give the date on which the information above is accurate.

19 May 2020