On January 24, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced
revised thresholds for Hart-Scott-Rodino ("HSR")
Premerger Notification filings and for the jurisdictional
thresholds that trigger the prohibition on interlocking
directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. These thresholds
are revised annually to reflect changes in the gross national
The revised HSR thresholds will apply to all transactions that
close on or after the effective date, which is 30 calendar days
following publication of the changes in the Federal Register. This
effective date is expected to be in late February. The Interlocking
Directorates threshold revisions will be published in the Federal
Register shortly and will be effective upon publication.
New HSR Thresholds
Size-of-Transaction Test. An HSR filing may be
required if the acquiror will hold, as a result of the transaction,
voting securities or assets of the acquired person in excess of
$68.2 million, and the Size-of-Person test must be met, unless the
value of the securities or assets exceeds $272.8 million, in which
case the parties must report the transaction notwithstanding the
size of the parties.
Size-of-Person Test. If the value of the
securities and assets held as a result of the transaction is
between $68.2 million and $272.8 million, the transaction must be
reported in most cases if either the acquired or acquiring person
has annual net sales or total assets of at least $136.4 million and
the other party to the transaction has at least $13.6 million in
annual net sales or total assets.
HSR Filing Fee
There is no change in the HSR filing which remains:
valued in excess of $68.2 million but less than $136.4
valued at $136.4 million or greater but less than $682.1
valued at $682.1 million or greater
Both the Federal Register notice and the FTC press release make a
point of noting that, unlike the thresholds, the HSR filing fee is
not indexed and has not been increased in more than ten years.
New Interlocking Directorates Thresholds
Section 8 of the Clayton Act prohibits the same person from
serving as an officer or director of competing corporations if
certain thresholds are met. Based on the revised thresholds,
competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has
capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than
$27,784,000 (Section 8(a)(1)), except that no corporation is
covered if the competitive sales of either are less than $2,778,400
The Federal Register Notices are available on the FTC's
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.