- within Accounting and Audit, Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring and Wealth Management topic(s)
On Aug. 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that private equity firm KKR agreed to pay a USD250M civil penalty—more than 20 times any prior penalty for an alleged violation of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act—to settle allegations that KKR repeatedly violated the Act across at least 16 transactions. This marks the third HSR enforcement action resolved during the second Trump administration, demonstrating continued scrutiny of HSR reporting requirements.
The HSR Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, imposes several requirements on companies that want to complete any “acquisition” that exceeds certain monetary thresholds. For example, in 2026, acquisitions valued at USD133.9M or more generally are subject to the HSR Act. Among other things, companies whose acquisition is subject to the HSR Act must notify the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice of their proposed acquisition, submit certain categories of “documentary material and information” about the acquisition, observe a statutory waiting period before closing the transaction, and refrain from structuring their transaction to avoid HSR Act obligations. See 15 U.S.C. § 18a; 16 C.F.R. § 801.90. A company that fails to comply with any of these provisions can be liable for a civil penalty of up to more than USD50,000 for every day that it is in violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(1).
The KKR Settlement
The DOJ filed its initial lawsuit in early Jan. 2025, during the last days of the Biden administration, alleging that KKR systematically failed to meet its HSR obligations for at least 16 separate transactions between 2021 and 2022. Specifically, KKR allegedly (1) omitted required Item 4 documents (i.e. those illuminating how the transaction may affect competition) from filings for at least 10 transactions; (2) altered Item 4 documents before submission in filings for at least eight transactions; and (3) failed to make any HSR filing before closing for at least two reportable transactions. The DOJ attributed these failures to inadequate employee training, insufficient document searches by deal teams, and a lack of senior executive review of final filings prior to certification.
KKR filed a countersuit on the same day, alleging the DOJ was pursuing a politically motivated effort to reduce activity related to mergers and acquisitions by imposing “strict liability” for non-willful violations of “confusing and contradictory” FTC rules. KKR sought declarations that the agencies’ interpretations of the HSR Act were unconstitutionally vague and that the daily penalties sought were unconstitutional under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. KKR has since dismissed this countersuit.
The new settlement resolves all DOJ claims. The accompanying Competitive Impact Statement explains that the record USD250M penalty was less than the maximum initially sought by DOJ, and that DOJ agreed to adjust the penalty downward due to KKR’s willingness to settle and because KKR has already implemented a new, more robust HSR Act compliance program.
Other Recent HSR Settlements
KKR is not an isolated case. Two other recent antitrust enforcement actions during the second Trump administration have secured settlements for alleged failure to comply with HSR Act requirements.
In Jul. 2026, after blocking the transaction, the FTC secured a combined USD12M penalty from Edwards Lifesciences and Genesis MedTech—at that time the largest ever for failing to make an HSR filing—after alleging that the parties deliberately structured Edwards Lifesciences’ acquisition of medical device maker JC Medical from Genesis MedTech to fall below the HSR Act reporting threshold.
Separately, in Aug. 2025, the DOJ obtained a USD1.1M fine from Amedisys Inc. for allegedly falsely certifying compliance with a “Second Request” issued under the HSR Act. 15 U.S.C. § 18a(e)(1). Specifically, the DOJ alleged that Amedisys failed to produce hard-copy documents, text messages from more than half of its document custodians, and emails affected by a known archiving failure. DOJ sought the fine even though it entered a settlement to permit the notified transaction to close.
Key Takeaway: Scrutiny at Every Stage
These enforcement actions make clear that federal antitrust agencies continue to scrutinize the full life cycle of premerger compliance and are willing to pursue significant civil penalties for violations. Notably, antitrust enforcers have shown a willingness to pursue such penalties even where the agency does not allege that any of the underlying transactions themselves were illegal or would have triggered further antitrust scrutiny. Companies undertaking transactions that may be reportable should involve experienced antitrust counsel early to ensure compliance at every stage.
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.
[View Source]
