ARTICLE
14 January 2025

Record "Gun-Jumping" Fine Serves As Cautionary Tale For Need To Avoid Unlawful Premerger Coordination

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
On January 7, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with three crude oil producers in which those companies will pay a $5.6 million fine...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

On January 7, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with three crude oil producers in which those companies will pay a $5.6 million fine to resolve claims they engaged in unlawful premerger coordination prior to expiration of the 30-day waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. The payment constitutes the largest penalty ever imposed by the antitrust regulators for what is known as "gun-jumping."

Put simply, gun-jumping occurs when parties to a proposed transaction behave as a single company before closing. There are two statutory prohibitions against gun-jumping: (1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits competitors from entering into anticompetitive arrangements; and (2) the HSR Act, which requires that parties to certain transactions file notice with the FTC and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and observe a 30-day waiting period prior to closing the deal. This allows the agencies to review the notification and determine whether they need more information about the transaction before deciding whether to seek to block the proposed transaction as anticompetitive, and ensures the parties remain independent businesses in the meantime.

According to the complaint filed by the FTC in connection with the settlement, Verdun Oil Company II LLC, under common management with XCL Resources Holdings, LLC, agreed to acquire EP Energy LLC in a $1.4 billion transaction subject to the HSR Act. After the parties filed their statutory notification, but before expiration of the waiting period, the seller allegedly allowed the buyers "to assume operational and decision making control over significant aspects of [seller's] day-to-day business operations," including by halting the seller's new well-drilling activities, which allegedly contributed to crude oil shortages at a time of increasing U.S. demand. Moreover, the buyers allegedly imposed changes to seller's well-drilling designs and leasing and renewal activities, and required that seller submit all expenditures in excess of $250,000 for buyers' approval.

Notably, the FTC voted 4-0-1 to accept the settlement, with one commissioner recusing herself. Whatever changes may be coming to the FTC in the coming months following the change in presidential administrations, there is bipartisan consensus on the anticompetitive effects of gun-jumping. This latest action also serves as a reminder that companies should take gun-jumping seriously. Until a deal closes, parties should operate separately, especially if they historically have been competitors in a particular industry. At the same time, the agencies have acknowledged the need for parties to exchange certain information to evaluate the proposed transaction and to engage in legitimate premerger integration planning. Before exchanging information or discussing integration, the best course is for parties to consult with antitrust counsel to avoid inadvertent antitrust violations.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More