Early Termination of Merger Reviews "Temporarily" Suspended
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.04.21
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that the agencies will stop granting “early termination” (ET) requests in premerger reviews so they can review the procedures for granting ET. The agencies describe this move as a “temporary suspension,” but did not provide any description of the procedures under review or a timeline for resumption of the normal process.
When the parties to a transaction file a Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act premerger notification form with the FTC and DOJ, they may request that the review be completed before the end of the 30-day waiting period. If a transaction receives ET, the deal may close at any time after that ET notice is received. Grants of ET are entirely discretionary and not guaranteed, but they are routine in transactions (such as private equity investments) that obviously raise no competitive issues.
The FTC cited the transition to a new administration, as well as the record number of HSR filings received at the close of the 2020 calendar year, as reasons for the suspension of ET. In a dissenting statement from two FTC commissioners, the reasoning is further described as “a desire to avoid inadvertently allowing potentially anticompetitive transactions to evade scrutiny during a period of political transition, a heightened number of HSR filings, and the ongoing COVID-19 emergency.” The dissent describes this motivation as “unpersuasive” and argues that transactions with no apparent competitive concern will be delayed, and businesses and consumers will be harmed.
The agencies last issued a temporary suspension of ETs at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, which lasted two weeks (March 16 to March 30, 2020). There has been no indication of when the current suspension will end.
Click here to read the FTC’s press release. Click here to read the dissenting statement by Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
