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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
