Impact of New FTC Thresholds on Investment Funds
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.30.14
We previously reported on the Federal Trade Commission's increased jurisdictional thresholds applicable to both the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the "HSR Act") and Section 8 of the Clayton Act. For investment managers, consider the following issues going forward:
- HSR compliance must be monitored by investment managers, particularly those who are "activist," acquiring substantial parts of public companies, and/or joining boards of directors. The checklist that includes federal and state securities law compliance should also include the antitrust laws. Failure to comply with HSR can lead to significant financial penalties and adverse reputational consequences.
- If the HSR thresholds are triggered, a filing is not automatically required. One exemption that managers may use is the "investment only" exemption, which provides that an acquisition of voting securities is exempt if made solely for the purpose of investment – i.e., if the investor has no present intent to participate in the management or otherwise influence the basic business decisions of the issuer – and if, as a result of the acquisition, the acquiring person will hold ten percent or less of the total outstanding voting securities of the issuer. The FTC continues its long-standing practice of construing this exemption narrowly, and we encourage managers to seek expert counsel before relying on it when the underlying investment is large and the manager is engaged in activism (e.g., board seats, observer seats, noisy interactions with management and the like).
- Small holdings, that is investments with an aggregate value of less than $75.9 million (new 2014 threshold), continue to be exempt from filing, even where the investment manager is on the board of directors and/or owns more than 10 percent of a company. This is particularly relevant for those managers investing in the micro-cap and small-cap spaces.
- As managers take on board seats, remember that the law prohibits persons from serving as a director or officer of two or more competing corporations where certain size and other criteria are satisfied.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25

