You searched for | Page 13 of 166

Results for ""

Expect More Criminal Enforcement & What You Can Do to Minimize Your Risk

by Justin P. Murphy and Alexandra Lewis | Apr 16, 2021 | Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments

OVERVIEW

Antitrust cartel and related collusive scheme enforcement is poised to increase. Several factors support this: (1) the Antitrust Division (the Division) has a 10% budget increase for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021; (2) proposed legislation that would increase its budget by $300 million; (3) Democratic administrations have traditionally been more aggressive in enforcing antitrust laws; (4) according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ), last year the Division opened the most grand jury investigations in almost 20 years and by the end of 2020 had the most open grand jury investigations in a decade; (5) increased coordination with international law enforcement agencies, including the Division recently signing a number of cross-border agreements, maintaining active memberships in multilateral organizations dedicated to cross-border antitrust enforcement cooperation and a DOJ official recently noting they have been working at strengthening their relationships with international law enforcement agencies during the pandemic and they expect this to benefit international coordination on investigations and (6) as pandemic limitations on in-person investigative tactics subside (including search warrants and knock and talk interviews, among others), expect a return to overt tactics related to open grand jury investigations.

Historically, cartel enforcement has increased following economic downturns and substantial federal stimulus packages. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis and the 2009 Recovery Act, the DOJ filed 60% more criminal cases than in prior years. We expect this trend to continue in the wake of the unprecedented government stimulus packages passed in 2020 and 2021 and additional potential government spending on infrastructure. In addition to the increased resources, the Division has stepped up its criminal enforcement program with the creation and recent expansion of the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF), the expansion of criminal investigations and prosecutions into labor markets, higher expectations for corporate cooperators and new potential benefits for corporate entities with compliance programs addressing antitrust violations.

Below we discuss the sectors most likely to be implicated by increased criminal antitrust enforcement, the PCSF and what steps can be taken to prepare and minimize risk in this environment.

EXPECTED INDUSTRY FOCUS

Based on the trends described above and our recent experience at the DOJ, we expect antitrust criminal enforcement to focus in at least the following industries:

Healthcare – The DOJ remains active in this sector with its ongoing generics investigations and prosecutions and other cases relating to market allocation and labor markets. In fact, all of the charged labor market cases thus far have been in the healthcare industry. The DOJ has stated that investigations and prosecutions for violations in the healthcare sector remain its top focus and stimulus spending will likely serve to increase the DOJ’s attention to healthcare markets. Although healthcare compliance policies have often focused on other fraud and abuse issues, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law, compliance with antitrust laws – including for human resources – is now more critical than ever. In addition, the recently signed Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act significantly narrows the exemption [...]

Continue Reading

New European Commission Guidance Acquisitions of Nascent Competitors on the Radar

by Hendrik Viaene | Mar 31, 2021 | Brussels Developments, EC Developments, EU Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

The European Commission wants to be able to block or conditionally approve transactions, mainly in the digital economy and in the pharmaceutical sector, even when the thresholds for notification are not met. In publishing its new Article 22 Guidance, the Commission has significantly expanded its ability to review transactions. Parties to a transaction, especially in the digital economy and in the pharma sector, should bear this in mind when strategising on deal timing and any potential remedies. They will also have to take into account the possibility that the transaction will be blocked. For third parties, this opens another possibility to stop a transaction, to extract remedies from the notifying parties or to even roll back an implemented transaction.

What Happened

Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) allows for one or more Member States to request the Commission to examine any merger that does not have an EU dimension but meets the following cumulative conditions: it affects trade between Member States, and it threatens to significantly affect competition within the territory of the Member State or States making the request (Article 22 Conditions). Fulfilment of the Article 22 Conditions ensures that a merger has a sufficient nexus with the European Union and the referring Member State(s).
Traditionally, the Commission has discouraged the use of Article 22 EUMR in merger cases that were not notifiable under the laws of the referring Member State(s). This is principally because the Commission considered such transactions unlikely to have a significant impact on the internal market.
Recently, however, there has been an increase in the number of mergers involving companies that play, or may develop into playing, a significant competitive role on the market, despite generating little or no turnover at the time of the merger. This development has been found to be particularly significant in the digital economy, where services regularly launch with the aim of building up a significant user base and/or commercially valuable data inventories, before the business is monetised, and in the pharma sector, where transactions have involved innovative companies conducting R&D with strong competitive potential, even if such companies have not yet finalised, let alone exploited commercially, the results of their R&D activities. Because of the absence of, or low, turnover of one the parties to such transactions, they invariably escape assessment under national merger control rules.
With a view ensuring that non-notifiable yet potentially problematic mergers do not fly under the radar of merger control review, on 26 March 2021 the Commission issued practical guidance (Article 22 Guidance) on when it might be appropriate for a Member State to refer such mergers to the Commission for merger control review.

(more…)

Intelligently Evolving Your Corporate Compliance Program

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 12, 2021 | Consumer Protection/Privacy

All companies—big and small—are collecting a tsunami of data. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has now challenged corporate America to harness and analyze that data to improve corporate compliance programs by going beyond the risk profile of what has happened to better understanding the risk profile of what is happening. But where to begin? Artificial intelligence, which is already used to assist in the review and production of documents and other materials in response to government subpoenas and in corporate litigation, is invaluable in proactively reviewing data to identify and address compliance risks.

Key Takeaways

DOJ expects compliance programs to be well resourced and to continually evolve.
DOJ wants companies to assess whether their compliance program is presently working or whether it is time to pivot.
DOJ uses data in its own investigations and it expects the private sector to rise to the occasion and analyze its own data to identify and address compliance risks.
The data is there—mountains of it—and the key is to find an efficient way to analyze that data to improve the compliance program.
Artificial intelligence is an important tool for solving the challenge of big data and identifying and remediating compliance risks effectively, quickly and regularly, in conjunction with further periodic review.

Click here to read our full alert.

Antitrust M&A Snapshot | Q4 2020

by Reese Poncia and Carina Kant | Feb 10, 2021 | Brussels Developments, DOJ Developments, EC Developments, EU Developments, FTC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

In the United States, despite initial obstacles because of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 rounded out to be the busiest year for mergers and acquisitions (M&A) enforcement in nearly two decades. In the fourth quarter, US agencies challenged five transactions. November 2020 saw the most premerger filings in any month since 2001. Mergers and filings in the United States are predicted to remain at high levels into the new year in light of the current economic climate. The antitrust agencies have continued to maintain that their evaluation and investigation of anticompetitive harm will remain rigorous despite the uncertain times.

In Europe, the European Commission (EC) and the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) had a busy last quarter of 2020. The EC completed several in-depth investigations, including the Fiat Chrysler/Peugeot merger. The EC approved this transaction with behavioural remedies. With respect to policy and legislative developments, the EC published the much-anticipated draft of the Digital Markets Act, which is intended to regulate the market behaviour of large online platforms which act as “gatekeepers” in digital markets. Given the end of the transition period for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, the CMA published a guidance paper explaining how it will conduct its work following Brexit.

Access the full issue.

Enforcement Agencies Announce Moratorium on Early Termination Program for Merger Reviews

by Graham Hyman, Timothy (Ty) Carson and Gregory E. Heltzer | Feb 9, 2021 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a joint statement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on February 4, 2021, signaling comprehensive changes to the merger review process. In a significant development, the agencies declared a moratorium on the early termination program for merger reviews. This policy shift signals a potential sea change in antitrust enforcement under the Biden administration.

The Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Premerger Notification program imposes an initial 30-day waiting period, prior to merger consummation, during which the enforcement agencies have an opportunity to evaluate the likely effects of the proposed merger and decide whether to investigate further by issuing a Second Request or ending the HSR review by letting the initial 30-day waiting period expire.

A third potential outcome of the initial 30-day waiting period is early termination. The early termination program under the HSR Act was originally established as an exception to an HSR review if the relevant parties demonstrated a “special business reason.” This policy was reversed after Heublein v. FTC (1982) and since that time early termination of the initial 30-day waiting period has become commonplace if the merger does not merit further review (in 2019 early termination was requested in 74.2% of transactions and granted in 73.5% of those instances). Further review would be merited, if the enforcement agencies determined the transaction posed a risk of a substantial lessening of competition under the Clayton Act.

Pursuant to the moratorium on early terminations, merging parties must now refrain from consummating any proposed transaction for the full initial 30-day waiting period—early termination is not a potential outcome.

The joint statement regarding the early termination moratorium provided the following justifications:

The early termination review was precipitated because of the transition to a new presidential administration as well as an “unprecedented volume” of HSR filings;
The above factors warrant the use of the full 30-day window to allow the agencies to do “right by competition and consumers;”
The suspension of the early termination program “will be brief.”

Past pauses in early terminations coincided with extraordinary circumstances such as the move to an e-filing system at the Premerger Notification Office (PNO) at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic (paused from March 13, 2020, until March 30, 2020) or during periods of government shutdown. However, this current pause appears likely to endure longer than these past instances, given that this pause is driven by the confluence of a number of factors, beyond what was indicated in the joint statement, such as:

A longstanding agency funding drought resulting in understaffing
Transitioning to a new presidential administration
A desire to engage in more expansive investigations under the new Biden administration
A large influx in HSR filings in recent months (on pace for a 60% increase in 2021)

From the agencies’ point of view, these changes are necessary to meet their mandate of preventing unfair competition and anticompetitive practices. With agency resources stretched thin due to budget constraints, in addition to an increased [...]

Continue Reading

Annual European Competition Review 2020

by Jacques Buhart, Hendrik Viaene and McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 2, 2021 | Brussels Developments, Cartel Enforcement, EC Developments, EU Developments, Monopolization/Abuse of Dominance

McDermott’s Annual European Competition Review summarizes significant developments in the field of European competition law. 2020 saw several important legislative and policy developments, including EC guidance on foreign direct investment, the promulgation of a temporary framework for antitrust cooperation in the context of COVID-19 and the issuance of a rare competition law comfort letter thereunder. Furthermore, in addition to a number of interesting EC decisions, key judgments were handed down by the EU Courts, including in relation to the conditions for assessing “by object” infringements, the notion of “gun jumping” and jurisdiction under the EU merger regulation and tax planning measures under EU State aid rules. All these new rules and judicial decisions may be relevant for your company and your day-to-day practice.

In our super-connected age, because we are inundated with information from numerous sources it can be difficult to select what is really relevant to one’s business. The purpose of this review is therefore to help general counsel and their teams to be aware of, and to conduct their business in line with, essential EU competition law developments.

This review was prepared by McDermott’s European Competition Team in Brussels. Throughout 2020 they have monitored legal developments and drafted the summary reports.

Click here to read the full Review.

Notification Threshold under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Decreased to $92 Million

by Gregory E. Heltzer and Noah Feldman Greene | Feb 2, 2021 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Mergers & Acquisitions

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) yesterday released decreased thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR). The thresholds are indexed to changes in the gross national product (GNP). They normally increase year over year but have decreased this year because of the economic impacts of COVID-19. We last saw a decrease in connection with the 2008 recession.

Notification Threshold Adjustments

The FTC announced revised thresholds for the HSR pre-merger notifications on February 1, 2021. These decreased thresholds were published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2021, and will become effective on March 4, 2021. These new thresholds apply to any transaction that closes on or after the effective date:

The base filing threshold, which frequently determines whether a transaction requires the filing of an HSR notification, will decrease to $92 million.
The alternative statutory size-of-transaction test, which captures all transactions valued above a certain size (even if the “size-of-person” threshold is not met), will be adjusted to $368 million.
The statutory size-of-person thresholds will decrease slightly to $18.4 million and $184 million.

The adjustments will affect parties contemplating HSR notifications in various ways. Transactions that do not meet the current “size-of-transaction” threshold, but will meet the revised $92 million threshold, will only need to be filed if they will close after the new thresholds take effect.

The adjustments may affect HSR filing fees for certain transactions. Under the rules, the acquiring person must pay a filing fee, although the parties may allocate that fee amongst themselves. Filing fees for HSR-reportable transactions will remain unchanged; however, the size of transactions subject to the filing fee tiers will shift downward as a result of the GNP-indexing adjustments:

Filing Fee Size of Transaction $45,000 $92 million, but less than $184 million $125,000 $184 million, but less than $919.9 million $280,000 $919.9 million or more.

European Commissions Continues to Amend COVID-19 Temporary State Aid Framework

by Hendrik Viaene and Karolien Van der Putten | Jan 29, 2021 | EC Developments, EU Developments

On January 28 2021, the European Commission (Commission) amended its COVID-19 Temporary State aid Framework (Temporary Framework) for the fifth time. The Commission adopted the Temporary Framework at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis (March 19 2020) to support the economy and help Member States set up various aid measures. Since the adoption of the Temporary Framework, the Commission has approved hundreds of national COVID-19 support measures.

Given that the COVID-19 crisis continues to affect the European economy, the European Commission adopted a fifth Amendment to the Temporary Framework, which includes the following changes:

Extension of the Temporary Framework until December 31 2021;
Higher aid ceilings regarding limited amounts of aid and support for uncovered fixed costs;
Clarifications and amendments to several provisions.
The continued temporary removal of all countries from the “marketable risk” country list under the STEC (Short Term Export Credit) insurance Communication.

Our latest alert summarizes the key takeaways and immediate impact of this amendment.

*Author, Partner Hendrik Viaene, recently joined McDermott from Deloitte Legal, where he led the global Centre of Expertise in Competition and Regulatory Law. His practice focuses on EU competition and regulatory law, and he demonstrates in particular an in-depth technical skill and encyclopaedic knowledge of State Aid issues.

A seasoned and skilled litigator, he has successfully represented numerous clients before the European Court of Justice and Belgian courts. His practice additionally covers cartels, licensing agreements, merger control, abuse of dominance, and distribution agreements. His wide-ranging expertise extends over a number of sectors, including energy, chemicals and paints, automotive, financial data, recycling and waste management, telecoms, construction, renewables, media, private equity and the financial industry.

(more…)

New German Antitrust Rules: A Positive Move for Compliance Programs

by Christian Krohs and Max Küttner | Jan 22, 2021 | EU Developments, German Developments

What has changed?

On January 19, 2021, new German antitrust rules entered into force under the 10th amendment Act to the Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC) and introduced a number of significant changes.
The Act, inter alia, revised the provisions relating to fine calculation for antitrust violations, and in doing so underlined the importance of compliance programs. For further changes, please refer to our previous blogpost.
Specifically, an objectively effective compliance program can now lead to a reduced fine being calculated if the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) concludes that certain conduct is in violation of antitrust rules, but the company had implemented appropriate compliance measures before the violation.

(more…)

2020 Health Antitrust Year in Review

by Ashley Fischer, Katharine M. O'Connor, Stephen Wu and Michelle Lowery | Jan 19, 2021 | DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, Healthcare Antitrust, Joint Ventures/Competitor Collaboration, Mergers & Acquisitions, Monopolization/Abuse of Dominance, Private Litigation

The federal antitrust enforcement agencies brought three hospital merger challenges and three criminal antitrust enforcement actions in healthcare in the past year. Combined with the incoming Democratic administration, healthcare antitrust enforcement is likely to remain strong in 2021.

Our Health Antitrust Year in Review:

Examines specific antitrust challenges and enforcement actions that impacted hospitals and health systems, payors and other healthcare companies in 2020;
Offers lessons learned from these developments in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
Provides analysis of the enforcement trends, federal guidelines and state policy updates that are likely to shape the healthcare antitrust landscape in 2021.

Alexandra Lewis, an incoming associate in our Chicago office, also contributed to this Special Report.

Read the full report.