During a recent webinar, Jon Dubrow, Greg Heltzer, Lisa Rumin, and Ryan Tisch provided a comprehensive introduction to the new Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) rules and their impact on the US premerger notification filing process. The program concluded with a Q&A moderated by Reese Poncia and featuring Ty Carson, a former Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office lawyer, who shared his insider’s perspective from six years with the agency.
On October 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued new final rules governing the US premerger notification filing process. These rules – the first major overhaul to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filing form in the nearly 50-year history of the HSR Act – will fundamentally alter the premerger notification process. While the rules omit some of the more extreme aspects proposed in the 2023 draft rules, they impose substantially more burdens on filing parties than the current filing regime. The changes will have wide-ranging implications for all parties required to notify transactions under the HSR Act.
On 5 September 2024, Advocate General (AG) Laila Medina rendered her opinion in Alphabet and Others, suggesting that the European Court of Justice not apply the strict Bronner criteria when assessing Google’s refusal to grant access to its Android Auto platform for an app that provides a set of features for charging electric vehicles.
Instead, AG Medina concluded that a dominant company that owns a platform and excludes, obstructs, or delays access of an app developed by a third-party infringes Article 102 TFEU, provided that such behaviour gives rise to anticompetitive effects to the detriment of consumers and cannot be objectively justified.
Importantly, AG Medina broke new legal ground in that she believes that a refusal to grant access to a platform cannot be objectively justified by the “mere fact that the dominant undertaking must develop a software template taking into account the specific needs of the operator requesting access.” In other words, simply granting access to a platform is not enough, certain changes to facilitate access have to be undertaken.
In a spectacular turn, on September 3, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled the European Commission’s decision to review the acquisition of Grail by Illumina. The Commission had previously asserted its authority to examine the merger under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, despite the transaction not meeting the EU or national turnover thresholds for review.
This ruling is significant because it challenges the Commission’s ability to review transactions that do not meet the relevant EU or national thresholds but are referred by EU Member States. This could impact how future mergers are reviewed within the EU, as the Commission is likely to find alternative ways to review transactions that do not meet the relevant EU or national thresholds.
WHAT HAPPENED
While they have long taken a back seat to federal merger reviews, US states are becoming increasingly involved in merger reviews, including potentially requiring premerger notifications on a broad scale. On July 24, 2024, the Uniform Law Commission adopted its Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act (Model Act) as model legislation for states to use to implement premerger filing regimes.
BACKGROUND
State attorneys general have broad investigatory and enforcement powers with respect to transactions implicating local competition concerns. States generally have the authority to issue investigative subpoenas, compelling production of documents and information to parties who merely sell products in a state without any further physical connection to the state.
Pharmaceutical patent holders beware: Over the past year, antitrust enforcers have taken a more aggressive approach challenging Orange Book listings as an anticompetitive practice. According to the Federal Trade Commission, improperly listing patents in the Orange Book constitutes an unfair method of competition, among other violations.
In this article, Elai Katz, Lisa Rumin and Betty Zhang discuss the recent heightened scrutiny of Orange Book listings and highlight risks brand manufacturers should be aware of with respect to their Orange Book listing practices. Going forward, brand manufacturers should think proactively and consider carefully documenting their evaluation process and reasoning for listing patents in the Orange Book to satisfy the statutory requirements.
Topics covered in this edition:
UNITED STATES
EUROPEAN UNION
UNITED KINGDOM
In May 2024, the European Commission published a Competition Policy Brief classifying certain agreements related to labor markets as serious antitrust infringements. According to the Commission, so-called wage-fixing and no-poach agreements can only be justified in exceptional cases. The Brief follows the first unannounced inspections by the Commission concerning labor market agreements in Germany and Spain in the online meal ordering and delivery industry. It is vital that companies operating in Europe focus on educating their recruiting and human resources departments on antitrust rules to avoid severe fines.
LABOR MARKETS ON THE AGENDA
The Commission’s Competition Policy Brief could be interpreted as a warning for companies exposed to tight labor markets: Restrictive labor market agreements between competitors will be taken as seriously as price-related cartels. Companies must also bear in mind that competitors for labor are not limited to those companies with which they compete to sell products or services. It is sufficient that they compete for the same employees.
Given that restrictions on competition in labor markets mainly affect national markets, the main investigators will be (and already are) national competition authorities.
WHAT AGREEMENTS ARE CAUGHT
The following types of labor market agreements are considered potentially problematic:
The Commission does acknowledge that no-poach agreements may pursue a legitimate objective by incentivizing companies to invest in training their own employees without fearing that they would be later lured away by competitors, and by preventing employees from taking non-patent intellectual property rights (such as trade secrets) to competitors. However, both types of agreements “reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition” such that the Commission does not see a need to examine their effects. Due to their alleged negative impact on employees’ wages, firm productivity and innovation, they are regarded “by their very nature” as harmful.
The above does not apply, however, to collective bargaining agreements between organizations representing employers and employees, which are explicitly outside the scope of the Commission’s Competition Policy Brief. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recognized that certain restrictions of competition are inherent in collective agreements, which [...]
Continue Reading
On July 23, 2024, US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to stay the September 4, 2024, effective date of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Rule that bans all new noncompete agreements nationwide and renders existing noncompete agreements binding most workers unenforceable. This ruling comes 20 days after a federal court in Texas – presented with the same legal arguments – preliminarily enjoined the FTC from enforcing the Final Rule against the parties in that case.
On May 20, 2024, US District Court Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald rejected a popular over-the-counter eyedrop seller’s bid for a new trial and granted a pricing injunction impacting two large wholesale membership clubs following one of very few Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) plaintiff-side jury verdicts in recent years.
The case, L.A. International Corporation v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., centered around popular eye drops called Clear Eyes® (Clear Eyes) sold by Medtech Products Inc. (Medtech) to wholesalers. The plaintiffs – a group of regional wholesalers (Plaintiffs) who purchased Clear Eyes for resale to retailers – sued Medtech and its parent company, Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. (together, Medtech or Defendants), in the US District Court for the Central District of California in August 2018.
Subscribe
