Consistent with Assistant Attorney General Delrahim’s speech on September 25, 2018, the DOJ released a new Model Timing Agreement which sets out that it will require fewer custodians, take fewer depositions, and commit to a shorter overall review period in exchange for the provision of detailed information from the merging parties earlier in the Second Request process than has previously been required.

WHAT HAPPENED:

  • In November, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published a new Model Timing Agreement (the Model) much like the FTC’s model published earlier this year. Timing agreements are agreements between agency staff and merging parties that outline expected timing for various events (g., production of documents and data, timeline for depositions and front-office meetings if needed) and help provide clarity for the agencies to conduct an orderly investigation during a Second Request.
  • By providing this Model, the DOJ is signaling that it wants certainty on timing during its Second Request reviews and that this Model is a fast way for the parties and the DOJ to come to agreement on these issues.
  • Some highlights of the DOJ Model include:
    • Parties must wait 60 days after substantial compliance to consummate transactions and give 10 days’ notice prior to closing.
    • The Model limits the number of custodians to 20 per party and depositions to 12 per party, except in extenuating circumstances.
    • The Model reserves the DOJ’s ability to add 5 more custodians at any time prior to filing a complaint, with the requirement that parties must produce those individual’s responsive documents within 15 days or the agreed timing will be tolled.
    • For document productions, depending on production method (technology assisted review or linear review), all responsive, non-privileged documents must be produced approximately 30-45 days before substantial compliance. Production of potentially privileged documents ultimately deemed not privileged must be produced approximately 10-25 days before the substantial compliance certification date.
    • Most data productions are required 30-45 days before substantial compliance.

Continue Reading THE LATEST: DOJ Announces New Model Timing Agreement for Merger Investigations

The Premerger Notification Office (PNO) of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently formalized a new position on Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) reporting obligations for certain not-for-profit, non-stock transactions. The change is currently in effect and applies to transactions that have not yet closed. The change in position will require reporting of many hospital transactions that have not traditionally been treated as reportable events. The biggest area of change relates to affiliation transactions where hospitals or health systems affiliate under a new parent entity.

Under its previous position, the PNO focused on whether a transaction results in a change of “control” of the board of directors of one or more of the combining entities. Under its new position, the PNO will focus on beneficial ownership–whether one party receives beneficial ownership over the assets of another party as a result of the transaction. Now, a potentially reportable acquisition can occur even when there is no change in the control of the board of directors of one of the combining entities because formal board control is not the exclusive method of obtaining beneficial ownership.

In a recently published Tip Sheet, the PNO provided analysis of reportability for three types of not-for-profit combinations that it regularly sees, which we summarize below. The first two examples involve traditional application of the rules to hospital transactions, while the third example represents the PNO’s newly formed position on affiliations. Note that in all of the examples below, we focus on the nature of the transaction structure to evaluate whether a potentially reportable acquisition of assets has occurred. In any specific transaction, the parties would also need to evaluate whether the statutory thresholds are met (e.g., the $84.4 million size-of-transaction test), as well as whether any exemption applies.

1. A simple acquisition in which an existing acquiring person (g., a not-for-profit hospital) is deemed to hold the assets of the acquired entity (e.g., another not-for-profit hospital) as a result of the acquisition. This can happen in a variety of ways, such as a straight asset acquisition or a transaction in which one not-for-profit becomes the sole corporate member of another. If one not-for-profit obtains the right to manage and operate another through a corporate transaction, that is likely a reportable structure.

a. PNO conclusion: This structure is reportable as an asset acquisition.

2. A transaction in which the existing not-for-profit entities remain independent but form a new joint venture entity as a jointly owned subsidiary or affiliate. The pre-existing entities remain separate persons for HSR Act purposes.

a.  PNO conclusion: This structure is reportable. However, the 16 C.F.R. § 802.40 exemption for the formation of a not-for-profit joint venture is likely to apply.
b. The illustration below depicts this structure:

3. A transaction in which the existing not-for-profit entities consolidate under a new not-for-profit entity. The existing entities lose their separate pre-acquisition identities or become wholly owned subsidiaries of the new entity. The exact structure of board appointment for the members of the not-for-profit entities does not drive the reportability assessment.

a. PNO conclusion: Under the PNO’s new position, the transaction is reportable as a consolidation.
b. The illustration below depicts this structure:

In the Tip Sheet, the PNO described several factors that it has considered relevant to the analysis of beneficial ownership in the context of hospitals affiliating under a new entity:

  • The new entity becomes the corporate member of the affiliating hospital entities
  • The new entity has the right to authorize and/or approve the articles, bylaws, and other governance documents of the affiliating hospital entities
  • The new entity has the right to authorize and/or approve the sale or lease of the affiliating hospital assets
  • The new entity has the right to appoint and/or approve the senior officers of the affiliating hospital entities
  • The new entity has the right to devise and/or approve the strategic plans, capital budgets and expenditures, and significant contracting of the affiliating hospitals

Overall, not-for-profit hospital systems need to plan for HSR Act filings being required for many transactions that, under prior PNO analysis, would not have required notification. While the FTC would routinely investigate hospital affiliations that did not require HSR Act filings, the FTC will have additional procedural leverage when there is a mandatory filing, which creates the statutory waiting periods and Second Request mechanisms.

WHAT HAPPENED:

  • On August 7, the FTC published a new Model Timing Agreement. Timing agreements are agreements between FTC staff and merging parties that outline the FTC’s expected timing for various events in order for it to conduct an orderly investigation during a Second Request.
  • The FTC expects the Model Timing Agreement to be used as drafted (or in a similar form) for all transactions that receive a Second Request. The FTC has used timing agreements frequently in the past, as has the DOJ, but the FTC has now published a model, which means this is likely to become the standard practice moving forward.
  • Parties are not required to enter into a timing agreement. However, in practicality, if parties do not agree to the timing agreement, the agency will proceed as if it must be in court to block the deal within 30 days of compliance. Therefore, it will prepare for litigation and will not consider settlement options or engage with the parties on the issues in the same way it would if the agency had more time under a timing agreement.
  • Some highlights of the new Model Timing Agreement are provided below (Note: All days listed refer to calendar days):
    • Parties must provide 30 days’ notice before certifying substantial compliance, and such notice cannot be provided until at least 10 days after signing the timing agreement.
    • Parties cannot close a proposed transaction until a specified time period after substantial compliance with the Second Request. The model indicates this will be 60 days in less complex matters or 90 days in more complex matters, but could be longer than 90 days in “matters involving particularly complicated industries.”
    • Parties must provide 30 days’ notice before consummating the proposed transaction and cannot provide notice more than 40 days before the date on which they have a good faith basis to believe they will have cleared other closing conditions and will be able to complete the transaction, absent an FTC action to block the transaction.
    • The agreement includes a stipulated Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which will be entered in the event of a challenge. The TRO prevents the parties from consummating the transaction until after five days following a ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction.
    • The timing agreement contains other timing-related provisions such as for document productions and investigational hearings as part of the FTC’s investigation.

WHAT THIS MEANS:

  • Though the Model Timing Agreement does not affect the statutory expiration of the HSR waiting period, it commits the parties not to consummate the transaction for a much longer period and, therefore, effectively extends the waiting period far longer than the 30 days specified under the HSR Act.
  • The 40-day notice required before the closing date means that if there is another condition in the way of closing, such as an ongoing investigation before the European Commission or in China, the parties cannot provide their notice of the anticipated closing date to the FTC. The FTC will not be forced to litigate until the parties are in a position to complete their transaction in the near term, absent an FTC challenge.
  • The FTC has made clear that parties either have to sign up to a much longer period for the HSR review process than the statute specifies or be in an adversarial posture that is less likely to lead to the agency closing its investigation or settling the matter and more likely to lead to a court challenge.

WHAT HAPPENED

  • On December 1, 2016 Parker-Hannifin agreed to acquire Clarcor for $4.3 billion.
  • The merger agreement included a $200 million divestiture cap – that is, Parker-Hannifin was required, if necessary, to divest assets representing up to $200 million in net sales to obtain antitrust clearance.
  • The initial antitrust waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) expired on January 17, 2017.
  • Parker-Hannifin completed the acquisition on February 28, 2017.
  • Nearly seven months later on September 26, 2017, the DOJ filed suit in US District Court for the District of Delaware seeking to require Parker-Hannifin to divest either its or Clarcor’s aviation fuel filtration assets.
  • The DOJ did not include in its complaint an allegation or statement that the parties increased prices.
  • The DOJ press release indicates that the parties “failed to provide significant document or data productions in response to the department’s requests.” We believe that this refers to the DOJ’s post-closing investigation.
  • The DOJ did not suggest in its complaint or the press release that the parties failed to provide required documentation under the HSR Act (e.g., Item 4 documents). During the initial 30-day HSR waiting period, the parties are under no obligation to submit documentation or data to DOJ or FTC requests – all responses are voluntary.

WHAT THIS MEANS

  • Challenges to transactions after the HSR waiting period expired are rare and typically involve a situation where the parties failed to supply required documentation under the HSR Act.
  • Challenges post-HSR clearance are even rarer when the parties complied with their obligations under the HSR Act and supplied all required documentation (e.g., Item 4 documents).
  • The DOJ’s post-HSR clearance action demonstrates that the DOJ may still challenge a transaction post-closing if it later discovers a niche problematic overlap that it did not discover during the initial HSR waiting period.
  • While this challenge may be an aberration, it raises additional considerations when drafting risk allocation provisions in merger agreements for HSR reportable transactions because merger agreements do not typically account for a post-HSR clearance challenge from the DOJ or FTC.
  • DOJ action in this matter suggests the Trump administration is unlikely to be lax in its merger enforcement and will continue to analyze competition in narrow markets.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced several antitrust enforcement actions in advance of the inauguration of President Trump, including settlements for failures to file under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act), a challenge to an unreportable deal and a settlement of a “gun-jumping” claim under the HSR Act. These cases illustrate the importance of compliance with the often complex reporting, waiting period and substantive aspects of antitrust laws in connection with acquisitions of various types, whether or not those acquisitions require premerger reporting. Failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties.

Two HSR “Failure to File” Settlements. On January 17, 2017, the FTC announced two settlements for failures to submit HSR filings and observe the statutory waiting period under the HSR Act prior to consummating acquisitions that met the relevant thresholds. The HSR Act requires notification of certain acquisitions of voting securities, assets and non-corporate interests if the value held as result of the transaction is in excess of certain notification thresholds and size of person thresholds (if applicable), and the transaction is not otherwise exempt. Parties to reportable transactions must observe the statutory waiting period prior to closing. If they fail to file, or otherwise do not observe the waiting period under the HSR Act, the parties may be liable for civil penalties of up to $40,654 per day (which was recently increased from $40,000, effective February 24, 2017).

In the first settlement, Ahmet Okumus agreed to pay $180,000 in connection with failing to notify for his purchases of voting securities of Web.com Group, Inc. (Web.com). According to the complaint, in September 2014, Okumus acquired voting securities of Web.com and as a result, held approximately 13.5 percent of the voting securities of Web.com. Okumus continued to acquire voting securities of Web.com through November 2014. Okumus did not file an HSR notification prior to making these acquisitions, relying on the “investment only” exemption, which exempts acquisitions resulting in holdings of 10 percent or less of the issued and outstanding voting securities if the shares are held solely for the purpose of investment (see 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c)(9) and 16 C.F.R. § 802.9). However, because Okumus held in excess of 10 percent, this exemption was not applicable. In late November of 2014, Okumus made a corrective filing that allowed him to acquire additional Web.com voting securities for approximately five years, provided that the value of the voting securities he held as a result of any acquisition did not exceed the $100 million (as adjusted) notification threshold. In a letter that accompanied his corrective filing, he indicated that the failure to file was inadvertent. The FTC did not seek civil penalties in that instance.

In June of 2016, Okumus began acquiring additional voting securities of Web.com. Later that month he acquired 236,589 voting securities of Web.com, and as a result of that acquisition, Okumus held voting securities valued (per the HSR rules) in excess of the $100 million (as adjusted) threshold, which at the time was $156.3 million. He made this acquisition without first filing and observing the HSR waiting period. In July of 2016, Okumus sold 33,200 shares, which resulted in him holding less than $156.3 million in Web.com voting securities, so technically, Okumus was only in violation of the HSR Act between June 27, 2016 (when he made the acquisition that put him over the $100 million (as adjusted) threshold) and July 14, 2016 (when his holdings in Web.com fell below the $100 million (as adjusted) threshold). In connection with this second corrective filing, Okumus agreed to pay a civil penalty of $180,000. In its press release, the FTC noted that it determined to seek penalties because “this is Okumus’s second HSR violation in two years regarding Web.com.” While technically the maximum civil penalty could have approached $700,000, the FTC noted that the penalty was adjusted downward from the maximum because the violation was inadvertent and promptly corrected, and Okumus was willing to resolve the matter quickly through a consent decree.

In the second settlement, Mitchell P. Rales agreed to pay $720,000 in connection with his wife’s acquisition of voting securities of Colfax Corporation (Colfax) and his acquisition of voting securities of Danaher Corporation (Danaher). Prior to his wife’s acquisition of Colfax shares, Rales held 57.9 percent of the voting securities of Colfax, and because he held over 50 percent of the voting securities of Colfax, any additional acquisitions would have been exempt under the HSR rules. However, after an initial public offering of Colfax voting securities, Rales’ holdings decreased to approximately 20.8 percent, and thus additional acquisitions were not exempt under the HSR rules. In October 2011, Rales’ wife acquired 25,000 voting securities of Colfax on the open market. Under the HSR rules, holdings of spouses and minor children are aggregated, so the shares acquired by Rales’ wife were attributed to him. As a result of this acquisition, Rales held voting securities of Colfax valued in excess of the then applicable $100 million (as adjusted) threshold. Rales did not file or observe the waiting period prior to his wife making this acquisition.

Separately, in January of 2008, Rales acquired 6,000 shares of Danaher on the open market, and as a result of this acquisition, held voting securities of Danaher valued at approximately $2.3 billion, which is well in excess of the $500 million (as adjusted) notification threshold at the time. Rales did not file or observe the waiting period under the HSR Act. Rales made corrective filings in February 2016 for both this acquisition and his wife’s acquisition of Colfax voting securities.

Prior to these corrective filings, Rales had paid a civil penalty of $850,000 in 1991, in connection with an acquisition for which Rales failed to file, that the FTC alleged was not inadvertent, but instead was structured in such a way as to avoid filing. In its press release, the FTC stated that it determined to seek penalties because “Rales had paid civil penalties to settle an earlier HSR enforcement action brought by the Department of Justice in 1991.”

These two settlements include some important reminders for acquiring parties, especially natural persons.

  • First, the “size of transaction” for HSR purposes is not simply the value of what is being acquired, but also includes the current value (as defined by the HSR rules) of what is already held of the acquired person.
  • Second, because acquirers need to consider the value of what they currently hold, valuation can creep up over time and a subsequent acquisition—no matter how small—may trip an HSR notification threshold. In other words, valuation must be considered with every acquisition from the same acquired person.
  • Third, natural persons must aggregate holdings of spouses and minor children when considering possible HSR filing requirements.

Disgorgement of Profits for Non-Reportable Transaction. On January 18, 2017, the FTC announced Mallinckrodt ARD Inc. (formerly known as Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (Questcor) and its parent company agreed to pay $100 million to settle claims it monopolized a market for therapeutic adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drugs in the United States. The FTC alleged that Questcor held a monopoly in ACTH drugs when it acquired the rights to develop a competing drug, Synacthen Depot, from Novartis AG in June of 2013. The acquisition of these intellectual property rights was not subject to the reporting requirements of the HSR Act at the time. However, changes to the HSR rules applicable to pharmaceutical licenses in November 2013 likely would have resulted in a reportable transaction.

The FTC claimed that Questcor disrupted the bidding process for Synacthen and outbid other bidders so that it could keep Synacthen from becoming a competitor to Questcor’s product. Because of Questcor’s actions, the FTC alleged that a competitor was thwarted from challenging Questcor’s market position with a lower priced product. Meanwhile, Questcor has taken significant price increases on eight occasions since 2011. The FTC alleged these actions were in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair method of competition and Section 2 of the Sherman Act as monopolization. The Attorneys General of Alaska, Maryland, New York, Texas and Washington joined the FTC’s complaint.

Under the settlement, Questcor will pay $100 million in disgorgement and grant a license to develop Synacthen Depot to a licensee approved by the FTC. The states that joined the FTC’s complaint will receive $10 million of the $100 million payment and an additional $2 million as payment for attorney’s fees and costs. This settlement serves as an important reminder that non-reportable transactions remain subject to antitrust review and potential challenge at both the federal and state levels.

“Gun-Jumping” under the HSR Act. Also on January 18, 2017, the DOJ announced a settlement with Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) for violating the HSR Act by taking operational control of a target prior to observing the HSR waiting period. In August 2014, Duke agreed to purchase an electrical generating plant located in Florida. As part of the purchase agreement, Duke also entered into a “tolling agreement” where Duke would immediately—and prior to closing—began exercising control over the plant’s output and retaining the day-to-day profits and losses from its business. The DOJ’s complaint stated that Duke assumed control of purchasing all the fuel for the plant, arranging for delivery of that fuel and arranging for transmission of the energy generated by the plant. The DOJ claimed that Duke bore the benefit (or risk) of the profit (or loss) generated by the plant as well as the risk of changes in the market price for fuel and the market price for energy.

As stated in the 1978 Statement of Basis and Purpose issued with the final rules implementing the HSR Act, “the existence of beneficial ownership is to be determined in the context of particular cases with reference to the person or persons that enjoy the indicia of beneficial ownership, which include the right to obtain the benefit of any increase in value or dividends, the risk of loss of value, the right to vote the stock or to determine who may vote the stock, the investment discretion (including the power to dispose of the stock.” (43 Fed. Reg. 33450, 33458.) Application of these indicia of beneficial ownership depends on the totality of the circumstances; no one factor or set of factors is necessarily dispositive. In any event, in transactions that meet the HSR Act thresholds and are not otherwise exempt, the HSR Act prohibits an acquiring person from taking beneficial ownership of the target prior to the expiration or termination of the statutory waiting period. The DOJ alleged that Duke’s retention of the profit and loss of the electrical generating plant’s business as well as the benefit (or risk) of changes in market prices for fuel and energy were indicative of its beneficial ownership of Duke.

The parties did not submit their respective HSR notification and report forms for Duke’s acquisition of the plant until months after entering into the tolling agreement, which the DOJ alleges gave Duke beneficial ownership of the plant. Accordingly, the DOJ alleged that Duke was in violation from October 1, 2014, when the tolling agreement became effective, until February 27, 2015, when the HSR waiting period expired. To settle the DOJ’s complaint, Duke agreed to pay a civil penalty of $600,000 for violation of the HSR Act. In a statement, Duke noted that it “admits no wrongdoing or liability as part of the settlement,” but agreed to the civil penalty “to settle the case and avoid the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation.”

Summary. These various settlements illustrate several important reminders for acquiring or merging parties. First, the notification requirements of HSR Act can apply in unexpected circumstances. Acquiring parties—whether individual investors, executives that receive stock as compensation, spouses or companies—should give careful consideration as to whether the HSR Act may apply to even the most seemingly mundane or ordinary acquisitions. Second, even if a transaction is not subject to the reporting requirements of the HSR Act, it may still be investigated and ultimately challenged—possibly resulting in an effective unwinding of the transaction and disgorgement of profits. Careful analysis and advance planning can help parties anticipate and manage the potential risk of a post-closing challenge. Third, obligations under the antitrust laws do not end with the execution of a transaction agreement. Parties must continue to observe obligations under the antitrust laws prior to closing even after they have executed a transaction agreement. This applies to the pre-closing activity of merging competitors, as well as complying with the HSR Act by not taking beneficial ownership prior to the expiration or termination of the HSR waiting period (regardless of the competitive overlap between the parties). These enforcement actions illustrate the potential (and possibly unanticipated) applicability of antitrust laws to a variety of acquisitions and at different stages of a transaction’s life cycle.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement on August 24, 2015, with Third Point Funds for failing to file a notification under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) in connection with the acquisition of shares in Yahoo! Inc. (Yahoo) in 2011. Third Point Funds initially did not file and observe the HSR waiting period because it believed its acquisitions were exempt under the so-called “investment-only” exemption. The settlement provides insight into how the FTC interprets the investment-only exemption, and an important reminder that the HSR Act is a procedural statute for which the lack of competitive effect has no bearing on how the FTC chooses to enforce violations of its reporting requirements.

Read the full On the Subject.

by Lincoln Mayer

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has approved social media heavyweight Twitter’s $350 million stock acquisition of MoPub.  Twitter’s purchase of the mobile advertising exchange, which helps companies place ads on mobile devices, is expected to enhance Twitter’s ability to tailor mobile ads to users.  The size of the deal triggered the Hart-Scott Rodino (HSR) Act’s mandatory filing requirement, but the FTC concluded that the acquisition posed no anticompetitive obstacles.

This high-profile transaction is a reminder of the value of good planning and involving antitrust counsel early in the planning process, even where the parties do not anticipate significant antitrust issues.  With enough advance warning, counsel can work with the antitrust agencies to showcase the procompetitive aspects of the transaction, mitigate any problematic aspects and seek rapid clearance of deals that, at least from a competitive standpoint, are relatively straightforward.  In Twitter’s case, that meant being able to resolve a potential regulatory issue involving its largest acquisition to date before the launch of Twitter’s initial public offering.

by Gregory Heltzer

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) both announced that they will have limited staff on hand to accept Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification filings during the U.S. federal government shutdown.  The HSR Act requires that parties subject to the Act must wait 30 days before closing their transaction.  This waiting period provides the agencies with time to determine whether to challenge a transaction prior to closing.  During the shutdown, the FTC will continue HSR investigations to the extent that “a failure by the government to challenge the transaction before it is consummated will result in a substantial impairment of the government’s ability to secure effective relief at a later time.”  (See, FTC Shutdown Plan.)  Likewise, the DOJ will also prepare cases that must be filed due to expiration of the HSR waiting period.  (See, DOJ Shutdown Plan.)  We will provide updates if and when we learn more regarding the protocols for merger review during the shutdown.

by Jon B. Dubrow and Carla A. R. Hine

Today the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced proposed changes to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification rules that will impact the types of transactions for which pharmaceutical companies will be required to file HSR notifications with the Department of Justice and FTC.  The proposed rulemaking is meant to clarify when a transfer of exclusive rights to a patent in the pharmaceutical industry results in a potentially reportable acquisition of assets under the HSR Act.

Previously — although never actually codified — the FTC would determine whether the transfer of rights to a patent (usually in the form of a license) was a reportable event under the HSR Act by focusing on whether the licensor transferred the exclusive rights to "make, use and sell" under a patent.  The emphasis on the transfer of the exclusive right to manufacture would result in scenarios where parties would not be required to report the transfer of patent rights because although the licensor transferred the rights to commercialize the product, it retained the right to manufacture the product. 

In an effort to place substance over form, the proposed rulemaking instead suggests an "all commercially significant rights" test, where a transfer of "the exclusive rights to a patent that allow only the recipient of the exclusive patent rights to use the patent in a particular therapeutic area (or specific indication within a therapeutic area)" would constitute a potentially reportable acquisition of assets if the size-of-transaction and size-of-person (if applicable) thresholds are met, and no exemption is applicable.  The proposed rules further explain that all commercially significant rights are transferred even if the patent holder retains limited manufacturing rights to provide the licensee with product(s) covered by the patent, or co-rights to assist the licensee in developing and commercializing the product(s) covered by the patent.  Please note that this rule would only apply to patents within the pharmaceutical industry (as this is the industry in which these scenarios most often occur).

The text of the proposed rulemaking can be found here.  The FTC is accepting comments until October 25, 2012.
 

UPDATE:  The U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed Hart-Scott-Rodino Act rules will apply only to transfers of pharmaceutical patent rights and are expected to increase the number of filings.  Click here to read the full article, "FTC’s Proposed Rules Would Generate More HSR Filings for Transfers of Pharmaceutical Patent Rights."

by Jon B. Dubrow and Carla A. R. Hine

In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ)—the two US agencies responsible for reviewing and challenging transactions that may lessen competition—have increasingly challenged non-reportable and consummated transactions.  There have been several such challenges so far in 2011, and at least nine in 2010 (all but one of which resulted in a settlement).

To read the full article, click here.