15 U.S.C. § 18a

Premerger notification and waiting period

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) FilingExcept as exempted pursuant to subsection (c), no person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of any other person, unless both persons (or in the case of a tender offer, the acquiring person) file notification pursuant to rules under subsection (d)(1) and the waiting period described in subsection (b)(1) has expired, if—(1) the acquiring person, or the person whose voting securities or assets are being acquired, is engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce; and(2) as a result of such acquisition, the acquiring person would hold an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and assets of the acquired person—(A) in excess of $200,000,000 (as adjusted and published for each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2004, in the same manner as provided in section 19(a)(5) of this title to reflect the percentage change in the gross national product for such fiscal year compared to the gross national product for the year ending September 30, 2003); or(B)(i) in excess of $50,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) but not in excess of $200,000,000 (as so adjusted and published); and(ii)(I) any voting securities or assets of a person engaged in manufacturing which has annual net sales or total assets of $10,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more are being acquired by any person which has total assets or annual net sales of $100,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more;(II) any voting securities or assets of a person not engaged in manufacturing which has total assets of $10,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more are being acquired by any person which has total assets or annual net sales of $100,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more; or(III) any voting securities or assets of a person with annual net sales or total assets of $100,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more are being acquired by any person with total assets or annual net sales of $10,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) or more.In the case of a tender offer, the person whose voting securities are sought to be acquired by a person required to file notification under this subsection shall file notification pursuant to rules under subsection (d).(b) Waiting period; publication; voting securities(1) The waiting period required under subsection (a) shall—(A) begin on the date of the receipt by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (hereinafter referred to in this section as the “Assistant Attorney General”) of—(i) the completed notification required under subsection (a), or(ii) if such notification is not completed, the notification to the extent completed and a statement of the reasons for such noncompliance,from both persons, or, in the case of a tender offer, the acquiring person; and(B) end on the thirtieth day after the date of such receipt (or in the case of a cash tender offer, the fifteenth day), or on such later date as may be set under subsection (e)(2) or (g)(2).(2) The Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General may, in individual cases, terminate the waiting period specified in paragraph (1) and allow any person to proceed with any acquisition subject to this section, and promptly shall cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice that neither intends to take any action within such period with respect to such acquisition.(3) As used in this section—(A) The term “voting securities” means any securities which at present or upon conversion entitle the owner or holder thereof to vote for the election of directors of the issuer or, with respect to unincorporated issuers, persons exercising similar functions.(B) The amount or percentage of voting securities or assets of a person which are acquired or held by another person shall be determined by aggregating the amount or percentage of such voting securities or assets held or acquired by such other person and each affiliate thereof.(c) Exempt transactionsThe following classes of transactions are exempt from the requirements of this section—(1) acquisitions of goods or realty transferred in the ordinary course of business;(2) acquisitions of bonds, mortgages, deeds of trust, or other obligations which are not voting securities;(3) acquisitions of voting securities of an issuer at least 50 per centum of the voting securities of which are owned by the acquiring person prior to such acquisition;(4) transfers to or from a Federal agency or a State or political subdivision thereof;(5) transactions specifically exempted from the antitrust laws by Federal statute;(6) transactions specifically exempted from the antitrust laws by Federal statute if approved by a Federal agency, if copies of all information and documentary material filed with such agency are contemporaneously filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General;(7) transactions which require agency approval under section 1467a(e) of title 12, section 1828(c) of title 12, or section 1842 of title 12, except that a portion of a transaction is not exempt under this paragraph if such portion of the transaction (A) is subject to section 1843(k) of title 12; and (B) does not require agency approval under section 1842 of title 12;(8) transactions which require agency approval under section 1843 of title 12 or section 1464 of title 12, if copies of all information and documentary material filed with any such agency are contemporaneously filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General at least 30 days prior to consummation of the proposed transaction, except that a portion of a transaction is not exempt under this paragraph if such portion of the transaction (A) is subject to section 1843(k) of title 12; and (B) does not require agency approval under section 1843 of title 12;(9) acquisitions, solely for the purpose of investment, of voting securities, if, as a result of such acquisition, the securities acquired or held do not exceed 10 per centum of the outstanding voting securities of the issuer;(10) acquisitions of voting securities, if, as a result of such acquisition, the voting securities acquired do not increase, directly or indirectly, the acquiring person’s per centum share of outstanding voting securities of the issuer;(11) acquisitions, solely for the purpose of investment, by any bank, banking association, trust company, investment company, or insurance company, of (A) voting securities pursuant to a plan of reorganization or dissolution; or (B) assets in the ordinary course of its business; and(12) such other acquisitions, transfers, or transactions, as may be exempted under subsection (d)(2)(B).(d) Commission rulesThe Federal Trade Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General and by rule in accordance with section 553 of title 5, consistent with the purposes of this section—(1) shall require that the notification required under subsection (a) be in such form and contain such documentary material and information relevant to a proposed acquisition as is necessary and appropriate to enable the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General to determine whether such acquisition may, if consummated, violate the antitrust laws; and(2) may—(A) define the terms used in this section;(B) exempt, from the requirements of this section, classes of persons, acquisitions, transfers, or transactions which are not likely to violate the antitrust laws; and(C) prescribe such other rules as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.(e) Additional information; waiting period extensions(1)(A) The Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General may, prior to the expiration of the 30-day waiting period (or in the case of a cash tender offer, the 15-day waiting period) specified in subsection (b)(1) of this section, require the submission of additional information or documentary material relevant to the proposed acquisition, from a person required to file notification with respect to such acquisition under subsection (a) of this section prior to the expiration of the waiting period specified in subsection (b)(1) of this section, or from any officer, director, partner, agent, or employee of such person.(B)(i) The Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission shall each designate a senior official who does not have direct responsibility for the review of any enforcement recommendation under this section concerning the transaction at issue, to hear any petition filed by such person to determine—(I) whether the request for additional information or documentary material is unreasonably cumulative, unduly burdensome, or duplicative; or(II) whether the request for additional information or documentary material has been substantially complied with by the petitioning person.(ii) Internal review procedures for petitions filed pursuant to clause (i) shall include reasonable deadlines for expedited review of such petitions, after reasonable negotiations with investigative staff, in order to avoid undue delay of the merger review process.(iii) Not later than 90 days after December 21, 2000, the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission shall conduct an internal review and implement reforms of the merger review process in order to eliminate unnecessary burden, remove costly duplication, and eliminate undue delay, in order to achieve a more effective and more efficient merger review process.(iv) Not later than 120 days after December 21, 2000, the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission shall issue or amend their respective industry guidance, regulations, operating manuals and relevant policy documents, to the extent appropriate, to implement each reform in this subparagraph.(v) Not later than 180 days after December 21, 2000, the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission shall each report to Congress—(I) which reforms each agency has adopted under this subparagraph;(II) which steps each has taken to implement such internal reforms; and(III) the effects of such reforms.(2) The Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General, in its or his discretion, may extend the 30-day waiting period (or in the case of a cash tender offer, the 15-day waiting period) specified in subsection (b)(1) of this section for an additional period of not more than 30 days (or in the case of a cash tender offer, 10 days) after the date on which the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General, as the case may be, receives from any person to whom a request is made under paragraph (1), or in the case of tender offers, the acquiring person, (A) all the information and documentary material required to be submitted pursuant to such a request, or (B) if such request is not fully complied with, the information and documentary material submitted and a statement of the reasons for such noncompliance. Such additional period may be further extended only by the United States district court, upon an application by the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General pursuant to subsection (g)(2).(f) Preliminary injunctions; hearings

If a proceeding is instituted or an action is filed by the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that a proposed acquisition violates section 18 of this title, or section 45 of this title, or an action is filed by the United States, alleging that a proposed acquisition violates such section 18 of this title, or section 1 or 2 of this title, and the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General (1) files a motion for a preliminary injunction against consummation of such acquisition pendente lite, and (2) certifies the United States district court for the judicial district within which the respondent resides or carries on business, or in which the action is brought, that it or he believes that the public interest requires relief pendente lite pursuant to this subsection, then upon the filing of such motion and certification, the chief judge of such district court shall immediately notify the chief judge of the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which such district court is located, who shall designate a United States district judge to whom such action shall be assigned for all purposes.

(g) Civil penalty; compliance; power of court(1) Any person, or any officer, director, or partner thereof, who fails to comply with any provision of this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each day during which such person is in violation of this section. Such penalty may be recovered in a civil action brought by the United States.(2) If any person, or any officer, director, partner, agent, or employee thereof, fails substantially to comply with the notification requirement under subsection (a) or any request for the submission of additional information or documentary material under subsection (e)(1) of this section within the waiting period specified in subsection (b)(1) and as may be extended under subsection (e)(2), the United States district court—(A) may order compliance;(B) shall extend the waiting period specified in subsection (b)(1) and as may have been extended under subsection (e)(2) until there has been substantial compliance, except that, in the case of a tender offer, the court may not extend such waiting period on the basis of a failure, by the person whose stock is sought to be acquired, to comply substantially with such notification requirement or any such request; and(C) may grant such other equitable relief as the court in its discretion determines necessary or appropriate,upon application of the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General.(h) Disclosure exemption

Any information or documentary material filed with the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, and no such information or documentary material may be made public, except as may be relevant to any administrative or judicial action or proceeding. Nothing in this section is intended to prevent disclosure to either body of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress.

(i) Construction with other laws(1) Any action taken by the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General or any failure of the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General to take any action under this section shall not bar any proceeding or any action with respect to such acquisition at any time under any other section of this Act or any other provision of law.(2) Nothing contained in this section shall limit the authority of the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission to secure at any time from any person documentary material, oral testimony, or other information under the Antitrust Civil Process Act [15 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.], the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], or any other provision of law.(j) Omitted(k) Extensions of time

If the end of any period of time provided in this section falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holiday (as defined in section 6103(a) of title 5), then such period shall be extended to the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holiday.

(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 7A, as added Pub. L. 94–435, title II, § 201, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1390; amended Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(10)(A), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358; Pub. L. 101–73, title XII, § 1214, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 529; Pub. L. 106–102, title I, § 133(c), Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1383; Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(a), (c), (d)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–108, 2762A–110.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The antitrust laws, referred to in subsecs. (c) and (d), are defined in section 12 of this title.

This Act, referred to in subsec. (i)(1), is act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, known as the Clayton Act, which is classified generally to sections 12, 13, 14 to 19, 21, and 22 to 27 of this title, and sections 52 and 53 of Title 29, Labor. For further details and complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 12 of this title and Tables.

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in subsec. (i)(2), is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 41 et seq.) of chapter 2 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.

The Antitrust Civil Process Act, referred to in subsec. (i)(2), is Pub. L. 87–664, Sept. 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 548, which is classified principally to chapter 34 (§ 1311 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1311 of this title and Tables.

Codification

December 21, 2000, referred to in subsec. (e)(1)(B), was in the original “the date of the enactment of this Act” which was translated as meaning the date of enactment of Pub. L. 106–553, which enacted subsec. (e)(1)(B), to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsection (j), which required the Federal Trade Commission, with the concurrence of the Assistant Attorney General, to report annually to Congress on the operation of this section, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 172 of House Document No. 103–7.

Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(a)], amended subsec. (a) generally, reenacting introductory provisions, par. (1), and concluding provisions without change, adding par. (2), and striking out former pars. (2) and (3) which read as follows:

“(2)(A) any voting securities or assets of a person engaged in manufacturing which has annual net sales or total assets of $10,000,000 or more are being acquired by any person which has total assets or annual net sales of $100,000,000 or more;

“(B) any voting securities or assets of a person not engaged in manufacturing which has total assets of $10,000,000 or more are being acquired by any person which has total assets or annual net sales of $100,000,000 or more; or

“(C) any voting securities or assets of a person with annual net sales or total assets of $100,000,000 or more are being acquired by any person with total assets or annual net sales of $10,000,000 or more; and

“(3) as a result of such acquisition, the acquiring person would hold—

“(A) 15 per centum or more of the voting securities or assets of the acquired person, or

“(B) an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and assets of the acquired person in excess of $15,000,000.”

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(c)], designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(d)(1)], substituted “30 days” for “20 days”.

Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(d)(2)], added subsec. (k).

1999—Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 106–102, § 133(c)(1), inserted before semicolon at end “, except that a portion of a transaction is not exempt under this paragraph if such portion of the transaction (A) is subject to section 1843(k) of title 12; and (B) does not require agency approval under section 1842 of title 12”.

Subsec. (c)(8). Pub. L. 106–102, § 133(c)(2), inserted before semicolon at end “, except that a portion of a transaction is not exempt under this paragraph if such portion of the transaction (A) is subject to section 1843(k) of title 12; and (B) does not require agency approval under section 1843 of title 12”.

1989—Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 101–73, § 1214(1), inserted reference to section 1467a(e) of title 12.

Subsec. (c)(8). Pub. L. 101–73, § 1214(2), struck out reference to section 1726 or 1730a(e) of title 12.

1984—Subsec. (f)(2). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out designation “(A)” before “upon the filing”, and struck out subpar. (B) which had provided that if the Federal Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General certified that he or it believed that the public interest required relief pendente lite pursuant to this subsection, the motion for a preliminary injunction had to be set down for hearing by the district judge so designated at the earliest practicable time, would take precedence over all matters except older matters of the same character and trials pursuant to section 3161 of title 18, and had to be in every way expedited.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2000 Amendment

Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(e)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–111, provided that: “This section [amending this section and provisions set out as a note under this section] and the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st month that begins more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 21, 2000].”

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–102 effective 120 days after Nov. 12, 1999, see section 161 of Pub. L. 106–102, set out as a note under section 24 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 94–435, title II, § 202, Sept. 30, 1976, 90 Stat. 1394, provided that: “The amendment made by section 201 of this Act [enacting this section] shall take effect 150 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1976], except that subsection (d) of section 7A of the Clayton Act [subsec. (d) of this section] (as added by section 201 of this Act) shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.”

Department of Defense Notification of Certain Transactions

Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title VIII, § 857, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 346, provided that: “The parties to a proposed merger or acquisition that will require a review by the Department of Defense who are required to file the notification and provide supplementary information to the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission under section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) shall concurrently provide such information to the Department of Defense during the waiting period under section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a).”

Assessment and Collection of Filing Fees

Pub. L. 101–162, title VI, § 605, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1031, as amended by Pub. L. 101–302, title II, May 25, 1990, 104 Stat. 217; Pub. L. 102–395, title I, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1847; Pub. L. 103–317, title I, Aug. 26, 1994, 108 Stat. 1739; Pub. L. 106–553, § 1(a)(2) [title VI, § 630(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A–109; Pub. L. 117–328, div. GG, title I, § 101, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5967, provided that:“(a) Five working days after enactment of this Act [Nov. 21, 1989] and thereafter, the Federal Trade Commission shall assess and collect filing fees established in subsection (b) which shall be paid by persons acquiring voting securities or assets who are required to file premerger notifications by the [sic] section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder. For purposes of said Act, no notification shall be considered filed until payment of the fee required by this section. Fees collected pursuant to this section shall be divided evenly between and credited to the appropriations, Federal Trade Commission, ‘Salaries and Expenses’ and Department of Justice, ‘Salaries and Expenses, Antitrust Division’: Provided, That fees in excess of $40,000,000 in fiscal year 1990 shall be deposited to the credit of the Treasury of the United States: Provided further, That fees made available to the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division herein shall remain available until expended.“(b) The filing fees referred to in subsection (a) are—“(1) $30,000 if the aggregate total amount determined under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(2)) is less than $161,500,000 (as adjusted and published for each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 2023, in the same manner as provided in section 8(a)(5) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 19(a)(5)) to reflect the percentage change in the gross national product for such fiscal year compared to the gross national product for the year ending September 30, 2022);“(2) $100,000 if the aggregate total amount determined under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(2)) is not less than $161,500,000 (as so adjusted and published) but is less than $500,000,000 (as so adjusted and published);“(3) $250,000 if the aggregate total amount determined under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(2)) is not less than $500,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) but is less than $1,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and published);“(4) $400,000 if the aggregate total amount determined under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(2)) is not less than $1,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) but is less than $2,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and published);“(5) $800,000 if the aggregate total amount determined under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(2)) is not less than $2,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and published) but is less than $5,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and published); and“(6) $2,250,000 if the aggregate total amount determined under section 7A(a)(2) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(2)) is not less than $5,000,000,000 (as so adjusted and published).“(c)(1) For each fiscal year commencing after September 30, 2023, the filing fees in this section shall be increased by an amount equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index, as determined by the Department of Labor or its successor, for the year then ended over the level so established for the year ending September 30, 2022.“(2) As soon as practicable, but not later than January 31 of each year, the Federal Trade Commission shall publish the adjusted amounts required by paragraph (1).“(3) The Federal Trade Commission shall not adjust amounts required by paragraph (1) if the percentage increase described in paragraph (1) is less than 1 percent.“(4) An amount adjusted under this section shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $5,000.”

[Another section 101 of div. GG of Pub. L. 117–328 is set out as a note under section 1 of this title.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 126 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 28× “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 44 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 31× “1, seeks to set aside a Final Rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) that requires the pharmaceutical industry to report certain transfers of exclusive patent rights under Section 7A of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 18a;…”

Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 790 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 11× “1383, 1383 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 18a). The Act added Section 7A to the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.”

United States v. William F. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385 (7th Cir. 1993). · cites it 10× “Farley violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, commonly called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR Act”).”

California v. Am. Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990). · cites it 7× “I write further to note that both the respondents and various interested labor unions, the latter as amici curiae, have argued for a different result on the basis of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (Clayton Act § 7A, as added and amended), 15 U. S. C. §…”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, they filed a Premer-ger Notification and Report Form with the FTC and the United States Department of Justice pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 18a. 4 On July 7, 2000 the FTC authorized this action for a preliminary…”

United States of Am. v. Aetna Inc., 240 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “They subsequently provided notification of their planned merger to the Department of Justice as required by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 18a. Following an investigation, the Department of Justice, eight states, and the District of…”

United States v. Siemens Corp. & G. D. Searle & Co., 621 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “On December 19 and 20, 1979, Searle and Siemens filed premerger notification reports pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, thereby commencing the 30-day waiting period specified by 15 U.”

United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 332 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 4× “(“Smithfield”) for civil penalties under Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976.”

United States v. Blavatnik, 168 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 4× “15 U.S.C. § 18a(a). The Act also exempts an array of transactions, including the acquisition of voting securities “solely for the purpose of investment.”

R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., Celestial Seasonings, Inc., & Kraft, Inc., 867 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Meanwhile, in accordance with the premerger notification requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 18a, Lipton informed the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) of the proposed merger involving Celestial.”

In Re Tci 2 Holdings, LLC, 428 B.R. 117 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010). · cites it 2× “Additional concerns were raised by the AHC/Debtor parties regarding the feasibility of the Beal/Ieahn Plan in light of federal antitrust regulations, including whether the plan would withstand antitrust scrutiny under the Hart-Scott-Rodi-no Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976…”

Show all 126 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a) — 21 cases

Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 44 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D.D.C. 2014). “1, seeks to set aside a Final Rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) that requires the pharmaceutical industry to report certain transfers of exclusive patent rights under Section 7A of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 18a;…”

Pharm. Rsch. & Mfrs. of Am. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 790 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “1383, 1383 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 18a). The Act added Section 7A to the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.”

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “Accordingly, they filed a Premer-ger Notification and Report Form with the FTC and the United States Department of Justice pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 18a. 4 On July 7, 2000 the FTC authorized this action for a preliminary…”

United States v. William F. Farley, 11 F.3d 1385 (7th Cir. 1993). “Farley violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, commonly called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR Act”).”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a)(2) — 1 case

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a)(2)(A) — 1 case

Dr Pepper/Seven-Up Companies, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 798 F. Supp. 762 (D.D.C. 1992).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a)(2)(B)(ii) — 2 cases

In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 703 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2012).

Ohio Chem. Servic v. Falconbridg (7th Cir. 2012).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a)(3) — 1 case

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a)(3)(B) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(a)(l) — 2 cases

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(b) — 3 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Remcor Prods. Co. v. Scotsman Grp., Inc., 860 F. Supp. 575 (N.D. Ill. 1994).

Lieberman v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 771 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1985).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(b)(1) — 3 cases

United States v. Siemens Corp. & G. D. Searle & Co., 621 F.2d 499 (2d Cir. 1980). “On December 19 and 20, 1979, Searle and Siemens filed premerger notification reports pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, thereby commencing the 30-day waiting period specified by 15 U.”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Louisiana Child.'s Med. Ctr. (E.D. La. 2023).

Louisiana Child.'s Med. Ctr. v. Attorney Gen. of the United States (E.D. La. 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(b)(2) — 1 case

Heublein, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 539 F. Supp. 123 (D. Conn. 1982).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(b)(3) — 1 case

Mgmt. Recruiters Int'l, Inc. v. James W. Bloor, Christine E. Bloor, & Health Care Int'l, Inc., 129 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 1997).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(b)(l) — 3 cases

In Re Tci 2 Holdings, LLC, 428 B.R. 117 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2010). “Additional concerns were raised by the AHC/Debtor parties regarding the feasibility of the Beal/Ieahn Plan in light of federal antitrust regulations, including whether the plan would withstand antitrust scrutiny under the Hart-Scott-Rodi-no Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976…”

Royal Crown Cola Co., Cross-Appellant v. The Coca-Cola Co., Pepsico, Inc., & Dr. Pepper Co., Cross-Appellees, 887 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1989).

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Freeman Hosp., 69 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1995).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(b)(l)(B) — 1 case

Heublein, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 539 F. Supp. 123 (D. Conn. 1982).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c) — 2 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c)(1) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c)(12) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c)(9) — 2 cases

United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 332 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2004). “(“Smithfield”) for civil penalties under Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(c)(l) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d) — 4 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

St. Joseph Hosp., Augusta, Georgia, Inc. v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 705 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2013).

St. Joseph Hosp., Augusta, Georgia, Inc. v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., Inc. (11th Cir. 2013).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(1) — 1 case

California v. Am. Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271 (1990). “I write further to note that both the respondents and various interested labor unions, the latter as amici curiae, have argued for a different result on the basis of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (Clayton Act § 7A, as added and amended), 15 U. S. C. §…”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(2)(A) — 4 cases

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Louisiana Child.'s Med. Ctr. (E.D. La. 2023).

Louisiana Child.'s Med. Ctr. v. Attorney Gen. of the United States (E.D. La. 2023).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(2)(B) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(2)(C) — 1 case

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(l) — 3 cases

Remcor Prods. Co. v. Scotsman Grp., Inc., 860 F. Supp. 575 (N.D. Ill. 1994).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(e) — 3 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., Celestial Seasonings, Inc., & Kraft, Inc., 867 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1989). “Meanwhile, in accordance with the premerger notification requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 18a, Lipton informed the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) of the proposed merger involving Celestial.”

Heublein, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 539 F. Supp. 123 (D. Conn. 1982).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(e)(1)(A) — 1 case

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Facebook Inc. (D.D.C. 2022).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(e)(2) — 2 cases

Royal Crown Cola Co., Cross-Appellant v. The Coca-Cola Co., Pepsico, Inc., & Dr. Pepper Co., Cross-Appellees, 887 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1989).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(f) — 1 case

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g) — 5 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

In Re Old Carco LLC, 406 B.R. 180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Koppers Co., Inc. v. Am. Exp. Co., 689 F. Supp. 1371 (W.D. Pa. 1988).

Cableamerica Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 795 F. Supp. 1082 (N.D. Ala. 1992).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(1) — 3 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. First City Fin. Corp., 688 F. Supp. 705 (D.D.C. 1988).

United States v. Xcl Resources Holdings, LLC (D.D.C. 2026).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(2) — 1 case

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Illinois Cereal Mills, Inc., 691 F. Supp. 1131 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(2)(C) — 1 case

United States v. Blavatnik, 168 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2016). “15 U.S.C. § 18a(a). The Act also exempts an array of transactions, including the acquisition of voting securities “solely for the purpose of investment.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(g)(l) — 4 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(h) — 8 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Jim Mattox, Attorney Gen. for the State of Texas v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, & Chevron Corp., Intervenor-Appellee, 752 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1985).

Lieberman v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 771 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1985).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(i) — 1 case

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(i)(1) — 3 cases

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Facebook Inc. (D.D.C. 2022).

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(i)(l) — 1 case

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

— 15 U.S.C. § 18a(j) — 1 case

State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. Texaco, 762 P.2d 385 (Cal. 1988). “It is plain from the text of HSR itself (15 U.S.C. § 18a) and from its legislative history (H.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.