HSR/Antitrust/Enforcement

As the saying goes, “the only thing for certain, is nothing is certain.”  With a rash of changes since Chairperson Lina Kahn took command, the FTC is certainly proving that maxim true.  Seeking to transform the historically sleepy agency into a more progressive regulator of the U.S. economy, Kahn’s FTC’s latest salvo targets the merger review process.

After a bit of hiatus on aggressively challenging vertical mergers, regulators both here in the United States and abroad have resumed initiated actions to challenge vertical mergers. Traditionally a difficult lift for the FTC, vertical vergers involve companies above and below each other in the supply chain. Instead of directly competing, an upstream company acquires

Under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.  Code § 18), certain business acquisitions are prohibited where “the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Long-standing jurisprudence has established that merger challenges require, at the outset, a prima facie showing of the likelihood of a substantial lessoning of competition that would result from the merger or acquisition.  Such prima facie showing typically takes the form of claims and evidence related to market shares above a certain level, but can take other forms.

With antitrust enforcement of the technology sector making headlines daily, and as lawmakers focus on strengthening and potentially reforming antitrust laws as a tool to regulate the tech industry, we anticipate a significant increase in scrutiny by US federal antitrust authorities of vertical mergers,[1] including merger of complements and so–called “diagonal mergers” in the technology sector.  Notwithstanding the current challenges of vertical merger enforcement,[2] on June 30, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued guidelines (the “Vertical Merger Guidelines”)[3] describing the practices, techniques and enforcement policies the agencies use to evaluate vertical mergers, and on December 22, 2020, the FTC issued additional guidance on Vertical Merger Enforcement (the “Commentary”).[4]  Tech companies and dealmakers should be aware of the type of technology related M&A transactions that may potentially be captured under the Vertical Merger Guidelines and Commentary, along with current enforcement priorities at the agencies. 

A major technology innovator finds itself on the defensive this week after a start-up company filed an antitrust lawsuit for alleged deceptive business practices. A tech-based online broker named Rex alleged that the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) and Multiple Listing Services (“MLS”) operate as a cartel to control access to real estate markets, and that Zillow joined their efforts and cut Rex out of the market.

Zillow, the top real estate listings website, recently changed their online listing policy to segregate listings by real-estate broker type. Rex, founded in 2015, uses data and artificial intelligence rather than traditional brokers to match sellers to home buyers. Rex alleges that Zillow has relegated all listings that are not maintained by brokers who belong to the National Association of Realtors (“NAR”) to a “hidden tab” on their website. This change, Rex claims, unfairly lowers the visibility of its listings.

The Sherman Act was passed in 1890. The Clayton Act in 1914. And they have hardly changed since. Last month, Senator Amy Klobuchar, the new chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, proposed an overhaul of the antitrust laws: CLERA, the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act.  If passed, CLERA would constitute the most significant change to antitrust law in a least a generation. In particular, it would also pose substantial new antitrust concerns for technology companies seeking to engage in what have been standard mergers and acquisitions.

On December 22, 2020, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance issued new guidance with disclosure considerations for special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”). The new guidance is reflected in CF Disclosure Guidance Topic No. 11 (“Topic No. 11”). SPACs, or “blank check companies,” become public reporting companies through initial public

On December 1, 2020, Nasdaq proposed new listing rules that, if approved by the SEC following a public comment period,[1] would require Nasdaq-listed companies either to have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors and disclose information about the diversity of their directors on an annual basis.  The new

On November 19, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments to Regulation S-K that update and streamline its rules governing Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) disclosure and related requirements to provide selected financial data and quarterly financial information.[1]  The rule changes are part of

On November 2, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted amendments to facilitate the use of private, or “exempt,” offerings.  The changes will impact offerings structured pursuant to Section 4(a)(2), Regulation D and Regulation S, as well as offerings conducted under Regulation A and Regulation Crowdfunding. The stated purpose of the changes is to facilitate