Client Alerts & Insights
FTC Announces Temporary Suspension of Early Terminations for HSR Filing Waiting Period; Reduced Filing Thresholds Go Into Effect on March 4
February 5, 2021
Authored By:
Early Terminations for HSR Filings Temporarily Suspended
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that both agencies will temporarily suspend the discretionary practice of early terminations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) waiting period for mergers raising the possibility of antitrust issues. Prior to the announcement, parties could apply to the FTC or DOJ to terminate the HSR 30-day waiting period prior to its expiration, allowing a deal to proceed faster. The FTC anticipates the suspension will be brief, noting a similar temporary suspension of early termination grants in March 2020 following the implementation of an e-filing system. The agency has referenced the transition to a new administration, the unprecedented volume of merger filings received at the start of the year and the ongoing pandemic as the basis of this temporary suspension. For the time being, parties who anticipate needing HSR approval should plan to wait the full 30 days after filing before being able to close their transaction, even if there are no competitive concerns raised by the transaction other than meeting the size thresholds.
HSR Filing Thresholds Reduced
The FTC’s latest annual adjustment of the statutory thresholds under the HSR Act will result in a decrease in thresholds from the prior year. The annual HSR threshold adjustments are tied to changes in gross national product, and accordingly the overall decline in the US economy in 2020 resulted in a threshold reduction. The only other time the HSR threshold has been reduced from the prior year was in 2010 following the Great Recession. Effective March 4, 2021, the new HSR size-of-the-transaction thresholds go into effect. The revised HSR thresholds will apply for transactions that close on or after March 4, 2021. The HSR filing fees remain unchanged.
HSR Act or Rule Provision |
2021 Indexed Value |
US$50 million size-of-transaction test |
US$92.0 million |
US$200 million size-of-transaction test |
US$368.0 million |
US$100 million size-of-person test |
US$184.0 million |
US$10 million size-of-person test |
US$18.4 million |
US$50 million notification threshold |
US$92.0 million |
US$100 million notification threshold |
US$184.0 million |
US$500 million notification threshold |
US$919.9 million |
25% of voting securities valued at US$1 billion notification threshold |
US$1,839.8 million |
US$110 million foreign exemption threshold |
US$202.4 million |
For more information on these HSR changes and how they may affect your filing, contact Connie Porter.
Connie Porter at cporter@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4433.
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.