Photo of Bevin Newman

Bevin Newman

Subscribe to Bevin Newman's Posts

Bevin Newman is a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office.

Contact: Read more about Bevin Newman

What Happened?

On Friday, February 3, the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) announced its withdrawal of three policy statements on health care antitrust enforcement: (1) The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Enforcement Policy Statements in the Healthcare Area (Sept. 15, 1993); (2) The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Healthcare (Aug. 1, 1996); and (3) The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Statement of Antirust Enforcement Policy Regarding Accountable Care Organizations Participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Oct. 20, 2011) (together, the “Healthcare Statements”). It has been reported that the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), which shares antitrust enforcement authority with the DOJ (together the “Agencies”), intends to withdraw the Healthcare Statements as well. Assuming the FTC follows the DOJ’s lead, the withdrawal of the Healthcare Statements may be the most significant antitrust enforcement development under the Biden Administration to date and is likely the most significant healthcare antitrust development in decades.…

Continue Reading Department of Justice Withdraws Key Healthcare Antitrust Policy Statements

1. Higher Jurisdictional Thresholds For HSR Filings

On January 23, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced revised, higher thresholds for premerger filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The jurisdictional thresholds are revised annually based on the change in Gross National Product (GNP).…

Continue Reading Higher Jurisdictional and Filing Fees Thresholds for HSR Act Premerger Notifications and Interlocking Directorates Announced

On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a broad proposed rule that would ban employers from imposing noncompete clauses on their workers. The FTC press release announcing the proposed rule states that noncompete clauses—which apply to about one in five American workers—suppress wages, hamper innovation, block entrepreneurs from starting new businesses and reduce American workers’ earnings between $250 billion and $296 billion per year.[1] The proposed rule would prohibit employers from: (1) entering into or attempting to enter into a noncompete with a worker; (2) maintaining a noncompete with a worker; or (3) representing to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a noncompete. The term “worker” covers paid staff in addition to independent contractors and unpaid staff. The proposed rule does not apply to noncompete provisions imposed upon 25% owners of a business in transaction documents related to the sale of the business. The proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period commencing when the Federal Register publishes the proposed rule.…

Continue Reading FTC Seeks to Ban Noncompete Agreements in Employment Contracts

On Dec. 29, 2022, President Biden signed into law H.R. 2617, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023.” Included within H.R. 2617 is The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022, which impacts HSR filings as set forth below:…

Continue Reading New Law Substantially Increases HSR Filing Fees for Large Transactions

Yesterday, the FTC announced certain changes in response to the continuing “massive surge” in HSR filings. See Reforming the Pre-Filing Process for Companies Considering Consolidation and a Change in the Treatment of Debt | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov).…

Continue Reading HSR Practice Alert – FTC is Making Changes to Respond to the “Massive Surge” in HSR Filings

As it continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, the healthcare sector will face increased antitrust scrutiny from the Biden administration, with the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (the “DOJ”) (together the “Agencies”) as the Agencies ramp up their reviews not just of “horizontal” transactions (i.e., deals between competitors), but also of “vertical” transactions (i.e., deals that combine market participants at different levels of the healthcare industry, such as payors, hospitals, and physician practices).
Continue Reading Vertical Deals in Healthcare: Key Antitrust Takeaways for Private Equity Firms

  1. Lower Thresholds For HSR Filings

On February 1st, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission announced revised, lower thresholds for premerger filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The filing thresholds are revised annually, based on the change in Gross National Product (GNP) and had not been lowered since 2010.
Continue Reading Lower Filing Thresholds for HSR Act Premerger Notifications and Interlocking Directorates Announced

* Reprinted with permission from Global Competition Review. The full version of GCR’s US Courts Annual Review, published in July 2020, is available here.

The United States Supreme Court’s single antitrust case of the 2019 term, Apple, Inc v. Pepper upheld the long-standing and often criticized direct purchaser rule in the realm of sales through iPhone apps and other online sales platforms. The direct purchaser rule, established through the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Co and Illinois Brick Co v. Illinois limited standing to “the overcharged direct purchaser, and not others in the chain of manufacture or distribution.” In Apple v. Pepper, the Court grappled with these concepts in the virtual retail space where the class plaintiffs alleged that Apple’s 30 percent fee on sales of iPhone applications through its App Store represents a monopoly overcharge that should be recoverable by purchasers of the apps. The Court considered whether the developers of iPhone applications, rather than the consumers were more directly harmed by Apple’s alleged monopoly.
Continue Reading U.S. Courts Annual Review: Supreme Court

On April 4, 2020,  the Department of Justice issued a business review letter allowing collaboration among five distributors of personal-protective equipment (“PPE”), oxygen, and medications. This is the first business review letter issued under the expedited review procedure for streamlining pandemic-related public health efforts issued jointly by the Federal Trade Commission and DOJ on March 24, 2020 (as previously reported here and here). The DOJ turned the request for review around in only five days, but offered few new insights into how the agencies might weigh public-health considerations against potential competitive harms.
Continue Reading DOJ Issues First Business Review Letter Approving Competitor Collaboration In Response To COVID-19

Make no mistake, the antitrust laws remain in full effect.  The leadership of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) have made clear that these enforcers “stand ready to pursue civil violations of the antitrust laws, which include agreements between individuals and business to restrain competition through increased prices, lower wages, decreased output, or reduced quality as well as efforts by monopolists to use their market power to engage in exclusionary conduct.” The DOJ also promised to vigorously monitor and prosecute any criminal violations of the antitrust laws, “which typically involve agreements or conspiracies between individuals or businesses to fix prices or wages, rig bids, or allocate markets.” In fact, the DOJ has drafted proposed legislation to allow more time for its criminal cases by tolling the statute of limitations for criminal antitrust violations for no less than 180 days and until 60 days after termination of the national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020.
Continue Reading Speeding Up and Slowing Down Antitrust Reviews – How the Federal Antitrust Agencies Are Responding to the COVID-19 Crisis