DAMITT Q3 Update: Significant US Antitrust Merger Investigations and Complaints Are Down Sharply But Taking Longer

by Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP

Fast Facts

  • The number of significant merger investigations was down 25% on both a YTD and RTM basis
  • Only one significant investigation resulted in a complaint in 2017 YTD (two on an RTM basis), down about 80%
  • Although fewer in number, significant merger investigations and complaints took nearly 20% longer—11.6 months for 2017 YTD and 11.2 months on an RTM basis
  • The time between deal announcement and the issuance of a second request continued to creep up—from 72 to 81 days on a YTD basis and from 69 to 87 days on an RTM basis
  • Companies do not appear to be responding to the longer duration of significant merger investigations and litigations by allotting more time in transaction agreements for antitrust review

The Dechert Antitrust Merger Investigation Timing Tracker (DAMITT) for Q3 2017 recorded a 25% decline in the number of significant merger investigations and an 80% decline in the number of complaints challenging proposed Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR)-reportable deals compared to the prior year, on both a year-to-date (YTD) and a rolling 12 months (RTM) basis. At the same time, merging parties were giving the agencies more time from the date of announcement to the issuance of second requests—81 days in 2017 YTD (up from 72 days during the same period in 2016) and 87 days on an RTM basis (up from 69 days in the prior 12 months). Despite this added time at the outset, the duration of significant merger investigations continued to grow, hitting 11.6 months for 2017 YTD and 11.2 months on an RTM basis, both of which exceed the longest full year on record by nearly 20%. The changes over the same period last year are so pronounced that they are difficult to chalk up to randomness. But it is unclear whether the extended significant investigations reflect delays caused by the transition in administrations, a policy shift of the Trump administration, or some other systemic change.

Decline in Significant Investigations and Complaints Filed

The number of significant U.S. merger investigations concluded by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has declined during 2017 YTD and on an RTM basis. “Significant” merger investigations include proposed HSR-reportable transactions resulting in a closing statement, consent order, complaint challenging a transaction, or transaction abandonment for which the antitrust agency issues a press release. There were 18 significant investigations that concluded in the first three quarters of 2017, down 25% from the same period in 2016. Over the RTM ending Q3 2017, there were 27 significant investigations, which was also 25% lower than the 36 significant investigations in the prior 12-month period.

The number of significant investigations resulting in a complaint was down about 80%—from 5 complaints during the first three quarters of 2016 to only 1 during 2017 YTD, and from 9 complaints during the 12 months ending Q3 2016 to only 2 complaints over the RTM ending Q3 2017.

Given that the number of U.S.-targeted transactions announced in 2017 YTD is up by about 18% from a year ago according to Thomson Reuters, the declines in significant investigations and resulting complaints could be the result of less aggressive enforcement, companies avoiding risky deals as a result of the increase in the number of complaints filed in CY2015 and CY2016, or some combination of these factors.

Significant U.S. Antitrust Merger Investigations (2011  Q3 2017)

The Average Length of Significant Investigations Has Continued to Increase, with 2017 Producing the Three Longest in DAMITT History

Despite the decline in the number of significant merger investigations, those concluding during the first three quarters of 2017 averaged 11.6 months, nearly two months longer than the 9.7 month average during the first three quarters of 2016. For the 12 months ending Q3 2017, the average duration was 11.2 months, as compared to 9.5 months over the prior 12 months ending Q3 2016. These increased durations are partially driven by the fact that 2017 has produced the three longest significant investigations since DAMITT began tracking the data in 2011—Walgreens/Rite Aid, Abbott/Alere and DaVita/Renal Ventures. However, the trend toward longer significant investigations is not driven solely by a small number of record-setting transactions—50% of the significant investigations concluding in 2017 YTD persisted for at least 10.3 months, a length that would best the previous DAMITT record annual average duration of 9.9 months set in 2016.

The exact cause of this continued upward trend is unclear, though it could be some combination of delays caused by the transition in administrations, a policy shift of the Trump administration, or some other systemic change.

Average Duration of Significant U.S. Antitrust Merger Investigations (2011 – Q3 2017)

Average Time Between Deal Announcement and Issuance of Second Request Increased

Officials at the antitrust agencies have suggested that merging parties are waiting longer to make their pre-merger HSR filing or are more frequently using the one-time-only pull-and-refile procedure. This suggestion is supported by the DAMITT data. Based on publicly available data for about 60% of the significant merger investigations comprising the DAMITT database, the average time between deal announcement and the issuance of second requests increased to 81 days in 2017 YTD (up from 72 days during the same period in 2016) and 87 days on an RTM basis (up from 69 days in the prior 12 months). These durations are at least a month longer than the 51 day average in CY2011.

Under the HSR Act, the initial waiting period is 30 days (15 days for cash tender offers or bankruptcy situations) from the time of filing unless early termination is granted by the government or the acquirer “pulls and refiles,” which restarts the initial waiting period. Merging parties often delay filing or pull and refile in the hope that the additional time up front will enable the staff to streamline and shorten the investigation. This strategy may reflect a concession to the reality of the longer investigation process or it may constitute a response to increased staff requests that parties pull and refile. Regardless of the explanation, parties allocating more time prior to the issuance of a second request do not necessarily face longer—or shorter—overall investigations than parties that allocate less time pre-second request.

Percentage of Divestiture Consents Requiring Upfront Buyers Remains Steady

The agencies’ consent orders continued to reflect a high frequency of upfront buyer requirements. The percentage of divestiture consent orders requiring upfront buyers was 79% for 2017 YTD (compared to 81% for the first three quarters of 2016) and 84% on an RTM basis (compared to 83% in the prior 12 months). These figures are up sharply from the 43% average between CY2011 through CY2013 when post-order buyer consents were more common.

When an upfront buyer is required, before the merging parties can consummate their transaction, they must find a willing and able buyer, negotiate a purchase agreement with that buyer for the divested assets, and present that purchase agreement, the buyer’s business plan, and other information to the agency as part of the approval process. This process can add significant time to the investigation. Between 2011 and 2017 YTD, DAMITT has observed that investigations ending with consents requiring upfront buyers lasted about two months longer than those with consents permitting the merging parties to find and negotiate with divestiture buyers after consummating their transaction.

Upfront vs. Post-Order Buyer Trend (2011 – Q3 2017

No New Data Available on the Length of Antitrust Merger Litigation Filed in 2017

In addition to investigations taking longer, prior DAMITT analyses found that antitrust merger litigation was trending longer, too. However, as there have not been any merger litigation cases filed in 2017 that have reached a decision, no new data are available for analysis in this update.

Merging Companies Do Not Appear to Be Adjusting to Increased Durations by Using Longer Termination Periods in Transaction Agreements

Despite the increasing length of significant merger investigations and litigations, DAMITT’s analysis of publicly available transaction agreements for deals involved in significant merger investigations suggests that merging parties may not be responding with longer termination periods. The average time period from deal announcement to the final termination date in transaction agreements among parties involved in significant merger investigations that concluded in the RTM ending Q3 2017 was 14.2 months, down from 15.7 months in the 12 months ending Q3 2016. The average was 14.6 months for 2017 YTD, down from 16.8 months during the same period in 2016.

Time from Announcement to Final Termination Date (Months)
Significant Antitrust Merger Investigations in 2015

Time from Announcement to Final Termination Date (Months)
Significant Antitrust Merger Investigations in 2016

Time from Announcement to Final Termination Date (Months)
Significant Antitrust Merger Investigations in 2017 YTD


Although the number of significant investigations has declined in 2017, the duration of significant merger investigations and subsequent litigation continues to trend upward to record levels. While the circumstances of future antitrust-sensitive transactions may lead to results above or below DAMITT averages, the latest trends suggest that parties to the hypothetical average “significant” deal would have to plan on approximately 12 months for the agencies to investigate a transaction and another seven months if they want to preserve their right to litigate an adverse agency decision. Even more time may need to be allotted going forward if the current trends toward longer investigations and litigations continue.


Written by:

Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.