FTC and DOJ Finalize 2023 Merger Guidelines

Today, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) jointly released the 2023 Merger Guidelines .  The 2023 Merger Guidelines outline the “factors and frameworks the agencies utilize when reviewing mergers and acquisitions,” including both horizontal and vertical transactions. The 2023 Merger Guidelines finalize the draft merger guidelines that were released in July 2023 and effectively update and replace the 2010 Horizontal merger Guidelines and Vertical Merger Guidelines that were issued in 2020 and later rescinded by the FTC in 2021. The 2023 Merger Guidelines are not law, but past merger guidelines have been persuasively cited by courts, and they give insight as to how the Agencies view the competitive impact of transactions.

Given the Agencies’ focus on competition in the Life Sciences space, companies should be aware of all of the factors and frameworks outlined in the 2023 Merger Guidelines. In particular, certain components of the 2023 Merger Guidelines reflect recent enforcement trends, including the threshold for when the Agencies consider certain transactions presumptively illegal, an emphasis on elimination of potential entrants in concentrated markets, a focus on how transactions will affect access to products or services used by rivals, an examination of whether a transaction furthers an already-dominant market position or is part of a trend towards consolidation, and concerns with both cross-ownership and common ownership in firms that have competitive relationships.

DOJ Filing Reawakens Fraud-On-The-FDA Theory Of Liability

On June 3, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division’s Washington, D.C., office filed a statement of interest in a relator’s action, arguing that “[c]onduct giving rise to a regulatory violation can also give rise to” False Claims Act liability.

The case is U.S. ex rel. Patricia Crocano v. Trividia Health Inc., before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Specifically, the DOJ requested “that the ruling not foreclose the possibility that, under certain circumstances,” conduct that violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations “could be material to the government’s payment decisions and provide a basis for FCA liability assuming all necessary FCA elements are demonstrated,”[3] colloquially known as “fraud on the FDA.”

This filing makes clear the DOJ’s decision to reawaken a theory of liability thought to be dead.

To read the full text of this article by Duane Morris attorneys Eric Breslin, Frederick R. Ball and Brittany Pagnotta, originally published in Law360, please visit the firm website.

DOJ Clarifies Position on Fraud-on-the-FDA Theory of False Claims Act Liability

On June 3, 2022, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in a relator’s action in the Southern District of Florida, arguing that “[c]onduct giving rise to a regulatory violations can also give rise to [False Claims Act] liability.” Specifically, requesting “that the ruling not foreclose the possibility that, under certain circumstances, conduct giving rise to violations of the [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] or FDA regulations could be material to the government’s payment decisions and provide a basis for FCA liability assuming all necessary FCA elements are demonstrated,” also known as “fraud on the FDA.”

To read the full text of this Alert, please visit the firm website.

DOJ Reinstates and Augments Prior Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies

On October 28, 2021, Deputy United States Attorney General Lisa Monaco issued a memorandum marking the first major announcement on corporate criminal enforcement from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the Biden Administration (“Monaco Memo”). Most notably, this memorandum: (1) reinstates the Individual Accountability Policy originally announced in the Yates Memo and (2) guides prosecutors to look at all prior misconduct, not just those instances similar to the misconduct at issue in the present investigation.

To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Rick Ball, Eric Breslin and Brittany Pagnotta, please visit the Duane Morris White-Collar Criminal Law Blog.

Attorney General’s Memorandum Allows Prosecution for Noncompliance with Agency Guidance Documents

On July 1, 2021, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland published a memorandum that rescinds two previous memoranda―the Sessions Memorandum and Brand Memorandum―that prohibited Department of Justice attorneys from using noncompliance with federal agency guidance documents as a basis for civil and criminal enforcement cases. Garland’s memorandum states these previous policies were “overly restrictive,” “discouraged the development of valuable guidance” and hindered DOJ’s litigation of cases when relevant agency guidance was available.

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

DOJ Implements 2018 Granston Memo on False Claims Act

In early 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a new policy encouraging prosecutors handling False Claims Act (FCA) cases to seek dismissal of qui tam complaints that threaten the government’s interests. However, it was unclear how and to what extent prosecutors would carry out that directive. Now a year later, federal prosecutors appear to be embracing the new policy—and it is already having an effect on one case involving a drug manufacturer.

The January 2018 Granston memorandum outlined the Department’s new approach to handling FCA prosecutions in “in light of the government’s limited resources.” Under the new policy, prosecutors are encouraged to move to dismiss qui tam claims as a way to “advance the government’s interests, preserve limited resources, and avoid adverse precedent.” This marked a departure from the Department’s previous policy of rarely exercising its statutory authority to dismiss such claims. To guide prosecutors, the memorandum offered a nonexhaustive list of factors as to when a motion to dismiss a qui tam claim is proper. Those factors include: (1) “curbing meritless qui tams”; (2) “preventing parasitic or opportunistic qui tam actions”; (3) “preventing interference with agency policies and programs”; (4) “controlling litigation brought on behalf of the United States”; (5) “safeguarding classified information and national security interests”; (6) “preserving government resources”; and (7) “addressing egregious procedural errors.” Overall, the memorandum instructed prosecutors to seek dismissal when the litigation does not serve the government’s interests.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress