President Biden signs omnibus spending package with Antitrust Law changes, including dramatic increases in us filing fees for large mergers

In brief

President Joe Biden’s omnibus spending package included three pieces of new antitrust legislation: (1) the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act; (2) the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act; and (3) the Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act.


In depth

1) Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act
The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act will alter filing fees for transactions requiring antitrust review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (“HSR Act”).  The HSR Act requires merging parties to provide notice to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) prior to closing certain transactions, generally those that have a nexus to the US and a transaction value over a minimum size, currently USD 101 million.
The new fee structure will reduce filing fees for smaller transactions, while significantly increasing fees for the largest ones.  At least in part, the new structure is intended to increase funding for the FTC and DOJ.  Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a supporter of the legislation, remarked: “We cannot expect our antitrust enforcers to take on the most powerful companies the world has ever known with duct tape and Band-Aids.  By restructuring outdated merger filing fees, our bipartisan legislation will enable Congress to get much-needed resources to our antitrust enforcers so they can protect competition.”

The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act replaces the current three-tiered graduated fee schedule with the following six tiers—that have higher fees corresponding to increasing transaction values:

Transaction Value

New HSR Filing Fee

Current Filing Fee

Over USD 101 million but under USD 161.5 million



Over USD 161.5 million but under USD 500 million


$45,000 - $125,000

Over USD 500 million but under USD 1 billion



Over USD 1 billion but under USD 2 billion


$125,000 - $280,000

Over USD 2 billion but under USD 5 billion



USD 5 billion or more



The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act’s impact will vary depending on the value of the transaction.  For many transactions, particularly those valued under USD 1 billion, the impact will be relatively small, and filing fees may be lower than they would be under the current schedule.
For larger transactions, however, filing fees will increase significantly, almost as much as ten-fold for transactions valued over USD 5 billion.  While the acquiring party still remains responsible for payment of the applicable filing fee by statute, these increased fees likely will result in more attention and negotiation around the antitrust risk-shifting provisions in transaction agreements.  In particular, the new fee burden may make fee-sharing agreements more prevalent for large transactions.  Moreover, the higher filing fees may dissuade parties from submitting notifications on the basis of anything short of a definitive agreement.
Notably, the filing fee amounts will be adjusted annually along with the transaction value thresholds, which typically happens in February or March.  The new fee structure will take effect in 2023, after the FTC’s Premerger Notification Office, which administers the HSR Act, posts the updated filing fees and the related changes to reporting and payment requirements. The specific implementation date is not yet available.
2) State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act
The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act will prevent defendants from transferring parallel antitrust claims brought by state attorneys general into a single district.  Under current law, when state Attorneys General ("AGs") bring antitrust claims in federal district courts in their home states related to similar conduct, defendants may request that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transfer these claims into a single federal district court for common pre-trial proceedings. Under the new law, defendants would not be able to request JPML transfer of state AG antitrust claims, and thus may need to litigate related state AG cases separately in each state AG’s chosen venue.
The State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act will make litigation more complex and costly for large companies defending antitrust litigation brought separately by multiple state AGs.  Specifically, companies will need to closely coordinate litigation teams across numerous states on varying procedural timelines.
Beyond the burden and expense of managing multiple duplicative lawsuits in different courts, the legislation also increases the risk of inconsistent rulings by separate district courts on similar issues in related cases.   
3) Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act
The Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act will require companies filing pre-merger notifications that have any subsidies from a “foreign entity of concern” to include notification of those subsidies in the filing.  “Foreign entity of concern” is defined under 42 USC. 18741(a), and includes China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as well as other entities, or specific persons.
The Foreign Merger Subsidy Disclosure Act will require antitrust advisors to perform additional diligence when filing merger notifications.  Counsel will need to confirm whether any foreign entity has subsidized the proposed transaction and if so, whether the entity is of concern within the meaning of 42 USC. 18741(a).  This likely will require consultation with trade or sanctions experts to ensure proper identification of any entities that may require disclosure.

Copyright © 2023 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.