Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Reminder: Even "Small" Deals Carry Antitrust Risks


December 4, 2012

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently filed a complaint challenging Magnesium Elektron North America Inc.'s ("MENA") $15 million acquisition of the assets of Revere Graphics Worldwide Inc. ("Revere"), its competitor in the manufacture of photoengraving magnesium plates. Together with the complaint, the FTC filed a consent order including a settlement under which MENA agreed to set up a new competitor in the market for photoengraving magnesium plates, Universal Engraving, Inc., and provide it with the knowledge required to compete as well as certain customer lists and customer contracts.

The FTC claimed MENA's asset purchase, which occurred nearly seven years ago, was an unlawful merger to monopoly in the market for photoengraving magnesium plates that substantially increased MENA's ability to exercise market power. Interestingly, the complaint did not allege that MENA had actually engaged in any anticompetitive activity following the merger, but it is reasonable to suspect that MENA engaged in some sort of conduct that drew the FTC's attention, either directly or through customer complaints.

The FTC's action is significant both because the transaction occurred so long ago and because the size of the transaction is far below the size that requires pre-merger notification under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR Act"). Although the antitrust agencies have the authority to pursue nearly any anticompetitive merger, it is relatively rare for the agencies to challenge a transaction that is so old.


The FTC's action against MENA's $15 million asset purchase continues the trend of increasingly aggressive enforcement with respect to non-HSR-reportable mergers under the Obama administration. The FTC and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") have now challenged as many non-HSR-reportable mergers during President Obama's first term as were challenged during both of President George W. Bush's terms.

The MENA case serves as a reminder that the lack of an HSR filing obligation does not mean a transaction will not face antitrust scrutiny. Companies should be purposeful in investigating the potential antitrust risks of even relatively low dollar value transactions.

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.