Photo of Thomas Barnett

Thomas Barnett

Thomas Barnett is a partner in the Washington, DC office and co-chair of the firm's Antitrust & Competition Law Practice Group. Tom served as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. He headed the Antitrust Division from 2005 to 2008, having previously served in the Division as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Enforcement from 2004 to 2005. He specializes in global antitrust and competition law practice and works closely with the firm’s white collar practice on criminal antitrust enforcement and investigative matters.

During his tenure at the Department of Justice, Tom:

  • Oversaw the review of all mergers investigated by the Division and supervised more than 30 cases filed in federal district court.
  • Was involved in some of the largest and most complicated criminal matters in the Division’s history, including investigations and prosecutions that involved coordination with multiple competition authorities in other jurisdictions.
  • Led an active competition advocacy program that included numerous amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on antitrust issues and comments to a wide range of federal and state agencies.
  • Argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as amicus on behalf of the United States in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.
  • Testified several times before Congressional committees.
  • Worked with international antitrust authorities throughout the world and served in leadership positions in key international competition organizations, such as chairing the Working Party on International Cooperation and Enforcement of the OECD Competition Committee and serving on the Steering Committee of the International Competition Network.
  • Received the Edmund Randolph Award, the U.S. Department of Justice’s highest honor, for his service in the Division.
  • Prior to 2004, Mr. Barnett was a leader in the firm’s Antitrust & Consumer Law Practice Group. He also served as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching a course on antitrust and intellectual property issues in sports in 2001 and 2003, and as a co-teacher of an advanced antitrust seminar at the University of Virginia Law School multiple times between 1991 and 2004.
Contact:Read more about Thomas BarnettEmail

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has announced revised thresholds for determining whether transactions need to be filed under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act, along with an updated HSR filing fee schedule. The new minimum “size of transaction” notification threshold for acquisitions of voting securities, assets, or controlling interests in non-corporate entities will be $126.4 million, an increase from the prior threshold of $119.5 million. The new thresholds and fee schedule will be effective February 21, 2025, 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register.

The FTC also announced an increase in the maximum daily civil penalty amount for HSR violations from $51,744 to $53,088 for each day of the violation. The new maximum applies to civil penalties assessed on or after January 17, 2025.

Finally, the FTC also announced slightly higher caps for the de minimis exceptions of Section 8 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits certain interlocking directorates between competing corporations. The new Section 8 exception levels became effective on January 22, 2025, when they were published in the Federal Register.

HSR Act Thresholds and Filing Fees

The HSR Act requires parties to certain mergers and acquisitions to notify the FTC and Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and observe a waiting period (usually 30 days) prior to consummating a reportable transaction. The notification thresholds are adjusted annually based on changes in the gross national product, with the new, revised thresholds as follows:Continue Reading FTC Increases HSR Filing Thresholds and Fees, Penalties, and Thresholds Applicable to Board “Interlocks” for 2025

On October 10, 2024, the federal antitrust agencies finalized the most significant changes to the U.S. merger notification regime since the enactment of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act in 1976. The Final Rule—which was issued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) with the concurrence of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (together, “the Agencies”)—will significantly increase the burden on companies whose transactions must be notified to the Agencies pursuant to the HSR Act.

The Final Rule will become effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, meaning that the expanded filing requirements will take effect no earlier than mid-January 2025.

Although the Agencies significantly scaled back the changes they originally proposed in June 2023, the Final Rule will still fundamentally reshape the HSR process. According to the Agencies themselves, filings in most cases will take additional time to prepare and become much more expensive, which could extend deal timelines.

Notable new requirements include:

  • adding a “supervisory deal team lead” to the individuals from whom transaction-specific documents must be collected;
  • requiring production of certain non-transaction specific documents that analyze competitive overlaps relevant to the Transaction that were provided to the CEO (or CEOs of subsidiaries involved in the transaction) or members of the board;
  • submission of narrative descriptions of each strategic rationale for the transaction and of any horizontal overlaps or vertical relationships between the parties; and
  • providing the most recent year’s sales data for each overlapping product or service between the parties.

The FTC vote to issue the Final Rule was unanimous. The FTC and DOJ each issued press releases to accompany the issuance of the Final Rule, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan issued a statement (joined by Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya), and Commissioners Andrew N. Ferguson (here) and Melissa Holyoak (here) each issued a statement as well. Commissioner Holyoak’s statement identifies many of the key differences between the Final Rule and the proposed rule.Continue Reading FTC and DOJ Announce Final Rule Reshaping HSR Filing Requirements

On August 5, 2024, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that Google has monopolized markets for online searches and search text advertising and unlawfully engaged in exclusionary conduct in those markets. Specifically, the court found that Google used revenue sharing agreements with…

Continue Reading D.C. District Court Finds Google Monopolized Online Search Text Ads Markets

On 18 July 2024, the current President of the European Commission (“Commission”), Ursula von der Leyen, was reconfirmed by the European Parliament for a second 5-year term. As part of her reconfirmation, President von der Leyen delivered a speech before the European Parliament, complemented by a 30-page program, which lays down the Commission’s political program for the next five years.

A key pillar of the program – “A new plan for Europe’s sustainable prosperity and competitiveness” – has the objective of combining competitiveness and prosperity with the achievement of the European Green Deal goals.

Specifically on competition policy, according to President von der Leyen, a new approach is needed to achieve this objective. This blog post projects where competition policy is likely headed in the 2024-2029 period by commenting on the most relevant paragraphs of the program.

Von der Leyen: “I believe we need a new approach to competition policy, better geared to our common goals and more supportive of companies scaling up in global markets – while always ensuring a level playing field. This should be reflected in the way we assess mergers so that innovation and resilience are fully taken into account. We will ensure competition policy keeps pace with evolving global markets and prevents market concentration from raising prices or lowering the quality of goods or services for consumers. We will look at all of our policies through a security lens.”

  • This statement reaffirms the classic principles underlying competition law, i.e., the focus on ensuring a level playing field, preventing market concentration, and ultimately avoiding a negative impact on prices/quality of goods or services.
  • However, the President’s comments recognize the impact of global dynamics and the need for EU companies to be able to respond to global pressures. In the context of Siemens/Alstom and Lufthansa/ITA, there is growing pressure from EU Member States to allow European champions and this program could signal an openness to that effect.
  • The President also calls for an increased focus on innovation and resilience in the substantive assessment of mergers. This could mean (i) that the Commission will expand its assessment of the impact of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) standards and security, (ii) that the Commission would be open to a greater role of wider efficiency justifications/public interest considerations in merger control and competition law assessments, and/or (iii) that the impact on the overall economic competitiveness of the EU, and the aim of geopolitical de-risking for critical supply chains and technologies, may play an increasingly important role in the assessment of mergers.

Continue Reading The 2024-2029 Commission Political Guidelines: Where Is Competition Policy Likely Headed?

October 17, 2023, Covington Alert

What You Need to Know

  • On October 4, 2023, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco provided new and expanded policy guidance on corporate criminal enforcement, announcing a new Mergers and Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy (“Safe Harbor Policy”).
  • The Safe Harbor Policy provides acquiring companies an opportunity to avoid criminal charges if they voluntarily self-disclose misconduct at acquired companies within six months of a merger or acquisition (“M&A”), fully cooperate in any DOJ investigation, engage in timely and appropriate remediation within one year of the transaction closing date, and pay restitution or disgorgement, as appropriate.
  • The Safe Harbor Policy—which we expect will be formalized in writing and incorporated into the Justice Manual—appears to draw heavily on policies and guidance from the Criminal Division dating back to 2008, but that will now be formalized, clarified, and applied across the Department, with different parts of the Department “tailor[ing] its application . . . to fit their specific enforcement regime.”
  • As with all of the Department’s recent policy announcements concerning the benefits of voluntary disclosure, significant questions remain. We discuss some of those below, and we will be watching to see how DOJ applies the Safe Harbor Policy in practice. At a minimum, however, companies should ensure that their pre- and post-closing diligence and integration processes are designed to quickly identify legacy or ongoing misconduct at acquired companies so that they may have an opportunity to consider the expected benefits and burdens associated with a voluntary disclosure under the Safe Harbor Policy.
  • In addition to announcing the Safe Harbor Policy, Deputy Attorney General Monaco noted a “dramatic” expansion in national security enforcement, new enforcement tools that the Department is deploying, continued focus on incentivizing companies to seek compensation clawbacks from individual wrongdoers, and even more policy changes to come. Deputy Attorney General Monaco’s announcement follows recent shifts in enforcement remedies sought by the Department, such as divestiture in certain criminal antitrust cases—an unprecedented remedial measure.

Continue Reading DOJ Provides Further Voluntary Disclosure Incentives, This Time Linked to M&A Transactions, and Signals Other Areas of Focus