Advertisement

April 19, 2014

Barry Diller to Pay $480,000 Fine for Failure to File Hart-Scott-Rodino Notification Re: Trade and Securities

The Federal Trade Commission (FTCannounced a settlement today with Barry Diller for failing to file a Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) notification in connection with his acquisition of shares of Coca-Cola over the course of 2010-2012.  Diller will pay $480,000 in civil penalties.

Diller acquired Coca-Cola voting securities, and as a result of those acquisitions, held Coca-Cola shares valued in excess of the HSR thresholds, but did not file or observe the HSR waiting period.  Diller made corrective filings over a year ago, which alerted the FTC to HSR Act violations.  Diller had previously made a corrective filing in a separate transaction, and the FTC did not impose a penalty at that time but did note that “Mr. Diller is accountable for instituting an effective program to ensure full compliance with the [HSR] Act’s requirements.”  Here, Diller only made the corrective filings after in-house counsel for Coca-Cola inquired as to whether an HSR filing was required for his most recent acquisition.

The FTC noted specifically that Diller’s acquisition did not fall within the “investment only” exemption – which generally exempts acquisitions of voting securities where the acquirer will hold less than 10 percent of the voting securities of the issuer and will remain a passive investor – because Diller intended to “participate in the formulation, determination, or direction of the basic business decisions of Coke” as a Coca-Cola board member.

This announcement follows the FTC’s June 20 announcement that MacAndrews & Forbes agreed to pay $720,000 in connection with its failure to file HSR.  Like Diller’s situation, MacAndrews & Forbes also had a prior violation of the HSR Act in connection with a separate transaction.  While not an official enforcement policy, the FTC appears to give first-time offenders one free pass, but will impose civil penalties where subsequent violations occur.

Institutional investors, executives and directors should take note of this case.  Some institutional investors may be able to take advantage of the “investment only” exemption where their holdings remain below 10 percent and they do not take an active role in the business decisions of the company.  However, the “investment only” exemption does not apply to executives or directors (like Diller) who may acquire shares on the open market or in connection with compensation packages.

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Carla A. R. Hine, Antitrust Attorney, McDermott Will Law Firm
Partner

Carla A. R. Hine is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  She focuses her practice on antitrust and consumer protection regulatory matters.

In her antitrust practice, Carla has significant experience counseling clients on matters relating to mergers and acquisitions, collaborations, and compliance with the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act and international merger notification regimes.  She defends mergers and acquisitions before the U.S. antitrust agencies and international competition authorities...

202 756 8095

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.