Premerger Enforcement Actions Highlight Importance of HSR Compliance
Publications
April 2025
Cases involving premerger enforcements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act are relatively rare. So far in 2025, however, we have seen two such cases involving potentially record-breaking penalties. The timing is notable, as these enforcement actions arrive along with the new and more comprehensive HSR filing rules, demonstrating the high stakes of HSR compliance.
On January 7, 2025, the FTC announced that it had reached a settlement with three crude oil producers, XCL Resource Holdings, LLC (XCL), Verdun Oil Company II LLC (Verdun), and EP Energy LLC (EP), regarding alleged “gun-jumping” violations. As experienced deal practitioners are aware, parties must observe a 30-day waiting period before closing an HSR reportable transaction to avoid such a “gun-jumping” violation. The FTC alleged that throughout the waiting period, EP allowed XCL and Verdun to assume operational and decision-making control over certain day-to-day business activities of EP. The FTC viewed this assumption of operational control as a violation of the HSR waiting period. The crude oil producers will pay a civil penalty of $5.6 million, the highest penalty ever imposed for a “gun-jumping” violation in US history.
On January 14, 2025, the DOJ filed suit against KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR), one of the largest private equity firms in the country, alleging that KKR violated its premerger notification requirements under the HSR Act. The DOJ alleges that KKR failed to provide advance notice of certain transactions that meet reporting thresholds. Additionally, the DOJ accuses KKR of violating HSR rules by systematically omitting and altering material from multiple submissions that should have been disclosed, citing internal documents and exchanges between KKR employees that allegedly show a culture of noncompliance with the HSR Act.
In response, KKR filed a suit of its own against both the DOJ and the FTC, seeking declaratory relief that it did not violate the HSR Act. KKR argues that the penalties they face, which may exceed $650 million, are unprecedented and unconstitutionally high. KKR notes this would be the highest penalty ever imposed in the history of the HSR Act.
Parties to an HSR reportable (or potentially reportable) transaction should seek US antitrust counsel early in the process, to determine whether a filing is needed and to help guide a compliant process. These enforcement actions highlight the significant risk of noncompliance with laws governing premerger conduct and merger notification. This is especially true considering the new HSR form and rules, which create far more complexity and room for error.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
On January 14, 2025, the DOJ filed suit against KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR), one of the largest private equity firms in the country, alleging that KKR violated its premerger notification requirements under the HSR Act. The DOJ alleges that KKR failed to provide advance notice of certain transactions that meet reporting thresholds. Additionally, the DOJ accuses KKR of violating HSR rules by systematically omitting and altering material from multiple submissions that should have been disclosed, citing internal documents and exchanges between KKR employees that allegedly show a culture of noncompliance with the HSR Act.
In response, KKR filed a suit of its own against both the DOJ and the FTC, seeking declaratory relief that it did not violate the HSR Act. KKR argues that the penalties they face, which may exceed $650 million, are unprecedented and unconstitutionally high. KKR notes this would be the highest penalty ever imposed in the history of the HSR Act.
Parties to an HSR reportable (or potentially reportable) transaction should seek US antitrust counsel early in the process, to determine whether a filing is needed and to help guide a compliant process. These enforcement actions highlight the significant risk of noncompliance with laws governing premerger conduct and merger notification. This is especially true considering the new HSR form and rules, which create far more complexity and room for error.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
April 2025
Cases involving premerger enforcements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act are relatively rare. So far in 2025, however, we have seen two such cases involving potentially record-breaking penalties. The timing is notable, as these enforcement actions arrive along with the new and more comprehensive HSR filing rules, demonstrating the high stakes of HSR compliance.
On January 7, 2025, the FTC announced that it had reached a settlement with three crude oil producers, XCL Resource Holdings, LLC (XCL), Verdun Oil Company II LLC (Verdun), and EP Energy LLC (EP), regarding alleged “gun-jumping” violations. As experienced deal practitioners are aware, parties must observe a 30-day waiting period before closing an HSR reportable transaction to avoid such a “gun-jumping” violation. The FTC alleged that throughout the waiting period, EP allowed XCL and Verdun to assume operational and decision-making control over certain day-to-day business activities of EP. The FTC viewed this assumption of operational control as a violation of the HSR waiting period. The crude oil producers will pay a civil penalty of $5.6 million, the highest penalty ever imposed for a “gun-jumping” violation in US history.
On January 14, 2025, the DOJ filed suit against KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR), one of the largest private equity firms in the country, alleging that KKR violated its premerger notification requirements under the HSR Act. The DOJ alleges that KKR failed to provide advance notice of certain transactions that meet reporting thresholds. Additionally, the DOJ accuses KKR of violating HSR rules by systematically omitting and altering material from multiple submissions that should have been disclosed, citing internal documents and exchanges between KKR employees that allegedly show a culture of noncompliance with the HSR Act.
In response, KKR filed a suit of its own against both the DOJ and the FTC, seeking declaratory relief that it did not violate the HSR Act. KKR argues that the penalties they face, which may exceed $650 million, are unprecedented and unconstitutionally high. KKR notes this would be the highest penalty ever imposed in the history of the HSR Act.
Parties to an HSR reportable (or potentially reportable) transaction should seek US antitrust counsel early in the process, to determine whether a filing is needed and to help guide a compliant process. These enforcement actions highlight the significant risk of noncompliance with laws governing premerger conduct and merger notification. This is especially true considering the new HSR form and rules, which create far more complexity and room for error.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
On January 14, 2025, the DOJ filed suit against KKR & Co. Inc. (KKR), one of the largest private equity firms in the country, alleging that KKR violated its premerger notification requirements under the HSR Act. The DOJ alleges that KKR failed to provide advance notice of certain transactions that meet reporting thresholds. Additionally, the DOJ accuses KKR of violating HSR rules by systematically omitting and altering material from multiple submissions that should have been disclosed, citing internal documents and exchanges between KKR employees that allegedly show a culture of noncompliance with the HSR Act.
In response, KKR filed a suit of its own against both the DOJ and the FTC, seeking declaratory relief that it did not violate the HSR Act. KKR argues that the penalties they face, which may exceed $650 million, are unprecedented and unconstitutionally high. KKR notes this would be the highest penalty ever imposed in the history of the HSR Act.
Parties to an HSR reportable (or potentially reportable) transaction should seek US antitrust counsel early in the process, to determine whether a filing is needed and to help guide a compliant process. These enforcement actions highlight the significant risk of noncompliance with laws governing premerger conduct and merger notification. This is especially true considering the new HSR form and rules, which create far more complexity and room for error.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026