Title: Restoring and Improving Merger Enforcement Act of 2018
Policy area: Commerce

Summary:
Restoring and Improving Merger Enforcement Act of 2018
This bill revises the standard for determining whether a proposed corporate acquisition would substantially lessen competition. Specifically, the bill establishes that a court may consider a claim that the acquisition would increase efficiency only if such increased efficiency (1) is verifiable, (2) could not be accomplished without the acquisition, and (3) would promote competition. The bill also places the burden of proof on the defendant claiming that increased efficiency will eliminate the substantial lessening of competition that would result from the proposed acquisition.

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5642 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5642

           To amend the Clayton Act with respect to mergers.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2018

 Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Crowley) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
           To amend the Clayton Act with respect to mergers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring and Improving Merger 
Enforcement Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. MERGER-SPECIFIC EFFICIENCIES.

    Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18) is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``In determining whether the effect of such acquisition may be 
substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly, a 
court may consider a claimed efficiency of such acquisition only if it 
could not be accomplished in the absence of such acquisition, it is 
verifiable, and it would promote competition.
    ``A person against whom an action is brought for a violation of 
this section shall have the burden to establish, by the preponderance 
of the evidence, that the claimed efficiency will eliminate the 
substantial lessening of competition that may occur as a result of such 
acquisition.''.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON CLAIMED EFFICIENCIES.

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(l) Information Required.--Each person who enters into an 
agreement with the Federal Trade Commission or the United States to 
resolve a proceeding brought under the antitrust laws or under the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) regarding an 
acquisition with respect to which notification is required under this 
section shall, on an annual basis during the 5-year period beginning on 
the date on which the agreement is entered into, submit to the Federal 
Trade Commission or the Assistant Attorney General, as applicable, 
information sufficient for the Federal Trade Commission or the United 
States, as applicable, to assess the source, and the resulting 
magnitude and extent, of any cost-saving efficiencies or any consumer 
benefits that were claimed as a benefit of the acquisition and the 
extent to which any cost savings were passed on to consumers.''.
                                 <all>