Regulatory And Antitrust Review

---
name: regulatory-and-antitrust-review
description: Produces an antitrust assessment with filing requirements, concentration screens, theories of harm, remedy scenarios, and a timing-to-clearance estimate when you need to know whether a deal clears and by when.
---

# Regulatory And Antitrust Review Agent

## When to use
Use this when a transaction has a plausible competition issue and the answer changes deal terms, not just the closing checklist. Typical triggers: two overlapping competitors, a vertical acquisition of a supplier, or an acquirer buying a small rival with an outsized future position. Reach for it when you must say whether the deal clears, on what conditions, and by when.

## What it does
It produces a regulatory assessment: the filing map, a defined market with concentration screens, the theories of harm an agency is likely to run, a remedy ladder, a timing-to-clearance estimate, and what that timing implies for the break fee and long-stop date.

## Method
1. Map the filings. Find every regime that catches the deal.
   - Test merger-control thresholds by turnover, assets, and local nexus, then the separate investment, foreign-subsidy, and sector regimes, marking which are suspensory and which are voluntary but risky to skip.

2. Define the relevant market. This is where the argument is won.
   - Run the hypothetical monopolist test on product and geographic scope, demand substitution first, and state the narrower market you would concede if pressed.

3. Run the concentration screens. Compute shares, HHI, and the delta.
   - Combined share, post-merger HHI, and a delta of twice the product of the two shares; a delta above 100 into a market above 1,800 triggers the US structural presumption.
   - A screen is a trigger, not a verdict: a high HHI with weak evidence still loses, and a modest one with bad documents still hurts.

4. Name the theories of harm. Write them as the agency would.
   - Unilateral and coordinated effects; vertical input or customer foreclosure; conglomerate bundling; and loss of a nascent or potential competitor.

5. Test the defences. Entry, buyer power, efficiencies, failing firm.
   - Entry must be timely, likely, and sufficient; efficiencies must be merger-specific and verifiable, and rarely carry a case alone.

6. Read the documents the agency will read. Assume all are produced.
   - A board deck calling a rival the constraint on pricing does more damage than any share figure.

7. Build the remedy ladder. Structural before behavioural.
   - Size a divestiture that restores the pre-merger structure, name a viable upfront buyer, and treat behavioural commitments as a horizontal last resort.

8. Convert timing into terms. Price the risk into the contract.
   - Estimate clearance on the Phase I path and on the Phase II or Second Request path, then size the reverse termination fee, the efforts covenant, and a long-stop with extensions that covers the slower one.

## Inputs
- Buyer and target revenue by jurisdiction, product line, and channel
- Share estimates with the source and market definition behind them
- Internal strategy documents and any prior agency contact in the sector
- Vertical relationships in scope: supply, distribution, exclusivity
- Financing availability and tolerance for a long outside date

## Output format
- A filing map by jurisdiction with the trigger, suspensory status, and clock
- A market definition stating the primary and fallback markets
- Concentration screens with combined share, post-merger HHI, and the delta
- Theories of harm ranked by likelihood, each with the evidence behind it
- A remedy ladder from full divestiture to none, with the buyer viability test
- A timing estimate on both paths, and the fee and long-stop it implies
- Present all schedules in prose, never as markdown tables

## Example
For NorthPeak Diagnostics acquiring Calder Labs (both fictional, illustrative), shares in the reference-lab market are 28 and 12, with rivals at 22, 18, 10, and 10. Pre-merger HHI is 1,936; the delta is twice 28 times 12, or 672, taking post-merger HHI to 2,608 on a 40 percent combined share, inside the structural presumption. The leading theory is unilateral effects on hospital contract pricing, supported by a board deck naming Calder as the reason for a discount. Divesting all 12 points of Calder's overlapping labs to one upfront buyer returns HHI to 1,936, a delta of zero, which neutralises the structure but leaves the agency asking whether that buyer can run the assets. Clearance is four months with a Phase I remedy and twelve to fourteen on a Second Request, so a twelve-month long-stop with two three-month extensions, and a reverse termination fee of 3.5 percent of the USD 1.2 billion equity value, or USD 42 million, matches the risk.