No. 1:18-cv-00119 (E.D. Va. 2018) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · United States
Mergers and Acquisitions Lawmergers-and-acquisitions-lawMergers and Acquisitions LawHart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty
Issue
Whether Microsemi willfully violated the HSR Act by not filing before consummation.
Held
Consent judgment imposed a civil penalty of $1.12 million.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce United States v. Microsemi Corporation with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what United States v. Microsemi Corporation decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
United States v. Microsemi Corporation is included in the Mergers and Acquisitions Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty. The reported citation is No. 1:18-cv-00119 (E.D. Va. 2018), and the decision is associated with United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for United States v. Microsemi Corporation is: The DOJ alleged that Microsemi Corporation violated the HSR Act by failing to file a notification for an acquisition of voting securities exceeding the threshold. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Mergers and Acquisitions Law, use the facts to explain why Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
United States v. Microsemi Corporation is reported as a decision of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether Microsemi willfully violated the HSR Act by not filing before consummation.
Held
Consent judgment imposed a civil penalty of $1.12 million.
Ratio Decidendi
Failure to file under the HSR Act can result in significant civil penalties even if the acquisition was not anticompetitive; the filing requirement is strict.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: Failure to file under the HSR Act can result in significant civil penalties even if the acquisition was not anticompetitive; the filing requirement is strict. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes United States v. Microsemi Corporation easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Mergers and Acquisitions Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, United States v. Microsemi Corporation is a case to use when a Mergers and Acquisitions Law answer needs an authority on Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to United States v. Microsemi Corporation (No. 1:18-cv-00119 (E.D. Va. 2018)) strengthens a Mergers and Acquisitions Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Failure to file under the HSR Act can result in significant civil penalties even if the acquisition was not anticompetitive; the filing requirement is strict. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether Microsemi willfully violated the HSR Act by not filing before consummation. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
mergers-and-acquisitions-law
Mergers and Acquisitions Law
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
United States v. Microsemi Corporation is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty in Mergers and Acquisitions Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce United States v. Microsemi Corporation with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what United States v. Microsemi Corporation decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Hart-Scott-Rodino Act; failure to file; civil penalty, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use United States v. Microsemi Corporation in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with The DOJ alleged that Microsemi Corporation violated the HSR Act by failing to file a notification for an acquisition of voting securities exceeding the threshold., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.