Stock Markets February 12, 2026

Federal Judge Halts Expanded Merger Disclosure Rule, Citing Agency Overreach

Texas court says FTC failed to justify costs of broader information demands for merger reviews

By Ajmal Hussain FDX SRE ABT META MSFT
Federal Judge Halts Expanded Merger Disclosure Rule, Citing Agency Overreach
FDX SRE ABT META MSFT

A federal judge in Texas has enjoined a 2024 rule that broadened the information companies must provide during merger reviews, finding the Federal Trade Commission did not demonstrate that the rule's benefits outweighed its costs. The decision follows a lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and comes as some dealmakers accelerated filings ahead of the rule's effective date.

Key Points

  • A federal judge in Tyler, Texas, blocked a 2024 rule that required broader merger-related disclosures, ruling the FTC exceeded its authority.
  • Some dealmakers rushed to file merger approvals before the rule took effect last February to avoid its requirements; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued to block the rule.
  • The ruling and ensuing review affect sectors engaged in M&A activity and market participants that interact with regulatory oversight, including corporate legal teams, deal advisors, and industries with active consolidation such as technology, logistics, utilities, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.

A U.S. federal judge in Tyler, Texas, has blocked a rule that expanded the scope of information companies must submit when seeking regulatory approval for mergers, concluding that the Federal Trade Commission exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the measure.

The regulation, finalized in 2024, required companies pursuing mergers and acquisitions to supply additional data to antitrust enforcers at the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice. The change prompted a wave of filings from some dealmakers who sought approval before the rule became effective last February in order to avoid its reporting obligations.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce brought suit last year challenging the rule. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote that the FTC had not shown the rule's benefits would outweigh its costs. "Though the FTC asserts that the rule will detect illegal mergers and save agency resources, the FTC fails to substantiate these assertions," he wrote.

The ruling notes that the agency did not provide sufficient evidence that the new disclosure requirements would produce net gains that justified the burdens they would impose on merging parties and on the agency itself.

FTC officials are reviewing the decision. "We are reviewing the ruling and weighing our options," a spokesperson for the agency said.

While the measure was finalized near the end of the prior administration, the current FTC chairman, Andrew Ferguson, who served as a commissioner at the time the rule was adopted, supported the change and described it as "a lawful improvement over the status quo."

The Chamber has defended its challenge. Daryl Joseffer, executive vice president of the Chamber's litigation center, said in response to the court's decision: "We are pleased with the court's decision today rejecting the Biden Administration's onerous merger tax."

The organization suing to block the rule was characterized by an FTC spokesperson in strongly worded terms: "The Chamber of Commerce is a left-wing, open borders supporting activist group." The Chamber did not comment on that description; a Chamber spokesperson declined to address the FTC spokesperson's characterization.

The Chamber is the largest U.S. business lobby and its board includes executives from a range of large companies, including FedEx, Sempra, Abbott Laboratories, Fidelity Investments, Meta Platforms, Microsoft and Nasdaq.

The court's decision removes immediate obligation for the expanded disclosures while litigation proceeds, and it underscores judicial scrutiny of administrative rules where courts find insufficient evidentiary support for asserted benefits relative to regulatory costs.

Separately included in the original report were promotional claims regarding an investment product. Those promotional statements are not relevant to the court ruling and have not been integrated into this legal and regulatory summary.

Risks

  • Legal uncertainty over the rule's future could prolong litigation and leave companies and regulators unclear about disclosure expectations for pending and future deals - this affects corporate deal planning and M&A advisory services.
  • If the agency appeals and the rule is reinstated or modified later, companies that expedited filings to avoid the rule might face retrospective compliance questions or strategic disadvantages - this could influence deal timing and market activity.
  • The dispute highlights a broader risk of regulatory churn, where agencies implement substantive rules that are then delayed or blocked by courts, creating fluctuating compliance costs for businesses involved in M&A across multiple sectors.

More from Stock Markets

Three Earnings Reports This Week Will Test the Durability of the AI Investment Theme Feb 21, 2026 Moscow Market Closes Flat as Select Large-Caps Offset Losses Feb 21, 2026 Honeywell Reconsiders Purchase of Johnson Matthey Catalyst Unit as Closing Obstacles Emerge Feb 21, 2026 Indigenous Occupation Halts Operations at Cargill’s Santarem Terminal Feb 21, 2026 Market Turbulence Reinforces Case for Broader Diversification Feb 21, 2026