Hawaii 2026 Regular Session

Hawaii Senate Bill SB348

Introduced
1/15/25  

Caption

Relating To The Uniform Antitrust Pre-merger Notification Act.

Impact

The bill significantly impacts how businesses in Hawaii will approach mergers and acquisitions. By requiring pre-merger notifications to be filed with the attorney general, the law aims to enhance the state's ability to monitor and prevent anti-competitive practices before they occur. Failure to comply with these filing requirements may result in civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day, which highlights the importance of adhering to the new regulations. This legislative change is designed not only to align state laws with federal standards but also to provide a robust mechanism for ensuring market fairness and competition within Hawaii.

Summary

Senate Bill 348, known as the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act, aims to establish a regulatory framework for pre-merger notifications in the state of Hawaii. It amends Chapter 480 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to require that certain transactions, which meet specified financial thresholds, must be reported to the attorney general. This requirement is aligned with the federal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which governs the review of mergers and acquisitions to prevent anti-competitive practices and protect market competition. The bill introduces specific definitions, filing requirements, and establishes the parameters for what constitutes a pre-merger notification.

Contention

While the bill has the support of those seeking stronger regulations against monopolistic behavior, there might be contention surrounding the implementation of these new reporting requirements. Businesses may express concerns over the additional regulatory burden and the potential for increased scrutiny during mergers. The confidentiality provisions included in the bill which protect sensitive merger information from public disclosure seek to allay fears from companies that their proprietary data may become public, but the balance between transparency and confidentiality will likely be a topic of discussion among stakeholders.

Notable_points

Key components of SB348 include provisions on maintaining confidentiality for submitted documents and the reciprocity of information among state attorneys general. The attorney general is not permitted to charge fees for processing these notifications, which could offset some costs for businesses navigating the pre-merger approval process. The intent of promoting uniformity across jurisdictions that enact similar legislation adds a layer of complexity, especially for businesses that operate across state lines, as they will need to comply with varying legal frameworks.

Companion Bills

HI SB348

Carry Over Relating To The Uniform Antitrust Pre-merger Notification Act.

Previously Filed As

HI SB348

Relating To The Uniform Antitrust Pre-merger Notification Act.

HI SB157

Relating To Antitrust.

HI HB831

Relating To Antitrust.

HI SB1452

Relating To The Uniform Controlled Substance Act.

HI SB1379

Relating To Emergency Preparedness.

HI HB1133

Relating To The Uniform Controlled Substance Act.

HI SB318

Relating To Genetic Information.

HI SB79

Relating To Historic Preservation Reviews.

HI SB1263

Relating To Historic Preservation.

HI SB846

Relating To Emergency Powers.

Similar Bills

CA SB25

Antitrust: premerger notification.

HI SB348

Relating To The Uniform Antitrust Pre-merger Notification Act.

LA SB336

Provides relative to civil investigative demands. (8/1/26) (EN SEE FISC NOTE LF EX)

IN SB0219

Uniform Antitrust Pre-merger Notification Act.

CO SB126

Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act

NM HB62

Uniform Investigative Demand Procedure

DC B26-0030

Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act of 2025