In this episode, we explore a crucial and timely issue: how the Trump administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement—combined with new state-level regulations—is creating a shifting legal environment for life sciences companies, especially those involved in mergers and acquisitions (M&A).

At the federal level, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, in her first major antitrust address, emphasized a renewed focus on strict legal enforcement. Rather than relying on expansive regulatory interpretations, the administration is doubling down on clear statutory authority. This signals a return to more traditional antitrust principles, with heightened scrutiny of M&A transactions that may limit competition or consolidate market power.

But the complexity doesn’t stop there.

On April 4, 2025, Washington State passed SB 5122, becoming the first state to mandate broad pre-merger notifications across all industries. Effective July 27, 2025, this law requires companies meeting specific criteria—such as having a Washington-based headquarters, generating over $25.3 million in state sales, and operating as a healthcare provider or organization—to submit their federal Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filings to the state Attorney General’s Office. Although there’s no filing fee or mandatory waiting period, noncompliance can lead to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day.

This development sets a precedent, and other states like New York and California are already considering similar requirements. Life sciences companies must now navigate a growing web of both federal and state-level antitrust obligations.

Key Implications for Life Sciences Companies:

1. More aggressive M&A oversight: Federal and state authorities are signaling stricter reviews, particularly in transactions involving healthcare players.
   
   
2. Multi-jurisdictional compliance risks: Companies operating across several states must track and comply with differing notification and filing obligations.
   
   
3. Operational readiness is essential: Internal legal and compliance teams need to coordinate more closely with business development to ensure smooth and compliant deal execution.
   
   

Strategic Recommendations:

• Antitrust Risk Assessments: Evaluate all proposed and ongoing transactions for potential red flags at both state and federal levels.
  
  
  
• Monitor Legislative Trends: Keep track of proposed laws in states like Massachusetts, California, and New York that may soon mirror Washington’s model.
  
  
  
• Strengthen Internal Protocols: Develop systems to ensure accurate, timely submissions of required documentation—both federally and at the state level.
  
  
  
• Engage Counsel Early: Legal teams should be involved at the earliest stages of deal structuring to identify issues before they escalate.
  
  

In an environment where both federal enforcers and state regulators are increasing scrutiny, proactive planning is critical. Companies that adapt quickly to these shifting expectations will be better positioned to manage risk and maintain momentum.

Stay tuned for our next episode as we continue exploring the legal and regulatory trends shaping the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries.

Support the show

Transferring medical device ownership during a company sale requires careful planning to ensure compliance and operational continuity. The process begins with accurate documentation of 510(k) clearance and thorough due diligence to avoid regulatory delays. Next, companies must assess ongoing clinical trial responsibilities and contractual obligations tied to the device. Compliance programs should align with both the 2024 DOJ and OIG guidelines to demonstrate regulatory commitment. Conducting a comprehensive gap analysis helps identify compliance risks before the sale. The FDA ownership transfer registration is essential to prevent operational disruptions, along with any necessary state-level reporting. Lastly, a clear agreement outlining contract disputes, pharmacovigilance, transition terms, and quality agreements is crucial to avoid post-sale legal issues.

For expert guidance, Kulkarni Law Firm helps FDA-regulated companies navigate this process smoothly. Contact us to safeguard your business.

Support the show

At first glance, responding to site-level findings seems simple—but when Edye and Darshan dug into the details, it became clear that the lines of responsibility blur fast. Here's how each side sees it:

Site Perspective:

Sites know the boots-on-the-ground reality. When a finding is made—especially during an external inspection like the FDA—they’re often the ones best positioned to analyze what went wrong.
The site team (usually led by QA or compliance professionals) needs to:

• Conduct a root cause analysis
  
  
• Propose corrective and preventive actions (CAPAs)
  
  
• Coordinate with the Principal Investigator (PI), who should always be aware of and often sign off on the response
  
  
• Demonstrate that they are taking ownership of the issue
  
  

But here’s the challenge: responding without oversharing or accidentally implicating the sponsor/CRO can be tricky. Sites want autonomy, but also need alignment to avoid missteps.

Sponsor/CRO Perspective:

Sponsors and CROs carry the risk for the overall study. So if a site submits a response that reflects poorly on the sponsor—whether intentionally or not—that’s a problem.
From their perspective, they want:

• Visibility into the response, especially if it relates to protocol design, training, or oversight
  
  
• The ability to review and edit before submission, to avoid legal or regulatory fallout
  
  
• Assurance that site responses don't point fingers at them unnecessarily
  Sponsors also need to assess if the issue points to a breakdown in their own oversight—and if so, they must acknowledge and fix it. But as Darshan pointed out, no sponsor wants to "sink so the site can swim." It’s about mutual accountability.

The Real Answer: "It Depends"

Whether a finding is the site's responsibility or the sponsor’s comes down to the root cause:

• Did the site fail to follow their SOPs or hire unqualified staff? That’s on the site.
  
  
• Did the sponsor fail to provide adequate training or resources? That’s on the sponsor/CRO.
  
  

Both Edye and Darshan agree: most findings land in a gray zone. That’s why collaboration, transparency, and clear communication are key.

Want more of these insights? Let us know—we’ve got more hot topics on deck.

Support the show