Succession planning is a critical aspect of managing small, closely held businesses, as the unexpected departure of a key leader can significantly disrupt operations and challenge the business's legal...
Entering into a letter of intent for an office lease agreement? Consult our playbook for valuable key provisions, alternative language provisions, and guidance for both landlords and tenants. Download...
In the complex world of M&A transactions, transition services agreements (TSAs) serve as critical bridges between deal closing and operational independence thus creating stability during organizational...
This practice note covers key legal and regulatory issues to evaluate, questions to ask, and documents to review in medical device or diagnostic technology deals, including M&A, investments, financings...
In a closely followed case that parallels the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 1990s Microsoft antitrust victory, a D.C. district court has ruled that Google is a monopolist and has maintained its monopoly positions through anticompetitive means—exclusive distribution agreements. What this means for Google remains unclear. The Microsoft case by no means unequivocally increased browser competition but did eliminate certain contracts after that court rejected structural remedies such as a breakup. The Google case now will head toward a similar remedy phase. Will eliminating Google’s exclusivity contracts, for which it pays distribution partners billions of dollars, open up search competition? Will the decision itself survive the appellate process? How will this decision impact the other DOJ/Google antitrust case, known as “Ad Tech,” going to trial in Virginia? Stay tuned and follow the case with Practical Guidance.
Read now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE CUSTOMER EMAIL EDITION ON THE WEB
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.