Public Law No. 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the federal tax system since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Enacted on July 4, 2025...
Restaurant leasing presents a unique blend of legal considerations, shaped by operational realities such as equipment needs, utility demands, and customer-facing enhancements. Review this checklist for...
In today’s deal-making space, environmental liabilities can be hidden landmines threatening post-closing value and operational integrity. Navigate the intricate terrain of M&A transactions where...
This practice note helps attorneys representing drug and medical device manufacturers advise their clients about liability risks associated with their products, by summarizing the legal landscape surrounding...
Do you want to stay up to date on recent developments and guidance regarding gun safety in the workplace? Watch our new Current Awareness: New Developments in Gun Safety Legislation Video , by Alka Ramchandani...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
In Illinois Brick v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that indirect purchasers (those who purchase from an intermediary) had no standing under the federal antitrust laws. However, various states allow for some type of recovery by or on behalf of indirect purchasers under state laws. Our survey provides a list of states that do not follow the Illinois Brick doctrine in their state antitrust or consumer protection law, by either statute or case law, and therefore allow for some type of recovery by or on behalf of indirect purchasers under state laws.
Read Now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+