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...
On April 23, 2024, the FTC, by a 3-2 vote, issued its controversial, long-awaited final rule banning nearly all non-competes that would have significant impact: nearly one in five Americans are subject to a non-compete. But the ban’s effect will likely be up to the courts to decide. First up is Judge Ada Brown, a Trump appointee, presiding over a lawsuit brought by the accounting firm Ryan, LLC with the Chamber of Commerce intervening. Plaintiff asks the federal district court to vacate the non-compete rule, alleging that it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional federal power grab. The FTC majority counters that non-competes are not only “unfair” to competition, but banning them would juice the economy, creating 8,500 new businesses per year. To stay abreast of the fate of non-competes and other happenings at the FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division, follow the DOJ/FTC Antitrust Agency Developments Tracker.
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.