In a stock purchase transaction, the outstanding stock of the target company is transferred directly by its stockholders to the purchaser, with a stock purchase agreement serving as the primary governing...
Recreational cannabis continues to gain in popularity as more states legalize its use. To meet this growing demand, an increasing number of landlords are renting space to cannabis retail businesses. Both...
This practice note explains whether and how drug, medical device, biologics, and other life sciences companies should include ADR mechanisms in their contracts to resolve commercial disputes. Read now...
Do you need to understand when a U.S. employer may have to comply with U.S. labor and employment laws extraterritorially and when a foreign employer with operations in the United States is responsible...
Read this new practice note by Daniel Swanson and Julian Kleinbrodt from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to get up to speed on antitrust risks in intellectual property licensing. Leverage legal strategies...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
While the antitrust policy priorities of the new Administration continue to be developed, one possible result of the election may be increased activity by state attorneys general (AGs). Antitrust enforcement is a shared enterprise. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have joint jurisdiction as federal enforcers. But federal antitrust laws also empower both state enforcers and private litigants. Likewise, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes provide a second level of legal authority to punish and prohibit anticompetitive conduct—and are often enforced uniquely by state enforcers.
One historical reaction to a reduction in federal antitrust enforcement has been an increase in state investigations (and private lawsuits). With the current slate of litigation against tech companies, alleging unilateral conduct theories, and the incoming Administration’s perceived skepticism of tech monopolies, the most likely possible change may be coming in merger enforcement. The outgoing Administration was known for its attempts to aggressively change merger policy and law and its mixed record of litigating cases. Wall Street appears to anticipate reduced enforcement and increasing deal flow.
Will state AGs step in, and would such action pressure federal enforcers? It is not unheard of for state AGs to independently pursue merger litigation—as illustrated by the Sprint/T-Mobile litigation during Trump I.
Practice Guidance tracks key state AG offices and is increasing our coverage of significant state antitrust laws, helping you stay on top of state AGs reactions to the new Administration and new directions.
To keep up to date with the latest developments at the state AG level, follow the California Attorney General Antitrust Tracker, New York Attorney General Antitrust Tracker, and Texas Attorney General Antitrust Tracker. For federal developments, see DOJ/FTC Antitrust Agency Developments Tracker, DOJ Antitrust Case Tracker (Civil Nonmerger), and FTC Antitrust Case Tracker (Civil Nonmerger).
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+