Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The conventional wisdom is that the government has a significant advantage when challenging mergers in court, and that this advantage is especially difficult to overcome when the government presents major customer witnesses opposing the transaction. However, three recent government court losses in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or Department of Justice (DOJ) teamed up with state attorney generals challenge that conventional wisdom. In each case, the trial judge subjected the government's theories and proof to close and skeptical analyses. Two courts discounted the testimony of major customers presented by the government and two courts gave considerable weight to “fixes” entered into by the defendants that lessened the alleged anticompetitive effects of the challenged transactions.
These three cases will clearly influence the parties' strategies in merger challenges, particularly with respect to customer opposition, fixes, market definition and proof of anticompetitive effects.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.