Corporate & Commercial

RSS Link
Healthcare-Blog-Image-Medical-Concept-660x283

State oversight of healthcare transactions is continuing to undergo a significant transformation. As tracked in our updated Healthcare Merger Matrix, the number of states implementing or considering expanding antitrust laws targeting proposed deals continues to rise.[1] For instance, Washington and Colorado’s premerger notification laws went into effect on July 27 and August 6, 2025, respectively, and Indiana recently modified its existing transaction notice law to exempt certain practitioner-owned practices.[2] Additionally, New Mexico enacted a permanent version of its temporary transaction notification law with enhanced oversight and enforcement.[3]…
Continue Reading State Antitrust Enforcement Roundup: Updates to Healthcare Merger Matrix; New Potential Legislation Targeting Private Equity and Other For-Profit Entities in Healthcare

IP-Blog-Legal-Advice-660x283

Following up on our recent post analyzing Texas’s new proxy advisor disclosure statute, S.B. 2337, we note a significant development: On August 29, 2025, Judge Alan Albright of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily preventing the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the law against major proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis).
Continue Reading Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of Texas Proxy Advisor Disclosure Law

Antitrust-Law-Blog-Image-Business-Law-660x283

Transactions in the United States and the United Kingdom can have material differences, particularly with respect to purchase price adjustment mechanics, due diligence processes, equity incentives, third-party reliance on diligence reports, sandbagging provisions, MAC closing conditions, and auction processes. This article explores these areas further, providing insights into how legal frameworks and market practices differ between the two jurisdictions.
Continue Reading Crossing the Atlantic: Navigating Differences in US and UK M&A Practice

White-Collar-Blog-Image-Records-660x283

Texas has enacted S.B. 2337, a statute set to reshape proxy advisory practices for publicly traded companies that are either organized in Texas, have their principal place of business in the state or have proposed becoming a domestic entity within Texas.
Continue Reading Texas’s New Proxy Advisor Disclosure Law: Key Details for Shareholders and Companies Ahead of September 2025

Consumer-Finance-and-Fintech-Blog-Image-LawFinance-660x283

In United States v. Chastain, No. 23-7038, 2025 WL 2165839 (2d Cir. July 31, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated wire fraud and money laundering convictions in what the government described as its first crypto insider trading case. The case involves a former employee of OpenSea, an online non-fungible token (“NFT”) marketplace, who allegedly used confidential information about which NFTs would be featured on OpenSea’s homepage to purchase those NFTs before they were promoted, then sold them after a post-promotion price bump for a profit. At trial, the United States District Court for …
Continue Reading Second Circuit Vacates Fraud Conviction in First Crypto “Insider Trading” Case

Consumer-Finance-and-Fintech-Blog-Image-LawFinance-660x283

In United States v. Chastain, No. 23-7038, 2025 WL 2165839 (2d Cir. July 31, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated wire fraud and money laundering convictions in what the government described as its first crypto insider trading case. The case involves a former employee of OpenSea, an online non-fungible token (“NFT”) marketplace, who allegedly used confidential information about which NFTs would be featured on OpenSea’s homepage to purchase those NFTs before they were promoted, then sold them after a post-promotion price bump for a profit. At trial, the United States District Court for …
Continue Reading Second Circuit Vacates Fraud Conviction in First Crypto “Insider Trading” Case

Global-Trade-Blog-Sanctions-4-660x283

Key Takeaways

  • On July 24, 2025, the European Commission opened infringement procedures against 18 Member States for failing to fully transpose Directive (EU) 2024/1226 by the May 20, 2025 deadline.
  • The Directive harmonizes criminal offences and penalties for violations of EU sanctions, including asset freeze breaches, arms embargo violations, and circumvention schemes.
  • Penalties include prison sentences of up to 5 years for individuals and fines up to 5% of worldwide turnover or EUR 40 million for companies, plus additional restraining measures.

…
Continue Reading “Lost in Transposition” – Commission Targets 18 Member States Over Sanctions Enforcement Gaps

Antitrust-Law-Blog-Image-Guidelines-660x283

On August 13, 2025, President Trump revoked the Biden Administration’s 2021 Executive Order (Promoting Competition in the American Economy).
Continue Reading Trump Revokes Biden Administration’s Executive Order on Antitrust & Competition but other Biden Administration Antitrust Policy Changes Remain in Place

Corporate-Investigations-Blog-Images-660x283

On July 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced it sent more than 20 subpoenas to physicians and clinics involved in providing gender-affirming care to minors, and that the subpoenas related to investigations into healthcare fraud, false statements and other misconduct.[i] DOJ’s recent announcement, combined with the other actions described below, signal the government’s interest in pursuing action against providers that bill federal healthcare programs for gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries. Specifically, these actions strongly suggest that the government will investigate not only criminal claims but also civil claims under the…
Continue Reading Potential False Claims Act Liability for Providers of Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

IP-Blog-Image-LawGavel-660x283

On 9 July 2025, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-188/24 Michelin, addressing the scope of the European Commission’s powers to conduct on-site inspections (so-called dawn raids) under EU competition law. The Court broadly confirmed the Commission’s powers but sided with the claimant in partially annulling the Commission’s inspection decision, highlighting the requirement for a sufficient statement of reasons before the Commission may search companies’ premises. This judgement also gives insights into the European Commission’s increased efforts to uncover anticompetitive conduct ex officio in the context of a significant reduction of immunity/leniency applications. …
Continue Reading Fishing Expedition or Legitimate Dawn Raid? The Latest on European Commission’s Cartel Enforcement and Dawn Raids from the EU’s General Court

FDA-Blog-Image-Pharmeceauticals-2-660x283

On July 24, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) convened the second of three public listening sessions aimed at identifying barriers to drug price competition in the U.S. healthcare system. The session is part of a broader policy push under Executive Order 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First,” which mandates a coordinated federal effort to investigate and dismantle anticompetitive practices within the pharmaceutical sector, with the overarching goal of reducing prescription drug costs for Americans. The July 24th session concentrated on issues relating to formulary design, benefit management, and…
Continue Reading DOJ and FTC Host Second Session on Structural and Regulatory Impediments to Drug Competition

Universal Blog CA

In EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court, Case No. S282521, 2025 WL 2027272 (Cal. July 21, 2025), the California Supreme Court held that forum selection clauses may be enforced against California plaintiffs even when the selected forum — such as the oft-selected Delaware Court of Chancery — would not afford plaintiffs a right to a civil jury trial they would otherwise have had in a California court. This decision effectively overrules Handoush v. Lease Financing Group, LLC, 41 Cal.App.5th 729 (2019), in which the California Court of Appeal (First District) restricted courts from enforcing such clauses where the plaintiff would not…
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Holds That Lack of Jury Trial Right Is Insufficient to Reject Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause

Global-Trade-Blog-Sanctions-7-660x283

The United States has taken a historic step by terminating the Syria Sanctions Program, marking the most significant shift in U.S. foreign policy towards Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. In our earlier post, we outlined the initial steps taken by the U.S., EU, and UK to relax longstanding sanctions on Syria. Since then, the U.S. has introduced additional measures aimed at promoting commercial re-engagement, although several restrictions remain in place. Companies interested in doing business with Syria must stay current on evolving export control, sanctions, and compliance requirements.
Continue Reading Unpacking the U-Turn: What the Syria Sanctions Repeal Really Means

China-Law-Blog-Image-Cyber-Security-660x283

On July 18, 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) issued the Notice on Launching the Reporting Mechanism for Personal Information Protection Officers (the “Notice ”). This development marks a significant step in China’s regulatory enforcement of the Personal Information Protection Law (the “PIPL”) and its implementing rules, particularly the Administrative Measures on Compliance Audits of Personal Information Protection, effective June 1, 2025.
Continue Reading China Initiates Mandatory Reporting Regime for Personal Information Protection Officers

Privacy-Blog-Network-Security-660x283

The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Data Security Program (“DSP”) 90-day enforcement grace period ended as of July 8, 2025. While the program became effective April 8, 2025, DOJ implemented a 90-day enforcement grace period until July 8, 2025 for good-faith efforts towards compliance (see our previous blog here). With the expiration of the grace period, the majority of the DSP is now effective and will be enforced.
Continue Reading DOJ’s 90-Day Data Security Compliance Grace Period is Over: Are You Compliant?

In the Know Weekly

Receive weekly updates by email.