Karen Hoffman Lent and Kenneth Schwartz Perspectives on the DOJ's Merger Remedies Guidance
On Sept. 3, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) released the Merger Remedies Manual (the manual), which provides guidance on…
October 13, 2020 at 11:24 AM
13 minute read
On Sept. 3, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) released the Merger Remedies Manual (the manual), which provides guidance on how the agency currently intends to approach the structure and implementation of remedies in merger cases. See Antitrust Div., U. S. Department of Justice, "Merger Remedies Manual" (2020). Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, the head of the Antitrust Division, said that the new manual reflects the DOJ's "renewed focus on enforcing obligations in consent decrees and reaffirms the Division's commitment to effective structural relief." Press Release, Office of Pub. Affairs, Department of Justice, "Justice Department Issues Modernized Merger Remedies Manual" Sept. 3, 2020). The manual is the first updating of the policy in nearly a decade—the DOJ last issued guidance on merger remedies during the Obama administration with the publication of the 2011 Policy Guide on Merger Remedies (the 2011 Policy Guide). See Antitrust Div., U. S. Department of Justice, "Antitrust Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies" (2011). The 2011 Policy Guide was later withdrawn by Delrahim in 2018 in light of a broader initiative to shorten the duration of merger reviews. See Makan Delrahim, Assistant Atttorny Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dep't of Justice, "It Takes Two: Modernizing the Merger Review Process," Remarks as Prepared for the 2018 Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, at 11-12 (Sept. 25, 2018). The manual replaces the now withdrawn 2004 Policy Guide to Merger Remedies (the 2004 Policy Guide). See Antitrust Div., U. S. Department of Justice, "Antitrust Division Policy Guide to Merger Remedies" (2004).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Decision of the Day: Judge Precludes Ballistics Expert's Opinion on Scene for 2016 Fatal Police Shooting
Decision of the Day: Contingency Fee to Counsel Result of Successful Advocacy, Not Windfall
AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
3 minute read
Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
