2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.26.16
Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to release its "2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review." Following a record-breaking year for volume of transactions, this publication provides insight and analysis into developments and trends in global antitrust enforcement of mergers and acquisitions. We examine the antitrust agencies' increasing focus on protecting innovation and emerging forms of competition, requiring broader remedies and more competitive divestiture buyers, and highly scrutinizing transactions in markets where prior consolidation was not challenged. We also look at the agencies' increasing willingness to challenge transactions through litigation, and their relatively successful recent track record.
The report spotlights areas that were particularly noteworthy in 2015, including telecom, health care, energy, and IP and innovation. We also take a look at the first year of Commissioner Vestager's merger enforcement in Europe, the growing influence of third parties in merger review proceedings, and procedural trends at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Antitrust Division that impact the cost and timeline of merger review in the U.S.
Given the likelihood that recent antitrust merger enforcement developments foreshadow what to expect in the coming year, the 2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review provides insight into trends that will be highly relevant going forward. We hope that you will find this report useful and welcome your feedback.
DOWNLOAD PDF:
2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
