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
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.24.24
Muldrow Case Recalibrates Title VII “Significant Harm” Standard
On April 17, 2023, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 22-193, holding that transferees alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 need only show that a transfer caused harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Court’s decision upends decades of lower court precedent applying a “significant harm” standard to Title VII discrimination cases. As a result, plaintiffs claiming discrimination under Title VII will likely more easily advance beyond motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment. In the wake of the Court’s decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (6-2), No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of North Carolina (6-3), No. 21-707 (June 29, 2023), Muldrow will also likely continue to reshape how employers conceive of, implement, and communicate workplace Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) efforts. The decision may be used by future plaintiffs in “reverse” discrimination actions to challenge DEI or affinity programs that provide non-economic benefits to some – but not all – employees. For example, DEI programs focused on mentoring or access to leadership open only to members of a certain protected class could be challenged under Muldrow by an employee positing that exclusion from such programs clears this new, lower standard of harm.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
DOJ Promises NPAs to Certain Individuals Through New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Pilot Program
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.23.24
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.23.24
