DOCSLIB.ORG

Intellectual Property & Antitrust

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Intellectual Property & Antitrust GETTING THROUGH THE DEAL Intellectual Property & Antitrust Intellectual Property & Antitrust Intellectual Contributing editor Peter J Levitas 2019 2019 © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd Intellectual Property & Antitrust 2019 Contributing editor Peter J Levitas Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd This article was first published in December 2018 For further information please contact [email protected] Publisher Law The information provided in this publication is Tom Barnes general and may not apply in a specific situation. [email protected] Business Legal advice should always be sought before taking Research any legal action based on the information provided. Subscriptions This information is not intended to create, nor does Claire Bagnall Published by receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–client relationship. [email protected] Law Business Research Ltd The publishers and authors accept no responsibility 87 Lancaster Road for any acts or omissions contained herein. The Senior business development managers London, W11 1QQ, UK information provided was verified between October Adam Sargent Tel: +44 20 3780 4147 and November 2018. Be advised that this is a [email protected] Fax: +44 20 7229 6910 developing area. Dan White © Law Business Research Ltd 2018 [email protected] No photocopying without a CLA licence. Printed and distributed by First published 2007 Encompass Print Solutions Thirteenth edition Tel: 0844 2480 112 ISBN 978-1-78915-034-6 © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd CONTENTS Global overview 5 Japan 44 Peter J Levitas and Matthew A Tabas Yusuke Nakano and Atsushi Yamada Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune China 7 Korea 51 Zhan Hao, Song Ying and Stephanie (Yuanyuan) Wu Hui Jin Yang and Jung Hyun Uhm AnJie Law Firm Lee & Ko France 14 Mexico 57 Emmanuel Schulte Israel Pérez Correa and Hugo H Zapata Bersay & Associés Pérez Correa & Asociados Germany 22 Switzerland 63 Philipp Rastemborski Daniel Emch and Nicolas Mosimann Meissner Bolte Kellerhals Carrard India 28 United Kingdom 70 Hemant Singh John Schmidt, Richard Dickinson, Zeno Frediani Inttl Advocare and Kathy Harford Arnold & Porter Italy 36 Veronica Pinotti and Martino Sforza United States 76 White & Case Lisa Kimmel and Kate M Watkins Crowell & Moring, LLP 2 Getting the Deal Through – Intellectual Property & Antitrust 2019 © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd PREFACE Preface Intellectual Property & Antitrust 2019 Thirteenth edition Getting the Deal Through is delighted to publish the thirteenth edition of Intellectual Property & Antitrust, which is available in print, as an e-book, and online at www.gettingthedealthrough.com. Getting the Deal Through provides international expert analysis in key areas of law, practice and regulation for corporate counsel, cross- border legal practitioners, and company directors and officers. Throughout this edition, and following the unique Getting the Deal Through format, the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the jurisdictions featured. Getting the Deal Through titles are published annually in print. Please ensure you are referring to the latest edition or to the online version at www.gettingthedealthrough.com. Every effort has been made to cover all matters of concern to readers. However, specific legal advice should always be sought from experienced local advisers. Getting the Deal Through gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the contributors to this volume, who were chosen for their recognised expertise. We also extend special thanks to the contributing editors, Peter J Levitas of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for his continued assistance with this volume. London November 2018 www.gettingthedealthrough.com 3 © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd UNITED KINGDOM Arnold & Porter United Kingdom John Schmidt, Richard Dickinson, Zeno Frediani and Kathy Harford Arnold & Porter Intellectual property 2 Responsible authorities 1 Intellectual property law Which authorities are responsible for granting, administering or enforcing IP rights? Under what statutes, regulations or case law are intellectual property rights granted? Are there restrictions on how IP The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is responsible for the grant rights may be enforced, licensed or otherwise transferred? and administration of UK patents, trademarks, and registered designs. Do the rights exceed the minimum required by the WTO The European Patent Office is responsible for the prosecution (includ- Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property ing post-grant opposition) of European patents. The EU Intellectual Property Office is responsible for the grant and administration of EU Rights (TRIPs)? trademarks and registered Community designs. IP rights in the UK are protected by a combination of UK and EU legis- The Trading Standards Authorities play a role in investigating IP lation and UK common law. infringement and conducting prosecutions for criminal IP enforce- Patents are protected under the UK Patents Act 1977, and substan- ment, and the UK customs and border authorities can take action to tive national patent law across Europe has been partially harmonised assist in IP enforcement, but IP enforcement is primarily via civil litiga- by the European Patent Convention 1973. Patent protection lasts for 20 tion in the courts. years, and can be extended for medicinal and plant protection prod- ucts by a supplementary protection certificate by up to five-and-a-half 3 Proceedings to enforce IP rights years, under EU Regulation 469/2009 (for medicinal products) and What types of legal or administrative proceedings are Regulation 1610/2009 (for plant protection products). available for enforcing IP rights? To the extent your Registered trademarks are protected under the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 and EU Regulation 2017/2001 (the EUTM Regulation). jurisdiction has both legal and administrative enforcement Unregistered trademarks, including the overall ‘get-up’ of a prod- options for IP rights, briefly describe their interrelationship, uct or service, are protected by case law under the tort of passing off. if any. Protection for both registered and unregistered trademarks can last IP rights are primarily enforced in the UK via civil court proceedings, indefinitely; registered trademarks must be periodically renewed. and the English High Court is the most common venue. IP proceedings Registered and unregistered designs are protected under the UK in the English High Court are heard in the Chancery Division, and dif- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) and Registered ferent specialist lists are available: Designs Act 1949, and EU Regulation 6/2002 (the Community Designs • the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) can hear any IP Regulation). The duration of protection varies from three to 25 years, claim of relatively low complexity and value: the IPEC is generally depending on the nature of the right. suitable for claims which can be tried in two days or less, damages Copyright protection is governed by the UK CDPA, and specific are capped at £500,000 and recoverable legal costs are subject to aspects of copyright law have been (and continue to be) harmonised by a cap of £50,000; a number of EU Directives. The duration of copyright protection var- • the Patents Court can hear claims relating to patents, registered ies, depending on the nature of the work; literary, dramatic, musical designs, semiconductor topography rights and plant varieties. and artistic works are protected for 70 years from the end of the year in There is no cap on damages or recoverable legal costs; and which the author dies. • all other IP claims can be heard in the Intellectual Property List of Databases are protected as copyright works under the CDPA, the Chancery Division, of which the Patents Court and IPEC are and by sui generis database right under Directive 96/9 (the Database sub-lists. Directive) as implemented by the CDPA. Copyright in a database lasts for 70 years, and sui generis database right for 15 years. Decisions of the English High Court can be appealed (with permission) Trade secrets are protected by the common law of breach of con- to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and the UK courts can fidence, and the UK has enacted legislation to implement the Trade refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Secrets Directive (2016/244). The UK IPO offers a mediation service, which can mediate The enforcement of IP rights across Europe has been harmonised infringement disputes relating to all types of IP, and can also provide a to some extent by Directive 2004/48 (the Enforcement Directive). In non-binding opinion on infringement of a patent or supplementary cer- addition to restrictions arising out of competition law, key restrictions tificate. However, the IPO cannot make a binding decision on infringe- on the ability to enforce IP rights include the risk of incurring liability ment of any IP right. for groundless threats of IP infringement, the law of which has been sig- nificantly reformed in the UK by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified 4 Remedies Threats) Act 2017, and specific defences to infringement and restric- tions on available remedies for each right. The formalities for assign- What remedies are available to a party whose IP rights ments and licences, and the effect of failing to register a transaction have been
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US PE Lending League Tables
    US PE Lending League Tables Q1 2020 Contents Credits & Contact PitchBook Data, Inc. Introduction 3 John Gabbert Founder, CEO Adley Bowden Vice President, US region 4-7 Market Development & Analysis PE deals 8-10 Content Aria Nikkhoui Data Analyst II Debt 11-12 Madison Bond Senior Research Associate, Debt Industry 13-14 Bhushan Artani Research Associate, Debt Keenan Durham Data Set Team Law firms 15 Lead, Debt Contact PitchBook Research [email protected] Cover design by Kelilah King Click here for PitchBook’s report methodologies. Introduction The US PE Lending League Tables are not only one of our PDF with similar interactive online rankings only. As a few younger editions of quarterly publications, but also they technical kinks remain to be worked out, we are currently represent a unique perspective on the credit markets. still producing the PDF edition of Lending League Tables They also can proffer a pulse on private lending’s health only. overall; for example, tallies have grown considerably more interesting in light of the pandemic that began to impact As always, we welcome your feedback, so do not hesitate transactional volume toward the end of Q1 2020. Future to reach out to [email protected]. editions will offer good indicators of where activity was able to stay most resilient as volatility surged. In addition, at the start of this year, we launched our Garrett James Black first-ever interactive league tables. We are focusing Senior Manager, Custom Research on gathering user feedback and associated data on & Publishing performance
    [Show full text]
  • Law Firm Climate Change Scorecard 2 Table of Contents
    OCTOBER 2020 THE 2020 LAW FIRM CLIMATE CHANGE SCORECARD CLIMATE SCORES FOR VAULT 100 LAW FIRMS 1 CLIMATE SCORE FIRMS Cozen O’Connor Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton A Schulte Ross & Zabel Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Arent Fox Irell & Manella Cooley Littler Mendelson Davis Wright Tremaine Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, & Popeo Drinker Biddle & Reath Pepper Hamilton B Fenwick & West Seyfarth Shaw Fish & Richardson WilmerHale Goodwin Procter Winston & Strawn Ballard Spahr Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner McDermott Will & Emery Debevoise & Plimpton Nixon Peabody Duane Morris Proskauer Rose Foley Hoag Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan C Fox Rothschild Williams & Connolly Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson Willkie Farr & Gallagher Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Alston & Bird Katten Muchin Rosenman Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick Blank Rome Locke Lord Boies Schiller Flexner Mayer Brown Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Cahill Gordon & Rendell Morrison & Foerster Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Norton Rose Fulbright Covington & Burling O’Melveny & Myers Crowell & Moring Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe Davis Polk & Wardwell Paul Hastings Dechert Perkins Coie D Dentons Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman DLA Piper Reed Smith Foley & Lardner Ropes & Gray Greenberg Traurig Steptoe & Johnson Haynes and Boone Susman Godfrey Holland & Knight Troutman Sanders Hughes Hubbard & Reed Venable Jenner & Block Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen, & Katz Jones Day Weil,
    [Show full text]
  • Pro Bono Matters
    NYL PB Matters 06 Spg2 4/21/06 6:28 PM Page 1 PRO BONO MATTERS SPRING 2006 NYLPI and Kasowitz Benson Win Compensation for Young Person with Learning Disabilities NYLPI and Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Department of Education (DOE) to listen to Friedman LLP won a significant compen- her pleas. Her son was struggling with his satory award from the New York City disability and failing in school. His negative Department of Education on experiences had taught him to fear academic behalf of Alexander James, a NYLPI environments, further impairing his educa- young man with learning dis- SPECIAL tion. The DOE’s specialists diagnosed him abilities. He will now be able ED as mentally retarded, claiming Alexander to obtain the educational sup- was not capable of advancing in an academ- port he needs to graduate with a high school ic setting. Ms. James knew otherwise, but diploma. could not convince the bureaucracy. Cheryl James, Alexander’s mother, spent “Nobody believed me,” she recalled. “I just four frustrating years trying to get the went running around in circles…running to the school, on the phone, going to meetings.” After years of frustration, Ms. James finally connected with Pamela Hux-Singh, a special education advocate, and Kim Sweet, NYLPI Associate General Counsel and Coordinator of the Education Program. Sweet and Hux- Singh helped Ms. James build a case that Alexander could succeed academically with the intensive support of a residential school. They had him evaluated by a group of inde- pendent experts who agreed with that assessment. ALEXANDER AND CHERYL JAMES AT THE KOLBOURNE SCHOOL (CONTINUED ON PAGE 4) Inside: Pro Bono Models: Bingham McCutchen Partners with Law & Society Award Luncheon 3 Say Yes to Education to Support Harlem Families Associate Matters 4 Pro Bono Models will be a regular series school.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug and Medical Device Litigation Seminar 2019
    Drug and Medical Device Litigation Ensuring Excellence in Defending Life Sciences Companies In addition to our usual first-rate, cutting- edge presentations, we will offer something new! Witness a trial reenactment of a famous immigration case, Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), as a special diversity and inclusion presentation. The cast will feature a prominent federal judge as well as members of the DRI Drug and Medical Device Committee Steering Committee. All attendees will receive general/professional practice CLE credit or diversity and inclusion CLE credit in the relevant states. May 16–17, 2019 Renaissance Washington, D.C., Downtown Hotel Washington, D.C. lease join us in our nation’s beautiful capital for the 2019 Drug and Medical Device Seminar. This seminar Pwill provide more opportunities than ever to network with in-house counsel, leading pharmaceutical and medical device lawyers, and friends old and new. You will also hear an FDA insider’s views regarding issues facing the industry and top appellate attorneys’ thoughts regarding recent and relevant decisions affecting how we defend our clients. These and other top-notch programs make this seminar the “go-to” event year after year for practitioners in the pharmaceutical and medical device defense arena. Register today! Sheila S. Boston Sara J. Gourley Program Chair Committee Chair Erik W. Snapp Gail Rodgers Program Vice Chair Committee Vice Chair Ted J. McDonald III Law Institute PRESENTED BY DRI’s Drug and Medical Device Committee THIS SEMINAR BROCHURE IS SPONSORED BY Register online now at dri.org or complete the form in the back.
    [Show full text]
  • Class & Group Actions 2018
    ICLG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Class & Group Actions 2018 10th Edition A practical cross-border insight into class and group actions work Published by Global Legal Group, in association with CDR, with contributions from: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP J. Sagar Associates Baker Botts L.L.P. Josh and Mak International Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP Lin & Partners Attorneys-at-Law Clayton Utz Linklaters LLP Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Clifford Chance Munari Cavani Studio Legale De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V. Norton Rose Fulbright Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Russell McVeagh Eversheds Sutherland Ltd. Squire Patton Boggs Fangda Partners Yigal Arnon & Co. The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Class & Group Actions 2018 General Chapters: 1 EU Developments in Relation to Collective Redress – Alison Brown, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 1 2 International Class Action Settlements in the Netherlands since Converium – Contributing Editors Jan de Bie Leuveling Tjeenk & Dennis Horeman, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V. 5 Ian Dodds-Smith & Alison Brown, Arnold & Porter 3 Deal or No Deal? Increased Judicial Scrutiny of Class Action Settlements in the U.S. – Kaye Scholer LLP Bradley J. Andreozzi, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 13 Sales Director Florjan Osmani Country Question and Answer Chapters: Account Director Oliver Smith Sales Support Manager 4 Australia Clayton Utz: Colin Loveday & Andrew Morrison 18 Toni Hayward Editor 5 Belgium Linklaters LLP: Joost Verlinden & Michiel Vanwynsberghe 26 Caroline Collingwood Senior Editors Suzie Levy, Rachel Williams 6 Canada Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP: Jill Lawrie & Daniel Szirmak 31 Chief Operating Officer Dror Levy 7 China Fangda Partners: Frank Li & Rebecca Lu 38 Group Consulting Editor Alan Falach 8 England & Wales Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP: Alison Brown & Ian Dodds-Smith 45 Publisher Rory Smith Published by 9 France Squire Patton Boggs: Carole Sportes & Valérie Ravit 55 Global Legal Group Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • London Office Graduate Recruitment
    London Office Graduate Recruitment Trainee Solicitor and Summer Vacation Scheme Programmes Summer Vacation Scheme July 2021 • Training Contracts September 2023 Who We Are Years of combined100+ business acumen with a practical forward-looking, results-driven approach Offices in14 the US, EU, Asia and the UK Lawyers ranked123 in Chambers USA, UK, Global, Europe, Latin America, and Asia in 2018 Lawyers who have94 held senior positions in US and European governments and international organisations Fortune133 250 companies that have chosen Arnold & Porter as outside counsel Foreword The success of any law firm is dependent on the talent and professionalism of its lawyers and support staff. That is why we are committed to investing in the training and professional development of our trainee solicitors. We are looking for enthusiastic and talented graduates from all backgrounds and cultures who share our commitment to excellence, want to be part of the continued growth of our London office and want to become part of the next generation of leaders at our firm. Providing our clients with an excellent service is our number-one priority. Our lawyers need to be commercially minded and approachable, and be able to work with our clients as part of a team on complex and often high-profile legal issues. If you feel you can meet this challenge and want to work at an inclusive firm, with a long tradition of pro bono and community support, we would like to hear from you. This brochure provides you with all the details you need to work toward a training contract with Arnold & Porter, including information about the firm, experiences of past trainees and the all-important application details.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York
    20-11647-jlg Doc 169 Filed 08/27/20 Entered 08/27/20 21:58:35 Main Document Pg 1 of 56 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) LAKELAND TOURS, LLC, et al.,1 ) Case No. 20-11647 (JLG) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Giovanna M. Luciano, depose and say that I am employed by Stretto, the claims and noticing agent for the Debtors in the above-captioned case. On August 21, 2020, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Stretto caused the following documents to be served via first-class mail on the service list attached hereto as Exhibit A, via electronic mail on the service list attached hereto as Exhibit B, and on three (3) confidential parties not listed herein: Amended Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Lakeland Tours, LLC and Its Debtor Affiliates (Docket No. 140) Statement of the Ad Hoc Group of Seller Notes in Support of Confirmation of Amended Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Lakeland Tours, LLC and Its Debtor Affiliates (Docket No. 142) Withdrawal of Objection of Certain Equity and Seller Note Holders to the Confirmation of the Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Lakeland Tours, LLC and Its Debtor Affiliates (Docket No. 143) Order Scheduling Hearing on Approval of Disclosure Statement and Confirmation of Amended Plan of Reorganization (Docket No. 144) Debtors’ Memorandum of Law in Support of an Order Approving the Debtors’ Disclosure Statement for, and Confirming, the Debtors’ Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Download 201321.Pdf
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________ READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) CITADEL CINEMAS, INC.; and ) SUTTON HILL CAPITAL, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) Case No. 03-CV-1895 (GEL) (THK) ) OAKTREE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT ) LLC; ONEX CORPORATION; REGAL ) ENTERTAINMENT GROUP; UNITED ) ARTISTS THEATRE COMPANY; ) UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE ) CIRCUIT, INC.; LOEWS CINEPLEX ) ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; ) COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, ) INC.; THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY; ) UNIVERSAL STUDIOS, INC.; ) PARAMOUNT PICTURES ) CORPORATION; METRO-GOLDWYN- ) MAYER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ) FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.; ) DREAMWORKS LLC; STEPHEN ) KAPLAN; and BRUCE KARSH, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE R. HEWITT PATE Assistant Attorney General DEBORAH P. MAJORAS Deputy Assistant Attorney General RALPH T. GIORDANO (RG 0114) CATHERINE G. O’SULLIVAN U.S. Department of Justice STEVEN J. MINTZ Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3630 Antitrust Division New York, N.Y. 10278-0140 601 D Street, N.W. (212) 264-0657 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 353-8629 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES ...........................................1 QUESTION PRESENTED ......................................................1 STATEMENT ................................................................1 ARGUMENT .................................................................3 A BUSINESS IS A “PERSON” AND MAY SERVE AS A DIRECTOR
    [Show full text]
  • 20-11647-Jlg Doc 133 Filed 08/19/20 Entered 08/19/20 17
    20-11647-jlg Doc 133 Filed 08/19/20 Entered 08/19/20 17:38:41 Main Document Pg 1 of 59 20-11647-jlg Doc 133 Filed 08/19/20 Entered 08/19/20 17:38:41 Main Document Pg 2 of 59 Exhibit A Exhibit A Served via First-Class Mail Name Attention Address 1 Address 2 Address 3 City State Zip Country Aaron Joseph Borenstein Trust Address Redacted Attn: Benjamin Mintz & Peta Gordon & Lucas B. Ad Hoc Equity Holder Group c/o Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Barrett 250 W 55th Street New York NY 10019-9710 Ad Hoc Equity Holder Group c/o Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Attn: Michael L. Bernstein 601 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington DC 20001-3743 Ad Hoc Group of Seller Notes c/o Togut Segal & Segal LLP Attn: Kyle Ortiz & Brian Moore & Jared Borriello One Penn Plaza Suite 3335 New York NY 10119 Attn: Scott J. Greenberg, Esq. & Steven A. Ad Hoc Term Lender Group c/o Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Domanowski, Esq. & Jeremy D. Evans, Esq. 200 Park Ave New York NY 10166 Adam Hall Address Redacted Alabama Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Ave 20-11647-jlg Doc133Filed08/19/20Entered17:38:41MainDocument Montgomery AL 36104 Alaska Office of the Attorney General 1031 W 4th Ave Suite 200 Anchorage AK 99501 Amie & David Wilson c/o Butler Snow LLP Attn: William S. Walton 150 3rd Avenue South Suite 1600 Nashville TN 37201 Anish Rajparia Address Redacted Appletree Holdings LLC Address Redacted Arizona Office of the Attorney General 2005 N Central Ave Phoenix AZ 85004 Arkansa Soffice of the Attorney General 323 Center St Suite 200 Little Rock AR 72201 Asia Education Consulting, Ltd Address Redacted California Office of the Attorney General PO Box 944255 Sacramento CA 94244-2550 Cognizant Technology Solutions US Corp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington, DC Antitrust Bar
    Americas The Washington, DC antitrust bar As Washington, DC is roiled by political turmoil, its antitrust bar remains deeply rooted and largely stable – as well as the biggest and arguably most important in the world. Pallavi Guniganti and Charles McConnell review the merits of more than 40 competition practices in the US capitol Washington, DC is unquestionably a different place – Walgreen Boots Alliance’s acquisition of rival retail than it was two years ago, when GCR last surveyed pharmacy chain Rite Aid – has been cut down to a the city’s antitrust bar. Most obviously, the election of purchase of fewer than half of the shops after a lengthy Donald Trump has changed the leadership of the US FTC investigation. The presumption of laxer treatment Federal Trade Commission and US Department of of business under a conservative president has been Justice’s antitrust division, as well as other government complicated by Trump’s emphasis on retaining jobs departments that can affect competition through and campaign rhetoric against NBCUniversal, Time regulation. At the time of writing, the nomination Warner and Amazon. While the Committee for of Makan Delrahim as assistant attorney general Foreign Investment in the US vets deals for their effect for antitrust awaits a vote by the full Senate, and the on national security and not competition, an increas- president has yet to name a permanent head of the ing number of antitrust lawyers in Washington, DC FTC; the commission’s sole Republican, Maureen say they are hearing anxiety from Asian clients about Ohlhausen, has been acting chairman. the president’s “America First” slogan, interpreted as Many observers have said they expect the change potential hostility toward acquisitions of US compa- in political party to affect antitrust enforcement only nies by foreigners.
    [Show full text]
  • Vedder Price Adds Private Equity Partner Andrew B. Harris to Firm's
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Vedder Price Adds Private Equity Partner Andrew B. Harris to Firm’s London Office LONDON (1 July 2019) – Vedder Price is pleased to announce that Andrew B. Harris has joined Vedder Price as a Partner in the Finance & Transactions group in London and has been appointed as the European Head of Private Equity and Corporate. Mr. Harris focuses on private equity and private M&A transactions. He has considerable experience in share and asset purchases, disposals/exits, MBOs, MBIs, buy and builds, joint ventures and restructurings, and acts for private equity firms, entrepreneurs and high-net-worth individuals, as well as portfolio companies and management teams. “Andrew extends Vedder Price’s ability to deliver excellent, commercially focused advice and support for our valued clients in Europe,” said Michael A. Nemeroff, President and CEO of Vedder Price. “His transactional and private equity practice slots in well with the strategic focus for the firm and aligns with our strategic vision to grow our practice and relationships in London.” “Vedder provides a natural platform to not only give greater support and expertise to my private equity, corporate and individual clients, but also to work directly with our Global Finance, Leverage Finance and Employment teams here in the UK as well,” said Mr. Harris. “I’m thrilled to play a role in strengthening our Private Equity practice and look forward to collaborating with our clients and my new partners and colleagues.” “This was the right time for the firm to expand on our transactional capabilities out of the London office based on market demand and the success of our attorneys there,” said Douglas M.
    [Show full text]
  • Top Law Firms for Equality | 2018
    TOP LAW FIRMS FOR EQUALITY | 2018 Since 2002, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index (CEI) has surveyed major businesses to benchmark important employer benefits and protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) employees and their families as well as demonstrated corporate commitment to LGBTQ equality. Law firms have been surveyed as part of the CEI since 2006. This year, 160 law firms, including a majority of American Lawyer 200 firms, participated in the CEI. Of these firms, 127 received a perfect 100- percent score, establishing law firms as the most represented industry among participants receiving a perfect score. Another 16 firms scored above 90. The HRC Foundation not only tracks law firms’ progress, but also actively works with diversity managers and partnership committees, as well as with LGBTQ attorneys, to implement inclusive policies at the nation’s most prestigious firms. The CEI rates law firms on 40 specific policies and practicites. To achieve a perfect score and the coveted distinction of “Best Places to Work for LGBTQ Equality,” firms must have fully- inclusive equal employment opportunity policies, provide equal employment benefits, demonstrate organizational LGBTQ competency, evidence their commitment to equality publicly and implement internal guidelines prohibiting philanthropic giving to organizations that discriminate against LGBTQ people. The 2018 Corporate Equality Index rated a total of 947 private employers in various industries. The full report is available at www.hrc.org/cei. IN THIS YEAR’S REPORT, WE ARE PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THAT 127 LAW FIRMS EARNED THE TOP RATING OF 100 PERCENT. > TOP LAW FIRMS FOR EQUALITY | 2018 The Human Rights Campaign Foundation congraulates the 127 law firms that achieved 100 percent ratings on the Corporate Equality Index.
    [Show full text]