BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    Live Online with Live Q&A

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Antitrust

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Thursday, May 29, 2025

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00

This program will provide a survey and comparison of state antitrust laws and their impact on M&A transactions. The panel will review the similarities and differences of current and proposed state antitrust laws, highlight laws with high-risk areas of enforcement, and recommend strategies for establishing an antitrust framework that is compliant with the ever-changing and evolving patchwork of compliance obligations.

Faculty

Daniel Leff
Counsel
Crowell & Moring

Mr. Leff is an antitrust litigator, trial lawyer, and strategic advisor. As a former state assistant attorney general, he draws on his experience litigating complex, high-profile antitrust cases for clients involved in or anticipating litigation as both plaintiffs and defendants. Mr. Leff also counsels and advocates for companies seeking antitrust regulatory approval for mergers, acquisitions, and innovative business deals. He joined the firm from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office (AGO), where he served in the Office's Antitrust Division. In that role, he worked hand-in-hand with enforcers from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the attorney general offices of nearly every U.S. state and territory to investigate and litigate merger, monopolization, and cartel matters.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Luke Taeschler
Crowell & Moring

Mr. Taeschler is an experienced litigator and antitrust lawyer. He leverages his private practice and Federal Trade Commission experience to advise and represent clients on all aspects of antitrust law across a diverse range of industries. Mr. Taeschler’s varied practice covers class action litigation, competitor litigation, merger reviews and investigations, conduct investigations, and antitrust counseling. He represents clients spanning several industries, including the technology, healthcare, sports, pharmaceutical, financial services, automotive, and optical industries. Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Taeschler was an attorney with the FTC Bureau of Competition, where he investigated horizontal and vertical mergers as well as other business conduct. In addition, he serves as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

In the last several years, a growing number of states have enacted or are considering enacting various legislative and regulatory changes that would increase antitrust scrutiny for a variety of business activities. These state-level regulations are similar to the federal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) and require parties to certain transactions to seek merger clearance from state authorities prior to closing. 

To date, 15 states, including California and New York, have HSR-like notice regimes. While most of these laws are directed at healthcare-specific transactions, it is expected that state antitrust scrutiny will extend to other sectors in the future. 

To encourage states to impose transaction requirements that are consistent with existing federal HSR obligations, in July 2024, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) approved the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act. The Act is intended as model legislation for states to use to implement pre-merger filing regimes and according to the ULC, creates a simple, non-burdensome mechanism for state attorneys general to receive access to HSR filings at the same time as the federal agencies and subject to the same confidentiality obligations.

State antitrust laws add an additional layer of compliance requirements for merging parties to consider, and they are expected to increase transaction timelines, costs, and risks. It is imperative that counsel and merging parties comply with state antitrust requirements as noncompliance may result in substantial fines or enforcement actions. 

Listen as our panel of antitrust experts reviews the current framework of state antitrust laws and provides guidance for navigating state-specific merger notification regimes. 

Outline

I. Overview: the role states play in antitrust enforcement

II. Analyzing the interplay between state and federal antitrust laws

III. Comparing current and proposed state antitrust laws: similarities and differences

IV. States with high risk areas of enforcement

V. Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act

VI. Recommendations and strategies for evaluating the implications of state-specific merger notification regimes to ensure transactional compliance

Benefits

The panel will discuss these and other key considerations:


  • What are the current trends and developments in state and federal antitrust enforcement?
  • What are common similarities and notable differences between current and proposed state antitrust laws?
  • What are the parameters of the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act, and if adopted by states, how will this model legislation impact premerger filing requirements?
  • How should counsel and parties engaged in mergers and acquisitions prepare for increased scrutiny under new state-level antitrust laws?