When tax-exempt or non-U.S. taxpayers invest in U.S. businesses, unwanted and unintended U.S. tax obligations can follow without careful planning. Blocker corporations have become a common strategy employed...
Obtaining a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) is essential to conducting environmental due diligence for commercial real estate transactions. The goal of a Phase I ESA is to evaluate readily...
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools and resources are inundating the news, social media, professional seminars, and inboxes. AI is part of every conversation across industries and professional services...
Do you need guidance in defending against claims brought under the recently overhauled California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)? Read Private Attorneys General Act in California: Defending...
Confidently present your case in chief to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with this opening trial brief that an opposer/petitioner (plaintiff) may use in an opposition or cancellation proceeding...
Sandbagging, in the context of an M&A transaction, refers to a situation where the buyer closes an acquisition based on certain representations and warranties it knows to be false, and then seeks to hold the seller liable post-closing for breach of those same representations and warranties. In the recent Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Arwood v. AW Site Services, LLC, the court affirmed its pro-sandbagging stance in rejecting seller’s argument that buyer was foreclosed from asserting claims for contractual breach of representation and warranty in the acquisition agreement because buyer knew that such seller representations were false prior to closing. Review this guidance discussing the Arwood decision.
READ NOW »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+