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...
In Illinois Brick v. Illinois, the Supreme Court held that indirect purchasers (those who purchase from an intermediary) had no standing under the federal antitrust laws. However, various states allow for some type of recovery by or on behalf of indirect purchasers under state laws. Our survey provides a list of states that do not follow the Illinois Brick doctrine in their state antitrust or consumer protection law, by either statute or case law, and therefore allow for some type of recovery by or on behalf of indirect purchasers under state laws.
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+