4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Navigating Emerging Privacy Issues in Financial Services — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Navigating the Labyrinth of Private Equity Investments in Health Care – Diagnosing Health Care
California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
FTC CFPB Enforcement Report — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
Balch’s Decision Dive: Texas Trial Court Struck Down the FTC’s Noncompete Rule
Employment Law Now VIII-146 - Latest Update on FTC Non-Compete Ban Plus 3 Summer Reminders for Employers
Urgent Action on Restrictive Covenants: Employers Must Prepare for FTC Rules
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers (Podcast)
#WorkforceWednesday: What Is the Future of Non-Compete Agreements for Employers? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The FTC and Connecticut Join Forces for Action Against Nissan Dealer
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Deceptive Reviews and Testimonials
Managing Social Media Risk
The CARS Rule — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
On March 5, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, and collectively with the FTC and DOJ, the Agencies) launched a cross-government inquiry...more
In state capitals across the country, a new year signals the start of a new legislative session. And this opens the door to new rules affecting state regulatory and occupational licensing boards and the practitioners they...more
Note From the Editors - With this Summer 2020 issue of Vital Signs, we take a moment to again applaud the remarkable actions of all the health care and life science organizations around the globe working tirelessly on our...more
The FTC recently reminded market participants to take steps to avoid violating the per se prohibition on interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. The FTC referred to its previous post on Section 8, which...more
Humana recently lost its effort to limit third-party discovery requests served by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its ongoing Walgreens/Rite Aid investigation. Typically, negotiations over the scope of third-party...more
Earlier this year, we covered the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which held that a state regulatory board composed of “active market participants” was not immune to federal...more
In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (“Board”), a state agency, was not exempt from federal antitrust laws...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state...more
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case with potentially broad implications for regulation by dental and...more
In a 6–3 decision issued February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that if active market participants control an entity—even a...more
On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, finding that North Carolina’s state board of dental examiners was subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act...more
In a 6-3 decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that state professional boards comprised of active professionals in the occupation...more
Last March, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) began a public workshop series entitled, “Examining Health Care Competition.” On February 24 and 25, 2015, the FTC will physically host the...more
Federal and state courts are expected to rule on several nationally watched antitrust health care cases during the first half of 2015. As we enter into the first week of the New Year, Nexsen Pruet associate Rachel...more
After nearly two decades of silence on the state action doctrine, on October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Court’s second case on the subject in two years: The North Carolina Board of...more
On May 31, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) determination that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (Board) illegally expelled non-dentists from the teeth...more