Commercial Litigation Update

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: When a merger or acquisition closes, many executives assume the legal work is over.

But as this episode of Speaking of Litigation reveals, signing on the dotted line may be just the beginning.

Avoid post-closing litigation with these issues in focus:

• Earnout Disputes: Learn how a buyer’s actions can intentionally or unintentionally depress earnings, leading to legal battles over unpaid contingent payments.
• Indemnification Risks: Understand why a buyer’s “safety net” can become a legal landmine for sellers, especially when ambiguous deal language is involved.
• Regulatory Surprises: Discover the unforeseen challenges that arise when government investigations begin after a deal closes, forcing buyers and sellers to confront liability for past conduct.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jim Flynn, Bob Travisano, and Daniella Lee discuss how to spot the red flags in a deal, the main legal triggers of post-merger disputes, and, most importantly, how to protect your business—whether you’re the buyer or the seller.

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: Early decisions in high-stakes litigation can shape both the courtroom and public narratives, yet critical first-move strategies are underutilized.

Why It Matters

• Setting the Tone Early: Find out how pre-litigation discovery builds compelling, evidence-backed cases.

• Controlling the Narrative: Learn how preemptive filings can influence not only legal outcomes but also public opinion.

• Detailed Insights on Strategy: Gain valuable advice on making critical first moves that can define the trajectory of your case.

Don’t miss Epstein Becker Green attorneys Sierra Hennessy, David Clark, and Alex Barnard as they explore the benefits, risks, and nuances of these advanced legal strategies.

This episode of Speaking of Litigation is packed with actionable insights for general counsel and legal professionals navigating complex litigation and provides real-time examples from high-profile disputes, including Blake Lively’s and Justin Baldoni’s cases.

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: What if the key to navigating your most complex legal challenges lies in the capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI)?

Join Epstein Becker Green attorneys Alkida Kacani and Christopher Farella as they sit down with Jonathan Murphy, Senior Manager of Forensics at BDO, to examine how AI is revolutionizing the practice of law.

Discover how advanced technologies are refining e-discovery, optimizing predictive analytics, and transforming document review processes. The discussion also takes a deep look into the ethical considerations of integrating AI into legal work, from safeguarding sensitive information to maintaining professional standards in a highly dynamic field.

Recently, a 1952 Mickey Mantle baseball card, in near-mint condition, sold for a record $12.6 million at auction. Imagine if the new owner brought the card home and showed it to a friend, carefully instructing the friend not to take it out of its protective cover. But while the new owner’s attention is diverted, the friend removes the card from its sleeve, lays it on the table, and proceeds to spill his nearby beer. Luckily, the friend is able to swipe the card off the table before it is completely ruined, but a few small drops of beer permanently stain the once-near-mint condition card.

            Has ...

Congratulations—you’ve been sued again. This time it’s in federal court under the Lanham Act. You review the complaint, and while it’s not outrageously frivolous on its face (which we previously discussed here), it’s also not your run-of-the-mill Lanham Act case. You might assume that your only option is to fully litigate the claim, and wait for vindication from the Court on summary judgment or after trial. But the Lanham Act provides another remedy: fee-shifting to recoup your legal fees. If the Lanham Act claim you’ve defended against is “exceptional” under the ...

Congratulations. You’ve been sued in court in New Jersey. To make matters worse, the complaint is full of lies. Not distorted versions of the truth or someone’s interpretation of events that actually occurred, but outright false statements of fact. The kind that make you look bad in your personal and business communities. The kind that hurt your reputation and cause people to think twice about doing business with you or your company.

You are understandably upset and want to go on the offensive, but your lawyer tells you the playbook is empty. She explains that there is an “absolute ...

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as “RICO,” was enacted to fight organized crime but has evolved into the bane of legitimate businesses. Along with criminal penalties that can only be enforced by federal prosecutors, RICO contains a provision allowing for civil lawsuits. The rewards for a successful civil RICO claim include mandatory treble damages and attorney’s fees. For this reason, civil RICO lawsuits have become a favorite of overzealous plaintiffs hoping to make headlines and scare legitimate businesses into quick settlements. And since private plaintiffs have a greater incentive to be “creative” than federal prosecutors, civil RICO cases often push the statute’s limits. But the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the infamous “Bridgegate” case, Kelly v. United States, may help decelerate this trend by limiting civil RICO claims in important ways.

In the Bridgegate case, three New Jersey state officials were charged with exacting political revenge against a local Democratic mayor for failing to endorse the Republican governor’s reelection bid. In what could have been a deleted scene from The Sopranos, the state officials ordered a “traffic study” that closed down some lanes for commuters in Fort Lee, New Jersey (the home of the Democratic Mayor) traveling across the George Washington Bridge into New York City. The “traffic study” had the predictable result of creating hours of gridlock that ensnared commuters, school buses, and even ambulances. That gridlock was, of course, the goal all along. In fact, upon hearing the news that the Democratic mayor would not endorse the Republican governor, one of the state officials emailed the other, advising: “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

Federal prosecutors felt that this was more than petty political retribution and charged the trio of state officials with criminal violations of the federal wire fraud statute, which makes it a crime to use interstate wires (such as telephones and email) to effect “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” 18 U.S.C. § 1343. One of the officials pleaded guilty, and the other two were convicted at trial. The convictions were later affirmed on appeal by the Third Circuit.

We are pleased to present Commercial Litigation Update, the newest blog from law firm Epstein Becker Green (EBG), which will offer engaging content about emerging trends and important developments in commercial and business litigation.

Commercial Litigation Update will feature thought leadership from EBG litigation attorneys and provide insightful and practical commentary and analysis on a wide range of timely litigation issues that affect businesses. Areas of interest will include trends and developments in antitrust, contract, defamation and product disparagement ...