John Matthew Butler

A software company fighting to regain a $2 billion trade secrets award urged the Virginia Supreme Court on Tuesday to affirm the verdict, arguing that an appellate court was wrong to disturb the conclusions from jurors and the trial judge. The state Court of Appeals "mischaracterized and misapprehended" the trial's proceedings and "repeatedly second-guessed" Judge Richard E. Gardiner of Fairfax County Circuit Court, Robert Loftin of McGuireWoods LLP, which is representing Appian Corp. in its quest to restore the largest jury award in state history, told the justices at oral arguments. "It is well settled that a party with a jury verdict approved by a circuit court occupies the most favored position known to the law," but the Court of Appeals didn't "acknowledge or even cite this standard," underpinning what he argued were errors in the decision that reversed the award last year. Counsel for the defendant, Massachusetts-based Pegasystems Inc., countered that Judge Gardiner incorrectly prevented it from arguing that many of its sales came from products unrelated to the disputed software and that Appian had failed to do enough to protect its purported trade secrets. "If you divulge your secrets to people without a promise of confidentiality, you are not treating them as a secret," Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP told the justices. The case has drawn widespread attention, both for its unprecedented damages award and because it raises several relevant questions about trade secret protections, including what are considered reasonable measures for protecting confidential business information and how damages should be calculated. Both companies make business process management software, which allows companies to create customizable applications to streamline certain tasks, such as opening customer accounts or fulfilling orders. The $2 billion judgment in 2022 amounted to one-third of Pegasystems' sales over eight years and more than double Appian's total revenue since 2014, according to Pegasystems. The justices pressed both sides about whether Virginia law permits shifting the burden of proof for damages in trade secret cases from the plaintiffs to the defendants. At trial, the court instructed jurors that Appian only needed to prove Pegasystems' total sales to establish damages, and then Pegasystems had to prove which sales were not attributable to the trade secrets. Loftin argued that the appeals court wrongly concluded that Virginia law forbids burden-shifting under the state's trade secrets statute, and said trial courts should be afforded discretion with their "quintessential gatekeeping functions." Pegasystems "repeatedly gambled and lost with the manner in which it litigated this case," Loftin said. "Judge Gardiner lived with this case for 16 months. He knew the parties. He knew the way the counsel were operating and conducting themselves." Rosencranz called the burden-shifting part of a "one-two punch" that was "terribly unfair and disastrous" for his client, along with its being prevented from presenting how much of its sales was the result of the allegedly misappropriated information. "Having shifted the burden to Pegasystems, the court then allowed Appian to take away, or the court basically itself took away, [Pegasystems'] only defense on damages, which is that half of our products don't even incorporate the trade secrets," Rosencranz said. Appian sued Pegasystems in 2020, accusing it of misappropriating more than a dozen trade secrets after retaining a government contractor who had access to Appian's software through his work with an Appian business partner. The government contractor received about $23,600 over two and a half years to provide staff demonstrations on building apps with Appian's software, according to court documents. At trial, Pegasystems argued that thousands of developers had access to Appian's platform and user manuals and that jurors should hear about that to determine whether the asserted trade secrets were sufficiently protected. Appian successfully argued against that, saying the number of people with access to its platform and user manuals was irrelevant to the case, which included allegations of corporate espionage. One of the justices brought that up during arguments, asking Rosencranz if he was defending Pegasystems' conduct in the case. "Well, Your Honor, the question about reasonable measures has nothing to do with what the defendant did," Rosencranz said. "It has to do with the basic legal premise that if you want to treat something as a trade secret, which is an extraordinary power, the plaintiff has to define what the trade secret is. You have to treat it like a trade secret." Appian is represented by Robert W. Loftin, Joshua D. Wade, Jonathan Y. Ellis and H. Brent McKnight Jr. of McGuireWoods LLP, Ellen D. Marcus and Sheila M. Costin of Holmes Costin & Marcus PLLC, Adeel Mangi and Muhammad Faridi of Linklaters LLP and Matthew Taylor Butler. Pegasystems is represented by Monica T. Monday and Michael J. Finney of Gentry Locke Attorneys and E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Christopher J. Cariello, Eric A. Shumsky, Jeremy Peterman, Jonas Wang, Samantha Leff, Cesar Lopez-Morales and Zachary J. Hennessee of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The case is Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems, case number 240736, in the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Oct 28

4 min

A software company fighting to regain a $2 billion trade secrets award urged the Virginia Supreme Court on Tuesday to affirm the verdict, arguing that an appellate court was wrong to disturb the conclusions from jurors and the trial judge. The state Court of Appeals "mischaracterized and misapprehended" the trial's proceedings and "repeatedly second-guessed" Judge Richard E. Gardiner of Fairfax County Circuit Court, Robert Loftin of McGuireWoods LLP, which is representing Appian Corp. in its quest to restore the largest jury award in state history, told the justices at oral arguments. "It is well settled that a party with a jury verdict approved by a circuit court occupies the most favored position known to the law," but the Court of Appeals didn't "acknowledge or even cite this standard," underpinning what he argued were errors in the decision that reversed the award last year. Counsel for the defendant, Massachusetts-based Pegasystems Inc., countered that Judge Gardiner incorrectly prevented it from arguing that many of its sales came from products unrelated to the disputed software and that Appian had failed to do enough to protect its purported trade secrets. "If you divulge your secrets to people without a promise of confidentiality, you are not treating them as a secret," Joshua Rosenkranz of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP told the justices. The case has drawn widespread attention, both for its unprecedented damages award and because it raises several relevant questions about trade secret protections, including what are considered reasonable measures for protecting confidential business information and how damages should be calculated. Both companies make business process management software, which allows companies to create customizable applications to streamline certain tasks, such as opening customer accounts or fulfilling orders. The $2 billion judgment in 2022 amounted to one-third of Pegasystems' sales over eight years and more than double Appian's total revenue since 2014, according to Pegasystems. The justices pressed both sides about whether Virginia law permits shifting the burden of proof for damages in trade secret cases from the plaintiffs to the defendants. At trial, the court instructed jurors that Appian only needed to prove Pegasystems' total sales to establish damages, and then Pegasystems had to prove which sales were not attributable to the trade secrets. Loftin argued that the appeals court wrongly concluded that Virginia law forbids burden-shifting under the state's trade secrets statute, and said trial courts should be afforded discretion with their "quintessential gatekeeping functions." Pegasystems "repeatedly gambled and lost with the manner in which it litigated this case," Loftin said. "Judge Gardiner lived with this case for 16 months. He knew the parties. He knew the way the counsel were operating and conducting themselves." Rosencranz called the burden-shifting part of a "one-two punch" that was "terribly unfair and disastrous" for his client, along with its being prevented from presenting how much of its sales was the result of the allegedly misappropriated information. "Having shifted the burden to Pegasystems, the court then allowed Appian to take away, or the court basically itself took away, [Pegasystems'] only defense on damages, which is that half of our products don't even incorporate the trade secrets," Rosencranz said. Appian sued Pegasystems in 2020, accusing it of misappropriating more than a dozen trade secrets after retaining a government contractor who had access to Appian's software through his work with an Appian business partner. The government contractor received about $23,600 over two and a half years to provide staff demonstrations on building apps with Appian's software, according to court documents. At trial, Pegasystems argued that thousands of developers had access to Appian's platform and user manuals and that jurors should hear about that to determine whether the asserted trade secrets were sufficiently protected. Appian successfully argued against that, saying the number of people with access to its platform and user manuals was irrelevant to the case, which included allegations of corporate espionage. One of the justices brought that up during arguments, asking Rosencranz if he was defending Pegasystems' conduct in the case. "Well, Your Honor, the question about reasonable measures has nothing to do with what the defendant did," Rosencranz said. "It has to do with the basic legal premise that if you want to treat something as a trade secret, which is an extraordinary power, the plaintiff has to define what the trade secret is. You have to treat it like a trade secret." Appian is represented by Robert W. Loftin, Joshua D. Wade, Jonathan Y. Ellis and H. Brent McKnight Jr. of McGuireWoods LLP, Ellen D. Marcus and Sheila M. Costin of Holmes Costin & Marcus PLLC, Adeel Mangi and Muhammad Faridi of Linklaters LLP and Matthew Taylor Butler. Pegasystems is represented by Monica T. Monday and Michael J. Finney of Gentry Locke Attorneys and E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Christopher J. Cariello, Eric A. Shumsky, Jeremy Peterman, Jonas Wang, Samantha Leff, Cesar Lopez-Morales and Zachary J. Hennessee of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The case is Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems, case number 240736, in the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Oct 28

4 min

Pyxis Oncology positioned at forefront of Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) development Sidley represented Pyxis Oncology, Inc. (Pyxis Oncology) (Nasdaq: PYXS), a clinical-stage company focused on developing next generation therapeutics to target difficult-to-treat cancers, in its agreement to acquire Apexigen, Inc. (Nasdaq: APGN), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing innovative antibody therapeutics for oncology, in an all-stock transaction. This transaction illustrates that despite a challenging funding environment, disciplined biopharma companies can capitalize on the opportunities that these challenges create, while preserving their funding runway. “This acquisition uniquely positions Pyxis Oncology at the forefront of antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) innovation by adding humanized antibody generation to our Flexible Antibody Conjugation Technology (FACT) ADC toolkit acquired from Pfizer, and expands our clinical pipeline into Phase 2 in select solid tumor types by leveraging our founding heritage of immuno-oncology expertise—all while maintaining our cash runway into 2025,” said Lara S. Sullivan, M.D., president and chief executive officer of Pyxis Oncology. The Sidley deal team included partners Asher Rubin (Baltimore), John Butler (New York), Frank Rahmani and Idan Netser (both Palo Alto), Istvan Hajdu (New York), and William Blumenthal (Washington, D.C.); counsel Edward Sharon (Washington, D.C.); senior managing associates Nikita Ponomarev, Kostian Ciko (both New York), and Jonathan Westreich (Los Angeles); managing associate Jean Qiu (Shanghai); and associates Nithya Swaminathan, Max Xiao, and Jerry Ford II (all New York). Additional information may be found in the press release.~~Pyxis Oncology positioned at forefront of Antibody-Drug Conjugate (ADC) development Sidley represented Pyxis Oncology, Inc. (Pyxis Oncology) (Nasdaq: PYXS), a clinical-stage company focused on developing next generation therapeutics to target difficult-to-treat cancers, in its agreement to acquire Apexigen, Inc. (Nasdaq: APGN), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing innovative antibody therapeutics for oncology, in an all-stock transaction. This transaction illustrates that despite a challenging funding environment, disciplined biopharma companies can capitalize on the opportunities that these challenges create, while preserving their funding runway. “This acquisition uniquely positions Pyxis Oncology at the forefront of antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) innovation by adding humanized antibody generation to our Flexible Antibody Conjugation Technology (FACT) ADC toolkit acquired from Pfizer, and expands our clinical pipeline into Phase 2 in select solid tumor types by leveraging our founding heritage of immuno-oncology expertise—all while maintaining our cash runway into 2025,” said Lara S. Sullivan, M.D., president and chief executive officer of Pyxis Oncology. The Sidley deal team included partners Asher Rubin (Baltimore), John Butler (New York), Frank Rahmani and Idan Netser (both Palo Alto), Istvan Hajdu (New York), and William Blumenthal (Washington, D.C.); counsel Edward Sharon (Washington, D.C.); senior managing associates Nikita Ponomarev, Kostian Ciko (both New York), and Jonathan Westreich (Los Angeles); managing associate Jean Qiu (Shanghai); and associates Nithya Swaminathan, Max Xiao, and Jerry Ford II (all New York). Additional information may be found in the press release.

Jun 9

2 min

Sidley represented longstanding client Eldridge Industries as lead provider of equity and debt financing to Metropolis Technologies, Inc. for Metropolis’s take-private acquisition of SP+ Corporation. Metropolis obtained total financing of approximately US$1.8 billion for the acquisition of NASDAQ-listed SP+, with an enterprise value of approximately US$1.5 billion. The acquisition was announced last October and closed on May 16. Metropolis financed the acquisition with US$1.05 billion in Series C preferred stock financing and US$550 million of term debt financing, each provided on a committed basis by Eldridge Industries and other institutions. Metropolis also obtained a separate US$175 million revolving debt facility from PNC Bank, National Association. Eldridge Industries, which was co-founded by Todd Boehly, Tony Minella, and Duncan Bagshaw, invests in businesses across the Insurance, Asset Management, Technology, Mobility, Sports & Gaming, Media & Music, Real Estate, and Consumer landscapes. Metropolis is a technology company whose computer vision platform enables checkout-free payment experiences. SP+ is a technology and operations management provider of mobility services for aviation, commercial, hospitality, and institutional clients throughout North America and Europe. The Sidley team was led by Myles C. Pollin (Global Finance), along with partners Giselle M. Barth and Ram Burshtine (Global Finance), John Butler, Bill Howell, and Geoffrey W. Levin (M&A and Private Equity), and Christian Brause (Tax). The team also included Kyle Fong, Rachel Fridhandler, Hannah L. Marshall, Amanda M. Patterson, Adrienn T. Portnoy, and Gabriel Saltarelli (M&A and Private Equity), Shawn Bagdasarian, Scott Dawson, John Jiang, Alexandros Roussos, Rachel C. Schatz, Jolena Sun, Shneur Wolvovsky, and Shaobin Zheng (Global Finance), Tyler J. Combest, Eric M. Grosshandler, and Joel Lifshitz (Tax), Laura Collins and Jamie Sadler (Antitrust and Competition), Blake C. Fillion, Elizabeth Shea Fries, Joseph Schwartz, Carla G. Teodoro, and Bernie Zamichow (Investment Funds), Marian Fielding and Eric Winwood (Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation), James Mendenhall (Global Arbitration, Trade and Advocacy), Dusan Clark, Lauren G. Grau, and Dina M. P. Kang (Technology and Life Sciences Transactions), Stephen McInerney (Privacy and Cybersecurity), and Beatriz Azcuy and Connor T. Evans (Real Estate). The principal internal Eldridge Industries group lawyers involved in the transaction were Adam Fassnacht, Peter Saba, and Robyn Saad.~~Sidley represented longstanding client Eldridge Industries as lead provider of equity and debt financing to Metropolis Technologies, Inc. for Metropolis’s take-private acquisition of SP+ Corporation. Metropolis obtained total financing of approximately US$1.8 billion for the acquisition of NASDAQ-listed SP+, with an enterprise value of approximately US$1.5 billion. The acquisition was announced last October and closed on May 16. Metropolis financed the acquisition with US$1.05 billion in Series C preferred stock financing and US$550 million of term debt financing, each provided on a committed basis by Eldridge Industries and other institutions. Metropolis also obtained a separate US$175 million revolving debt facility from PNC Bank, National Association. Eldridge Industries, which was co-founded by Todd Boehly, Tony Minella, and Duncan Bagshaw, invests in businesses across the Insurance, Asset Management, Technology, Mobility, Sports & Gaming, Media & Music, Real Estate, and Consumer landscapes. Metropolis is a technology company whose computer vision platform enables checkout-free payment experiences. SP+ is a technology and operations management provider of mobility services for aviation, commercial, hospitality, and institutional clients throughout North America and Europe. The Sidley team was led by Myles C. Pollin (Global Finance), along with partners Giselle M. Barth and Ram Burshtine (Global Finance), John Butler, Bill Howell, and Geoffrey W. Levin (M&A and Private Equity), and Christian Brause (Tax). The team also included Kyle Fong, Rachel Fridhandler, Hannah L. Marshall, Amanda M. Patterson, Adrienn T. Portnoy, and Gabriel Saltarelli (M&A and Private Equity), Shawn Bagdasarian, Scott Dawson, John Jiang, Alexandros Roussos, Rachel C. Schatz, Jolena Sun, Shneur Wolvovsky, and Shaobin Zheng (Global Finance), Tyler J. Combest, Eric M. Grosshandler, and Joel Lifshitz (Tax), Laura Collins and Jamie Sadler (Antitrust and Competition), Blake C. Fillion, Elizabeth Shea Fries, Joseph Schwartz, Carla G. Teodoro, and Bernie Zamichow (Investment Funds), Marian Fielding and Eric Winwood (Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation), James Mendenhall (Global Arbitration, Trade and Advocacy), Dusan Clark, Lauren G. Grau, and Dina M. P. Kang (Technology and Life Sciences Transactions), Stephen McInerney (Privacy and Cybersecurity), and Beatriz Azcuy and Connor T. Evans (Real Estate). The principal internal Eldridge Industries group lawyers involved in the transaction were Adam Fassnacht, Peter Saba, and Robyn Saad.

May 16

3 min

Gibson Dunn lawyers are closely monitoring these developments and are available to discuss these issues as applied to a particular business or assist in preparing a public comment for submission in response to the FTC’s public inquiry.~~On September 5, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a shift in its strategy for reining in anticompetitive non-compete agreements.  The FTC voted 3-1 to dismiss its appeals in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir.), and Properties of the Villages v. FTC, No. 24-13102 (11th Cir.), and to accede to the vacatur of the Non-Compete Clause Rule by the Northern District of Texas.[1]  Had it gone into effect, the Non-Compete Clause Rule would have banned the use of non-compete agreements nationwide, impacting 30 million workers by the FTC’s own estimates.  We previously reported the details of the Final Rule here.  On September 8, the Fifth Circuit issued an order formally dismissing the Ryan appeal.[2]  The Non-Compete Rule was promulgated in April 2024, but rendered unenforceable nationwide after a team led by Gibson Dunn attorneys persuaded the court to set it aside.  You can read more about Gibson Dunn’s work obtaining that result here and here.~~In his statement accompanying the dismissals, Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, emphasized that the FTC remains concerned with the anticompetitive effects of non-compete agreements, but will shift its focus from defending the Non-Compete Rule to investigating and litigating specific cases.[3]  Commissioner Mark Meador agreed, stating that he “fully support[s] rigorous enforcement against noncompete agreements.”[4]  Chairman Ferguson warned that companies “in industries plagued by thickets of noncompete agreements” will receive warning letters from his office in the near term, “urging them to consider abandoning those agreements.”[5]~~In his concurring statement, Commissioner Meador listed several factors that are important when evaluating non-competes, which may indicate enforcement priorities for the FTC going forward.[6]  These factors include:~~Focus on Enforcement Actions~~The FTC has taken immediate steps to implement this shift in priorities.  On September 4, 2025, the FTC filed a complaint against Gateway Services and its subsidiary Gateway US Holdings, Inc. (collectively, Gateway)—the largest pet cremation services company in the United States, with almost 2,000 U.S.-based employees.[8]  The FTC alleges that, beginning in 2019, Gateway adopted a policy of requiring all new employees to sign a non-compete agreement regardless of the given employee’s position or responsibilities.[9]  These agreements typically prohibited employees from working in the pet cremation service industry anywhere in the United States for one year following their employment with Gateway.[10]  The FTC also alleges that, in at least one instance, Gateway responded to the entry of a competing pet cremation business by requiring all its employees in that market to sign non-compete agreements, including hourly employees who operated the crematories and transported the deceased pets from veterinary clinics to Gateway’s facilities.[11]  According to the FTC, these non-compete agreements enabled Gateway to suppress competition in the labor market and to impede the entry and expansion of Gateway’s competitors in the pet cremation services industry.[12]~~Alongside the complaint, the FTC voted 3-1 to approve a proposed consent order against Gateway that prevents Gateway from using non-compete clauses in its employment agreements, with limited exceptions.[13]  The FTC is taking public comments on the proposed order, which permits Gateway to enter into non-compete agreements as part of “the sale of a business, provided that individuals subject to such an agreement have a pre-existing equity interest in the business being sold.”[14]  The proposed order also exempts certain specific employees, including equity holders, those with outside business relationships with Gateway, very senior managers, and those with unique access to confidential information.[15]~~The same day, the FTC’s Joint Labor Task Force, which was launched earlier this year,[16] initiated a public inquiry, calling for comments from current and former employees and rival employers affected by non-compete agreements.[17]  The request for information specifically identified “healthcare markets” as an area of concern, stating that putative “harms” from non-competes with doctors and nurses “may be particularly acute in rural areas where medical services are already stretched thin.”[18]  Comments are requested by November 3, 2025.~~Meanwhile, non-competes continue to be the subject of intense focus at the state level.  Dozens of States have enacted legislation restricting non-competes based on factors such as profession or income level, and four States—California, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Oklahoma—ban nearly all non-competes.  In other States, such as Florida, non-competes are widely enforceable.~~Takeaways~~Although the FTC has abandoned the Non-Compete Rule, it has clearly signaled an interest in challenging employment contracts and agreements between employers that increase labor market frictions.  Applicable state laws, moreover, have seen significant revision in recent years.  It is therefore imperative that companies ensure that their hiring and employment policies and practices conform with employment and antitrust laws.  That includes:~~Gibson Dunn lawyers are closely monitoring these developments and are available to discuss these issues as applied to your particular business or assist in preparing a public comment for submission in response to the FTC’s public inquiry.~~[1] Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Files to Accede to Vacatur of Non-Compete Clause Rule (Sept. 5, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/federal-trade-commission-files-accede-vacatur-non-compete-clause-rule.~~[2] Order at 1, Ryan, LLC v. FTC, No. 24-10951 (5th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025).~~[3] Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Comm’r Melissa Holyoak, Ryan, LLC v. FTC (Sept. 5, 2025), at 3, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-holyoak-statement-re-noncompete-acceding-vacatur.pdf (Ferguson Ryan Statement).~~[4] Concurring Statement of Comm’r Mark R. Meador, In the Matter of Non-Compete Clauses, Matter No. P201200 (Sept. 5, 2025), at 1, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/meador-statement-noncompete-agreements-9.5.25.pdf (Meador Statement).~~[5] Ferguson Ryan Statement, at 3.~~[6] Meador Statement, at 3–5.~~[7] Id.~~[8] Complaint, In re Gateway Pet Memorial Servs., Matter No. 2210170 (Sept. 4, 2025), ¶¶ 1, 6–7, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Gateway-Complaint.pdf.~~[9] Id. ¶ 8.~~[10] Id. ¶¶ 1, 10.~~[11] Id. ¶¶ 10, 14.~~[12] Id. ¶¶ 15–18.~~[13] See Decision and Order, In re Gateway Pet Memorial Servs., Matter No. 2210170 (Sept. 4, 2025), § II., https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Gateway-DecisionOrder.pdf.~~[14] Id. § I.G.~~[15] Id.; see also Statement of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Comm’r Melissa Holyoak, In the Matter of Gateway Pet Memorial Services, Matter No. 2210170 (Sept. 4, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/gateway-ferguson-holyoak-statement-2025.09.04.pdf.~~[16] Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Launches Joint Labor Task Force to Protect American Workers (Feb. 26, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/ftc-launches-joint-labor-task-force-protect-american-workers.~~[17] Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Issues Request for Information on Employee Noncompete Agreements (Sept. 4, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/09/federal-trade-commission-issues-request-information-employee-noncompete-agreements.~~[18] Request for Information, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Request for Information Regarding Employer Noncompete Agreements (Sept. 4, 2025), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2025-Noncompete-RFI.pdf.~~The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Rachel Brass, Svetlana Gans, Michael Holecek, Andrew G.I. Kilberg, Kristen Limarzi, Harris Mufson, Jason Schwartz, John Matthew Butler, and Bridget Amoako.~~Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding the issues discussed in this update. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any of the following leaders and members of the firm’s Antitrust & Competition, Administrative Law & Regulatory, or Labor & Employment practice groups:~~Antitrust and Competition: Rachel S. Brass – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8293, rbrass@gibsondunn.com) Svetlana S. Gans – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8657, sgans@gibsondunn.com) Kristen C. Limarzi – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3518, klimarzi@gibsondunn.com) Cindy Richman – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8234, crichman@gibsondunn.com) Ali Nikpay – London (+44 20 7071 4273, anikpay@gibsondunn.com) Christian Riis-Madsen – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 05, criis@gibsondunn.com)~~Administrative Law and Regulatory: Stuart F. Delery – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8515, sdelery@gibsondunn.com) Eugene Scalia – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8673, escalia@gibsondunn.com) Helgi C. Walker – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3599, hwalker@gibsondunn.com)~~Labor and Employment: Michael Holecek – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7018, mholecek@gibsondunn.com) Andrew G.I. Kilberg – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3759, akilberg@gibsondunn.com) Harris Mufson – New York (+1 212.351.3805, hmufson@gibsondunn.com) Jason C. Schwartz – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com) Katherine V.A. Smith – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com)~~© 2025 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  All rights reserved.  For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.~~Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials.  The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel.  Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.~~Download PDF~~

Sep 8

6 min