Paramount Skydance (“Paramount”) has agreed to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (“Warner Bros.”), the media behemoth behind iconic franchises such as Looney Tunes and Hanna-Barbera. (Samuel Stolton, Guy Johnson, Tom Mackenzie, Bloomberg Law; Warner Bros.). The acquisition would value Warner Bros. at $110 billion, making it the largest deal of 2026. (White & Case). However, this merger has triggered scrutiny from state government officials who are challenging the merger on antitrust grounds. (Leah Nyle, Josh Sisco, Bloomberg Law). Other jurisdictions, such as the European Union (“EU”) have already greenlit the merger. (Samuel Stolton, Guy Johnson, Tom Mackenzie, Bloomberg Law; Tom Fish, Law360). This article provides background on the merger, explains the current state lawsuits attempting to block the merger, then outlines the EU’s approach to clearing the merger.

Volkswagen took a major step in its restructuring plans with the sale of its majority share in Everllence. (Pietro Zollin et al., Volkswagen Group). Volkswagen invested significantly in repositioning and strengthening Everllence before the sale, contributing to an increased evaluation. Id. The transaction illustrates how a large multinational corporation can use a private-equity investment to strategically restructure. (Stephen Wilmot et al., The Wall Street Journal). This article analyzes the structure of the transaction, why Volkswagen is restructuring, and what it means for Volkswagen’s future.

In June 2026, social media giant TikTok (parent company ByteDance) reached a settlement in principle with a minor plaintiff from Florida, mere weeks before the case was scheduled to become “the second bellwether trial” in the vast body of social media addiction litigation pending in California. (Craig Clough, Law360). The preliminary settlement averted TikTok’s liability in the July jury trial and mirrored a similar exit deal the company made months earlier when it settled out of the first bellwether trial. (Olivia Carville and Alexandra S. Levine, Bloomberg). For a company that once relied on skeletal federal immunity principles to end such suits at the pleading stage, this new willingness to pay up marks a striking shift in strategy and position. (Brian Dowling, Bloomberg Law). This article aims to explain the past and present legal theories driving the litigation, outline the procedural history of the bellwether cases, and analyze what the duty-of-care and compliance implications for large tech defendants may be.

On October 14, 2022, Kroger and Albertsons Companies announced a proposed $24.6 billion merger that would have combined two of the largest supermarket chains in the United States (Alina Selyukh, NPR). The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), joined by the District of Columbia and eight other states, filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to block the proposed Albertsons acquisition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust statute barring mergers that may substantially lessen competition (Alina Selyukh, NPR). Colorado and Washington separately challenged the merger in their own state courts. Id. Federal and state courts halted the merger in December 2024, and the companies abandoned the transaction shortly thereafter, leaving Albertsons to pursue breach-of-contract claims in Delaware’s Court of Chancery against Kroger (Isaiah Poritz, Bloomberg Law). On July 1, 2026, Kroger announced a far smaller transaction: a $1.65 billion agreement to acquire regional grocer Giant Eagle, a deal that will add roughly 200 stores across five states to Kroger’s portfolio (The Kroger Co.). Using the Albertsons merger’s collapse as a backdrop, this post examines whether Kroger’s Giant Eagle acquisition can satisfy antitrust regulators by tracing why the Albertsons deal failed, weighing perspectives on Giant Eagle’s market impact, and forecasting how regulators will treat the new deal.

On June 15, 2026, Fox Corporation (“Fox”) announced it would acquire Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) (Fox Corp). The transaction combines Fox’s news, sports, and entertainment portfolio, including Tubi’s streaming service, with Roku’s connected-TV operating system, “the Roku Channel,” and a first-party data relationship that reaches over 100 million households globally. Id. Fox Executive Chair and CEO Lachlan Murdoch described the acquisition as a defining moment for Fox, continuing a streaming push that began with Fox’s acquisition of Tubi in 2020. Id. The deal is being financed, in part, by Morgan Stanley through $12 billion in bridge financing. (Al Barbarino, Law360). The deal is slated to close in the first half of 2027 after shareholder and regulatory approval. Id. While the transaction may appear to be an ordinary corporate acquisition, it presents a more consequential antitrust issue for regulators to grapple with. (Flavia Fortes, MLex). This post will examine the deal structure, then will analyze the core antitrust question: whether combining a content owner with a connected-TV gatekeeper gives the merged entity the incentive and ability to harm competitors that outweigh the deal’s claimed efficiencies.

Since its launch in 2009, Bitcoin has ballooned into an asset currently fluctuating around a $1.34 trillion market cap and has inspired the creation of thousands of tokens ranging from utility tokens like Ethereum’s “ETH” to stablecoins like “USDC.” (CoinMarketCap; Edan Yago, Forbes). Unlike traditional currencies, which depend on a central authority such as a bank or government to validate and record transactions, cryptocurrency (“crypto”) operates on a decentralized blockchain that allows for secure, direct transactions that are verified through a distributed ledger and network consensus. (Stephanie Susnjara, IBM). Despite these legitimate uses, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has warned that some tokens serve as vehicles for “pump and dump” schemes, in which fraudsters spread false information to drive up a coin's price before selling their holdings, leaving other investors with a loss. (SEC). One such scheme came to light in 2024, when Shane Hampton (“Hampton”) was convicted at a federal jury trial of conspiracy to commit securities price manipulation and wire fraud for his role, alongside Hydrogen Technology (“Hydrogen”) CEO Michael Kane (“Kane”), in manipulating the price of the HYDRO token. (DOJ). Now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Hampton and Kane argue that HYDRO was not an “investment contract” because its value derives from its utility within Hydrogen’s ecosystem as opposed to any profit derived from the efforts of others. (Carolina Bolado, Law360). This post briefly unpacks Hydrogen’s scheme and Hampton’s conviction before focusing on the appeal, arguing that however the Eleventh Circuit rules, its holding will primarily reach well-documented organizations while smaller, anonymous pump-and-dump schemes remain far more difficult to prosecute.

Can an arbitration agreement preempt the power of a bankruptcy court? This question lies at the center of the dispute in Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown. (Donald Swanson, Mediatbankry). The Appellees allege that Appellant, Goldman Sachs, violated an automatic bankruptcy stay provision by continuing to make debt collection calls following Appellee’s bankruptcy filing. (Caroline Simson, Law 360). Under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, violation of this automatic stay provision would entitle Appellees to punitive damages to be determined by the bankruptcy court judge. (11 U.S.C. § 362(k) (2026)). Goldman Sachs argues that this dispute should be resolved under an arbitration agreement present in the credit card agreements rather than in bankruptcy court, citing the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) over Bankruptcy Court rules. (Angélica Serrano-Román, Bloomberg Law). Following the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in favor of Appellees, Goldman Sachs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. (Caroline Simson, Law 360). Goldman Sach’s argument for requiring arbitration in this matter relies heavily on the case Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis. (National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center). This article will examine Goldman Sach’s argument for their motion to compel arbitration as well as explore how following precedent established under the Epic Systems case or a core approach to bankruptcy law might lead to rejecting or affirming the lower court rulings which denied arbitration.  

On June 24, 2026, a Beacon Financial Corporation shareholder, Michael O’Neill, filed a proposed class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking a judicial declaration and injunction preventing enforcement of an unlawful governance provision. (Jarek Rutz, Law360). Although Beacon declassified its board of directors so that all directors are elected annually, the lawsuit alleged that its charter still stated that directors may be removed only “for cause.” Id. Under Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), shareholders generally have the right to remove directors with or without cause unless the company has a classified board or certain cumulative voting provisions. (Daniel E. Wolf, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance). According to the complaint, Beacon has neither a classified board nor cumulative voting provisions, making the restriction invalid. (Jarek Rutz, Law360). The Beacon Financial litigation illustrates how seemingly minor inconsistencies in corporate charters can have significant governance consequences, reaffirming Delaware’s insistence that director removal rights conform to statutory requirements once a board is declassified.

Suppose a person wanted to place a risky bet during the NBA Finals but lived in a state that illegalized sports gambling. Traditionally, this gambler might turn to the neighborhood bookie, but newer apps like Kalshi allow users to “trade” money for contracts in any state. (Kalshi, Instagram). Normally, states regulate sports gambling and decide whether to legalize or prohibit it, but prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket are challenging this framework. (Ben Blatt and Amy Fan, NYT). Prediction markets offer products that forecast, plan for, and hedge future events, with the contract’s “price” reflecting traders’ perceived probability of an event’s outcome. (CFTC). This post examines the rise of prediction markets into a multi-million-dollar industry, their growing political influence, and the states’ struggle to regulate this industry.

On March 25, 2025, the Delaware legislature enacted Senate Substitution 1 for Senate Bill 21 (“SB21”) into law. (Delaware General Assembly). SB21 limits the scope of the State’s Court of Chancery jurisdiction to hear certain complaints from shareholders regarding transactions between corporations and their directors. Id. 

Delaware is a popular domicile for many corporations around the United States with more than 2.1 million legally incorporated entities. (Delaware Division of Corporations, Delaware.gov). Notably, Delaware is the domicile for nearly 66% of Fortune 500 Companies, and over 80% of all U.S. based initial public offerings (“IPOs”), passed the bill to ensure that large corporations incorporated in the state did not reincorporate in states which may provide better protections against lawsuits from minority shareholders. (Lauren Hisch & Michael de la Merced, New York Times). The state and the 1.06 million Delawareans who live there heavily rely on corporate revenue. Id.