Willow Legal Advisors

We are thrilled to announce that Ryan Badmaev has joined the Willow team as our newest associate attorney! Ryan impressed us with his diligence and professionalism over the summer, so we were delighted when he accepted our offer to join Willow on a full-time basis. Welcome to the team, Ryan!

Willow was thrilled to kick-off the holiday weekend by representing one of our Texas upstream oil and gas clients on the closing of a new $40 million credit facility. We love supporting the growth of our clients, and this financing will allow our client to continue expanding its operations while increasing its enterprise value for its fund partners. The Willow team was led by Sarah Moore and supported by Daniel Reitz. Congratulations to everyone involved!

In a recent update to the legal battles surrounding the rule from the Federal Trade Commission banning non-compete agreements, a federal judge has blocked the rule from going into effect. The rule, originally set to take effect on September 4, 2024, would have prohibited businesses from establishing new non-compete agreements with employees or independent contractors and nullified most non-competes currently in use. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown set aside the rule as arbitrary and capricious and beyond the FTC’s statutory authority to promulgate rules. The FTC is considering an appeal of the decision to block the rule, and businesses should stay informed to ensure compliance with any future developments.

Celebrating the heart and soul of our firm today—happy birthday to our incredible leader, Sarah Moore! Your dedication, leadership, and passion inspire us all. Here's to another year of success and growth!

As always, Willow is excited to share a few firm highlights from July. Link in comments.

Your trademarks are a critical piece of intellectual property that are essential to distinguish your brand from the competition. At Willow, we can help register your trademarks to ensure you have full legal protection available. Whether you have been utilizing your brand for years or are crafting a new marketing strategy, we are here to help. We conduct comprehensive nationwide searches for any conflicting trademarks and provide a detailed analysis to help you make informed decisions about your brand. Our team will handle the process from initial consultation to final registration, responding to any rejections or refusals from the trademark office. Call or email Daniel Reitz today at 304.207.0139 or daniel@willowlegaladvisors.com to get started.

Today's featured Private Equity Term is "Qualified purchaser."   "Qualified Purchaser" is a status afforded under the Investment Company Act to individuals and entities that have an aggregate investment portfolio above certain established thresholds. Typically, a qualified purchaser is an individual or family-owned business that owns at least $5 million in investments or an entity that manages or holds at least $25 million in investments (or is an entity owned entirely by other qualified purchasers). The benefit of having qualified purchaser status is the ability to participate in a broader range of private investment opportunities.   This term is just one of many entries featured in our Private Equity glossary available on our website. Recognizing the potential complexity of industry terminology for those less familiar, we encourage you to explore our comprehensive online glossary or download the PDF version from the following link: https://lnkd.in/e2HrvKrd

As always, we are excited to share a few firm highlights from June. https://lnkd.in/eF8uX64U

A Texas federal judge has issued a partial preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning non-compete agreements. The ruling halts the implementation of the rule only as applied to the plaintiffs, but the court stated that it plans to rule on the merits of the case by August 30, just days before the rule’s nationwide effective date on September 4th. The court found that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in implementing the rule, but declined to enjoin the application of the rule nationwide because the plaintiffs had provided insufficient basis to support such a universal injunction. For more information, please see the article linked in comments.