Polsinelli serves as an M&A partner for companies that value long-term counsel. Ranked #8 by PitchBook among the most active U.S. law firms representing companies in M&A transactions, we combine high-volume deal experience with steady, senior-led guidance. Many of our client relationships span decades, which we see as the strongest measure of the value we bring. We’re trusted by companies engaging us for a transformative transaction, whether it’s their first deal or one of many. For many clients, we’re not just M&A counsel: we’re their first call.

From health systems and Fortune 500 companies, to private equity backed and family-run companies, our clients trust us with the M&A activity that shape their businesses — and we are with them every step of the way.

Our M&A Execution Model

Our attorneys bring experience shaped by long-standing client relationships and a broad range of matters across industries and issues. We deploy dedicated deal teams, drawing on our national platform to engage subject-matter specialists where their insight is critical. We bring that same intentionality to technology, using it to enhance execution, reduce friction and ensure alignment.

Buy-Side and Sell-Side Strength

We represent buyers and sellers in strategic transactions across industries, deal structures and growth stages, from initial deal negotiations through post-closing integration and support.

Buy-Side Representation

  • Advise on strategic and add-on acquisitions
  • Coordinate with in-house teams, bankers and outside advisors
  • Structure tax-efficient, goal-aligned transactions
  • Staff deals with specialists including tax, antitrust, labor, benefits and regulatory
  • Handle carve-outs, spin-offs, recapitalizations and roll-ups
  • Manage domestic and cross-border deal execution

Sell-Side Representation

  • Guide clients through every phase of the sale process from initial discussions to closing
  • Structure deals for tax efficiency and clean exits
  • Draft and negotiate investment banker engagement letters, NDAs and Letters of Intent
  • Conduct diligence to identify potential issues
  • Negotiate deal and economic terms to closing
Related Capabilities
Commercial Contracts & TransactionsCorporate & TransactionalHealth Care Mergers & AcquisitionsJoint Ventures & Strategic AlliancesMergers & Acquisitions LitigationPost-Merger IntegrationPrivate Credit & Direct LendingPrivate Equity - Mergers & AcquisitionsSecurities & Corporate FinanceVenture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
Publications
All Publications
California Attorney General and California Medical Association Advocate for Competing Interpretations of Corporate Practice of Medicine Laws That May Reshape PC/MSO Structures
Key Takeaways The pending Art Center case could significantly reshape California’s “friendly PC” / PC-MSO model, particularly regarding whether MSOs can remove and replace physician shareholders. The California AG and CMA present competing interpretations of CPOM: the AG favors a strict prohibition on removal rights, while the CMA supports a fact-specific analysis focused on actual control over clinical decision-making. Health care stakeholders should proactively review and potentially revise PC/MSO agreements, as increased enforcement risk and evolving legal standards may render common provisions — especially physician removal rights — unlawful. Two amicus briefs filed in a matter before the California Court of Appeal illustrate potential futures for the friendly PC structure and enforcement against the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM). On March 30, 2026, the California
Read More
District Court Rejects FTC’s Expanded HSR Rule, Leaving Merger Filings Uncertain
Key Takeaways A federal district court has vacated the FTC’s recent expansion of HSR Act merger filing requirements, ruling the agency failed to properly justify the rule through a cost-benefit analysis. The FTC plans to appeal. The decision creates immediate uncertainty for businesses planning mergers, especially those close to notification thresholds, as filing obligations could shift again based on the FTC’s appeal. Companies preparing merger filings should closely monitor developments and consider whether to revert to pre-2024 reporting practices or continue complying with expanded requirements pending court clarity. Judge Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas recently vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule expanding Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act notification requirements, significantly impacting merger filings and introducing uncertainty for businesses currently preparing transactions. The
Read More