Intellectual Property
Patents and the FDA: Four Critical Considerations Medical Device Companies Must Know to Successfully Introduce New Products into the Market
The intersection of patent strategy and FDA regulatory strategy is a critical consideration for medical device companies. A well-integrated approach can create powerful barriers to entry, strengthen intellectual property (IP) portfolios, reduce risk, and attract investors. This article explores key issues and strategies to ensure your patent and FDA efforts work together effectively. An integrated patent and FDA strategy adds significant value to the business. Many companies focus solely on regulatory approval, overlooking how FDA submissions might affect their patent portfolio or vice versa. A coordinated approach between patent strategy and FDA strategy offers significant benefits to the business: stronger patent protection combined with FDA exclusivity creates complementary barriers to entry for competitors. This enhances your ability to protect innovations and ensures your patent strategy is embedded within the regulatory framework for the product that will be sold. Value for investors or later strategic acquirers is a direct result of an integrated patent and FDA strategy. Four areas where medical device regulation and patent law overlap that must be implemented carefully include: patent coverage in view of FDA submissions, Freedom-To-Operate (FTO) risk, product Labeling and Patent Marking, and patent term extension (PTE). Patent Coverage and FDA Submissions Regulatory submissions often include technical details that can affect patent protection. To avoid premature disclosures and ensure alignment, file patents before submitting your regulatory documents to the FDA. While you may have filed for protection early during the product development process, reassessing the product just before submission is an important step to ensure your patents cover what you are seeking to market in the United States. Patent counsel should certainly have the opportunity to consider the filing documents, in ALL of their detail, to consider new patent filings to augment your patent strategy. This strategy also serves other important purposes, like preventing premature public disclosures (e.g., in 510(k) summaries) that could compromise patent rights. Well-crafted summaries and filing documents could limit the usefulness of the confidential FDA data obtainable via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Importantly, this key action ensures consistency between FDA filings and patent claims, avoiding statements that could lead to unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. In other words, saying one thing to the FDA that is inconsistent or contrary to the position you are taking regarding prior art can lead (it has) to a finding by the Court that patents are unenforceable. In addition, products evolve, certainly during development, but even after market introduction. A robust use of continuation patent applications can help maintain adequate protection as the product evolves. There are numerous benefits to considering FDA filings in light of the patent strategy and not doing this simple task is a wasteful use of resources. Talk to your patent counsel! Third-Party Patent Risk and Freedom to Operate (FTO) Patent litigation is prevalent in the medical device industry, and failure to consider your products’ freedom to operate can destroy business value. Before submitting a device for FDA approval, conduct FTO studies to identify potential infringement risks. These should include an analysis of IP related to predicate devices, especially for 510(k) submissions. In addition, understanding patents that cover competitive products is another key step in this process. Avoid using language in FDA submissions that could serve as a roadmap for infringement, such as instructions for use or device descriptions. Carefully drafting these documents is a viable way to limit risk and minimize the disclosure of otherwise proprietary information that is not Germane to the purpose of the FDA submission but might otherwise be important in the third-party patent context. Update FTO studies at key milestones, such as before submitting an investigation device exemption, 510(k), or PMA submissions. This is the best way to minimize patent risk once the product is approved, and the ever-important sales begin. Conducting this analysis based on what your business is authorized to sell in the U.S. is a critical consideration because patent risk only flows from making, selling, using, and importing into the U.S. a product that infringes a valid claim of a U.S. patent. Understanding the patent landscape related to the products that have high revenue generation potential is a required but pragmatic business practice to implement. Product Labeling, Patent Marking and Maximizing Damages Patent marking plays a crucial role in infringement cases. Generally, a patent owner is entitled to damages only after the infringer has been notified—either through a cease-and-desist letter, a lawsuit, or compliance with the patent marking statute. Because the FDA regulates product labeling, companies can implement their patent marking during regulatory submission, and in particular, where product labels are concerned. The U.S. allows for virtual patent marking, where a URL (e.g., mycompany.com/patents) is included on the product label. Once the product receives market clearance with this label, damages can accrue from that point forward. Failing to implement this strategy could delay damage accrual until after a lawsuit or cease-and-desist letter is issued. This can be potentially years after market introduction. A simple URL on a label, submitted with your FDA documents, can make a significant financial difference in your patent infringement case, should you need to file one later. There is no simpler way to increase patent value than to implement patent marking on product labels during the FDA approval process. Patent Term Extension (PTE) for FDA-Regulated Products Patents last 20 years from the date a non-provisional U.S. application is filed. During that time, the patent owner has exclusive rights to the patented invention. Once expired, however, others may freely use the invention. However, certain devices, and Pre-Market Approval (PMA) products specifically, can qualify for up to an additional five years of patent term extension. To be eligible for PTE, the product must have undergone a regulatory review period before it can be commercially marketed. The patent must not have been previously extended, and the application for PTE must be filed within a specific timeframe (typically 60 days) after the product receives regulatory approval. This extended exclusivity can significantly impact revenue. Companies should therefore actively monitor regulatory timelines to ensure the timely filing of patent term extension requests. Carefully consider the most valuable patent for extension because there is only one extension per regulatory approval allowed under the law. And finally, avoid delays during prosecution, such as taking extensions of time to file a response, as each extension of time can reduce the potential extension period. In summary, four things that can maximize business value for your medical device are: Align patent filings with FDA submissions to ensure broad, enforceable claims. Conduct and update FTO studies throughout the product lifecycle. Share FDA submission materials with patent counsel to avoid inconsistencies. Incorporate virtual patent marking into FDA labeling at the earliest possible instance. File for patent term extension when available. A successful medical device launch requires a great deal from a business. A robust patent strategy, integrated with the FDA framework, can only support a successful launch; it will not hinder it. By proactively aligning regulatory and patent efforts, companies can secure stronger protection, reduce risk, and enhance business value.
July 16, 2025
Commercial Litigation
Beyond the Verdict: The Essential Drive of Post-Judgment Discovery
You’ve navigated the complexities of litigation, meticulously built your case, and ultimately secured a judgment. The sense of victory is palpable, and you hold in your hand that seemingly definitive court order. However, it’s crucial to recognize that a judgment alone, in its initial form, is merely a declaration. The true measure of success lies not just in winning the legal battle but in realizing the fruits of that victory through effective execution. This is where the often-underestimated power of post-judgment discovery comes into play. Far too many mistakenly believe that obtaining a judgment marks the finish line. They may pause their efforts, only to discover their hard-won legal triumph remains unfulfilled. The reality is that the initial trial was just the foundational stage. Post-judgment discovery is the critical next phase—the strategic process that transforms a paper victory into tangible recovery. Think of it this way: the judgment establishes your right to a remedy. But to actually achieve that remedy, you need to understand the financial landscape of the judgment debtor—where are their assets located? What is their financial structure? Post-judgment discovery provides the essential intelligence to navigate this terrain effectively, and experienced litigators employ a variety of tools to uncover the necessary information. Among the most essential are interrogatories to the judgment debtor, which compel the debtor to provide sworn answers regarding income, assets, and liabilities. Requests for production of documents follow, demanding supporting financial records such as tax returns, real estate holdings, and bank statements. These are foundational methods for gaining a comprehensive view of the debtor’s financial footprint. If more detail is needed, litigators may conduct depositions of the judgment debtor, placing them under oath and on the record, particularly effective in uncovering inconsistencies or concealed assets. In parallel, subpoenas to third parties—such as banks, employers, or business partners—can provide critical third-party insights into financial matters the debtor may have failed to disclose. Beyond traditional discovery tools, enforcement mechanisms also play a key role. Liens on real and personal property help secure identified assets, while garnishment of wages and bank accounts allows for the direct collection of liquid funds. Turnover orders enable the creditor to obtain specific assets by court mandate, and supplemental proceedings or examinations under oath offer a court-supervised forum for investigating asset location and dissipation. Neglecting this phase is akin to stopping short of your goal after achieving a significant milestone. You possess the potential for a tangible outcome, yet you choose inaction. Don't let the opportunity to collect what you've rightfully earned slip away. While this phase might be perceived by some as less captivating than the courtroom proceedings, for those of us focused on achieving real results for our clients, post-judgment discovery is where the true work of recovery takes place. It's where we convert a theoretical win into a concrete one. So, you have the judgment in hand. But a judicial declaration, standing alone, is not self-executing. In the modern enforcement landscape, the litigant must act affirmatively—armed with both legal tools and strategic intent—to pursue the fruits of litigation. Post-judgment discovery is not a procedural afterthought; it is an indispensable function of modern civil practice. A disciplined, methodical approach—leveraging interrogatories, subpoenas, depositions, and court-sanctioned enforcement—can mean the difference between symbolic success and substantive recovery. The law offers the means; it is the diligent creditor who must bring them to bear.
July 16, 2025
Intellectual Property
Supreme Court to Hear Cox Communications Case on ISP Copyright Liability
On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a petition for certiorari brought by Cox Communications, and denied one brought by Sony in the same matter, following the advice of Solicitor General Sauer. The dispute stems from a massive $1 billion copyright infringement verdict against Cox Communications, in which music publishers (including Sony, Universal, and Warner Music, among others) alleged that Cox was liable for the illegal distribution of 10,017 musical works by the ISPs subscribers. The Fourth Circuit previously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Cox was liable to the plaintiff publishers for contributory infringement, while overturning the lower court’s finding of vicarious liability. As a result, both Cox and Sony filed competing petitions for certiorari seeking clarification from the Supreme Court regarding different aspects of ISP copyright liability. The Supreme Court will review two critical questions that could reshape how internet service providers handle copyright infringement. First, whether an ISP materially contributes to copyright infringement by continuing to provide internet access to particular subscribers after receiving notice that their accounts have been linked to active and ongoing copyright infringement. The Department of Justice noted this ruling creates "substantial tension" with a recent Supreme Court analysis of contributory liability in Twitter v. Taamneh, where the Court found that mere passive provision of services without active assistance doesn't constitute contributory liability. Second, the Court will examine the "circumstances under which a contributory infringer can be held liable for enhanced statutory damages based on a finding of "willful infringement,"" specifically whether knowledge of subscriber infringement alone suffices for a willfulness finding or if the ISP must have reasonably believed its own conduct violated copyright law. The decision could fundamentally alter how ISPs manage their networks and respond to copyright infringement notices, with Cox arguing that overly broad liability standards could jeopardize internet access for all Americans. Depending on the outcome of this case, American internet users may see ISPs tighten their grip when enforcing against pirate websites or unauthorized distributors of IP, as ISPs aim to minimize any and all liability potential. We will continue to keep this space updated as the case progresses.
July 11, 2025
Labor and Employment
H.R.1 Ends Taxes on Tips & Overtime: Employer Guide
On July 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed H.R.1—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—into law following its narrow passage in the House of Representatives just days earlier. Touted as the Trump administration’s marquee legislative victory ahead of the 2026 midterms, the Act makes headlines for many reasons. But for employers, two provisions demand immediate attention: A new above-the-line tax deduction for qualified tip income, and A new above-the-line tax deduction for qualified overtime compensation. Both provisions are now law and will take effect starting with the 2025 tax year, bringing new complexities to wage practices, payroll reporting, and compensation strategy. Below is a summary of the legal and practical considerations employers need to know. "No Tax on Tips:" Tax Deduction for Employees Receiving Qualified Tip Income Section 70201 of the Act allows certain employees to deduct up to $25,000 annually in qualifying tip income. The deduction is aimed at hospitality and service industry workers, but its implementation raises numerous legal and compliance considerations for employers. Key Requirements Eligibility Cap: Deduction phases out beginning at $150,000 in modified AGI ($300,000 for joint returns). Qualified tips must:be voluntarily paid by the customer (not mandatory service charges or auto-gratuities), be paid in cash, by card, or through valid tip-sharing arrangements, and be received in a qualifying occupation that customarily and regularly receives tips as of December 31, 2024.The Treasury must publish a definitive list of qualifying occupations within 90 days. Excluded Occupations: Employees in law, accounting, finance, consulting, performing arts, and similar professions are categorically excluded from eligibility. Reporting Requirements Employers must report:Total cash tips received by the employee on Form W-2. The employee’s qualifying occupation (2025 approximations allowed, subject to Treasury guidance). Employer Risks and Considerations Mischaracterization of wages as tips to secure a tax advantage may trigger IRS enforcement or wage-hour liability. Employers may consider changes to tip pooling or customer-facing tipping practices, but must:remain compliant with FLSA tip pool rules, including exclusion of managers and supervisors, avoid coercing tipping in non-traditional settings where it was not previously customary, ensure 100% tip reporting is enforced among employees. Until the Treasury issues regulations and the occupation list, employers should avoid restructuring wages to exploit this provision. "No Tax on Overtime:" Deduction for Federally Mandated Overtime Compensation Section 70202 of the Act allows employees to deduct up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) in FLSA-required overtime compensation. This deduction is limited in scope but may prompt employers to rethink how overtime is classified and compensated. Qualified Overtime Compensation Applies only to overtime required under Section 7 of the FLSA (i.e., 1.5x pay for hours over 40 per week). Does not apply to:Overtime required only by state law (e.g., California’s daily overtime rules). Overtime paid voluntarily under employer policy or collective bargaining agreements. Payments already claimed as qualified tips. Reporting Requirements Employers must separately report qualified overtime compensation on Form W-2.For 2025, approximations are permitted under a reasonable method (to be defined by the Treasury). Compliance Risks With this new deduction, employers may be tempted to reengineer pay practices. However, doing so carries significant legal exposure: Example 1: Reclassifying salaried exempt employees as nonexempt hourly employees, lowering base pay, and inflating overtime hours to maintain prior salary levels = FLSA violation if hours are not actually worked and accurately tracked. Example 2: Reducing regular hourly rates for nonexempt employees while creating artificial overtime (e.g., setting an internal 30-hour threshold or applying double-time bonuses) = disallowed, as only FLSA-mandated overtime premiums qualify for the deduction. The Treasury is authorized to issue regulations preventing abuse and wage reclassification. Employers who attempt to engineer “deductible overtime” without strict compliance will face regulatory scrutiny. Practical Employer Guidance The “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime” provisions will likely be popular with employees and heavily publicized during the 2025 W-2 season. But for employers, the changes bring regulatory complexity, legal risk, and potential downstream litigation. What Employers Should Do Now Do not alter compensation structures prematurely.Wait for Treasury regulations, especially the occupational list for tip eligibility. Ensure accurate wage and hour records.All overtime-eligible employees must have their hours and regular rates carefully documented. Audit tip pool arrangements and ensure FLSA compliance.Exclude ineligible participants, properly allocate tips, and enforce reporting discipline. Prepare to update payroll systems.New W-2 fields for tip and overtime breakdowns will require reconfiguration. Long-Term Strategy Employers considering reclassification of exempt employees, modification of pay rates, or introduction of creative incentive structures should engage qualified employment counsel. Wage-hour compliance and federal tax strategy must be aligned to avoid triggering enforcement by the IRS, DOL, or plaintiffs’ attorneys. Final Thoughts The tax benefits of H.R.1 may create new incentives for employees, but they also present a compliance minefield for employers. The risk of misclassification, improper reporting, or wage-hour violations is high, especially as employers rush to leverage perceived tax advantages. Employers seeking to responsibly explore compensation adjustments in light of the “no tax on tips” and “no tax on overtime” deductions should consult with legal counsel familiar with FLSA compliance, payroll tax reporting, and employee classification issues. Our labor and employment team is actively advising clients on how to navigate H.R.1's implementation. Contact us to schedule a strategy session or compliance audit.
July 10, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Ashes to Ashes: Making Your Final Arrangements
William Wordsworth said that the best part of a good man's life is “his little nameless unremembered acts of kindness and of love." In this spirit, many of us work to fill each page of our life’s story with small deeds of compassion and helpfulness. One such deed we might not have considered is planning our final farewell. Anyone who has arranged a funeral knows what a challenge it can be. A funeral is the one event where the guest of honor has no say in what it should look like, where it should take place, or who should have a role to play—unless he or she plans ahead. Providing even a brief outline of your wishes is an enormous act of kindness to the people you leave behind. And this is one aspect of estate planning that doesn’t require a lawyer. There are documents a lawyer should draft. These include a will, Durable Power of Attorney, and Advance Medical Directive. But a statement of your funeral and burial preferences is one you can prepare on your own. When kept with your other important papers, these final instructions will ensure that your sendoff reflects your preferences and beliefs. Gone are the days when a funeral was almost always in a house of worship and the burial was invariably at a cemetery. In an increasingly secular society, many funerals and memorial services no longer include a religious component. And as cremation has become more popular, the person’s remains can be disposed of in any number of meaningful ways. What should your funeral look like? The decisions to be made are many and include: what funeral home to use, what kind of service you want, and whether you prefer a traditional burial or cremation. The service could include your favorite readings—whether sacred or secular—hymns, songs, or other music, and the names of loved ones who should play a part in the service. If your remains are to be present, the service is a funeral; if not, it’s a memorial service. Either way, you can name the people who are closest to you to act as actual or honorary pallbearers. If your remains are to be cremated, what should be done with the ashes? Those who desire a permanent resting place can purchase a columbarium niche to house the urn. But scattering the ashes at a meaningful location is another, less costly, option. Ashes can be scattered on the grounds of a private home that belongs to you or your next of kin, on the graves of beloved ancestors, or in a favorite body of water. Some cemeteries even have gardens specifically for scattering ashes. Ashes are not considered to be environmentally harmful, but check to make sure that your plans for disposing of them are legal. If the location is on land belonging to the government or a private party, you may need to get their written permission. Under the Clean Water Act, cremated remains must be scattered at least three nautical miles from land. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources prohibits disposing of ashes in the Chesapeake Bay within seven miles of shore. For inland waterways, you may need to obtain a permit from a state agency. Biodegradable urns are available for burials at sea; otherwise, the urn must be emptied into the water and disposed of separately (or saved as a keepsake). Whatever your wishes, get them down on paper, sign and date the document, and keep it with your important papers. As much as any bequest, this simple act of kindness will be a gift to those you leave behind.
July 10, 2025
Business
Business Tax Law Provisions of the OBBBA
The business tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), as signed by the president on July 4, reflect sweeping changes aimed at incentivizing small businesses, domestic investment, and manufacturing. Outlined below are key provisions of the bill that may impact your business. Extension and Enhancement of Immediate Expensing 100% Immediate Expensing for Qualified Property OBBA permanently reinstates 100% bonus depreciation for eligible business property acquired after January 19, 2025. Immediate Deduction for Domestic Research and Experimental Expenditures Immediate expensing of domestic research and experimental expenditures is now permanent, with an election to amortize certain expenditures. Permanent Small Business Deduction (Section 199A) Section 199A Deduction Made Permanent The 20% deduction for qualified business income (QBI) for pass-through entities is made permanent. The deduction remains at 20%, with expanded phase-in thresholds and an inflation-adjusted minimum deduction for taxpayers with at least $1,000 of qualifying income from active trades or businesses. Increased Expensing for Depreciable Business Assets Section 179 Expensing Limits Raised The maximum amount a taxpayer may expense under Section 179 is increased to $2.5 million, with a phase-out threshold of $4 million, both indexed for inflation. Modification of Business Interest Deduction Business Interest Expense Deduction Expanded The calculation of adjusted taxable income (ATI) for business interest deduction purposes is permanently based on EBITDA, increasing the amount of deductible business interest. Special Depreciation Allowance for Production Property Immediate Deduction for Qualified Production Property Businesses may elect a 100% bonus depreciation deduction for qualified production property placed in service after enactment and before January 1, 2031. Renewal and Enhancement of Opportunity Zones Second Round of Opportunity Zones (OZs) A new round of Opportunity Zones is created, with at least 33% of OZs designated as rural. Enhanced benefits for rural Qualified Opportunity Funds (RQOFs) are included, with a 30% step-up in basis after five years. Expanded Low-Income Housing and New Markets Tax Credits Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Reforms The state housing credit ceiling is temporarily restored and increased for 2026–2029. Permanent Extension of New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) The NMTC is made permanent, with a five-year carryover of unused limitation. Permanent Excess Business Loss Limitation Excess Business Loss (EBL) Rules Made Permanent The limitation on excess business losses for noncorporate taxpayers is permanent, with carryforwards treated as net operating losses (NOLs). Estate and Gift Tax Exemption Increased and Made Permanent The estate and lifetime gift tax exemption is permanently set at $15 million for single filers ($30 million for married couples), indexed for inflation. State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction Changes The SALT deduction cap is temporarily increased for 2025 to $40,000 ($20,000 for married filing separately), with a permanent increase to $40,400 starting in 2026, subject to income limitations and phase-outs. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2029, the limitation reverts to $10,000. Section 707(a)(2) Partnership Changes Allocations and distributions from partnerships that are, in substance, payments for property or services are now treated as such, rather than as allocations and distributions from a partnership to a partner. This codifies the disguised sale rules without reliance on regulations and applies to services performed and property transferred after enactment. The following “Quick at a Glance” table distills each major OBBBA business‑tax change into a concise, one‑line summary of its scope, benefits, and effective dates. SUMMARY TABLE: Major OBBBA Business Tax Provisions (as Amended) Provision Key Change/Benefit 100% Bonus Depreciation Permanent for eligible property. Section 179 Expensing $2.5M limit, $4M phase-out, indexed. Section 199A Deduction Permanent at 20%, broader phase-in, inflation-adjusted minimum. Business Interest Deduction Permanent EBITDA basis. Opportunity Zones New round, rural focus, enhanced rural benefits. LIHTC/NMTC Increased/extended, NMTC permanent, rural/Indian prioritization. Excess Business Loss Limit Permanent, NOL carryforward. Estate & Gift Tax Exemption $15M/$30M, indexed. SALT Deduction Cap increased to $40,000/$40,400, reverts to $10,000 after 2029. Section 707(a)(2) Disguised sale rules codified, applies to property/services after enactment.
July 8, 2025
Commercial Litigation
Three Things to Know About Notices to Admit in New York
In New York litigation, a well-timed notice to admit can sharpen the issues, trim trial time, and lock in key facts. But it’s a tool that must be used strategically. When used correctly, it can streamline document authentication, conclusively establish undisputed facts, and even support dispositive motions. Misused, however, it risks time-consuming objections or outright rejection. Below are three things every litigator should know about how (and how not) to use a notice to admit. A notice to admit can streamline the facts to be proven at trial. The notice to admit can serve as a device for proving a fact that would be readily admittable at trial. For instance, if the case centers on a vehicle, a notice to admit may be preferable for establishing the owner of the vehicle rather than requiring a party to present documents and facts at trial to establish that “readily admittable” fact. However, the notice to admit cannot serve as a device to require the other party to admit anything that resembles a legal conclusion. For instance, a notice to admit cannot ask a party to admit negligence, breach of a contract, or fraud. New York law prohibits a notice to admit being used “to cover ultimate conclusion, which can only be made after a full and complete trial.” Similarly, it cannot seek admission of facts that require an expert witness. A notice to admit can also be used to establish facts that are public knowledge or facts which the requesting party reasonably believes are not in dispute. Accordingly, a requesting party will overstep the bounds of a notice to admit when seeking admission of a fact that is in dispute. A notice to admit is effective for preparing documents to be admitted into evidence at trial. In a notice to admit, a party may seek another party to admit that a specific document is authentic, that a copy of a document is accurate to the original, establish that a document is a business record (and thus potentially admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under CPLR 4518), and authenticate a signature on a document. These admissions can result in saving a substantial amount of resources at trial, as it obviates the need for a witness to testify as to each of those elements. Depending on the volume of documents that will be presented at trial, using a notice to admit rather than testimony could save numerous hours of trial testimony, making it a more economical approach but also keeping the trial concise and to the point. A well-considered notice to admit can also ask for admission of facts that serve as the foundation for establishing a chain of custody for evidence, that a document is a business record, or potentially authenticate a document altogether. From this standpoint, for documents where the provenance is established, the notice to admit should be a straightforward and uncontroversial component of the case. Admitted facts can be used not only at trial but at the motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment stage of litigation. Facts admitted in response to a notice to admit (or admitted because no response was timely submitted to the notice to admit) can be used at several phases of litigation: trial, summary judgment, or motion to dismiss. This reinforces the fact that a notice to admit should be considered at every stage of litigation. Although the facts admitted may not, on their own, be enough to dispose of the case, the facts admitted may serve as a foundation for other arguments that support disposing of the case and should therefore be thoroughly considered. Furthermore, a fact admitted in the context of a notice to admit has a stronger effect than statements made during a deposition or in response to an interrogatory, as the admission is conclusive and precludes denial unless a court allows the admission to be amended or withdrawn. By contrast, deposition testimony or a response to an interrogatory may be rebutted with contrary proof at trial. Therefore, even if the admitted facts do not dispose of the case at the motion stage, the admitted facts still may have a significant impact on the trial. Conclusion Notices to admit are a powerful but often underutilized tool in New York litigation. When drafted thoughtfully and within proper bounds, they can simplify trials, reduce costs, and strengthen pretrial motions. By focusing on undisputed facts and avoiding legal conclusions, attorneys can use notices to admit to gain strategic advantages at every stage of a case.
July 7, 2025
Business
Maryland’s Sales Tax on IT Services: Key Insights and Compliance Tips
As part of its 2025 Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act, Maryland is introducing a 3% sales and use tax on a broad range of information technology (IT) services, effective July 1, 2025.[1] This “tech tax” is designed to modernize the state’s tax base and capture revenue from the rapidly expanding digital economy. The new law will impact service providers and purchasers across sectors, requiring careful attention to compliance and timely updates to accounting and billing systems. Scope of the New Tax The tax applies to IT and data services classified under specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes: 518 (data processing, hosting, and related services), 519 (web search portals, libraries, archives, and other information services), 5415 (computer systems design and related services), and 5132 (software publishing services). Covered services include cloud storage, web and server hosting, SaaS offerings, IT consulting, custom software development, and more.[2] Notably, the law eliminates the prior exemption for custom software and related services, meaning that even fully customized solutions, regardless of delivery method, are now taxable.[3] The tax rate is set at 3%, unless the service qualifies as a digital product or tangible personal property, in which case the standard 6% rate applies. Clarifications from Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56, published June 10, 2025, provides essential clarifications on the new sales and use tax for IT services. The Bulletin explicitly states that taxability is determined by the nature of the service provided, not the primary NAICS code reported by the business for federal or state income tax purposes. Each service must be evaluated individually against the NAICS activity descriptions for data or IT services and software publishing as defined by Maryland law.[4] For example, even if a business’s primary NAICS code is not one of the specified codes, any services it provides that fall under NAICS sectors 518, 519, 5415, or 5132 are subject to the 3% tax. Similarly, the NAICS code listed in a procurement contract is not determinative; taxability is based on the actual service provided.[5] The Bulletin also clarifies that the tax applies to internal services provided by one affiliated company to another, even if provided at cost, unless a specific exemption applies. Regarding timing, the Bulletin explains that for subscription-based services, each payment after July 1, 2025, is considered a separate sale and is taxable. However, installment or credit sales where the contract was executed before July 1, 2025, are generally not taxable, even if payments are made or services are delivered after that date.[6] Change orders expanding the scope of services after July 1, 2025, are considered new sales and are taxable.[7] Compliance and Exemptions Businesses must register for a Sales and Use Tax (SUT) license and prepare to collect and remit the new tax. The law provides exemptions for certain research and development contracts, such as those involving the University of Maryland’s Discovery District and its quantum computing partners.[8] Additionally, for services used simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions, buyers can provide a Multiple Points of Use (MPU) certificate, shifting the tax remittance responsibility to the buyer, who must apportion the tax based on Maryland usage.[9] Impact and Next Steps Maryland’s new tax on IT services marks a significant shift in the state’s approach to taxing the digital economy. It is expected to increase costs for both providers and purchasers of IT services, particularly in the technology, finance, and government contracting sectors. Businesses should review their service offerings, update compliance protocols, and use guidance from the Comptroller’s Office to ensure smooth implementation. Key Takeaways Effective Date: July 1, 2025 Tax Rate: 3% on qualifying IT and data services Covered Services: NAICS 518, 519, 5415, and 5132 Clarifications: Taxability determined by service, not business NAICS code; applies to internal and affiliate transactions; timing rules clarified for subscriptions, installments, and change orders. Compliance: Register for SUT license, review service offerings, and prepare to collect/remit tax. Exemptions: Research contracts with University of Maryland Discovery District; MPU certificates for multi-jurisdictional use. By proactively addressing these changes, businesses can minimize disruption and ensure compliance with Maryland’s new sales tax on information technology services. [1] “Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2025” (“BRFA”), H.B. 325, 2025 Leg. Sess. (Md. 2025). [2] Comptroller of Maryland, Sales and Use Tax on Data or Information Technology Services and Software Publishing Services: Questions and Answers, Tax Bulletin No. 56 (June 10, 2025) (the “Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56”). [3] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 para I. A. 7. [4] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 [5] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 Q&A I. A. 2. [6] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 Q&A II. C. 13. and 14. [7] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 Q&A II. C. 16. [8] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 Q&A III. B. 27. [9] See Maryland Technical Bulletin No. 56 Q&A III. C.
July 1, 2025
Family Law
Privacy, Public Image, and Legal Strategy in Celebrity Divorces
When celebrity couples divorce, the public follows the drama with the same intensity as a red-carpet premiere. Yet behind the headlines are important lessons about the delicate balance between privacy, public image, and sound legal strategy—especially when clients live under a microscope. Celebrity clients are brands. Their business interests, endorsement deals, and future earning potential can hinge on how their divorce is perceived by the public. As legal counsel, we must weave reputation management into every legal decision—from the timing of filings to the phrasing of public statements, to courtroom demeanor, and even potential warding off of gossip outlets from incorrectly spinning the narrative. As a family lawyer practicing in New York and New Jersey, I’ve both followed celebrity divorces and represented public figures. While there are many takeaways, for clients in the public eye, privacy isn’t just a preference. It’s a key part of the legal strategy. Privacy Is a Legal and Strategic Asset Joe Jonas’s and Sophie Turner’s divorce became global tabloid fodder. What began as a Florida divorce filing escalated into federal litigation when Ms. Turner claimed that Mr. Jonas had wrongfully removed their children from the United Kingdom. A media frenzy ensued, magnified by her public outings with Taylor Swift, a former Jonas partner. Despite having a prenuptial agreement and eventually reaching a confidential settlement,the couple endured severe public scrutiny. Their case underscores the strategic value of privacy-preserving mechanisms: strong non-disclosure clauses, sealed filings, private judging, and mediation over litigation. A public filing can spiral fast. Counsel should always explore alternatives that shield sensitive matters from public consumption. Public Image and Legal Outcomes Are Intertwined Kevin Costner and Christine Baumgartner’s contentious split made headlines not just for the numbers—she reportedly sought $248,000 in monthly child support—but for the tone. The case sparked media debates over lifestyle expectations, motives, and personal relationships. Ultimately, the court awarded less than half the requested amount, and the couple’s prenuptial agreement significantly shaped the resolution. What mattered wasn’t just the law,it was the public narrative. Media coverage heavily influenced public sentiment and, arguably, the legal posture of both parties. For attorneys, it serves as a reminder that in high-profile cases, public perception often aligns with, and sometimes precedes legal strategy. Social Media Is the New Courtroom When Britney Spears and Sam Asghari’s marriage ended in 2023, legal documents played second fiddle to social media speculation. Instagram posts, anonymous “sources,” and cryptic captions fueled widespread rumors. Although their prenuptial agreement guided a swift financial settlement, public narratives spun far beyond the facts. For attorneys, digital platforms introduce new vulnerabilities. Social media can jeopardize confidentiality, erode legal positioning, and fan the flames of conflict. Today, we must counsel clients on digital discretion,often in the initial consultation. Consider integrating social media clauses into engagement letters and encourage clients to pause or limit online activity until proceedings conclude. Strong Prenuptial Agreements Limit Conflict In contrast to some messy public splits, Sofia Vergara and Joe Manganiello’s 2023 separation unfolded with minimal drama, thanks in part to a robust prenuptial agreement. Though high-profile, their divorce has remained relatively quiet—no drawn-out disputes, no major media spectacle. A sharp contrast is Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s still-ongoing legal battles. For clients of all financial levels, especially those entering second marriages or high-net-worth unions, a well-crafted prenup provides clarity and reduces conflict. It sets expectations, simplifies asset division, and, most importantly, preserves dignity. International Elements Complicate Everything Shakira and Gerard Piqué’s breakup, though not a divorce, exemplifies the complexity of international family law. Their custody negotiations involved multiple countries, tax jurisdictions, and cross-border parenting issues—all while facing intense media attention. Notably, they managed to resolve custody matters privately and amicably, without involving the court. Their approach illustrates the importance of clear, enforceable agreements—especially when children and multiple jurisdictions are involved. For lawyers, global cases demand coordination with foreign counsel, tax advisors, and translators. Early identification of international legal issues—such as passport control, travel restrictions, and Hague Convention risks—is essential. Unapproved relocations or custody changes can lead to serious legal consequences. Lessons from the Spotlight Celebrity divorces amplify the same tensions present in many high-conflict separations,just with brighter lights and louder headlines. But they also offer valuable guidance: Prioritize Privacy: Strong confidentiality clauses and alternative dispute mechanisms can shield clients from public fallout. Manage Reputation Strategically: Legal decisions have PR consequences; coordinate with media professionals early. Integrate Social Media Protocols: Digital missteps can derail even the best legal strategies. Leverage a Strong Prenuptial Agreement: Well-drafted agreements prevent costly, public battles. Plan for International Complexities: Jurisdiction matters. So do passports, treaties, and global tax laws. Promote Dignity Over Drama: The emotional cost of conflict often outweighs the financial one. Celebrity divorces are messy, dramatic, and endlessly dissected. But behind the paparazzi and public statements are real people navigating loss, transition, and legal complexity. For attorneys, these cases offer enduring lessons—reminders that in the pursuit of justice, strategy must go hand-in-hand with empathy and discretion.
July 1, 2025
M&A Nuggets
M&A Nugget: Smart Moves During an M&A Slowdown - Strategic Preparation for Business Owners
Although there are always segments of the M&A market that are busy, most advisors will tell you that there is a current slowdown in overall M&A activity. This gives sellers an opportune time to conduct “spring cleaning.” Just like the stock market, the M&A market ebbs and flows, and it is important that owners be prepared for the next M&A market flow. Here are a few steps you can take to be ready: Update Corporate Records – Make sure that ownership certificates reflect the current ownership of your business and that all required corporate documents exist. Consider implementing incentive plans to retain your key employees, which will help to drive the growth, value, and ultimate purchase price for your business. Review the classification of your business’s personnel between W-2 employees and independent contractors - always a hot-button issue with acquirers. Conduct an audit to ensure that your immigration documentation for employees is current and in compliance with the law. Review or have your CPA review the company’s compliance with sales tax rules to make sure that the company is filing sales tax returns and paying sales tax, where and when required. All of the above items, and many more, will be thoroughly investigated by any acquirer. By conducting spring cleaning now and arranging your business house to be in order, you will be steps ahead when the tempo of the M&A market picks up.
June 30, 2025
Intellectual Property
When to Patent: Common Mistakes Business Leaders Make
Suppose a newly hired engineer on your team sketches a promising new concept for a health monitor in a notebook. Excited by the idea, you loop in marketing, and soon, your company is promoting the product’s features through emails, vlogs, and website posts. The sales team runs with it, offering the product to customers even though the device isn’t fully developed. Meanwhile, you start seeking investors, sharing pitch decks that highlight the product’s potential, projected revenues, and market opportunity. Then comes the first investor call. The question is immediate: “Is it protected?” You haven’t filed a patent, but you sidestep the question and end the conversation. Only then do you call your patent counsel. After hearing the story, their response is sobering: “Much of the damage is already done. We may not have a strong path to protection.” What went wrong? In short, you missed the critical window to file a patent application—after the concept was created but before any public disclosure or marketing. That single misstep may have cost you your ability to secure patent rights. But in reality, a sketch alone usually isn’t enough to file a strong application. So what should have happened instead? When is the Right Time to File for Patent Protection? Knowing when to file for patent protection is critical. Filing too late, as described above, and you risk losing key rights or losing the patent race to your competition. File too early, before there is a business case or before further concept development, and you may not have all the details needed to secure quality patent rights. Filing the right patent applications at the right time transforms your patent portfolio into a high-return investment that protects your competitive edge and supports your next phase of growth. The ideal time would be: Before You Go Public To preserve your rights—in the United States and especially in international markets—it is critical to file for patent protection before your invention is made public, especially in the way it is “made public,” as in the example described above. U.S. law bars the grant of patents for inventions that are patented, described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 35 USC § 102(a). Thus, the first stage of review should occur before emails, vlogs, posts on your website, and publications about the product are created. Indeed, these publicity-raising tactics are all things that potentially bar patent rights. Even offering your invention for sale, with a price term and quantity, to customers, as in the scenario above, is sufficient to invoke this provision of patent law, which prohibits securing patent protection in the future for the product sold. Finding a mechanism to alter or delay publication or offer for sale is a critical aspect of a patent strategy that can help preserve patent rights, which any business should implement. In short, any activity that includes publishing, pitching, selling, presenting at a conference, or even demonstrating your invention in public or a non-confidential setting can cause harm to your patent strategy. Despite the bars to patent described, U.S. law grants innovators some exceptions to this rule, such as the inventors’ own work, if made within one year of filing for protection. For example, should an inventor publish the invention in some form, you have one year to file patent protection to avoid losing those patent rights. However, this can be risky, as you often do not know what your competitors may be working on or even if they have completed a patent filing within that one-year timeframe. Additionally, should an inventor share the invention with a third party, such as a potential investor or supplier, there is a risk that the third party could file for its own protection for the concept before you do. They could even combine that shared content with their work, making it difficult for you to secure patents. While there are some provisions under U.S. law to sort this out, for example through derivation proceedings, these complex procedures can be avoided by filing for patent protection before sharing the invention with any third party, as in our example above. When It’s More Than an Idea A completed product that is ready for marketing and manufacturing is sufficient and ready for patenting. Mere concepts and ideas are often not enough to secure quality patent rights. Patent law requires an enabled, written description of the invention, along with patent claims that specifically set out the scope of the invention. This often demands a reasonable level of detail of the invention, its working principle, and a description of various alternatives that might be used in the future by the market you are planning to serve through your business. There is no requirement to submit a working model or software code for software-related inventions, for example. However, there is a need to include reasonable details related to the invention and alternatives, so that meaningful patent protection can be secured. The objective is to do more than merely describe the conceptual goals of the product; details matter here as you and your patent counsel will want to rely on passages of the patent text to craft the desired patent claims during the prosecution of the patent application in the future. This ensures that you can cover the technology you are developing and also address competitive threats through amendments to the claims as needed. Without details in the patent application that anticipates what might happen in the future regarding the underlying products, your options for securing meaningful patent protection are limited, if not barred altogether. Conclusion So when do you file for protection? In our example above, a significant amount of engineering and development remains in order to get the product ready for the market and manufacturing at scale. In this case, it would make sense to consider filing for patent protection once the idea has been developed enough that you can describe how it works and how it will be used in the market. That clarity also increases the strategic value of your patent, as described above. In addition, while there is ongoing product development is common, consider filing for patent protection at key development milestones, such as completion of market studies, when a significant technical hurdle is overcome, and before substantial capital outlays are required, such as the development of production models or the purchase of capital equipment. Do not consider a single patent filing sufficient enough to protect the product adequately. Additional filings should be made as the product changes over time. This ensures that your patents align with the business's commercial plans. If there’s an urgent business need, it’s important to file a patent application quickly, even if the product is still in development. For instance, investors and partners want to see that you’re protecting the innovation that underpins your business. Filing a patent application before sharing the idea is critical and an appropriate step, as it creates a tangible asset that can help secure funding or favorable deals. This changes the conversation with investors completely, in our example, and focuses the discussion on the more important aspects of an investment, such as valuation and revenue. Sometimes, this requires filing before the concept is fully vetted and complete. That is okay, as you can file as a provisional application and then file follow-on patent applications that cover the key innovations you develop as the product matures into a business-ready revenue stream. If you have partners or employees that make premature publication of the invention, as discussed above, be sure to file a provisional application ahead of time, even if there is only enough information to cover the broad concept. Again, follow-on patent filings can be used to strengthen earlier filed but “sparse” provisional patent applications. Filing a patent at the right time is a strategic move that protects the investments you’ve already made in R&D, product development, and innovation. Getting the timing right is an vital aspect of implementing a robust patent strategy that secures patent rights for the business. Best practice is to file for patent protection, via a provisional application or regular patent application, before any public facing activities begin. Furthermore, executing a robust non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with anyone whom you plan to share information regarding the invention will give you added protection, while also minimizing the effect of such disclosure on foreign patent rights. For instance, you might consider an NDA with a potential investor before sharing information with them, or other situations with a potential supplier or contract manufacturer. Losing patent rights can be significant and can undermine your commercial objectives. More specifically, delaying patent protection can cost you: Priority rights, if a competitor files first. Ability to license or sell the technology. Legal protections in global markets. The opportunity to support valuation and fundraising efforts. In short, failing to file timely or filing late can remove a competitive advantage you once had, minimizes potential revenue streams, and lessens likelihood of meaningful investment.
June 27, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Corporate Trustees: Smart Choice or Risky Move?
Whether you name a financial institution to manage your trust assets when you are no longer able to do so for yourself, is ultimately a matter of personal preference and choice. In the first part of a two-part “point-counterpoint” consideration of corporate trustees serving as such for individuals’ personal trusts, I examine the potential advantages and reasons to do so. I’ll share the other side of the conversation—the potential drawbacks of naming a corporate trustee next month. What Is a Corporate Trustee? A corporate trustee is a bank, trust company, or professional fiduciary institution that manages trust assets for a fee. Such entities specialize in administering trusts and are regulated by state and federal laws to ensure ethical and competent asset management and protect against fraud and abuse. So, what are the advantages of utilizing a corporate trustee? Why should you name a financial institution to manage your trust? Is it the best choice in your situation? Consider the following top five advantages of a corporate trustee: Professional Expertise Most corporate trustees bring extensive knowledge in investment management, tax planning, fiduciary law, and trust administration. Managing others’ assets is what they do; it’s (typically at least) all they do. This can be especially valuable for complex trusts or large estates, where mistakes could be quite costly and have a substantial impact on the trust assets and both current and future, vested and/or contingent beneficiaries. Clearly, the level and extent of such expertise matters. When evaluating the potential advantages of a particular corporate trustee, consideration should be given to years of experience and the depth of knowledge of the team expected to manage one’s trust assets. Impartiality Face it, family dynamics can be, well, complicated. Appointing a family member or friend as trustee can sometimes lead to unintended and unforeseeable conflicts or strained relationships, especially when it comes to issues such as how to invest and whether and when to make distributions. For example, we only narrowly avoided litigation recently when one of several sibling beneficiaries determined herself to be on the wrong side of preferential treatment by their deceased parent’s hand-picked trustee, a long-time close family friend. For the trustee’s part, it was difficult not to play favorites when certain of the sibling beneficiaries considered and treated the trustee like family, while the lone sibling saw the trustee as nothing more than a favorites-playing impediment to her inheritance. In principle, at least, a corporate trustee affords objective decision-making, free from personal bias, or emotional involvement. Continuity and Reliability Unlike individuals who may become ill or infirm, die, or relocate, corporate trustees typically afford long-term stability and continuity. This can be particularly useful for trusts designed to last for decades or span multiple generations. Here too, however, one would be well-advised to recognize that not all trust companies are created equal. It is important to inquire about those trust company employees who will oversee and provide day-to-day management decisions regarding your trust and what, if any, checks and balances there might be if and when staffing changes occur. Fiduciary Duty Corporate trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and are held to high fiduciary standards. Most also carry insurance and are subject to regulatory oversight, which adds extra layers of protection for beneficiaries who might not even be born at the time of making the trust. I note here, as well, that a generally conservative approach (erring on the side of caution – for the benefit of future/contingent beneficiaries) when it comes to investment/distribution decisions not only serves to provide an added layer of protection for the intended future beneficiaries but, thinking cynically, also happens to align with a corporate trustee’s own pecuniary self-interest, i.e. concomitantly serves to generate higher income for the institution. Administrative Efficiency Trust administration requires ongoing tasks, including record-keeping, periodic tax filing obligations, asset (re-)valuation responsibilities, timely periodic noticing, and asset distribution requirements (discretionary and mandatory). Corporate trustees generally maintain systems and staff to manage these responsibilities efficiently and accurately. At a minimum, one should evaluate a potential corporate trustee’s abilities and track record in this regard.* *As a pertinent aside here, I note that certain individual professionals offering “trustee services” (accountants, for instance) might afford a similar level of administrative efficiency, along with the types of fiduciary protections, professional expertise, and one or more of the additional benefits described above.
June 27, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Unintended Inheritance Happens More Than You Think: Ensuring Your Loved Ones Inherit as Intended
Roughly two-thirds of Americans are estimated to die without executing a valid will. As a result, assets in their name will pass under the laws of intestacy of their home state. The laws of intestacy are essentially default rules that typically transfer a decedent’s assets to their closest living relatives, such as a spouse, children, parents, or siblings. Intestacy laws would likely transfer the assets of many decedents to their intended beneficiaries. It would be uncommon for someone to wish to disinherit their spouse or one or more of their children. However, intestacy laws do not operate on “non-probate assets,” such as joint bank accounts with rights of survivorship, life insurance policies, or retirement accounts. As a result, it is likely that a portion of a decedent’s assets will not pass to their intended beneficiaries. Sometimes, this means that one beneficiary receives a larger share of a decedent’s assets than the others. Other times, virtually all of a decedent’s assets pass to someone they had no intention of ever receiving their assets, while their intended heirs are left without any recourse. Thankfully, some states have laws that will override a beneficiary designation of a non-probate asset if it is likely that the decedent, under the circumstances, would not have intended to provide for that person. One such common circumstance is when a decedent fails to update their beneficiary designations after divorce. For New Jersey residents, N.J.S.A. 3B:3-14 automatically revokes non-probate transfers of assets to a divorced individual, returning the assets to the decedent’s estate to be distributed pursuant to the terms of their will or the laws of intestacy. Similarly, for New York residents, EPTL 5-1.4 automatically revokes non-probate transfers of assets to a divorced individual. However, this automatic revocation will not apply in all cases and to all assets. For example, there is no automatic revocation where the assets are specifically disposed of under the terms of a “governing instrument.” A governing instrument includes a will, trust, deed, or securities, such as stocks and bonds. In the Matter of the Estate of Michael D. Jones, a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the highest state court), the decedent married his ex-spouse in 1990 and named her as the pay-on-death beneficiary of his U.S. savings bonds. The decedent and his ex-spouse divorced in 2016. Their divorce settlement agreement (DSA) allocated certain assets to each individual and provided that all assets not specifically referred to in the DSA would be owned by the person whose name was on the title to the given asset. The DSA did not specifically mention the savings bonds. The ex-spouse also specifically waived her right to inherit from the decedent’s estate. The decedent passed away in 2019, intestate, without having updated the pay-on-death beneficiary of his U.S. savings bonds. His ex-spouse later redeemed the U.S. savings bonds. The decedent’s daughter was appointed the administrator of the decedent’s estate and promptly sought to recapture the proceeds from the U.S. savings bonds. The court ultimately concluded that the ex-spouse was entitled to the proceeds of the U.S. savings bonds, reasoning that the bonds were regulated by the IRS Federal Treasury regulations, the “governing instrument.” Specifically, these regulations provided that when the owner of a bond dies and is survived by the named beneficiary, the named beneficiary is recognized as the sole and absolute owner of the bond. There are a number of takeaways from this case. First, even if the facts of this case were different and the administrator of the decedent’s estate had won, it would have been a pyrrhic victory at best. The decedent’s beneficiaries would face delays in receiving their inheritance, and the estate would incur significant legal fees and costs in reclaiming these assets. Second, while this case only dealt with U.S. savings bonds, there are many types of assets that have “governing instruments” with specific provisions concerning the death of the account owner. For example, in LeBoeuf v. Entergy Corp., the plan participant of a 401(k), who was a widower at the time, named his children as his designated beneficiaries. He later remarried. When the plan participant died, his 401(k) account had a balance of approximately $3,000,000. His children discovered that the plan sponsor had paid the death benefits exclusively to his second wife. It was revealed that under the terms of the plan documents, a subsequent marriage automatically revoked the beneficiary designations in favor of the new spouse. One could argue that the benefit of this provision is that a plan participant would avoid inadvertently disinheriting their spouse. However, in LeBoeuf, it is almost certain that the death benefits were distributed contrary to the plan participant’s intentions. Lastly, it highlights the critical importance of regularly reviewing existing estate planning documents, the titling of assets, and designated beneficiaries, to ensure that they pass to your intended loved ones at the time of death.
June 23, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Married? Consider Upgrading the Deed to Your House
In 1604, Sir Edward Coke said, “Your house is your safest refuge.” Or words to that effect. He was writing in Latin, but the venerable English judge got his point across well enough. The expression has come down to us in the 21st century as “A man’s house is his castle.” The family home should be a safe haven where we can take refuge from the perils and dangers of the outside world. Within its walls, relationships are nurtured, friendships are enjoyed, and children are loved and encouraged. In addition to the locks and security lights that attempt to keep burglars at bay, a married couple’s home can be protected from certain types of creditors simply by how the property is titled. Owning a house as “tenants by the entirety” is reserved for married couples and can provide significant benefits to those who take advantage of it. First, this form of ownership will transfer the house to the survivor if either spouse should die. This transfer will be automatic and efficient, even if the deceased spouse dies without a will. Second, it will protect the house from creditors with a claim against either spouse individually. Titled this way, the family home is less likely to be in jeopardy if one spouse becomes the target of a lawsuit, defaults on a loan, or needs to declare bankruptcy. This can be especially important to individuals in a profession that carry a high risk of personal liability, such as doctors, lawyers, and contractors, as well as teachers, realtors, and therapists. In this way, it serves as a form of free insurance. Ownership of a home as tenants by the entirety is available in many states, including Maryland. And thanks to recent changes in state law, married couples in Maryland can enjoy these creditor protections even if they place their residence in one or more revocable living trusts. The protection against creditors does have its exceptions. One is liens placed on the property by the IRS. Another is creditors who have obtained a judgment against both spouses jointly. The right to title your home this way is one of the unsung benefits of marriage. It is the state’s way of protecting marriages by ensuring that one spouse’s creditor problems don’t put the other spouse and any children out on the street. And, of course, with same-sex marriage legal nationwide, it’s a benefit that applies to gay and straight couples alike. If you and your spouse owned a house before getting married, it’s probably titled as “joint tenants with right of survivorship.” This form of ownership also transfers the property to the survivor if one spouse should die, but it does not protect against creditor liens. Fortunately, you can upgrade your ownership of the house simply by having a new deed prepared. Contact an attorney who practices in this area to get started. The executed deed will need to be filed with the county Land Records office, and you might need to obtain a lien certificate and pay any taxes or other obligations before the deed can be recorded. There should be no transfer or recordation taxes to pay, but there is a nominal recordation fee. If you have a mortgage, a conversation with the provider is advisable beforehand. Once the deed is recorded, you can take comfort in knowing that your castle now has an extra measure of protection from the perils and dangers of the outside world.
June 23, 2025
Labor and Employment
SCOTUS Levels Title VII Standards in Reverse Discrimination Case
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims—discrimination claims brought by members of a “majority” race, gender, or other protected characteristic—are not subject to heightened standards of proof. The June 5, 2025, decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services clarifies the legal standards for such claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, serving as a critical reminder for employers to ensure fairness in employment decisions as reverse-discrimination claims become more prevalent. Issue The core question before the court was whether majority-group plaintiffs must show additional “background circumstances” to support the claim that the employer discriminates against the majority, in addition to meeting the standard elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII. In discrimination law, a majority group refers to a group that is perceived as having numerical or social dominance in a specific context. For example, 78% of software engineers are men, making males the majority group in this case. The Ames ruling clarifies that members of majority groups—such as heterosexuals in Ames’s case—do not face a higher burden when alleging workplace discrimination, ensuring equal protection under Title VII for all individuals. Background Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was employed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, under a new supervisor (a homosexual woman,) Ames received positive performance reviews but was passed over for a promotion to the Bureau Chief of Quality in favor of another homosexual woman. Four days later, Ames was demoted to a secretarial role, and a gay man was hired to fill her previous position. Ames filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging discrimination based on her sex and sexual orientation under Title VII. The U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit held that, as a heterosexual plaintiff, Ames was required to show “background circumstances” to support the suspicion that the employer was an unusual one that discriminated against the majority, including evidence that a member of the minority group made the employment decision or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against the majority. Ames failed to meet this requirement, as her termination was decided by heterosexual directors, and she provided no evidence of a broader pattern of discrimination. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, four circuit courts (Eighth, Seventh, D.C., and Tenth) had adopted the “background circumstances” requirement for majority-group plaintiffs, while two circuits (Third and Eleventh) had rejected it. Court’s Holding In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs bringing “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII are not required to show “background circumstances” to prove discrimination. The court found that this requirement is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent. The court emphasized that Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision does not distinguish between majority and minority-group plaintiffs, focusing instead on “individuals” rather than groups. The statute’s language, which establishes protections for every individual regardless of group membership, leaves no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs. The court further clarified that all Title VII discrimination claims should be evaluated under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973,) without additional hurdles for majority-group plaintiffs. The “background circumstances” rule, the court noted, disregards the flexibility of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which was never intended to be “rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic” (Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 2002). By imposing a uniform, highly specific evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, the rule violated this principle. The court rejected the Ohio Department of Youth Services’ argument that the “background circumstances” requirement was merely a way to assess whether an employment decision suggested discrimination based on a protected characteristic. The Sixth Circuit’s application of the rule explicitly relied on Ames’s failure to meet a heightened evidentiary standard, which Title VII does not support. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper prima facie standard. Concurrence Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, concurred fully with the majority but wrote separately to highlight the problems with judicially created “atexual legal rules” like the “background circumstances” requirement. Justice Thomas pointed out the difficulty of defining the “majority” in contexts like gender (where women are a majority nationally but not in certain industries) or race (where categories are often imprecise). He also questioned the McDonnell Douglas framework’s utility, signaling openness to reconsidering it in future cases. Notably, Justice Thomas referenced diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in a footnote, suggesting that such programs may lead to discrimination against perceived majority groups, a point likely to be cited in future challenges to DEI policies. Why This Matters This ruling ensures that all workers, regardless of their race, gender, or other protected characteristic, are subject to the same legal standards when bringing discrimination claims under Title VII. By eliminating the “background circumstances” requirement, the court has removed an unfair hurdle for majority-group plaintiffs, likely leading to an increase in reverse-discrimination claims. The decision aligns with recent Supreme Court rulings emphasizing equal treatment, such as those on affirmative action and job transfers. Takeaways for Employers Increased Scrutiny of Employment Decisions: With barriers lowered for majority-group plaintiffs, employers should expect a rise in reverse-discrimination claims. All employment decisions—hiring, promotions, terminations—must be supported by legitimate, well-documented business reasons, regardless of the employee’s protected class. Training and Compliance: Employers should train supervisors and HR personnel to recognize and prevent all forms of workplace discrimination, including those affecting majority groups. Litigation Strategy: While employers can still use evidence like the decision-makers’ characteristics or the experiences of other employees to rebut discrimination claims, the Supreme Court has confirmed that reverse-discrimination claims face no higher burden of proof than other Title VII claims. DEI Considerations: The decision, particularly Justice Thomas’s concurrence, signals potential judicial skepticism toward DEI initiatives. Employers should review DEI programs to ensure compliance with Title VII and prepare for possible legal challenges. This ruling underscores the importance of equitable treatment across all employee groups and reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to uniform application of Title VII’s protections.
June 19, 2025
Business
AI Reps & Warranties: Emerging Issues in Deals and Commercial Contracts
Artificial intelligence quickly became embedded into business operations, software platforms, internal workflows, and consumer-facing applications. This means the legal risks associated with its development and growth are moving from the abstract to the real world. AI is not only changing how businesses operate, but also how leaders and legal practitioners must structure and negotiate contracts. Legal teams, in-house counsel, and M&A deal professionals can no longer consider this a niche issue and should consider it a negotiated deal point involving risk allocation, liability exposure, and asset valuation. While there is significant attention paid to the disruptive operational power of AI, its implications on representations and warranties in commercial agreements and corporate transactions deserve just as much attention within the legal community. Some tailored legal frameworks are already emerging to address the novel concerns around data privacy, intellectual property, indemnity, and operational continuity. These issues are especially critical in the context of software acquisitions, SaaS contracts, and any M&A deal involving AI-derived intellectual property or business processes. AI-Specific Representations in Deals The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) model forms were updated at the end of 2024 to incorporate AI-specific representations and warranties. These terms are increasingly reflected in market practice: Targets must affirm that AI tools were used in compliance with applicable licenses, regulations, and data use agreements. Targets must represent that they did not input any personal, confidential, or protected information into AI tools, unless those tools guarantee that such data is not used for training or product enhancement. Targets must represent that data was deidentified or anonymized prior to use in training models to avoid running afoul of applicable data protection standards. Targets must disclose any generative AI platforms used to develop proprietary IP and warrant that such use does not jeopardize any ownership rights being acquired. The above issues are only the tip of the iceberg. Transactions and agreements involving complex AI products must include increasingly technical reps concerning: Model training logs and documentation Fine-tuning methods and retention of model weights Mechanisms used in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) Use of synthetic or auto-generated content in commercial workflows Model validation performance thresholds, including floating point operation limits and accuracy ranges As the technology matures, the legal community is catching up by embedding operational guardrails directly into transactional documentation. Practical Contractual Risk Areas in AI Licensing Commercial licensing agreements involving AI must now be viewed through a much more detailed legal lens. Counsel should be prepared to negotiate contract terms specifically addressing: Non-infringement guarantees concerning both source code and training data, especially where data scraping or aggregation may have occurred Explicit ownership claims over AI outputs, derivatives, and model weights Training data auditability, including the legal basis for data collection, classification, and labeling Compliance with global privacy and cybersecurity laws, including GDPR, CPRA, and HIPAA when applicable Robust indemnification obligations for breaches of data usage restrictions, IP violations, or algorithmic harms Tech E&O and cyber liability insurance provisions, ensuring recourse exists if generative tools malfunction, hallucinate, or produce defamatory content In many cases, the liability profile of AI is uncertain and difficult to quantify. Because many models operate as "black boxes," licensees are often left without a clear explanation of how certain outputs were generated or what datasets were used in training. This makes traditional warranties about performance or fitness for a particular purpose difficult to enforce. As a result, buyers and licensees are demanding broader representations, heightened disclosure obligations, and post-closing audit rights to mitigate these unknowns (while sellers are seeking to disclaim warranties and narrow representations). M&A and AI Due Diligence AI risk has quickly become a key diligence category in M&A deals, especially in transactions involving software, e-commerce, analytics, or consumer engagement platforms. Buyers are now expected to conduct diligence not just on IP rights and customer contracts, but also on how AI has been implemented and governed. Pre-Acquisition Diligence Key diligence areas include: Training data sourcing: Was the data obtained lawfully and under enforceable terms? Privacy risk: Was any personally identifiable information (PII) used in training or prompting without consent? Third-party code and APIs: Does the AI product depend on third-party components that might limit assignability or trigger license fees? Model update and retraining rights: Who controls the model lifecycle, including patches and performance tuning? Export control risks: Could the AI model be subject to ITAR, EAR, or other national security controls due to its capabilities? Post-Closing Continuity Buyers should also require: Complete AI architecture diagrams and component inventories Documentation of ethical safeguards and bias mitigation processes Retention policies around input prompts and AI-generated output logs Model deployment playbooks and downtime risk disclosures Transition services agreements, software escrow, and founder retention may also be needed to ensure business continuity and proper knowledge transfer where AI is a critical but complex asset. IP, Privacy, and Employment Triggers This isn't only an issue for "tech transactions." As AI expands across business functions, its legal implications multiply. Core issues include: Intellectual property ownership, particularly whether AI-generated outputs are protectable under U.S. copyright law or must be secured as trade secrets Privacy and cybersecurity risks stemming from unstructured data ingestion and prompt leakage, especially when sensitive information is processed or used Employment law exposure, including discriminatory hiring algorithms or opaque automated decision-making processes that may violate EEOC or state-level labor rules Recent case law and regulatory action suggest that companies using AI for decision-making will be held to explainability and fairness standards, even if they do not fully control or understand the model. Additionally, companies leveraging AI in consumer products or safety-critical environments must consider product liability exposure under traditional tort theories, especially if AI contributes to physical or economic harm. Think about the auto-driving taxi that must decide whether to hit the pedestrian or crash the car. AI and IP Security Agreements As more companies develop proprietary AI tools, models, and datasets, lenders and investors are increasingly taking security interests in these intangible assets. This requires a rethinking of traditional IP Security Agreements. When collateral includes AI-generated or AI-driven intellectual property, legal teams should evaluate: Whether model weights, training datasets, or prompt libraries are clearly documented and listed as pledged assets Whether the borrower can demonstrate ownership and provenance of the training data and model code If the model is fine-tuned from a third-party foundation model, whether the underlying license permits encumbrance or assignment If retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is used, whether the underlying corpuses and connectors are part of the security package The existence of source code escrow to ensure access in the event of default or bankruptcy Any restrictions in open source or SaaS agreements that may limit foreclosure or reassignment rights Moreover, the lender’s enforcement rights may be limited if the AI model or data is co-owned, cloud-hosted, or reliant on third-party APIs. Security interests must be carefully drafted to reflect operational dependencies, and perfection of those interests may require filings beyond the USPTO, including notice to cloud vendors or consent from licensors. IP Security Agreements for AI assets must go beyond standard boilerplate and should be tailored to the unique hybrid nature of AI systems combining software, services, and data streams. In many cases, a supplemental AI-specific collateral schedule may be appropriate. Takeaways for Legal and Deal Teams AI is no longer a novel technology element to be glossed over in standard reps and warranties. It is a high-stakes business driver that intersects with every major legal category: IP, privacy, cybersecurity, employment, antitrust, and contract liability. Actionable takeaways include: Draft AI-specific reps and warranties that cover data sourcing, training protocols, model rights, and use case restrictions Build diligence frameworks that include discussions with technical teams and review of logs, policies, and product roadmaps Negotiate indemnification mechanisms that allocate financial risk from misuse, error, or regulatory exposure Ensure insurance provisions cover AI incidents, from hallucinated content to data leakage Establish post-closing governance and monitoring structures, particularly in acquisitions involving live AI models or mission-critical algorithms Review and update IP Security Agreements to specifically address AI collateral and embedded third-party dependencies Ultimately, the central legal question becomes: When AI makes a mistake, who pays? Whether drafting a commercial SaaS agreement or executing a strategic acquisition, every deal team must be ready to answer that. As legal and technological standards continue to evolve, ongoing adaptation will be essential.
June 19, 2025
Franchise Law
SBA Franchise Directory Reinstated: Key 2025 Updates for Franchisors and Franchisees
The U.S. Small Business Administration reinstated the Small Business Administration (SBA) Franchise Directory on June 1, 2025, reversing the 2023 decision to sunset the program. The Directory has long been the primary reference that SBA-certified lenders consult to determine if a franchisee of a brand is eligible for SBA-guaranteed financing. SBA guaranteed loans are intended to finance independently owned small businesses. For a franchisee to qualify as the owner of such a business, the franchisor must not unduly control the day-to-day operations, such that the person applying as a franchisee is really a passive investor. Under the updated framework, franchised brands will no longer need to sign the SBA Franchise Addendum (Form 2462), or an addendum specific to franchisees receiving SBA-guaranteed loans that the franchisor had negotiated with SBA. Instead, each brand must execute and submit to the SBA a new Certification that expressly affirms compliance with the eligibility conditions for Directory listing. See SBA Franchise Directory. By issuing the Certification, the franchisor will have agreed not to enforce any provision in its contracts with an SBA-financed franchisee that is inconsistent with the certification. Any brand that is not yet listed in the Directory may submit its current FDD and signed Certification at any time for review by the SBA. Brands already in the Directory may maintain their status by filing certifications along with their current FDDs on or before July 31, 2025. Until then, lenders may continue to close loans using the familiar SBA addendum, but SBA records will flag each brand as “Certification Pending.” On August 1, 2025, any brand that has not submitted a certification will be removed from the Directory, and its franchisees will become ineligible for SBA-backed financing until the brand is re-listed. There is no fee for a directory listing and certifications may be submitted to the SBA at no cost. One aspect of the certification that is particularly worth highlighting: “[The] Franchise Agreement does not prevent the Franchisee from having meaningful oversight over the operations of the business. Meaningful oversight includes the authority to: (i.) Approve the annual budget; (ii.) Have control over the bank accounts; AND (iii.) Have oversight over the employees operating the business (who must be employees of the Franchisee). A Franchise Agreement does not prevent a Franchisee from having meaningful oversight over the operations of its business by requiring the Franchisee to comply with quality, marketing, and operations standards that govern the Franchisee’s use of the Franchisor’s system of operations.” Therefore, companies that market as “franchises” which are primarily passive investment opportunities, are likely to face more scrutiny from SBA regulators concerned that the borrower actually operates the small business seeking funding. Such companies may need to consider making changes to their business model if SBA guaranteed loans are important to their growth strategy. For franchisees, if you are likely to seek an SBA guaranteed loan to finance your business, or you expect that a purchaser of your franchise might use such a loan to buy you out, then you should make sure that the franchisor has registered with the Directory. If it has not, you may want to ask, “Why not?”
June 18, 2025
Business
Pennsylvania Limits Non-Compete Agreements for Health Care Practitioners
In July 2024, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro signed House Bill (HB) 1633, the Fair Contracting for Health Care Practitioners Act (the "Act"), into law. In summary, the Act: (1) limits the enforceability of non-competes against certain health care practitioners; and (2) imposes a notice obligation on employers of those practitioners. The Act became effective on January 1, 2025. The purpose of this article is to revisit this important legislative development in its first year of existence, given its potential to significantly impact the health care landscape. Here is a breakdown of the Act changes, including who it covers, its application in case law, and its potential impact on physician and other clinical professional employment contracts across the Commonwealth. Limits on Non-Competes The Act renders unenforceable non-compete covenants with a duration longer than one year for certain health care practitioners, subject to the following caveats: The Act only applies to “health care practitioners,” which the Act defines to include “medical doctors,” “doctors of osteopathy,” “certified registered nurse anesthetists,” “certified registered nurse practitioners,” and “physician assistants,” as those terms are defined in other Pennsylvania statutes. The Act only applies to “non-compete covenants,” defined as agreements between an employer and a health care practitioner that “has the effect of impeding the ability of the health care practitioner to continue treating patients or accepting patients.” Notably, the Act does not apply to other post-employment restrictive covenants, such as confidentiality provisions and employee non-solicitation clauses. The Act does not prohibit employers from enforcing non-competes with a duration of one year or less, provided that the employer did not terminate the health care practitioner’s employment without cause. This means that employers cannot enforce a non-compete against health care practitioners who are terminated without cause, regardless of the duration of the covenant. The Act is silent as to whether Pennsylvania courts may reform overbroad non-competes. Presumably, that decision is still within the discretion of the court. The Act does not apply to non-competes entered into in connection with the sale of a business or grant of equity, provided the health care practitioner was a party to the transaction. The Act becomes effective on January 1, 2025. Importantly, it does not apply retroactively. That means that non-compete agreements entered into with health care practitioners prior to the effective date will remain enforceable, subject to existing requirements under Pennsylvania law. Notification Requirement The Act also imposes a patient notice requirement on employers of health care practitioners. Within 90 days of a health care practitioner’s termination of employment, employers must notify the separated practitioner’s patients: (1) of the practitioner’s departure; (2) if the patient chooses to receive care from the departed health care practitioner or another health care practitioner, how the patient may transfer their health records to that provider; and (3) that the patient may be reassigned to another practitioner in the employ of the employer if the patient wants to continue treatment with the employer. Importantly, this notification obligation applies regardless of whether the separated practitioner is subject to a non-compete. In addition, an employer is required to provide these notifications within 90 days of the health care practitioner’s departure. However, the notification requirement applies only where the health care practitioner had an ongoing outpatient relationship with the patient for two or more years. Existing Case Law & Precedents Pre-Act Foundation: WellSpan Health v. Bayliss (2005) Under Pennsylvania common law, courts evaluating physician non-competes traditionally balance public interest—particularly patient access to care. In WellSpan Health v. Bayliss, the Commonwealth Court emphasized that ensuring patients can continue treatment is paramount when deciding whether to enforce restrictive covenants law. While predating the Act, this ruling sets the tone: Pennsylvania courts lean toward protecting continuity of care when non-competes might limit it. Post-Act Litigation: Thakkar v. AHN (2025) Shortly after the Act took effect, gastroenterologist Dr. Thakkar challenged Allegheny Health Network (AHN) in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. After AHN declined to renew his contract, Dr. Thakkar stated that the existing non-compete prevented him from practicing in the same region, which disrupted patient care. Although the trial court sided with AHN, Thakkar has appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. His argument underscores the Act’s protections: non-competes imposed post‑January 1, 2025, should be void if the practitioner is dismissed. Open Issues Under the Act The Act does not define many terms and is such a hodgepodge of concepts and requirements that it could be a health care employer's nightmare. Some unanswered questions include: Are reasonable non-compete covenants enforceable where the health care practitioner receives a tiny “ownership interest”? Are non-compete covenants effective for more than one year enforceable where an employment agreement is not renewed? Will a patient non-solicitation provision be included within the scope of the Act? Is the patient notice requirement triggered regardless of the reason for the end of the employment relationship? Does the death or retirement of a health care practitioner trigger a potential notice requirement? Is the patient notice requirement necessary where the health care practitioner is employed for only 23 months (i.e. two years)? How is patient notice accomplished? Is a website posting sufficient? Is there any penalty for noncompliance? The Act reflects a trend in states across the U.S. focused on promoting physician mobility and improving patient access to care, while raising important compliance considerations for hospitals, health systems, medical practices, and their legal teams. For physicians and other clinical professional employers, the Act presents both compliance challenges and the need for directional shifts. Employment contracts will need to be revised, and retention strategies will need to pivot from focusing on legal restrictions to emphasizing purposeful engagement, such as competitive compensation, workplace culture, or career growth opportunities.
June 18, 2025
Estates and Trusts
New York Advances Medical Aid in Dying Act Amid Ongoing Right-to-Die Debate
The New York State Senate passed the Medical Aid in Dying Act this week, taking a significant step forward towards legalizing physician and medically assisted death for terminally ill patients in New York. The Bill, which had previously been approved by the state assembly after an emotionally charged five-hour session, awaits Governor Kathy Hochul's action. If the Governor signs it into law, New York will become the 11th U.S. state, along with the District of Columbia, to codify an individual’s right to die with assistance from the medical community. What is the Medical Aid in Dying Act (MAID)? The latest incarnation of the signed legislation allows mentally competent, terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to be prescribed life-ending medication. In order to qualify, there are stringent requirements. First, the patient must request assistance in writing and verbally to their physician; a measure that might be a stumbling block for those whose affliction, disease, or condition may prevent one or the other. Once the request is made in writing and verbally, two doctors then must confirm the patient’s terminal diagnosis, prognosis of six months or less, and the patient’s capacity as it relates to being of sound mind. A terminal diagnosis and prognosis are more calculable standards than capacity, which, in New York State has always been a fiercely contested subject and, in some cases, subjective and specific to the matter at hand. The additional requirement mandates that there be two witnesses to the request to prevent any coercion. Certain individuals are explicitly prohibited from serving as witnesses: relatives by blood, marriage (even domestic partners,) adoption, any beneficiary entitled to a portion of the patient's estate, individuals affiliated with the healthcare facility where the patient is receiving treatment, as well as the patient’s care providers such as the attending physician and the consulting physician. The patient’s nominated health care proxy and agent under the Power of Attorney are also prohibited from serving as a witness. Many advocacy groups have been pushing for this legislation for the better part of a decade and argue that it finally offers terminally ill patients a compassionate option to end their life and, presumably, their suffering. However, there are groups on the other side that have been vocal in their opposition, including certain religious and disability rights organizations, which have expressed concerns that such a law could disproportionately impact the disabled community. Compassion & Choices, one such advocacy group in favor of the legislation, has repeatedly pointed out that a staggering 72% of New Yorkers support medical aid in dying and have urged lawmakers to advance the legislation that has long languished in committee in Albany. While it is unclear what Governor Hochul will do, the fact that the state assembly and senate have reached a consensus marks a significant milestone for those who advocate for such relief. The legislation hangs in the balance until Governor Hochul's decision is made but this author suspects that regardless of her decision, the controversy will continue about end-of-life care, patient autonomy, and the role government may or may not have in a person’s life and death.
June 17, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Insulate Your Marriage From Problems Online
The Greek philosopher Socrates once said, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” He was lucky he didn’t live in the age of Facebook. Thanks to the vast social network, it has never been easier to express an opinion about someone—however unflattering the sentiment may be. In addition to posting written words, it can also be hurtful to upload photographs and videos that were meant for a private audience. And when the object of online derision is an ex-spouse, the pain inflicted can be especially acute. After choosing a companion of good character, it can be hard to image that he or she would so publicly betray the confidences of life’s most important partnership. But the adversity of marital problems can change people, and it sometimes brings out the worst in them. How then can an engaged couple ensure that their relationship won’t end with cutting remarks and embarrassing images on social media? Drawing up a prenuptial agreement is actually a good place to start. A prenup can include a “social media clause,” which explains how spouses, and former spouses, should behave online. Regardless of how long two people may have been together, they will likely have accumulated a vast trove of private information about each other. If this information found its way onto Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or the like, the result could be worse than hurt feelings. A career could be ruined, business prospects harmed, and social circles decimated. By including a social media clause in their prenuptial agreement, a couple can make their expectations for themselves clear when it comes to online postings. Some couples go so far as to say they won’t change their Facebook relationship status from “Married” until they agree the time is right. This is an important detail in protecting each other’s ability to control news of their transition to single status. A prenuptial agreement has never been the stuff of storybook romance, and many people think of it as a recipe for divorce. Heavy with legal language, the document outlines how assets and debts will be divided if the marriage breaks down. But the reality is that by clarifying matters like these before the wedding even takes place, both partners can help protect their legal rights and establish what will be required of them. Many even say that preparing their agreement was a surprisingly comforting experience. Think of it this way: A prenuptial agreement is like an airbag for your marriage. When you drive a car, you aren’t planning to have an accident, and having an airbag won’t make it any more likely that you will. But if an accident does occur, you will be grateful that you had this important piece of safety equipment and that it was working properly. In the same way, by having a prenup prepared, you aren’t inviting a divorce, and you certainly aren’t making it any more likely that your marriage ends in one. But if things don’t work out, you will thank yourself for having had the presence of mind to protect your legal rights—and your online privacy—when you had the chance. With marriage now legal for same-sex couples nationwide, there are many benefits to enjoy. One of them is having a piece of paper in the drawer that says what happens if things don’t go as expected. The first step is to call a lawyer with experience preparing prenuptial agreements. Once the agreement has been signed, you can enjoy the peace of mind that comes from knowing that you’re prepared for whatever lies ahead.
June 12, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Choosing Mediation to Protect Families and Legacies
Why Mediation? Blood and money make for a tough mix. As an attorney with a decades-long trusts and estates practice, I’ve seen it all: siblings clinging to childhood grievances, children from a first marriage resenting a stepparent, new spouses competing with adult children, and half-siblings emerging after a parent’s death. Estate litigation is not only lengthy and emotionally exhausting, it’s also extremely expensive. By the time the legal dust settles, the parties have often spent more on attorney fees than they’ll receive from the estate. Worse yet, already strained family relationships are often left permanently fractured. Seeing the damage these disputes inflict on families is what led me to seek certification as a mediator. What Is Mediation? Mediation is a voluntary form of alternative dispute resolution where parties work together to resolve conflict with the help of a neutral third party—the mediator. The mediator doesn’t make decisions like a judge or jury. Instead, their role is to guide the parties toward a mutually acceptable agreement crafted on their own terms. Because the outcome is collaboratively reached, mediation often leads to less bitterness, fewer hard feelings, and more durable resolutions. How Does Mediation Work? The process begins with an initial meeting between the mediator and the parties. If attorneys are involved, the mediator may speak with them beforehand to gather background information. During the joint session, the mediator explains the process and invites each party to share a brief summary of the situation from their perspective. An agenda is then established. Each party is encouraged to listen respectfully to the other’s point of view. Following this, the mediator typically meets privately with each side to delve deeper into the issues, explore underlying tensions, and identify opportunities for resolution. This approach allows for creative settlements that courts may not be able to impose. Importantly, mediation is fully confidential. Nothing disclosed during the process is admissible in court should the mediation not result in a settlement. Why Choose Mediation? Cost-Effective: Mediation is significantly less expensive than litigation. While parties may still retain legal counsel, the process usually requires fewer billable hours and avoids extensive court procedures. Mediator fees are typically shared equally by the parties. Efficient: Court cases can drag on for months or even years. Mediation often resolves disputes in a matter of hours or days. Private: Unlike court proceedings, which generate public records, mediation is confidential and discreet. Flexible: The parties—not a judge or jury—control the outcome. This allows for creative, personalized solutions that reflect the unique dynamics of the family. Relationship-Preserving: By encouraging open communication and cooperation, mediation can help mend strained relationships and preserve family ties. Mediation offers a path forward that is more cost-effective, efficient, and humane than litigation. In the emotionally charged arena of estate disputes, it provides families with an opportunity not only to resolve their legal issues but also to do so in a way that promotes healing, dignity, and when possible, reconciliation.
June 5, 2025
Business
Effectively Representing Entrepreneurs: Bridging the Gap Between Business and Law
Entrepreneurs represent a unique type of client for attorneys. They thrive on uncertainty, they move fast, and they see opportunities where many others see red flags. They often have a much higher risk tolerance, and they are visionaries who challenge the status quo, not only in the markets they disrupt, but also in the regulatory or legal frameworks that often cannot keep pace with innovation. For attorneys representing entrepreneurs, there can be a clear challenge as they struggle to bridge the gap between the law and the entrepreneur’s fast-moving world. Therefore, it is critical to remember that when working with entrepreneurs, the law is not the only seat at the table. Their legal counsel is just one of many voices in the room involved in making strategic decisions. Law, finance, insurance, product development, and growth marketing must all come together to make sound decisions and to create a path forward. Attorneys must understand this broader context and be able to operate within it. When advising entrepreneurs, it's not enough to say no or shut down ideas due to high risk levels. It is better to determine their tolerance for risk and develop a structure to make it work. Entrepreneurs don’t want a gatekeeper. They want legal counsel who can help them navigate the complexities of their world. Innovation Often Outpaces Regulation We have all seen that innovation frequently moves faster than the law. Just look at the incredible developments in AI over the past few years and the regulatory efforts that have significantly lagged the innovation in this space. We now see a patchwork of regulations across this country and on an international level. This highlights the point that an entrepreneur doesn’t always have the luxury of waiting for full regulatory clarity. They need legal counsel who can advise them on the current regulatory environment and help them anticipate and prepare for what the future might hold. Manage Risk, Don’t Eliminate It Entrepreneurial lawyering does not mean ignoring risk. It means identifying and managing risk, as well as helping the client embrace it in a calculated way. The idea isn’t to stifle innovation or kill ideas, but instead to make the big ideas viable within some parameters. There must be a mindset of managing risk smartly as opposed to avoiding risk at all costs. When attorneys can help entrepreneurs to see the legal implications of their decisions without shutting them down, they create the kind of trust that defines a successful attorney-client relationship. The Importance of Understanding Business Entrepreneurs want legal counsel who speaks their language and understands the many moving parts that make up their world. To have a seat at the entrepreneur’s table, it is essential to fully understand how legal decisions will impact their business objectives. This requires attorneys to evolve beyond just providing traditional legal advice and to move from the singular role of legal advisor to the multifaceted role of business advisor, risk strategist, and trusted partner throughout the entrepreneurial journey. There will always be a gap that exists between business and the law, as legal frameworks and regulations serve as roadblocks to the next big ideas coming out of startups. But great attorneys build bridges, not walls. They don’t ignore the law, but instead help entrepreneurs to navigate it with clarity, creativity, and awareness.
June 2, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Protecting Legacy: Privacy and Estate Planning Tips for Athletes
Professional athletes face unique challenges when it comes to managing their personal, professional, and financial affairs. With significant public visibility, substantial income, a grueling training schedule, and a fast-paced lifestyle, athletes need to protect both their privacy and their legacy. Whether the athlete is just beginning their professional career or, like many of my clients, has already cemented their place into athletic history, effective estate planning and privacy protection can shield the new or long-established professional athlete from risk and exposure, providing long-term peace of mind. Why Privacy and Estate Planning Matter for Athletes There are many reasons why privacy is more of a priority for professional athletes than those in the general public. First and foremost, athletes experience intense media scrutiny. Interviews following each event, reporters covering their personal and family lives, bloggers commenting on their lifestyle, and their family members’ every move. This scrutiny often occurs “overnight” without providing the athlete and their family the opportunity to adjust and ease into this new level of inquisition. Added to the sudden celebrity, the athlete’s career span is generally shorter than the rest of us, which means that the bulk of their earnings is realized in a very short window of time. The lifestyle change happens swiftly, and the duration is generally limited. Because of this compressed time schedule, the athlete has a short runway to transition into their new life, leaving them particularly vulnerable to lawsuits, predatory actors and financial scams. In addition to the sudden shift in assets and scrutiny, an athlete’s family dynamics can also suffer the consequences. Whether it is because the newfound wealth and fame represents a departure from their former life, which they shared with friends and family members, or because those friends and family members feel entitled to share in the of the athlete’s earnings, there is immense pressure. Therefore, creating a thoughtful, discreet plan that safeguards the athlete’s earnings is essential. Establish a Comprehensive Estate Plan As this author has covered in other articles, an estate plan goes beyond a simple Last Will and Testament. It includes a structure that provides the opportunity to manage wealth and guard privacy during the athlete’s lifetime, through the end of their career, and thereafter protects their families upon the death of the athlete. A Last Will and Testament directs how assets will be distributed upon death and names guardians for minor children, but it is not private. Wills are “published” in the court and can be viewed by anyone. A Trust can take the place of a Will because it also directs the distribution of assets upon the athlete’s death, but it is not published in court. Instead, it is a private instrument that is managed by the athlete’s designated trustee upon their death. During the athlete’s life, the trust can also manage the athlete’s assets. Trusts can hold real estate, stocks, bonds, and even NIL rights, which hold value long after an athlete’s career is over. For many athletes, we take it a step further and establish certain trusts in states that provide an extra layer of privacy and creditor protection. Proactive Privacy Protection Privacy for athletes is not just about dodging the paparazzi; it is about controlling the narrative surrounding their professional and personal reputation, in addition to safeguarding their financial information. Establishing Corporate Structures. The use of Limited Liability Companies and other corporate structures can hold real estate interests, vehicles, and investments instead of holding those assets in the athlete’s personal name. Those corporate interests can then be “funded” into a trust instrument, as explained above. Securing their Digital Footprint. The digital footprint is a new facet of an athlete’s legacy and must be considered. There are cyber companies (www.360privacy.io) that monitor on-line mentions, prevent hacking, and help remove destructive and false claims to protect the athlete’s reputation and legacy. Companies like Regal Credit (www.regalcredit.com) take protective measures to safeguard an athlete’s credit and financial assets, as well. Minimize public records – For real estate purchases, athletes can use tools like trusts and corporate structures to ensure that their names are not disclosed via public records. Planning for the Unexpected. The average career of a professional athlete is, by any definition, short: the NFL athlete’s career hovers just over three years, and the NBA athlete’s career lasts about five years. Athletes have the added risk of an even shorter career in the event of an injury or any number of other unforeseen events. Planning now helps avoid chaos later. Insurance. Connecting with a reputable insurance advisor can be game-changing to cover injuries and disabilities if the athlete is unable to play, even temporarily. Life insurance not only covers the athlete’s family upon death but can also be an opportunity for investment strategy, particularly when income is earned quickly but for a shorter duration. Some athletes even invest in liability insurance to protect themselves from extortion attempts. In fact, Ernst and Young report that professional athletes sustained almost $600 million in fraud and extortion-related losses from 2004 to 2019, a number that has continued to climb. Pre-nuptial agreements. We all know the statistics: one in two marriages ends in divorce. Athletes are no different, and the added stressors of constant travel, a grueling training schedule, and fame can make marriages particularly vulnerable and challenging to maintain. Prenuptial agreements are a must for athletes to ensure that their hard-earned savings are protected, even in the event of a divorce. Update Your Plan Regularly An athlete’s life and financial situation will evolve over time; income levels, contracts, relationships, and even states of residence change with great frequency. An athlete should revisit their plan immediately after signing a new contract, upon injury, following a major purchase, upon marriage, the birth of children, upon retirement or when starting a new business venture. A properly created plan should be nimble and easy to update. Work with a Trusted Team As with any team sport, you should not go it alone. An athlete’s privacy and estate strategy should be guided by an experienced estate planning attorney, a licensed financial professional, a tax advisor, a security and privacy consultant, and an insurance professional. Athletes work hard to build a legacy on and off the field. By taking a proactive approach to privacy and estate planning, athletes can protect their assets, support their loved ones, and maintain control of their personal legacy.
May 30, 2025
Bankruptcy
Acquisition Strategies: Navigating Section 363 Sales and the Impact of Undersecured Liens
Overview and Advantages Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a Chapter 11 debtor to sell assets "free and clear" of existing claims, liens, encumbrances, and other liabilities. This provision facilitates expedited sales that might otherwise be hindered outside of bankruptcy proceedings. With a growing number of cases where courts allow a traditional asset buyer purchasing assets out-of-court to become liable for the seller’s liabilities, a court-approved sale of all or part of the seller’s assets brings distinct advantages. Among these advantages is the ability to take over favorable contracts and leases, even if they contain anti-assignment clauses. As a result, strategic buyers have the unique opportunity to purchase distressed assets inside of bankruptcy in a way that eliminates or reduces future liability because the bankruptcy court order approving the sale often expressly forecloses “successor liability” claims against a good-faith purchaser. Recent Notable Sales The versatility and legal protections offered by Section 363 sales make them an attractive option for strategic buyers and distressed companies, regardless of their industry or size. From pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, clean energy to retail, one can find multiple examples of successfully closed sales. Merz Pharmaceuticals' Acquisition of Acorda Therapeutics' Assets Merz Pharmaceuticals, LLC subsidiary of Merz Therapeutics, completed the acquisition of key assets, including two FDA-approved medications for neurological diseases like Parkinson’s and MS, from Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. on July 10, 2024, through a court-approved Section 363 sale in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The transaction was valued at $185 million in cash. Teknor Apex Company's Acquisition of Danimer Scientific's Assets Teknor Apex Company completed the acquisition of substantially all assets of Danimer Scientific, Inc. under Section 363 as part of its Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The winning bidder agreed to a total cash purchase price of $19 million and assumption of certain liabilities. Lucid Group's Acquisition of Nikola Corporation's Facilities Lucid Group, Inc. acquired selected facilities and assets from the bankruptcy estate of Nikola Corporation, a manufacturer of electric and hydrogen-powered trucks, including Nikola's manufacturing facility in Coolidge, Arizona, and its Phoenix headquarters, totaling over 884,000 square feet of real estate, to expand its electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing and testing operations. Gonher Music Center's Acquisition of Sam Ash's Assets Mexican-based retailer Gonher Music Center acquired substantially all of Sam Ash's assets for $15.2 million in a 363 sale in 2024, following a competitive auction process. Gonher outbid E-Distributors Inc. after initially submitting a bid of $10.3 million for the e-commerce and wholesale assets, which subsequently increased to $15.2 million to secure the combined package. The assets included Sam Ash’s e-commerce operations, intellectual property, trademarks, customer data, and the wholesale Samson business. The sale excluded assets related to the store closing sales. Mondee Holdings' Asset Sale to Mondee Purchaser LLC Mondee Holdings, Inc., a travel technology company specializing in the leisure travel sector, both in the United States and internationally, sold substantially all of its assets to a newly formed entity, Mondee Purchaser LLC, backed by affiliates of its lenders TCW Asset Management Company LLC and Wingspire Capital LLC with the majority stake held by its former CEO. New York Case Spotlight: In re Urban Commons 2 West LLC What makes these asset sales possible is Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 363(f) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows a company in bankruptcy to sell estate property "free and clear" of liens and other interests, provided that one of five specific conditions is met: (1) applicable nonbankruptcy law permits the sale of such property free and clear of such interest; (2) such entity consents; (3) such interest is a lien, and the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such property; (4) such interest is in bona fide dispute; or (5) such an entity could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest. 11 U.S.C. § 363(f). Subsection 5 is particularly significant when dealing with "underwater" assets—those whose sale price is less than the total of the liens against them. A recent decision by Judge Bentley brings a little more peace of mind to asset buyers in New York bankruptcy proceedings. In re Urban Commons 2 West LLC, 22-11509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2025). The Urban Commons case involves the sale of the lease interests in Manhattan’s Battery Park City Hotel. The hotel was part of a mixed-use condominium building and subject to a ground lease with the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA). The hotel initially operated under the Ritz-Carlton brand, but in March 2018, it changed its brand to The Leading Hotels of the World and its name to The Wagner at Battery Park. The Debtors purchased the Hotel Lease Interests in September 2018 for approximately $147 million, of which $96 million was financed by a first mortgage issued by BPC Lender, LLC (the “Lender”). The loan matured in 2020, and the Debtors were unable to obtain refinancing. Later that year, following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the hotel ceased operations and remained closed. By the time of the bankruptcy filing, the amount owed under the mortgage loan had grown to approximately $114 million plus fees and costs. The Debtors negotiated a global resolution with the main creditors, proposing a sale to the holder of the first lien on a $78 million credit bid and cash payments aggregating $20 million in cash to cure defaults on leases and contracts. The only objection to the sale and confirmation of the plan came from the holder of a $189,000 mechanic’s lien that was deeply underwater. The objector relied on an unpopular district court opinion, Dishi & Sons v. Bay Condos LLC, 510 B.R. 696, 710 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). In Dishi & Sons v. Bay Condos LLC, the Court held that subsection (5) applies only if the debtor, as the property owner, could compel the lienholder to accept monetary satisfaction. Judge Bentley rejected the Dishi court interpretation of Section 365(f)(5) because he held the construction was so narrow as to virtually nullify Section 363(f)(5). The Court adopted a “realistic possibility” standard, meaning that section 363(f)(5) encompassed not any conceivable hypothetical proceeding that might compel interest holders to accept a money satisfaction, but only proceedings that might realistically be brought in the case before the court if the automatic stay were lifted or did not apply. In most cases, this would include either foreclosure proceedings or UCC sales. The mere hypothetical possibility of an eminent domain taking would not satisfy section 363(f)(5). In conclusion, Section 363 sales offer a compelling avenue for strategic buyers to acquire distressed assets efficiently and with reduced risk. However, the nuances of Section 363(f), particularly subsection (5), underscore the importance of understanding jurisdictional interpretations. Stakeholders considering participation in a Section 363 sale must conduct thorough due diligence and engage experienced legal counsel to navigate the complexities of bankruptcy proceedings.
May 30, 2025
Labor and Employment
Workplace Violence: Why Employers Can’t Afford to Ignore the Warning Signs
When employers think about workplace safety, the conversation often begins and ends with OSHA inspections or slip-and-fall prevention. But in today’s world, the most urgent threat to your workforce isn’t on the floor. It’s in the atmosphere: workplace violence. Violence doesn’t just mean active shooter scenarios. It includes verbal threats, stalking, physical intimidation, domestic abuse that spills into the workplace, and psychological harassment. These are not just personnel issues but legal liabilities waiting to explode. The Legal Landscape is Shifting and Employers Must Keep Up Under OSHA’s General Duty Clause, employers are legally required to provide a safe working environment free from recognized hazards, including the risk of workplace violence. Failing to act on known threats can result in citations, civil liability, and, in extreme cases, criminal exposure. Add to that claims for negligent hiring, negligent retention, workers’ comp exposure, ADA violations, and reputational ruin, and the stakes become even clearer. Laws are continuing to evolve. California’s 2024 mandate for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs (WVPPs) set a new national standard, and other states, including New York, are following suit. Employers must now demonstrate proactive measures, not reactive apologies when something goes wrong. The Red Flags are Rarely Subtle and Often Dismissed Nearly every workplace violence incident is preceded by clear indicators: escalating arguments, erratic behavior, hostile emails, or an employee voicing concern about a colleague’s conduct. What’s dangerous — and legally reckless — is waiting until someone crosses the line before acting. Employers are expected to prevent foreseeable harm, which means acting before tragedy strikes. Your First Line of Defense: a Written, Enforced Violence Prevention Policy Organizations of all sizes and industries must have a clear, written policy for workplace violence prevention. This is not just a formality. Your workplace violence prevention policy should: Define prohibited conduct with precision, including threats, intimidation, and harassment. Create safe, accessible, and anonymous reporting channels. Establish a transparent response protocol. Reinforce zero tolerance for retaliation. This is your legal and cultural foundation. Training is Not Optional! It is a Legal and Practical Imperative A policy that sits unread on a shelf offers zero protection. Managers, supervisors, and employees must be trained to recognize red flags, de-escalate conflict, and report concerns safely and effectively. Even a single hour of annual training has proven to materially reduce risk. Training must be specific, interactive, and mandatory. Where appropriate, combine it with harassment prevention or ADA accommodation training; do not treat it as a check-the-box exercise. High-Risk Moments Demand Heightened Vigilance Terminations, layoffs, and performance-based discipline are flashpoints for violence. Employers should: Plan separation meetings carefully. Consider having security present. Conduct high-risk terminations off-site or via video if needed. Offer Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) where appropriate. The Right Team: Security, Legal, and Behavioral Health Professionals Working in Tandem Preventing and responding to workplace violence takes more than HR alone. You need a cross-functional team of: Security professionals who assess risk and implement physical safety protocols. Threat assessment experts (forensic psychologists, trained law enforcement) who evaluate risk and help strategize de-escalation. Employment counsel who understands the legal implications and can coordinate with law enforcement, courts, and insurers. Executive protection for high-profile or targeted employees. Each component must align under a single, integrated WVPP strategy. Real Estate and Isolated Work Environments Face Elevated Risk Industries like property management, real estate, and healthcare, where employees work alone, during off-hours, or interact frequently with the public, face unique and elevated exposure. Employers in these sectors must tailor policies, training, and security measures accordingly. Employer Liability is Real and Expensive Beyond OSHA citations, employers may face lawsuits alleging: Negligent hiring or retention. Failure to warn. ADA violations (e.g., mishandling mental health-related threats). Discrimination or retaliation for mishandled reporting. Employers cannot afford to be reactive. Workplace violence prevention is not about paranoia. It is about creating a culture of trust, accountability, and action. Employees are more likely to report threats when they believe the company will take them seriously. That alone can prevent tragedy. If your workplace violence prevention policy has not been reviewed in the last year or if your team has never been trained on recognizing or responding to threats, the time to act is now.
May 29, 2025
Labor and Employment
Non-Compete Ban for Maryland Healthcare Professionals Set to Take Effect July 1, 2025
Effective July 1, 2025, the second phase of Maryland’s restrictions on non-compete agreements and conflict of interest provisions for healthcare professionals will go into effect, targeting employers who provide direct patient care. This follows the earlier phase of the law, which banned non-competes for veterinary professionals beginning June 1, 2024. What Does This Mean for Healthcare Employers? Healthcare employers can continue enforcing non-compete provisions in agreements executed before July 1, 2025. However, starting July 1, any newly signed agreement that includes a non-compete or conflict of interest clause for a qualifying healthcare provider may be partially or wholly unenforceable, depending on compensation and job function. Key Provisions Under the Updated Maryland Statute Under the amended Md. Code Ann., Labor & Employment §3–716, Maryland continues to prohibit non-compete agreements for employees in any profession who earn 150% or less of the state’s minimum wage. The updated law expands these protections by banning non-competes for veterinary practitioners and veterinary technicians, as well as for licensed healthcare professionals who provide direct patient care and earn $350,000 or less annually. For healthcare professionals earning more than $350,000 annually, non-compete agreements are still permitted but now face strict limitations: they may last no longer than one year and must be limited to a geographic radius of 10 miles from the provider’s principal place of practice. The amended law also introduces a new obligation for employers: upon a patient’s request, they must disclose the new location of a former healthcare provider. Despite these expanded restrictions, the statute explicitly affirms that employers may still take steps to protect client lists and proprietary business information. Best Practices for Healthcare Employers In light of the upcoming change, employers should: Review and revise all employment agreements that will be signed on or after July 1, 2025 Ensure HR and recruiting teams are informed and using compliant templates Plan for patient communication procedures tied to provider transitions Use alternative protections—like confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements—to safeguard business interests. Even contracts signed before July 1 may still face scrutiny under Maryland’s reasonableness standard for restrictive covenants. Background on Non-Compete Reform The updated statute stems from House Bill 1388, passed in 2024 as part of Maryland’s growing effort to curtail restrictive employment practices in the healthcare and veterinary sectors. Nationally, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) attempt to implement a broad non-compete ban across every industry remains in limbo after district court challenges blocked enforcement. In March, FTC attorneys filed motions requesting a 120-day stay of the agency’s appeals, citing the change of the presidential administration and a need to reassess its position under new leadership. It remains unclear whether non-competes will remain a policy priority at the federal level. As a result, state-level action, like Maryland’s, has become the primary driver of non-compete reform.
May 28, 2025
Commercial Litigation
Big News for Virginia Litigation: Jurisdictional Limits in General District Court Increased to $50,000
As of March 21, 2025, the Virginia General Assembly and Governor have approved a significant change to Virginia’s civil and commercial court system. Every business owner, real estate professional, attorney, and claims adjuster should take note of the change. Under Senate Bill 1291, the jurisdictional limit for civil and commercial cases in Virginia’s General District Courts will increase from $25,000 to $50,000. The change will become effective July 1, 2025. This marks the first major adjustment to the jurisdictional limits in years and will have wide-ranging impacts on how civil and commercial disputes are litigated across Virginia. What This Means: More Cases in the General District Courts: Plaintiffs with monetary claims (such as debts or damages claims) up to $50,000 can now file in the General District Courts, which allows parties to benefit from faster dockets, less formal procedures, and lower litigation costs. Transfer Procedures Simplified: If a plaintiff later amends their claim to exceed $50,000, the law allows for a direct transfer to Circuit Court without the need for nonsuit or dismissal, preserving the statute of limitations. Attachment Cases Also Impacted: The $50,000 jurisdictional limit also applies to attachment cases (proceedings to seize property). Unlawful Detainers (Evictions), Interpleaders, FOIA Cases, and Property Owners Association Disputes Unaffected by change: The General District Court retains specific jurisdiction over these matters without being restricted by the $50,000 monetary cap. Why It Matters: This change is a major boost for access to justice. Litigants with mid-sized claims can pursue recovery in a court designed for efficiency without the high costs and extended timelines often seen in Circuit Court. This shift makes pursuing and defending civil and commercial claims more predictable and affordable for businesses, insurers, and individuals alike. At Offit Kurman, we are already preparing to help our clients navigate these changes strategically — whether it’s handling higher-value disputes in the General District Courts or advising on new litigation tactics made possible by the expanded jurisdiction. Reach out to Anders Sleight | Offit Kurman today to discuss your specific situation and how you may be able to take advantage of these changes. To prepare for the July 1 change, stakeholders should update litigation strategies, educate relevant staff on the new $50,000 limit and General District Court procedures, and reassess claims that may now qualify. Staying current on procedural updates will help businesses, insurers, and legal teams take full advantage of the court’s increased efficiency and lower costs.
May 28, 2025
Intellectual Property
Jimmy Page Accused of Infringing 'Dazed and Confused'
If the ongoing acrimony between Daryl Hall and John Oates wasn’t enough to fill the void of aging rock stars airing their grievances in court, never fear. There’s an endless well where that came from. Jake Holmes, original writer and composer of the song Dazed and Confused, has sued Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, among other musical production and publishing entities, for damages related to a songwriting credit he feels he is owed. Indeed, Holmes wrote the now-iconic hit in 1967, at which time Jimmy Page heard the song and rearranged the composition for his then-outfit, The Yardbirds. Page would later work with Robert Plant to reimagine the song for their upstart band, Led Zeppelin, again neglecting to credit Holmes for his role in the song’s creation. Off the heels of a now-settled 2010 lawsuit regarding the issue, the recently released documentary, Becoming Led Zeppelin, has brought the song, and Holmes’ claims, back into public consciousness. Doubtless, Holmes wanted to strike while the iron is hot. Plaintiff Holmes filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting three primary claims: two for copyright infringement and one for breach of contract. Holmes alleges he is the sole copyright owner of Dazed and Confused, originally registered in 1967. He claims that Jimmy Page and associated defendants, willfully infringed on this copyright by exploiting the composition without authorization—first in connection with the Yardbirds’ performances and later through its use in the 2025 documentary Becoming Led Zeppelin. Holmes's complaint alleges that, despite a 2011 settlement agreement (resolving the prior 2010 suit, which affirmed Holmes’s exclusive rights to the composition), Jimmy Page, Succubus Music Ltd., and WC Music Corp. continued to falsely license and monetize recordings of Dazed and Confused as if Page were the sole author. Holmes contends that these recordings include numerous Yardbirds live releases and that the defendants generated revenue from licensing, streaming, and royalties without proper attribution or payment to Holmes. Additionally, Holmes claims that the recent documentary film Becoming Led Zeppelin incorporated unauthorized performances of Dazed and Confused—both by the Yardbirds and by Led Zeppelin—again falsely crediting Page and excluding Holmes. He asserts that multiple defendants, including major production and distribution entities like Sony Pictures Classics and Big Beach LLC, participated in the infringing activity. Holmes seeks actual or statutory damages, injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, and attorneys' fees, alleging willful infringement and breach of the 2011 settlement agreement. This new action has the potential to set a standard for infringement cases regarding works so central to the infringing entity’s identity as to reframe that entity’s success completely. Time will tell whether Page’s Levee will finally Break, or whether Page and Zeppelin will Ramble On as they have for the past 50+ years.
May 28, 2025
Commercial Litigation
To Use or Not to Use? Fear Not! The Public Domain Beckons Thee
Ah, the public domain—where copyrights dare not tread, and content lives free from the litigious claws of infringement claims. Whether thou art a humble creator or a bold entrepreneur, rejoice! For in this blessed realm, you may pluck the ripest fruits of history without fear of lawyers whispering “cease and desist” in thine ear. As an experienced litigator who has spent years navigating the nuances of copyright and trademark disputes, I often receive inquiries from clients and creators alike asking whether using material in the public domain could still lead to legal liability. These questions are understandable—copyright law is notoriously complex, and the fear of receiving an infringement claim can chill even the most well-intentioned use of historical or creative works. However, the law is clear. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., once a work has entered the public domain, it is no longer protected by copyright. That work may be used freely without permission or risk of infringement liability. This principle is further reinforced by judicial precedent and administrative interpretations issued by the U.S. Copyright Office. Below is a short—albeit Shakespearean—synopsis of the right-to-use works that have passed into the public domain. All the World's a Stage... and the Public Domain is Yours to Play Upon When a work enters the public domain, it is like King Lear abdicating his throne—no longer held by a single rights-holder but shared by all. You may quote, adapt, remix, or even set it to dubstep, should the spirits moves you. There is no need to “beware the Ides of Infringement,” for the legal ghosts have departed these works. A Rose by Any Other Name Would Still Be Royalty-Free From the Bard himself to silent films, early jazz, and vintage pulp novels, the public domain is a veritable treasure trove. If your heart desires to adapt Romeo and Juliet as a sci-fi space opera or turn Macbeth into a murder-mystery podcast, thou art free to do so. And should anyone protest, simply say: “The copyright hath shuffled off this mortal coil.” Much Ado About Nothing (To Pay) No fees, no permissions, no licensing headaches; using public domain content means your budget won’t suffer a tragic fate. You are free to profit, reimagine, or distribute at will without hearing the dreaded words: “Thou art summoned to court.” The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks! But Legally She Can’t If a work is truly in the public domain, no rights-holder can claim otherwise—not even an overzealous heir or a distant cousin twice removed who believes Great Uncle Will’s haikus should still be protected. Verily, if someone doth protest, remind them that the law is clear: once public, forever free. What Light Through Yonder Archive Breaks? More works enter the public domain each year, like clockwork, every January 1st. These cultural gems become part of the commons, waiting for creative minds to breathe new life into them. Whether thou art a playwright, podcaster, game designer, or meme-smith, this is your cue to take the stage. Parting is Such Sweet Sorrow (But You Can Keep the Content) So go forth, noble creator, and draw from the well of the public domain with confidence. For when it comes to these works, the law doth not bite its thumb at thee. “A Pox Upon Uncertainty: Better to Know Than to Be Woe” While the public domain offers a vast and invaluable reservoir of creative material, it is of paramount importance to confirm that a given work is, in fact, free of copyright protection before using it. Not all “old” content is automatically in the public domain; factors such as the date of publication, the country of origin, and whether proper formalities were observed can all impact a work’s legal status. Mistakenly using material that remains under copyright could expose a user to infringement claims, even if the misuse was unintentional. Therefore, before thou dost take up thy pen (or camera, or microphone), it is wise to consult with legal counsel. As with so many matters in the law, ’tis better to measure twice than to be sued once.
May 27, 2025
Labor and Employment
Virginia Expands Non-Compete Restrictions for Employers
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin has signed Senate Bill 1218 into law, amending the state’s non-compete statute. Effective July 1, 2025, the updated law will broaden restrictions on non-compete agreements in Virginia. Previously, the law only protected “low-wage employees,” or those earning less than the average weekly wage in Virginia. Under the new amendment, employers will also be prohibited from entering into non-compete agreements with “non-exempt employees.” These are workers who are entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under the new amendment, all non-exempt employees – regardless of their income level – will be covered by the Commonwealth’s prohibition on non-compete agreements. However, the amendment is not retroactive. Therefore, employers who have entered into non-compete agreements with non-exempt employees prior to July 1, 2025, will remain valid; any such agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025, will be prohibited by law. Moving forward, employers will need to ensure accurate classification of workers as either exempt or non-exempt under federal standards to avoid liability under the new amendment. Employers should review their policies on non-competes, particularly as applied to offer letters, severance agreements, and employee handbooks to ensure compliance with the amendment.
May 27, 2025
Page 10 of 35
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
