Trademark and Copyright
Trademarks 101 for In-House Counsel: What Actually Deserves Your Attention Each Year
Most general counsel did not build their careers expecting to spend meaningful time on trademarks. They are rarely the reason a deal closes, a lawsuit settles or a quarter hits its numbers. And yet for many companies, trademarks become one of the most valuable corporate assets while receiving the least structured legal oversight. That disconnect exists because trademark risk behaves differently than other legal risks general counsel manages. Patent disputes, employment claims and regulatory investigations tend to announce themselves clearly and demand immediate attention. Trademark problems usually do not. They accumulate quietly through missed deadlines, casual brand changes, uneven enforcement decisions or international expansion that outpaces legal review. When those issues surface, they often do so at the worst possible moment: during a product launch, an acquisition, a licensing discussion or a dispute that limits available options. This article is an orientation for in-house counsel who do not live in this area every day. The focus is practical: what deserves attention on an annual basis, why those items matter and how to think about trademarks as part of a broader legal risk management function rather than a collection of filings handled in the background. Trademarks Are Living Business Assets One of the most persistent misconceptions about trademarks is that they function like deeds. Once registered, the thinking goes, they sit safely on the shelf until renewed every decade. In reality, trademarks behave more like contracts. Their value depends on ongoing use, consistent presentation and deliberate enforcement choices. A trademark registration is not a certificate of ownership in the abstract. It is a legal recognition that a company is using a specific mark in a specific way for specific goods or services. If the business changes and the registration does not, the legal protection begins to drift away. From an in-house perspective, the right question is rarely “Do we have trademarks?” The better question is “Do our trademarks still reflect how the business actually operates today?” That framing turns trademark oversight into an operational exercise rather than a clerical one. It also explains why annual review matters even when nothing appears to be wrong. The Four Trademark Functions That Matter Each Year Trademark law contains many technical rules, but in-house oversight usually comes down to four recurring functions. These functions are interconnected, and weakness in one area tends to surface later as a problem in another. Portfolio Alignment with the Business Every year, the business evolves in ways that affect brand usage. New product lines are introduced. Services expand beyond their original scope. Marketing refreshes logos, taglines or visual presentation. Legacy brands are retired, modified or absorbed into broader platforms. These changes often occur without legal involvement because they are seen as commercial rather than legal. From a trademark perspective, misalignment creates risk. Registrations protect what is actually used in commerce, not what the company once used or intended to use. Annual portfolio alignment should confirm a few core points: Core brands are still being used in a manner consistent with their registrations New offerings are covered by existing registrations or flagged for new filings Marketing changes have not materially altered the mark without legal review This process does not require deep trademark expertise. It requires awareness of how the business is changing and a mechanism for connecting those changes to legal protection. Without that connection, companies often discover gaps only when enforcement becomes necessary or when diligence exposes inconsistencies between registrations and real-world usage. Maintenance and Renewal Filings Trademark rights can be lost without any adversarial action. In the United States, trademark owners must file specific declarations and renewals at defined intervals, including the year prior to the sixth year after registration, the year prior to the tenth year after registration and every ten years thereafter. Failure to file on time will result in cancellation, even if the mark is actively used. For in-house counsel, the risk here is rarely about understanding statutory deadlines. It is about process discipline and accountability. Annual review should confirm: Deadlines are centrally tracked rather than residing with individual teams Examples of trademark use reflect how the brand is actually presented to customers Someone confirms continued use before legal declarations are signed These filings are often treated as routine administrative tasks. The consequences of error, however, can ripple across the organization. Loss of a registration weakens enforcement leverage, complicates licensing discussions and may require refiling from a position of reduced priority. Monitoring and Policing Trademark rights can vanish if other parties begin using similar brands. That said, these rights do not disappear the moment a third party adopts a similar name. Accordingly, inconsistent enforcement weakens rights over time and creates credibility problems when enforcement becomes unavoidable. Annual oversight should include a high-level assessment of how monitoring and enforcement decisions are made. This is less about volume and more about consistency. Key considerations include: Whether new competitors or products create meaningful risk of confusion Whether internal teams understand when to escalate brand concerns Whether enforcement decisions align with broader business objectives For most companies, the goal is not aggressive enforcement. It is a predictable enforcement that can be explained later to courts, counterparties or acquirers. This predictability helps in at least two ways. First, selective silence often becomes a problem during litigation or diligence when opposing counsel asks why certain uses were tolerated while others triggered action. Second, it is easier to budget your legal spend if you understand what actions you would take in certain situations. Strategic Coverage Gaps Growth frequently outpaces trademark planning. Companies enter new markets, expand internationally or acquire brands with incomplete legal protection. Often, teams assume existing rights will carry forward without evaluating whether that assumption holds. An annual review creates space to identify and prioritize coverage gaps before they become urgent. Useful questions include: Are we operating in new jurisdictions without trademark protection Did we acquire brands that were never properly registered or maintained Are international operations relying on U.S. rights without local analysis These issues are easiest to address proactively. Once a conflict arises or a launch is imminent, the range of available solutions narrows quickly and costs increase accordingly. Why This Belongs on the General Counsel’s Annual Checklist Trademark issues rarely reach the boardroom unless something has already gone wrong. When they do surface, they tend to implicate multiple parts of the organization at once: marketing, sales, licensing, international operations and corporate development. An annual trademark review allows general counsel to move from reactive problem solving to managed risk. It helps to: Reduce surprise issues that disrupt business initiatives Allocate legal budget between maintenance and strategic growth Create internal discipline around brand usage and escalation Preserve flexibility for future transactions, licensing and expansion Viewed this way, trademarks are less about logos and more about optionality. Clean, well-aligned portfolios are easier to enforce, easier to license and easier to value in a transaction. Trademarks as a General Counsel-Level Oversight Function General counsel are not expected to master every specialty area. They are expected to recognize where quiet risks accumulate and intervene before they become material. Trademarks fit squarely into that category. They rarely require daily involvement. They benefit significantly from periodic review by someone who understands the business and can connect legal rights to operational reality. Outside counsel can handle filings, searches and enforcement mechanics. In-house counsel provides strategic oversight to ensure those efforts remain aligned with how the company actually operates. A structured annual check-in, whether internal or with trusted outside counsel, is often sufficient to keep trademark risk proportional, predictable and manageable. The objective is not perfection. It is awareness and control.
February 6, 2026
Real Estate
Real Estate Isn’t About Property Any More Than Birthdays Are About Cake
Most of us don’t give much thought to why we celebrate birthdays. We just do. Cake. Candles. A brief moment where time pauses and the individual is acknowledged. But like many things we take for granted in modern commerce and real estate, birthday celebrations have a surprisingly technical — and instructive — history. As with title, entity formation, and legal opinions, the story starts long before anyone thought about “best practices.” In ancient civilizations, birthdays were not universal celebrations. They were reserved for the powerful. Ancient Egypt marked the “birth” of pharaohs as gods, often tied to coronation rather than literal birth. Ancient Rome eventually extended birthday celebrations to ordinary citizens, but primarily men, and often as markers of legal and social standing. For centuries, women’s birthdays went largely unrecognized in formal society. In other words, birthdays were originally about status, authority, and legitimacy, not cake. That framing should sound familiar to anyone who works in real estate or finance. Much like early birthdays, property rights and legal recognition historically belonged to a narrow group. Over time, those rights expanded, but only after systems developed to recognize, document, and protect them. Early Christianity rejected birthday celebrations altogether, viewing them as pagan, self-indulgent, and astrologically dangerous. The concern was that marking a birth invited misfortune or temptation. Instead, the Church focused on death anniversaries and saints’ days. There’s an interesting parallel here: early resistance wasn’t about the event itself, but about risk allocation. Celebrating a birthday meant acknowledging time, change, and uncertainty — concepts that institutions have always been cautious about embracing without structure. Sound familiar? Modern real estate transactions didn’t become efficient until we developed standardized ways to address risk: title insurance, surveys, due diligence, and legal opinions. Before that, uncertainty ruled. Birthdays became mainstream only once societies improved record-keeping. Once people could reliably document dates of birth, identity, lineage, and legal status, birthdays shifted from superstition to celebration. That shift mirrors what happens in real estate every day. A deal becomes financeable not because the property exists, but because it can be documented, verified, and relied upon. The asset matters. The paper matters more. The tradition of birthday candles traces back to ancient Greece, where candles were used to communicate wishes to the gods. Over time, that symbolism softened into ritual rather than belief, but the structure remained. In real estate, many transactional “rituals” operate similarly. Opinions, certificates, and closing deliveries are not superstitions. They are structured ways of saying: “We’ve examined the facts, allocated the risk, and everyone can proceed with confidence.” What began as protection becomes tradition and eventually, expectation. Birthdays today are about the recognition of the individual. Real estate transactions are increasingly about the same thing, especially as entity structures grow more complex and deals across jurisdictions. Both require clarity of identity, reliable records, and trusted intermediaries. Without those, celebration or closing doesn't happen. We celebrate birthdays today because systems evolved to make them safe, meaningful, and universally recognized. The same is true for modern real estate transactions. Progress doesn’t come from ignoring risk. It comes from understanding it, documenting it, and building structures that allow people to move forward with confidence. That’s as true for a birthday candle as it is for a closing table.
February 4, 2026
Labor and Employment
Pinged After Dark: Email Expectations, Burnout, and Employment Law Risk
One of the most common questions labor and employment attorneys hear from employers in the post-remote workplace is whether employees can be expected to answer emails outside standard business hours. The question seems straightforward, but it sits at the intersection of wage and hour law, workplace culture, and an evolving understanding of employee burnout. The rise of remote and hybrid work has permanently blurred the line between work time and personal time. What was once an occasional after-hours message has, for many employees, become a steady stream of evening and weekend communications. While constant connectivity can support flexibility and responsiveness, it also creates legal and operational risks when expectations are unclear or unmanaged. From a legal perspective, after-hours email expectations matter most under wage and hour laws. For non-exempt employees, time spent reading and responding to emails outside of scheduled work hours may be compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws. Even brief, sporadic email activity can add up over time, creating exposure for unpaid wages or overtime if that time is not properly tracked and paid. Employers often underestimate how easily “just checking email” can become a compliance problem. For exempt employees, the analysis is different but not risk-free. While these employees are not entitled to overtime pay, constant after-hours availability can contribute to burnout, stress-related health issues, and requests for medical leave or workplace accommodations. Employers increasingly face claims tied to mental health conditions, and a culture that implicitly demands round-the-clock responsiveness can become evidence in those disputes. Oftentimes there is a disconnect between written policies and actual practice. Many employers maintain policies stating that after-hours work is not required, yet managers routinely send late-night emails or praise employees who respond immediately. Over time, this behavior creates an unwritten expectation that employees reasonably feel they must meet. In legal disputes, it is often those informal expectations — not the handbook language — that carry the most weight. Although U.S. law has not formally adopted a “right to disconnect,” global trends and employee expectations are moving in that direction. Several jurisdictions outside the United States already limit after-hours communications, and similar ideas are gaining traction domestically. Employers should assume that after-hours availability will continue to be scrutinized from regulators, courts, and employees alike. The most effective approach is clarity. Employers benefit from clearly defining when employees are expected to be available and when they are not, and from ensuring that managers understand how their communication habits affect both compliance and morale. Where business needs require after-hours responsiveness, those expectations should be deliberate, consistent, and aligned with compensation practices. Burnout is no longer just a workforce morale issue. It is a business and legal risk that can lead to turnover, leave-related disputes, and costly claims. Employers that proactively set reasonable boundaries around email use and availability are better positioned to retain talent, reduce risk, and defend their practices if challenged. After-hours email is not simply a question of convenience or courtesy. It reflects how well an organization understands its legal obligations and how seriously it takes the sustainability of its workforce. Thoughtful boundaries today can prevent significant problems tomorrow.
February 4, 2026
M&A Nuggets
M&A Nuggets: How to Avoid Hairline Fractures in M&A Deals
In medical parlance, a hairline fracture of the bone is caused by stress that can result from trauma, is painful, and curtails activity. Hairline fractures can also arise during an M&A transaction and are important to avoid. Hairline fractures can be caused by 1) lack of communication between the purchaser and the seller, 2) a delay in contacting third parties whose consent is required, and 3) professional advisors who put their desire to win at any cost above their client’s interests. How can hairline fractures be avoided? First, it is crucial for the purchaser and seller to fully understand each other’s objectives and to then memorialize all major business terms in a letter of intent. Too often, letters of intent are devoid of key business terms on the theory of “let’s just get the letter of intent signed and move on.” This often results in surprises, misunderstandings, and disappointment, all of which delay or doom a deal. Second, third parties whose consent is required, such as landlords and lenders, must be contacted well before the planned closing date. These third parties, who have their own processes and procedures when faced with a client sale, often take an extended time to react. Last, a seller should clearly explain its objectives, time frame, and expectations to its counsel and other advisors. A seller must work with advisors who will prioritize making the deal happen over winning every point in the negotiation. The lesson here is that, with proper communication and planning, hairline fractures in an M&A transaction can be avoided.
February 4, 2026
Business
SBA Loan Performance in 2025: What the Data Says—and Why it Matters for Buyers and Investors
Recent SBA loan performance data offers an important reality check for buyers, lenders, and investors operating in the lower middle market. A 2025 analysis highlighted by Monitor Daily examines which industries are experiencing the lowest default rates across SBA-backed loans. These findings carry meaningful implications for search funders, independent sponsors, family offices, and anyone allocating capital to small businesses. This edition of Search Fund Operate takes a deeper look at what the data actually shows, why certain industries consistently outperform others from a credit-risk perspective, and how that information should inform acquisition strategy, diligence priorities, financing decisions, and legal structuring. For buyers using SBA leverage, this is forward-looking signal about operational durability and transition risk. What the SBA Loan Performance Data Reveals The SBA loan performance report identifies several industries with notably lower default rates in 2025. These sectors tend to share common structural characteristics: Predictable, recurring demand Essential or non-discretionary services Lower customer concentration risk Operational simplicity relative to revenue stability Limited exposure to volatile input costs Industries such as healthcare services, professional services, recurring service-based businesses, and essential retail continue to perform well compared to more cyclical or capital-intensive sectors. These businesses benefit from steady cash flow, contractual or repeat customer relationships, and pricing models that adjust more easily to inflation or labor pressure. By contrast, businesses tied to discretionary consumer spending, commodity-sensitive pricing, or seasonal revenue cycles show higher stress levels. Margin compression, labor shortages, and supply-chain disruptions continue to test these models—especially when layered with SBA leverage. This is unlikely to come as a surprise for anyone investing in this space. Why Default Rates Matter for Buyers (not Just Lenders) While SBA default data is often viewed through a lender’s lens, buyers should treat it as a proxy for operational resilience. Lower default rates typically correlate with: Stronger and more consistent debt service coverage More durable margins across economic cycles Better pricing power with customers Reduced reliance on a single owner, customer, or vendor For search fund entrepreneurs and first-time buyers, these factors materially affect day-to-day operating stress (and should translate to lower risk). The first 12–24 months post-close are often the most fragile period of ownership. A business that historically services SBA debt is more likely to support a new owner during the transition stage when they are still trying to absorb institutional knowledge from exiting leadership while simultaneously trying to establish their own credibility. From a legal perspective, default risk also ties directly into representations, indemnities, earn-outs, and seller financing terms. Businesses operating in higher-risk industries often require more robust contractual protections to balance uncertainty. Industry Selection Is a Risk Management Tool The data reinforces a point often overlooked in acquisition discussions: industry selection itself is a form of risk management. Buyers often focus on valuation multiples, seller notes, or headline EBITDA figures, but industry dynamics may matter more than price precision. A slightly more expensive business in a low-default, stable industry can be materially safer than a discounted deal in a volatile sector. For independent sponsors and family offices deploying patient capital, lower-default industries align well with: Moderate leverage strategies Longer hold periods Incremental operational improvements Leadership transition planning These industries tend to support governance frameworks, professionalization, and repeatable growth rather than aggressive financial engineering. SBA Financing Magnifies Both Strengths and Weaknesses SBA-backed transactions impose discipline both structurally and procedurally. While SBA loans remain attractive due to leverage and pricing, they magnify diligence failures when buyers underestimate operational weaknesses. Key diligence considerations include: Cashflow Quality: Are earnings repeatable, or dependent on one-time contracts, owner relationships, or favorable timing? Owner Reliance: Does the business function independently, or is the seller the operational bottleneck? Customer Concentration: Is revenue diversified or dependent on a small number of counterparties? Operational Controls: Are accounting systems, reporting cadence, and internal controls sufficient to support debt compliance? Legal Infrastructure: Are contracts assignable, enforceable, and properly documented for a post-close environment? Industries with lower default rates tend to score better across these dimensions—not by coincidence, but because their business models demand consistency and discipline. Legal Structuring Considerations in Lower-Default Industries From a legal standpoint, industry risk should influence deal structure. In more stable industries, buyers may have greater flexibility to: Negotiate cleaner transitions with shorter seller involvement Rely less on contingent consideration or earn-outs Use standardized employment and non-compete arrangements Implement governance documents that support scalability In higher-risk industries, buyers often need enhanced protections, including longer transition services agreements, expanded indemnities, escrow holdbacks, and tighter covenants tied to customer retention or financial performance. Understanding industry default trends helps buyers align legal risk allocation with operational reality. Implications for Investors and Family Offices For family offices allocating capital to search funds, independent sponsors, or direct acquisitions, SBA performance data offers an additional underwriting lens. It helps evaluate not just sponsor capability, but business durability. Investors increasingly expect sponsors to articulate why a target industry supports sustainable leverage, predictable operations, and long-term value creation. Default-rate data provides objective context for investment committee discussions and portfolio construction decisions. It also supports diversification across industries with varying risk profiles, rather than concentration in sectors vulnerable to economic or regulatory shifts. Final Thoughts The 2025 SBA loan performance analysis reinforces a simple but critical point: not all small businesses carry the same risk, even at similar price points. Industries with lower default rates tend to reward discipline, operational focus, and patience—traits that align closely with successful ETA and private capital strategies. For buyers, this is a reminder to look beyond the deal structure and focus on the durability of the underlying business. For investors, it reinforces the importance of industry selection as a cornerstone of long-term capital preservation and growth.
February 2, 2026
Family Law
Smart Strategies for Family Law Clients: How to Avoid Common Mistakes and Keep Legal Costs Down
Family law cases — from divorce to custody and property division — can be stressful and costly. However, most expensive problems are preventable. By staying organized, managing emotions, communicating clearly, and following legal advice, clients can greatly reduce stress, avoid common missteps, and keep their legal bills under control. To put these principles into action, the following guide presents practical steps clients can take to minimize fees and strengthen their case. Don’t Let Emotions Drive Legal Decisions Acting out of anger, fear, or resentment leads to unnecessary filings, impulsive decisions, and continued conflict. Strategic, calm decision‑making almost always leads to better outcomes and lower fees. Stay Organized from the Start Disorganization is one of the most expensive and avoidable client mistakes. Providing financial documents, custody calendars, and communications in a clear, organized way saves your attorney significant time and reduces billable hours. Avoid Involving Children in the Conflict Using children as leverage or pulling them into adult disputes harms both the case and the children. Courts prioritize a child’s best interests, and involving them in conflict often backfires emotionally and legally. Be Honest and Transparent About Finances and Facts Hiding assets, withholding information, or changing your story mid‑case severely damages your credibility and forces your attorney to spend extra time on damage control. In serious cases, it can even lead to penalties. Use Social Media Wisely (or Not at All) Posts, photos, and messages often end up in court, and they can hurt your case. Even seemingly harmless content can be misconstrued or taken out of context, requiring additional attorney time to address. Limiting online activity during your case is one of the easiest ways to avoid unnecessary complications. Communicate Efficiently with Your Attorney Poor communication — either too little or too much — wastes time and money. Limit frequent emotional messages. Instead, group questions into a single email and reply promptly to your attorney’s requests. Follow Your Attorney’s Advice (Not Friends’ Stories) Well‑meaning friends often give advice based on their own experiences, which may not apply legally to your situation. Ignoring your lawyer’s guidance or trying to “win small battles” prolongs the case and increases costs. Avoid Unrealistic Expectations or Unnecessary Battles Refusing reasonable compromise, fighting over minor issues, or making decisions without considering long‑term financial consequences creates delays and expenses. Strategic negotiation often leads to better, faster outcomes. Use Lower‑Cost Legal Resources When Appropriate Ask whether certain tasks can be handled by paralegals or support staff at a lower hourly rate. Being attentive of who performs which task can reduce your overall bill. Consider Mediation or Alternative Dispute Resolution Mediation and collaborative law can resolve disputes earlier and at a lower cost than courtroom litigation. These options are especially beneficial when both parties are motivated to reach a fair agreement quickly. Final Thoughts Most family law problems and expenses stem from the same root causes: emotional reactions, disorganization, and poor communication. Clients who stay prepared, follow professional guidance, and seek emotional support outside the legal process tend to reduce their fees and resolve their cases more efficiently. By focusing on long‑range objectives instead of short‑term battles, you can save significant time, money, and stress during an already challenging experience.
January 30, 2026
Business
Rethinking the Early Exit: How Gen X and Millennial Owners Are Selling Smarter in 2026
While much of the exit-planning conversation has centered on Baby Boomers approaching retirement, Millennial and Gen X founders are also a growing segment of today’s middle-market sellers. These generations collectively own a large portion of small and middle-market businesses, and they often do not hold on to their businesses as long as previous generations, prioritizing exits at a stage when they can still pivot to new ventures. This means that earlier-in-career exits are becoming increasingly common, and they present a distinct set of considerations for these younger generations, particularly for those looking to make a move in 2026. Market Conditions in 2026 Starting in 2025, we began to see a much more active merger & acquisition (M&A) market than we have the past few years, and that is expected to continue as we move through 2026. Strategic buyers remain active, private equity firms continue to deploy record levels of dry powder, and financing conditions (particularly in private credit) have improved. At the same time, buyers remain disciplined, and valuations favor businesses with predictable cash flow, strong management teams, and scalable operations, even where growth remains the primary story. For younger founders, this kind of dynamic can cut both ways. Many younger companies are still scaling, reinvesting, or professionalizing operations, which can limit valuation if pursued too early. Therefore, one of the most critical drivers of outcome this year is timing the market, while also allowing the business to mature operationally. The Impact of Boomer Sales on Timing and Valuation It is important for Gen X and Millennial business owners to note that right now, there are many Boomer-owned businesses that are coming to market. While this wave of Boomer business sales is fueling buyer interest, it does present another layer of complexity for younger sellers. Unlike legacy businesses with decades of operating history, companies owned by Gen X or Millennials may lack the same kinds of long-term financial track records. While buyers in 2026 are still willing to underwrite growth, they are going to expect clean financials, recurring revenue, and evidence that performance is durable, not founder dependent. This is why strategic exit planning, often beginning 12 to 24 months before a sale, can materially improve valuation by allowing time to normalize earnings, strengthen leadership, and reduce execution risk. Market cycles and competitive sale dynamics also matter, particularly as so many Boomers will be selling over the next few years. Choosing the Right Deal Structure for Long-Term Wealth Younger sellers typically have decades of professional life ahead of them, making deal structure equally as important as price. Partial liquidity events, rollover equity, earn-outs, and minority recapitalizations remain common in 2026, particularly in private equity transactions. Remember that the structure you choose will have significant tax, risk, and governance implications and should be addressed early with experienced legal and financial advisors. This will all impact your long-term wealth, so choosing wisely here is critical. Gen X and Millennials are certainly taking a different approach to business ownership and exit timing than earlier generations, opting for exits earlier in life that afford them flexibility and opportunity. While there can be incredible benefits to these early exits, in today’s competitive and disciplined M&A environment, younger owners must think beyond valuation alone, considering timing, structure, and how each decision will impact their long-term wealth. Ultimately, a successful exit for today’s younger business owners is not defined by the sale itself, but by how deliberately it positions them for sustained financial security, future ventures, and the next chapter of their professional lives.
January 30, 2026
Bankruptcy
“Void” Doesn’t Mean “Whenever You Get Around to It”
The Supreme Court has opened the new year with a decision that should convince every company that ignoring a payment demand is a mistake. In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Court resolved a long‑standing circuit split and held that motions to set aside a judgment as void under Rule 60(b)(4) must still be filed within a “reasonable time” under Rule 60(c)(1). Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC entered bankruptcy in 2014. As part of its bankruptcy, Vista-Pro initiated adversary proceedings against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., to collect $50,000 in allegedly unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro attempted to serve process on Coney Island by mail, but in doing so, it did not allegedly comply with the mail-service requirements in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(3). Coney Island never answered the complaint, and the Bankruptcy Court entered a default judgment against Coney Island in 2015. The Vista-Pro bankruptcy trustee attempted to enforce the judgment over the next six years. The trustee sent a demand to Coney Island’s CEO in April 2016, which the Court treated as sufficient notice of the judgment and the trustee’s enforcement efforts. In 2021, a marshal seized funds from Coney Island’s bank account in satisfaction of the judgment. Only then did Coney Island file a motion to vacate the judgment as void for improper service. The Bankruptcy Court and the Sixth Circuit denied the motion. The Supreme Court has now affirmed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 permits a court to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and subdivision (b)(4) specifically authorizes a court to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 permits a court to “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” and subdivision (b)(4) specifically authorizes a court to have granted relief from void judgments long after their entry, especially when the issuing court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant. See, e.g., Harris v. Hardeman, 14 How. 334, 338, 344–346 (1853) (affirming a lower court order that set aside a judgment 11 years after its issuance where the plaintiff did not make proper service and the defendant did not appear). The Court’s core reasoning is straightforward. A Rule 60(b)(4) motion is a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(c)(1) says all Rule 60(b) motions must be filed “within a reasonable time.” The Court rejected the position endorsed in several circuits for decades — that a “void” judgment is a “legal nullity” and can be attacked at any time. The Court emphasized that many legal errors cannot be cured by time, yet procedural rules still impose deadlines to prevent perpetual uncertainty. And importantly, the Court noted that a flexible “reasonable time” standard already protects defendants who truly had no notice, because what is “reasonable” depends on when the party first learned of the judgment. Why This Matters Litigation, especially bankruptcy litigation, is full of default judgments, service disputes, and defendants who surface years later claiming they never knew about the case. This decision will put defendants on the clock the moment they have actual or constructive notice, thus reducing strategic silence. Practical Takeaways for Defendants Treat every demand letter as a priority item. Ignoring it may cost you your only avenue to relief. Act immediately when you learn of a judgment — any judgment. Preserve records showing when you first learned of the judgment. That date determines whether your motion is timely. Litigants must treat demand letters not as administrative annoyances but as legal events that define rights, deadlines, and consequences. Procedural precision matters, and courts increasingly expect it from everyone. Default judgments remain serious, but defendants still have a path to relief if they move promptly.
January 29, 2026
Estates and Trusts
Don’t Let Your Plan Fail: Why Reviewing Your Trust is Critical
Revocable trusts are often the centerpiece of a client’s estate plan for the many benefits that they provide. Revocable trusts are private agreements that are easily amendable, and avoid the costs and delays associated with probate. They ensure the management of assets in the event of a client’s incapacity and, at death, a seamless transition of assets to the client’s intended beneficiaries. However, even the most carefully drafted and intricate trust agreement will be ineffective if it is not implemented correctly. A revocable trust is essentially an empty shell until it is funded with assets. Advisors and legal counsel will likely take steps to ensure that all of a client’s non-retirement assets are transferred or retitled into their revocable trust at its inception. When assets are later acquired, they must be transferred into the trust to be effective. In the best circumstances, assets that remain outside the trust will necessitate probate, incurring administrative costs and delays that the client sought to avoid by establishing the revocable trust. At worst, failing to properly title or convey assets into the trust may result in the imposition of avoidable taxes and the wrong beneficiaries receiving assets. Why Proper Trust Funding Matters Many clients presume that listing an asset on a schedule included with their trust is all that is required to transfer assets into their trust. In reality, assets must be formally transferred to the trust, or the trust must be listed as the beneficiary of any assets that remain outside the trust, for it to be effective. Some assets, such as bank or brokerage accounts, can be easily retitled and transferred into a trust. Other assets require the preparation of formal legal documents to effect the transfer. For example, real property can only be transferred to a trust by executing a deed. Corporate interests, such as stocks or shares in a small business, may only be transferred with an assignment and the issuance of a new stock certificate from the corporation. If the client owns shares in a co-op, they must go through a formal approval process before their shares can be retitled into their trust. Because transferring certain assets into the trust can be a hassle or incur additional fees and costs, sometimes clients intentionally keep certain assets outside their trust. A client may opt to forgo the expense and hassle of retitling their residence, presuming that they will one day sell it prior to their death. The client might reasonably conclude that incurring fees and costs to convey an asset into their trust which they intend to sell during their lifetime is unnecessary and wasteful. This is a risky proposition as death or incapacity can occur in an instant, making it difficult or impossible to transfer the property later, undoing the benefits of establishing the trust. Risks of Leaving Assets Outside the Trust Some types of assets, such as retirement accounts, must be left outside a trust, but this can also be a trap for the unwary. The client must always consider the assets that the beneficiary will receive outside their trust as part of their overall estate plan. If a client wishes to change the terms of their trust to provide more or less for their intended beneficiaries, they must be mindful to also update their beneficiary designations accordingly. Changed circumstances may also require a change in beneficiary designation. The client may have divorced their spouse since naming him or her as the primary beneficiary of their life insurance or retirement assets. Perhaps the intended beneficiary has died, become incapacitated, or is now a spendthrift; failing to update beneficiary designations may expose these assets to creditor claims or disqualify the beneficiary from receiving government benefits. Safeguards to Prevent Funding Failures While ideally all assets will be transferred into the revocable trust before death, there are many ways where even well-intentioned individuals will inadvertently fail to transfer assets into their revocable trust. Several safeguards that can be easily implemented to mitigate these risks and ensure that the client’s beneficiaries inherit their assets as intended. When implementing a revocable trust in a client’s estate plan, a “pour-over” will should always be executed. A “pour-over” will directs that any assets left outside the trust at the time of death be distributed or “poured over” into the revocable trust. Without a will in place, assets left outside the trust will pass by intestacy. In addition, clients should consider whether it is appropriate to provide their agents broad powers under a power of attorney to gift their assets, change beneficiary designations, and amend the client’s trust, to conform with the client’s wishes. These powers help to ensure that additional estate planning can be done at any time during the client’s life, even if they become incapacitated. Lastly, the client should consider naming their trust as the primary or contingent beneficiary of any assets left outside their trust. By doing so, it not only ensures that these assets will ultimately pass to the trust, but it also enables the client to change their estate plan by simply amending the terms of their trust. Conclusion: Regular Review Ensures an Effective Plan The reality is that while establishing an estate plan may take as little as a few months, it is not a discrete process; estate planning requires continuous monitoring and occasional updates. Clients should be encouraged to review their estate planning documents at least every four to five years, or at major milestones such as the birth of a new family member, moving to another state, or when there is a significant change in the law, to ensure that their estate plan will function as intended.
January 28, 2026
Labor and Employment
New Year, New Employment Laws; What Employers Must Know for 2026
As 2026 begins, employers across the United States face a wave of significant labor and employment law changes that demand immediate attention. From California’s updates to minimum wage, exempt salary thresholds, and equal pay requirements, to Illinois’ expanded workplace transparency and AI-related compliance obligations, these developments reflect a growing emphasis on employee protections, pay equity, and technology governance. Pennsylvania and Texas also introduced targeted reforms, including anti-discrimination measures, paid leave adjustments, and new standards for responsible AI use. The following provides an overview of the changes effective in early 2026 and outlines practical steps employers should take to help ensure compliance and mitigate risk. Jump to: California | Delaware | New York | Illinois | Pennsylvania | Texas California Minimum Wage Increases to $16.90 Per Hour Several cities and counties have their own required minimum wages. Employers should check their local city and county ordinances where they have employees to ensure they are paying the correct minimum wage. Forty (40) California cities and counties have minimum wage rates that are higher than the state minimum wage of $16.90. Twenty-eight (28) of those forty local cities and counties have increases to their minimum wage beginning January 1, 2026, with West Hollywood, at $20.25 per hour, being the highest. What Employers should do: Employers should check the minimum wages for any city or county where they have employees. Make sure hourly rates are updated to comply with state law and the City/County where the employee is working. Employers must pay minimum wage in the city or county where the employee works and not where the employer is located. The Salary Requirement for Exempt Employees Rises to $70,304 In order to be exempt, an employee must meet the duties test and the salary test. The California salary test requires exempt employees to earn twice the minimum wage. With the increase in minimum wage to $16.90 on January 1, 2026, the new minimum salary for California exempt employees is $70,304. What Employers should do: Make sure any California employee who is exempt has an annual salary of at least $70,304. Requirement to Allow Employees to Use Sick Leave for Jury Duty and When Appearing as a Witness Use of sick leave was expanded to allow employees to use sick leave for jury duty or when they are required to appear in court to comply with a subpoena or other court order. What Employers should do: Employers should revise their sick leave policy in their Employee Handbook and make sure that the new 2026 posters are displayed. In the alternative, employers can provide employees with the Notice linked to this Article. The revised and required notice is linked below. Poster English Spanish New Notice Requirement – California Workplace – Know Your Rights Effective February 1, 2026, and each year thereafter, employers must provide notice of employees’ rights. The Labor Commissioner has developed notices that are linked here in Spanish and English. Employers are required to keep records of each written notice provided or sent for three years, including the date provided or sent. Employers may, but are not currently required to, provide a link or show the video developed by the Labor Commissioner’s office. In addition, by March 30, 2026, employers must provide employees the opportunity to name an emergency contact and indicate whether that contact should be notified if the employee is arrested or detained. What Employers should do: Employers should distribute the Notice to employees and keep records of how and when it was distributed. In addition, employers should calendar distribution for each year and give employees the opportunity name an emergency contact if they are arrested or detained. Changes to the California Equal Pay Act The definition of “pay scale” under the California Equal Pay Act has been broadened, and the statute of limitations for claims thereunder has been increased from two (2) to three (3) years, with employees able to get relief for up to six (6) years. The definition of “pay scale” is revised to include a good-faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire. “Wages” and “wage rates” are also redefined to include all forms of pay, including, but not limited to, salary, overtime pay, bonuses, stock, stock options, profit sharing and bonus plans, life insurance, vacation and holiday pay, cleaning or gasoline allowances, hotel accommodations, reimbursement for travel expenses, and benefits. What employers should do: Employers should ensure that they review their pay scales and document how they determined the pay scale to show that the pay scales were based on a good-faith estimate. Employment Contracts Cannot Require Employees to Pay Employers for Training (if they leave their employment) For employment contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, it is unlawful to include or to require an employee to execute as a condition of employment or a work relationship a contract that includes a contract term that does any of the following: Requires the worker to pay an employer, training provider, or debt collector for a debt if the worker’s employment or work relationship with a specific employer terminates. Authorizes the employer, training provider, or debt collector to resume or initiate collection of or end forbearance on a debt if the worker’s employment or work relationship with a specific employer terminates. Imposes any penalty, fee, or cost on a worker if the worker’s employment or work relationship with a specific employer terminates. This means employers cannot require employees to reimburse them for any training provided to them if they leave their employment. If this new law is violated, employees are entitled to actual damages sustained by the worker or five thousand dollars ($5,000), whichever is greater, in addition to injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. There are certain exceptions as follows: A contract entered into under any loan repayment assistance program or loan forgiveness program provided by a federal, state, or local governmental agency. A contract related to the repayment of the cost of tuition for a transferable credential that meets certain requirements. A contract related to enrollment in an apprenticeship program approved by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards. A contract for the receipt of a discretionary or unearned monetary payment, including a financial bonus, at the outset of employment that is not tied to specific job performance, provided certain conditions are met. A contract related to the lease, financing, or purchase of residential property. What employers should do: Make sure new contracts do not have provisions requiring repayment upon an employee’s termination unless they fit within one of the exceptions above. Personnel Files Must Include Education and Training Records Labor Code 1198.5 is revised to require an employer who maintains education or training records in those records in the employee’s personnel file which include the following: The name of the employee. The name of the training provider. The duration and date of the training. The core competencies of a training, including skills in equipment or software. The resulting certification or qualification. What employers should do: If employers have training or education records for employees, ensure they are placed in the employee’s personnel file. In addition, employers should ensure that electronic personnel files include all documents and are properly maintained. Revisions to California’s Baby WARN Act In addition to the prior notice requirements, employers are now required to give notice of whether the employer plans to coordinate services, such as a rapid response orientation, through the local workforce development board, the employer plans to coordinate services through a different entity, or the employer does not plan to coordinate services with any entity. In addition, employers are required to include in the notice a description of the statewide food assistance program known as CalFresh. Regardless of whether the employer chooses to coordinate services with the local workforce development board or another entity, the employer shall include in the notice a functioning email and telephone number of the board and the following description of the rapid response activities offered by the local workforce development board, and specifically: “Local Workforce Development Boards and their partners help laid off workers find new jobs. Visit an America’s Job Center of California location near you. You can get help with your resume, practice interviewing, search for jobs, and more. You can also learn about training programs to help start a new career.” If the employer chooses to coordinate services with the local workforce development board or another entity, the employer shall arrange services within 30 days from the date of the notice. What employers should do: If employers have layoffs that trigger California’s WARN Act, they should ensure they provide the information above in the notices sent to employees. Failure to give proper notice would subject an employer to a violation of WARN because the penalties are significant. California’s Transparency in Frontier AI Act California’s Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA) is the first U.S. law specifically regulating frontier level AI systems. The law takes effect January 1, 2026, for covered developers. TFAIA creates the first U.S. regulatory framework specifically targeting developers of advanced, high-capacity AI models. While the law is aimed at AI developers, employers and their Human Resources representatives play a critical role because the Act requires organizational transparency, risk reporting, and safety processes for AI development and deployment. What employers must do: Ensure employees understand new responsibilities, documentation expectations, and escalation pathways and employers should review their AI practices. Determine Whether the Company Is a “Covered Developer” - Employers must determine whether the organization develops “foundation models” or “frontier models” as defined in the Act. - An employer is considered a “frontier developer” if you train or initiate training of a “frontier model,” which is defined as a model that is: (1) trained on a broad set of data, (2) designed for generality of output, and (3) can be adapted to a wide range of distinctive tasks. - A “large frontier developer” is a frontier developer whose entity (and its affiliates) had annual gross revenues exceeding US $500 million in the preceding calendar year. Large frontier developers are subject to additional obligations under the Act. Implementation of Mandatory Training Programs - Employers should develop training programs on compliance obligations, seek to define roles and responsibilities for safety reporting, and implement whistleblower protections aligned with the Act’s transparency goals. Training should cover the required documentation and transparency practices, how to identify and escalate safety concerns, and the ethical use of AI. Critical Safety Incident Reporting - A frontier developer must report “critical safety incidents.” The statute requires the company to establish a mechanism for submission by a frontier developer or member of the public. Internal Reporting & Whistleblower Channels - The Act emphasizes risk disclosure and public accountability for advanced AI systems. Employers must ensure employees know how to report safety issues or misuse, protect employees who raise concerns, and maintain documentation of reports and follow-up actions. Whistleblower Protections - Employees (“covered employees”) who assess, manage, or address frontier model risk are protected when they disclose: - a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety from a catastrophic risk - a violation of the chapter. Large frontier developers must: - Provide an anonymous internal reporting process for such disclosures. - Provide monthly updates to the whistleblower on the status of disclosure. If retaliation occurs, the burden shifts to the employer to show clear and convincing evidence that they would have taken the same action absent the disclosure. Practical Steps: - Update whistleblower policies to cover frontier AI risk disclosures. - Set up anonymous reporting channels (internal or third-party) - Train human resources, legal, and safety teams in handling such disclosures in line with the Act. Monitor Regulatory Updates & Enforcement Trends - Because SB 53 is the first law of its kind, enforcement of the Act will be unpredictable. Employers must regularly track guidance from California regulators, monitor similar legislation in other states, and prepare for potential federal alignment or preemption. California’s Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act California’s Transportation Network Company Drivers Labor Relations Act establishes a new labor relations framework for app-based rideshare and delivery drivers. Although drivers remain classified as independent contractors under Proposition 22, the Act creates collective representation or “union” rights, minimum labor standards, and new Human Resources compliance obligations for Transportation Network Companies (“TNC”). Note that this Act does not apply to drivers who are employees. The Act allows workers to form, join, and participate in the activities of driver organizations, to bargain through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of bargaining or other mutual aid protection. To participate, drivers must meet a "20 rides in six months" threshold to ensure a more established connection to the industry. Despite the new rights allowed to gig drivers, they continue to be classified as independent contractors under California law. What employers need to know: Drivers Have New Rights to Representation - The Act allows drivers to form or join Driver Representative Organizations (DROs), which can collectively advocate for drivers, participate in sector-wide “meet and confer” processes, and raise concerns about pay, safety, and working conditions. TNCs must treat these rights similarly to traditional labor relations protections. Anti-Retaliation Rules Apply - TNCs may not retaliate against drivers for joining or supporting a DRO, participating in collective discussions, or raising safety or working condition concerns. Further, the Act emphasizes certain unfair employer practices, including but not limited to failure to provide requested information, interfering with the organization or activities of, discouraging membership, blacklisting, coercing, or otherwise inappropriately engaging with certified driver bargaining organizations. TNCs must ensure that driver deactivation decisions are well documented, performance-related actions are consistent and non-discriminatory, and that no adverse employment action appears in the New Notice and Posting Requirements TNCs must ensure that drivers receive: Written notice of their rights under the Act, information about DROs, and instructions for filing complaints or participating in representation processes. These notices must be accessible in the driver app and be provided in the driver’s primary language. Within two weeks after the end of each calendar quarter, commencing with the quarter ending on March 31, 2026, each covered TNC shall submit the following items to the board: Driver’s name, driver’s license number, and, to the extent known by a TNC, the most recent email address, local residence and mailing addresses, cellular telephone number; and The TNC driver’s first date joining the platform and the number of rides the TNC driver completed in the previous six months, for each TNC driver who has completed at least 20 rides within the State of California within the prior six months to any “union” related protected activity. Further Implications TNCs must be careful to recognize potential protected activity and avoid statements that could be interpreted as discouraging representation. They must also take steps to handle drivers’ complaints neutrally and consistently. Given the nature of the new law and its structure, encouraging interaction between drivers and TNCs, TNCs can reasonably anticipate a sharp increase in driver inquiries, including inquiries about pay transparency and working conditions, and increased scrutiny of deactivation decisions. Drivers will also likely initiate requests for meetings or mediation, creating significantly more work for involved human resource professionals. A consistent, documented process will be essential to ensure compliance. New Ordinance in Los Angeles Effective December 1, 2025, Los Angeles hotel employers with 60 or more guest rooms must provide public housekeeping training of at least six hours on topics including: Hotel worker rights and employer responsibilities. Best practices for identifying and responding to suspected human trafficking, domestic violence, or violent or threatening conduct. Best practices for effective cleaning techniques to prevent the spread of disease. Best practices for identifying and avoiding insect or vermin infestations. Best practices for identifying and responding to the presence of other potential criminal activity. What employers should do: Employers in the City of Los Angeles who have a hotel with 60 or more rooms need to provide the above training to employees. The training must be provided by a certified trainer and the employer, must be 5 ½ hours in length and the employer must pay for the training. Delaware 2025 HS 1 for HB 55: An Act to Amend the Delaware Code Relating to Prohibited Discrimination on the Basis of Military Status Signed by the Governor 7/23/25 (effective immediately) – Adds “military status” as a basis for discrimination to state public accommodation, housing, insurance, education, and employment law. 19 Del. C. Ch. 37: Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program 12/1/25 - Paid Family and Medical Leave Act contributions to the program commence for employers with 10 or more employees. 2026 19 Del. C. Ch. 37: Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program 1/1/26 – Paid Family and Medical Leave Act became effective; employees may begin taking leave under the statute. 2027 HS 2 for HB 105: An Act to Amend Title 19 of the Delaware Code Relating to Employment Practices Signed by the Governor 9/26/25 (effective 9/26/27) – Creates 19 Del. C. 709C, Pay Transparency Act, mandating that employers disclose hourly/salary compensation range plus benefits description to all applicants for employment. Notable Pending Legislation SB 63 w/ SA 1: An Act to Amend Title 19 of the Delaware Code Relating to Labor Expands workplace fraud liability to all upstream prime and general contractors (and construction managers) for workplace fraud (misclassification of employees as independent contractors) violations by downstream contractors, regardless of privity of contract. Passed by Delaware House and Senate, vetoed by the Governor 8/28/25. Future status is uncertain. SB 197: An Act to Amend Title 14 And Title 29 Of the Delaware Code Relating to Project Labor Agreements for School Public Works Contracts Introduced 6/26/25 – Imposes union-only project labor agreements on all public and charter school construction. Likely illegal as pre-empted by NLRA. Future status is uncertain. 19 DE Admin. Code 1322: Proposed Amendments to Delaware Prevailing Wage Regulations Changes proposed but not promulgated due to considerable objections, various changes exceeding statutory authority, and numerous errors and omissions. Future status is uncertain. New York New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act, Amendments (Int. 780 A) Effective February 22, 2026, New York City amended the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (“ESSTA”) to require private employers of any size to provide all employees with 32 hours of frontloaded, unpaid safe and sick time that is available for use immediately upon hire and each calendar year thereafter. These hours are in addition to existing paid safe and sick time hours required under ESSTA. The amendment expands covered uses of leave to include caregiving needs by an employee “caregiver” for a minor child or defined “care recipient,” workplace violence-related needs for the employee or employee-caregiver for a family member, public disasters (e.g., workplace closures, shelter in place orders, school/childcare restrictions), and benefits and housing proceedings. Although no waiting period is permitted to be imposed, employers may set a minimum increment of up to four hours per workday and need not carry over unused unpaid hours. Employers are required to track paid and unpaid leave balances (e.g., on pay statements or other written documentation for each pay period). New York State Paid Prenatal Personal Leave, NYLL § 196-b(4-a) Effective January 1, 2025, New York requires that any private sector employee, regardless of employer size, working in the state be afforded at least 20 hours of paid prenatal personal leave in any 52-week period as part of the New York State Paid Sick Leave Law. This leave obligation, which amends NYLL § 196-b to add section 4-a, is separate from and in addition to the hours of safe and sick leave already required under NYLL § 196-b. Leave under NYLL § 196-b(4-a) may be used only by the pregnant employee for prenatal healthcare services such as medical appointments, exams, procedures, testing, monitoring, and fertility treatment. Employers cannot require employees to exhaust other accrued safe and sick leave first, and the 52-week period begins the first time the employee uses prenatal leave. If an employee separates from the employer, the employer has no obligation to pay the employee for unused paid prenatal leave hours. Notably, guidance issued by the New York Department of Labor states that spouses, partners, or other support persons are not eligible to use paid prenatal leave to attend prenatal appointments with a pregnant person. Employers should update their handbooks or create a standalone policy describing eligibility, covered uses, procedures to request leave, and an anti-retaliation provision. Employers should also update their payroll or paid time off tracking systems to comply with the requirement to separately track a prenatal leave balance. New York State Paid Prenatal Leave/FAQs New York City Paid Prenatal Personal Leave, NYC Admin Code § 7-216 Effective July 2, 2025, New York City amended the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Leave Law to add the same 20-hour paid prenatal leave requirement as added by New York State earlier in the year. The city law contains additional requirements beyond the State’s law, such that employers must provide a written notice on pay stubs detailing hours used and any remaining balance for each pay period, as well as specify that “reasonable” notice for foreseeable leave is at least 7 days and that “as soon as practicable” is the standard for unforeseeable leave. The City law further requires maintaining records of leave use, dates, and amounts for at least three years, and that employers distribute an updated “Notice of Employee Rights” to new and existing employees. New York State Right to Paid Prenatal Leave/FAQs New York City Lactation Accommodation, Local Law 109 (2014 109) Effective May 8, 2025, NYC Local Law 109 of 2024 amends the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), primarily codified in New York City Administrative Code § 8-107(1)(b), to modify the City’s existing lactation room and policy obligations, including that employers must physically and electronically post their lactation accommodation policy and the policy must acknowledge New York State law which provides 30 minutes of paid lactation break time per pumping session. Employees may use paid break or meal time for any additional needed time. NYC Commission on Human Rights Retail Worker Safety Act, NYLL §27-e Effective June 2, 2025, employers with ten or more retail employees must adopt a retail workplace violence prevention policy that is equivalent to the model policy or more protective and train all employees annually. Notice of training must be provided at each annual session. For retailers with 500 or more employees in New York State, silent response and panic buttons, as well as training on their use, are required in covered retail locations starting January 1, 2027. NY Department of Labor/Retail Worker Safety Expanded Mental Injury Coverage, Workers’ Compensation Law § 10(3) Effective January 1, 2025, New York amended the Workers’ Compensation Law § 10(3) to allow any worker to file a claim for a mental injury caused by extraordinary work-related stress. This amendment expands workers’ compensation coverage for mental injuries from extraordinary work-related stress beyond first responders to all workers. As of June 4, 2025, the Workers’ Compensation Board may not disallow a claim simply because the stress was not greater than normal workplace stress where the claim is for PTSD, acute stress disorder, or major depressive disorder premised on extraordinary work-related stress attributable to distinct work-related events and supported by medical evidence under the DSM criteria. The mental health condition can be a standalone claim and does not need to be tied to a physical injury. New York State Medical Treatment Guidelines Reproductive Health Decision-Making, NYLL § 203-e As of January 1, 2025, employers were again required to include a notice of employee rights and remedies under NYLL § 203-e in handbooks or as a standalone policy, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the prior injunction, which had eliminated the written notice requirement. There is no model policy available at present. Policies should thus be carefully crafted to note that the employer will not request or seek to access an employee’s personal information regarding the employee’s or the employee’s dependent’s reproductive health decision making, including but not limited to, the decision to use or access a particular drug, device, or medical service, without the employee’s prior informed affirmative written consent. The policy should include decisions to use contraception, fertility treatments, or other reproductive health services as covered reproductive health decision-making. A policy should also note that the employer will not discriminate or retaliate for these choices, and employees’ related medical information disclosed to the employer will remain confidential. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-22-01076/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-22-01076-0.pdf New York State COVID-19 Quarantine Paid Sick Leave New York’s COVID-19 quarantine/isolation paid sick leave mandate expired July 31, 2025. Employees may rely on the New York State Paid Sick Leave Law and, if applicable, the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Leave Law, for illness, diagnosis, treatment, or care for COVID-19, including COVID-related health conditions. Equal Rights Amendment to N.Y. Const. Art. I § 11 Effective January 1, 2025, the New York State Constitution’s equal protection clause prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy). Employers should revise EEO statements to list the new protected classes and consider EEO training refreshers referencing the constitutional amendment. Illinois Illinois has enacted several new laws effective January 1, 2026, impacting employment agreements, workplace practices, and employee rights. Workplace Transparency Act Amendments (HB 3638) These amendments expand protections for employees and contractors, covering all violations of state and federal employment laws, not just discrimination. Employers cannot impose unilateral contract terms that shorten statutes of limitations, apply non-Illinois law, require out-of-state venues, or restrict truthful disclosures or concerted activity. Confidentiality clauses in settlement or termination agreements must include separate consideration and cannot waive future concerted activity. What employers should do: Review and update all agreements, revise confidentiality provisions, and train HR and legal teams on compliance. Human Rights Act Amendments (HB 3773) Employers must not use AI in ways that discriminate based on protected classes or use zip codes as proxies. They must also notify employees when AI is used in employment decisions. What employers should do: Audit AI-driven hiring and decision-making systems, implement clear notification processes, and train HR and IT teams. Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act Amendments (SB 212) Employers must pay employees for lactation breaks at their regular rate and cannot require the use of paid leave for these breaks. What employers should do: Update break policies, adjust payroll systems, and communicate changes to staff. Blood and Organ Donation Leave Amendments (HB 1616) Part-time employees are now entitled to 10 days of organ donation leave, with pay calculated based on their average daily pay over the last two months. What employers should do: Revise leave policies and ensure payroll accuracy. Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act Amendments (HB 1278) Employers cannot retaliate against employees who use employer-issued devices to document domestic or gender-based violence. They must grant access to related information on those devices and post notices explaining employee rights. What employers should do: Update device-use policies, ensure proper notice postings, and train managers on retaliation prohibitions. Pennsylvania CROWN Act During this period, the most significant statewide development was the expansion of Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination framework through amendments to the Commonwealth’s CROWN Act, which became effective on January 24, 2026. These amendments expressly prohibit employment discrimination based on hair texture, protective hairstyles, and certain head coverings and hairstyles historically associated with religious creeds. The statute specifically identifies styles such as locs, braids, twists, coils, Bantu knots, afros, and extensions, making clear that appearance-based policies can no longer be justified where they disproportionately affect racial or religious groups. What employers should do: This change requires a careful reassessment of grooming standards, dress codes, and professionalism policies, as well as supervisor training to ensure that enforcement practices do not give rise to disparate treatment or disparate impact claims under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. Workplace Posting Requirements In early January 2026, Pennsylvania employers also became subject to a new workplace posting obligation aimed at increasing awareness of benefits available to veterans and their families. Effective January 3, 2026, employers with more than 50 full-time employees must post a notice prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry that outlines federal and state veterans’ benefits and services. The required posting includes contact information for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Crisis Line and county directors of veterans affairs. What employers should do: Although this change does not alter substantive employment rights, it adds a compliance obligation that employers must integrate into their standard posting practices, particularly those operating multiple worksites across the Commonwealth. Pittsburgh’s Paid Sick Days Act Amendments to Pittsburgh’s Paid Sick Days Act, effective January 1, 2026, increased the annual caps on paid sick leave accrual while maintaining the existing accrual rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked. Under the amended ordinance, employers with 15 or more employees must now permit employees to accrue and use up to 72 hours of paid sick leave per year, while smaller employers must allow accrual and use of up to 48 hours annually. What employers should do: These changes require Pittsburgh employers to update payroll systems, written leave policies, and employee handbooks. Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (HB 149) Effective January 1, 2026, Texas’s Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework governing anyone who conducts business in the state or develops or deploys AI systems for use in Texas. The Act adopts a broad, technology-neutral definition of artificial intelligence systems and assigns compliance responsibilities based on whether an entity develops or deploys such systems. More specifically, the Act prohibits the development or deployment of AI intended for social scoring or discriminatory purposes, imposes baseline duties on developers and deployers, and requires governmental entities to notify individuals when they interact with AI. It also preempts local AI regulations, vests exclusive enforcement authority with the Texas Attorney General, and creates both an Artificial Intelligence Council and a first‑in‑the‑nation regulatory sandbox to support supervised testing of AI innovations. What employers should do: Audit AI tools to ensure they are not developed or deployed for any prohibited intent, update internal policies to prohibit harmful or discriminatory AI uses, and train staff on compliance with the new legal standards. Amendments to Non-Compete SB 1318, amending SB 1318, amending Effective September 1, 2025, healthcare practitioner non-compete amendments take effect under SB 1318, amending Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 15.50 and adding Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 15.501. Under the amendments, non-compete agreements with physicians and other health care practitioners, including dentists, professional and vocational nurses, and physician assistants, must (1) allow the physician to buy out the non-compete for no more than the physician’s annual salary and wages at the time of terminating the contract or employment, (2) not last more than one-year post-termination, (3) be limited geographically to no more than five miles of the physician’s primary practice location, and (4) be clearly and conspicuously stated in writing. The statute further caps non-compete buy-outs at the employee’s salary. The amendments apply only to new or renewed agreements after the effective date. Trey’s Law, SB 835 Effective September 1, 2025, Texas’s Trey’s Law, Senate Bill 835 adding Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 129C.001 and 129C.002, voids and renders unenforceable non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements and provisions prohibiting a person from disclosing an act of sexual abuse or facts related to an act of sexual abuse. The law covers all civil cases for sexual assault, regardless of the victim’s age or when the abuse occurred. The law applies to agreements made before September 1, 2025, but enforcing prior NDAs will now require a court order. Other parts of settlement agreements, like the monetary amount, can remain confidential.
January 26, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
Actor Matthew McConaughey Registers Sensory Trademark “Alright, Alright, Alright” in Enforcement Effort Against AI Deepfakes
Well-known actor Matthew McConaughey has attracted headlines following the registration of a number of trademarks, not just related to brands with which he may be associated, but also those that address his pop-culture persona. Most interesting among these is McConaughey’s recent registration of the phrase "Alright, alright, alright," first uttered by the actor in the 1993 film Dazed and Confused, which has become strongly associated with the actor’s laid-back, Texas public image. McConaughey, however, has not only registered “Alright, Alright, Alright” as a trademark, but also as less common sensory marks. Sensory marks are trademarks that identify brands through senses other than just text or static logos. Well-known examples include the three-note (G-E-C) NBC Chimes, the MGM lion’s roar accompanying many well-known films, and the specific scent of Play-Doh. According to McConaughey’s legal team, the registration of these sensory marks and other recent registrations represents an attempt to enforce against the ever-increasing problem of AI-generated “deep fake” videos, in which celebrities or other well-known individuals are impersonated, in strikingly authentic fashion. The registration of “Alright, Alright, Alright,” (Reg. Nos. 7995951 and 8070191) as sensory marks, specifically, has the potential to represent a tactical shift in celebrity rights management. By securing federal trademark protection for the specific sound and motion of his delivery of the phrase, McConaughey attempts to move beyond the patchwork of state-level "right of publicity" laws. A federal trademark registration provides nationwide constructive notice of McConaughey’s ownership and creates a legal presumption that his distinct mannerisms and delivery of the phrase serve as source identifiers for the registered Class 09 goods and Class 41 entertainment services, which constitute his on-screen performance. In the context of AI, this allows his legal team to pursue infringement claims under the Lanham Act against entities using AI voice clones or deepfakes to endorse products. Unlike a right of publicity claim, which often requires proving the appropriation of one's "likeness," a trademark claim focuses on consumer confusion; specifically, whether an AI’s use of the catchphrase falsely suggests McConaughey’s sponsorship or approval. However, relying on trademark law to police AI has significant limitations. The primary hurdle is the "commercial use" requirement; trademark laws are designed to prevent consumer confusion in the marketplace, not to protect personal dignity. Consequently, this registration may be ineffective against non-commercial AI generations, such as artistic deepfakes, memes, or satire, which may be protected by the First Amendment or the doctrine of Fair Use. Ultimately, the scope of protection offered by these new registrations may be narrow. While McConaughey can now vigorously enforce against an AI creation saying “alright, alright, alright," this specific registration offers little recourse against an AI model mimicking his voice to say anything else. Infringers could potentially bypass this protection by simply creating AI content that avoids his registered catchphrases while still exploiting his vocal timbre and mannerisms. While this registration adds one weapon to his arsenal, it is likely a specific deterrent rather than a comprehensive shield against unauthorized digital exploitation.
January 26, 2026
Intellectual Property
Trademarks 101: What Business Advisors Need to Understand When Guiding Clients
As a business advisor, your role often involves helping clients make strategic decisions that affect their growth and risk profile. One area that frequently intersects with broader advisory issues is trademark law. While business advisors do not typically manage trademark filings or enforcement, understanding the fundamentals helps you identify when trademark considerations should be part of the conversation with your clients and when to involve legal professionals. Why Trademarks Matter in Advisory Contexts Trademarks are critical to brand identity and business value. They influence marketing strategies, product launches, and even transaction structures. For example, if a client is investing heavily in a new brand or entering new markets, trademark clearance and protection should be addressed early. Similarly, during mergers or acquisitions, trademark ownership and registration status can significantly affect valuation and deal terms. Recognizing Existing Rights and Risks Clients often assume they need to “get a trademark” or have formal registration to have trademark rights, but rights can arise through the use of a trademark in commerce – simply by selling products or rendering services under a trademark. Business advisors should be aware of this so they can flag potential issues — such as whether a client may already have rights in a brand name or whether a brand might risk infringing on someone else’s trademark. These are signals to recommend a legal review. Advantages of Trademark Registration Even though your clients have trademark rights from using a trademark, federal registration conveys many benefits, including nationwide rights, presumptive ownership, and easier enforcement on platforms like Amazon or TikTok Shop. It also enables recording with U.S. Customs to block counterfeit imports. Advisors should understand these benefits so they can guide clients to consider trademark registration when investing in brand development, expanding geographically, or entering online marketplaces. Trademark Risks in Broader Business Decisions Trademark conflicts can derail product launches or lead to costly litigation. When advising on branding, domain acquisitions, or marketing campaigns, advisors should ensure that trademark clearance is part of the planning process, typically by recommending a qualified trademark attorney. In M&A transactions, confirming trademark status and chain of custody is a key part of due diligence. Monitoring and Enforcement Trademark owners can lose or weaken their rights if they do not take steps to prevent third parties from infringing (whether willful or innocent) and from cybersquatting. Valuable brands should be monitored for these activities. But advisors should be aware that enforcement strategies can affect brand reputation. While cease-and-desist letters are common, tone matters; overly aggressive enforcement can lead to public backlash or legal counterclaims. This is another area where legal counsel should take the lead, but advisors can help clients weigh business risks and reputational considerations. Key Takeaways for Advisors For advisors, the most important takeaway is that trademarks should be viewed as a strategic asset, not just a legal technicality. Your clients are well-served if you can recognize when trademark issues intersect with business decisions and guide your clients toward qualified trademark counsel when warranted. By doing so, you can help clients protect their brands, avoid costly disputes, and strengthen the long-term value of their businesses.
January 26, 2026
Labor and Employment
Inclusive Holidays: Building Trust and Engagement at Work
With Lunar New Year falling on February 17 this year, employers have an opportunity to pause and think more broadly about how religious and cultural holidays are recognized in the workplace. Holiday inclusion is often treated as a year-end issue, but for many employees, meaningful observances occur well outside the traditional Western calendar. Lunar New Year is widely celebrated across East and Southeast Asian cultures and, for many individuals, carries deep cultural, familial, and sometimes religious significance. Employees may travel, participate in religious ceremonies, or spend extended time with family. When these observances are overlooked or misunderstood, employees can feel invisible or undervalued, even in otherwise well-intentioned workplaces. From an employment law perspective, holiday inclusion is not simply a morale issue. Federal and state anti-discrimination laws require employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would create an undue hardship. While Lunar New Year itself is often cultural rather than religious, requests for time off or schedule flexibility may still implicate accommodation obligations, particularly when tied to religious practice or long-standing traditions. Problems most often arise when holiday-related requests are handled inconsistently. Approving time off for some holidays but questioning others, or celebrating certain traditions while ignoring others, can expose employers to claims of disparate treatment. These risks are heightened when managers are left to make ad hoc decisions without clear guidance. Employers can reduce both legal exposure and employee frustration by focusing on flexibility and neutrality. Policies that allow employees to use floating holidays or personal time for observances that matter to them tend to work better than rigid holiday calendars. Clear communication and manager training are also critical so that requests tied to cultural or religious observance are handled thoughtfully and consistently. Workplace celebrations require similar care. Recognizing Lunar New Year can be positive, but only when done respectfully and without assumptions about who celebrates or how. Employees should never feel pressured to participate, explain their culture, or serve as informal ambassadors simply because of their background. As workforces continue to diversify, inclusive holiday practices increasingly function as both a compliance strategy and a culture building tool. Employees notice when their traditions are acknowledged and when they are ignored. Over time, those signals can affect engagement, retention, and trust. Lunar New Year serves as a useful reminder that inclusion does not require employers to recognize every holiday on the calendar. Instead, it requires systems that allow employees to observe what matters to them without friction or stigma. Thoughtful planning now can help employers support a diverse workforce while staying aligned with legal obligations throughout the year.
January 23, 2026
Business
New York’s LLC Transparency Act Now in Effect
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the New York Limited Liability Company Transparency Act (“NY LLCTA”) into law in December 2023. Under the NY LLCTA, covered companies became subject to certain new reporting requirements that became effective January 1, 2026. But the NY LLCTA today is far narrower than the drafters originally intended. The NY LLCTA was originally designed as a state-level version of the federal Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”). Both laws require certain companies to disclose to government agencies the identity of the individuals who own or control those companies. While the CTA requires federal filings, the NY LLCTA requires filings with the NY Department of State (“NY DOS”). The CTA is part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which became effective January 1, 2021, as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The CTA was enacted to combat money laundering, terrorism financing, human and drug trafficking, sanctions evasion, tax fraud, and other financial crimes. The CTA established beneficial owner information (“BOI”) reporting requirements for a wide range of legal entities nationwide. The NY LLCTA incorporates, by explicit reference, several provisions of the CTA. However, it applies only to limited liability companies formed in New York or qualified to do business in New York unless they fall within a range of specified exemptions (“Reporting LLCs”). The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in December 2024 dramatically narrowed the CTA’s requirements, excluding all companies formed in the U.S. FinCEN confirmed these changes in its Interim Final Rule on March 26, 2025. In response to the Interim Final Rule, NY’s legislature amended the NY LLCTA in 2025 to de-link the NY LLCTA to some extent from the CTA by broadening the coverage of the NY LLCTA to encompass nearly all LLCs formed or registered to do business in New York, whether domestic or foreign, unless exempt (S8432/A8662). However, NY Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed this bill on December 19, 2025. As a result, LLCs formed in New York or LLCs formed elsewhere in the U.S. and registered to do business in New York are currently not required to file BOI reports with the NY DOS. Unless the New York legislature overrides the Governor’s veto, only LLCs formed outside the U.S. and registered to do business in New York State now fall within the definition of Reporting LLCs. Under the NY LLCTA, (foreign) Reporting LLCs formed before January 1, 2026, are required to file initial reports (“BOI reports”) by no later than December 31, 2026. Reporting LLCs formed or qualified in New York State in 2026 or later are required to file initial BOI reports within 30 days after formation or qualification. All Reporting LLCs must file annual reports with the NY DOS disclosing their beneficial owners. The reports must disclose certain identifying information about each individual who exercises substantial control over or owns 25% or more of a Reporting LLC. Even exempt LLCs must file initial and annual attestations of exemption. This information will be available to government enforcement agencies but will not be publicly disclosed. The NY DOS has posted on its website beneficial ownership disclosure FAQs and beneficial owner disclosure exemptions. Offit Kurman will continue to monitor for any updates to the status of the NY LLCTA and the BOI reporting obligations.
January 23, 2026
Business
Starting a Business Made Simple: A Practical Toolkit
Starting a business is exciting — but it can also feel overwhelming when you’re faced with critical decisions and don’t know where to begin. This toolkit is a practical, step-by-step guide designed specifically for new entrepreneurs. From choosing the right business structure and securing permits to drafting essential agreements, this toolkit gives you the clarity and confidence to build a strong foundation for success. Ready to turn your vision into reality? Decide on the Best Business Structure Figure out which business structure is the best fit. Common choices are sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company (LLC), and corporation. This may mean consulting with an attorney and with an accountant about the different options, but each business structure has its pros and cons. It’s essential to understand the pros and cons, then weigh them before deciding how to structure the business. Make Sure the Business Entity is Set Up Correctly Be aware of the requirements for forming corporate entities to ensure the business is properly set up. In some states, there may be publication requirements. For instance, in New York, a limited liability company must publish a notice within 120 days of the initial articles of organization becoming effective, as follows: “published once in each week for six successive weeks, in two newspapers of the county in which the office of the limited liability company is located, one newspaper to be printed weekly and one newspaper to be printed daily.” These requirements may be burdensome, but it’s important to follow them. In New York, a court may pause a case if the company is not properly formed and therefore cannot bring its claims against the defendant. Research the Licenses or Permits Needed for the Business Licensing and permitting can be tricky. Fortunately, many cities and states have set up portals or guides to help you determine whether your business requires a permit or a license to operate in the city or state. If you are operating a business in a niche area, however, it may take additional research to find concrete answers to whether your business needs a license or permit. Research the Tax Obligations for the Business There may be federal, state, and local taxes that apply to the business. The United States Small Business Administration is an excellent resource for starting that process, but conferring with an accountant and tax attorney may help to provide a more comprehensive understanding of those tax requirements. Be Thoughtful When Anyone Else Begins Working for the Business If that person is an employee, there are wage and hour laws, anti-discrimination laws, and other laws that apply. If you don’t want that person to be an employee, you should have an agreement in place that clarifies the relationship (and make sure you know any other legal requirements such as whether the person is an independent contractor). Particularly when a small business is just getting started and the first people working there are friends or family members, having written agreements with them seems too formal and unnecessary. In the early stages, everyone may have a clear understanding of how they fit into the business, and there isn’t room for disagreements. But as the business grows, those understandings may change, and conflicts may arise. When there’s a conflict like that, the business may be vulnerable without a written agreement clarifying the terms of the person’s involvement. Put Written Contracts in Place with Everyone You Do Business With Many businesses initially rely on phone calls or face-to-face conversations to get things done. That informal way of doing business may seem acceptable since the business is just beginning, but such discussions can lead to problems, misunderstandings, and leave the business without any legal remedies. Whenever there is a relationship between your business and others, it is essential to have an agreement in writing—even if it’s just an email or text message exchange. Conclusion By laying a solid foundation — choosing the right structure, meeting legal requirements, understanding obligations, and putting clear agreements in place — new entrepreneurs can avoid early pitfalls and focus on building a strong, sustainable business.
January 22, 2026
M&A Nuggets
M&A Nugget: Qualified Small Business Stock Update
In 1993, Congress passed a tax law intended to incentivize entrepreneurs to invest in early-stage companies. This tax law, often referred to as QSBS (Qualified Small Business Stock) allows stockholders to exclude from tax a substantial portion of the gain on certain business sales structured as stock sales. Last year, the law was amended to expand tax savings. Here is how the QSBS tax exemption works: If a stockholder holds shares of stock issued initially and currently held in a C corporation, and The shares of stock have been owned for at least three years, and The corporation has assets of less than $50M or $75M (depending on the year the stock was acquired), and At least 80% in value of the corporation’s assets are used in the active conduct of a “qualified trade or business”, then When stock is sold in a business sale, between 50% and 100% of the gain can be excluded from tax. A “qualified trade or business” means any trade or business, except certain service businesses (usually involving the rendering of professional services), banking and insurance businesses, and certain real estate-related businesses. The most significant change in 2025’s QSBS amendment was to increase the amount of gain that can be excluded from tax. For stock issued before July 4, 2025, the maximum exclusion is $10M. For stock issued on or after July 4, 2025, the maximum exclusion increases to $15M. The tax savings can be substantial. For example, on the sale of a business in a stock transaction for $20M, if the original ownership was acquired before July 4, 2025, $10M can be excluded from federal tax (as long as the stock was held for at least five years), resulting in tax savings in excess of $2M. Planning Opportunity A stockholder that is not a corporation is eligible for the QSBS. This includes individuals and trusts and presents an extraordinary planning opportunity for an individual to create a trust to hold a portion of the company’s ownership. If the trust is structured as a separate taxpayer, the individual and the trust can each take advantage of the QSBS tax exemption. Many strict requirements must be satisfied to qualify for the QSBS, and anyone considering use of this tax law should engage a professional advisor who has experience with those requirements.
January 22, 2026
Landlord Representation
2025 Fair Housing Trends Report: What We’re Seeing and Why It Matters
The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) is the nation’s largest nonprofit fair housing organization, leading investigations, enforcement, advocacy, and research to advance equal housing opportunity. It processes the majority of fair housing complaints nationwide and plays a significant role in shaping enforcement priorities. Each year, the NFHA publishes a comprehensive report on housing discrimination. It does this by drawing on data reported by private fair housing organizations, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), state and local Fair Housing Assistance Programs (FHAP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). For housing providers and industry professionals, NFHA’s work provides a key indicator of current and emerging fair housing risks. The National Fair Housing Alliance’s newly released 2025 Fair Housing Trends Report offers one of the clearest empirical studies of how housing discrimination is showing up across the country. The newest data — based on 2024 complaints — reveals patterns, notable shifts, and emerging risk factors that could shape compliance, risk management, and enforcement strategies for housing providers, property managers, and compliance teams. Below are the central themes revealed in the 2025 Report. Overall Context and Complaint Volume In 2024, a total of 32,321 fair housing complaints were reported across the United States—a figure consistent with recent high levels of discrimination filings over the past 10 years. NFHA contends that these complaints may reflect only a portion of the actual discriminatory conduct, citing reporting barriers and challenges in detecting discrimination. Although federal agencies receive substantial attention, the majority of complaints are handled by private, nonprofit fair housing organizations. In 2024, these private entities processed roughly 74% of the complaints filed, significantly outpacing federal and state agencies. HUD accounted for about 4.85%, FHAP agencies about 20%, and the DOJ approximately 0.14% of complaints. This breakdown underscores the shifting enforcement landscape, reduced involvement, and reduced funding from federal agencies. What Types of Complaints Are Most Common? Disability Remains the Leading Complaint Disability discrimination continued as the most frequently alleged basis, accounting for more than 17,600 complaints (54.59%) in 2024. This continues a longstanding trend. These complaints are often driven by issues such as refusal to grant reasonable accommodations, physically inaccessible housing features, or refusals to modify policies for disabled tenants. Race, National Origin, Sex, and Retaliation Race, national origin, and sex were significant sources of complaints, accounting for 28% of all filings. Perhaps unsurprisingly, national origin complaints rose, which may reflect demographic shifts or emerging language access issues in communities across the country. Another striking development was the rise in retaliation complaints, which more than doubled. The National Fair Housing Alliance notes that many incidents that may have been coded as harassment in prior years are now being reported as retaliation. In addition, complaints based on familial status, color, and religion continue to appear, however, with much less frequency – accounting for (collectively) only 9% of all complaints. Locally Protected Classes: Rates Surging Interestingly, NFHA’s “Other” category accounted for 18% of all complaints filed in 2024, outpacing every other category except for disability. This “other” category comprises protected classes covered by state or local law (and not included among the seven federally protected classes). According to NFHA’s reporting, the other categories include (listed in order of prevalence of complaints): source of income, retaliation, age or student status, criminal background, victims of domestic violence, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, marital status, military status, and immigration status/citizenship. This highlights the importance of housing providers closely tracking protected classes in their jurisdictions and ensuring compliance with state and local fair housing regulations. This is particularly true given that we are seeing enforcement handled overwhelmingly by private or local fair housing agencies and not by governmental agencies. Geographic Patterns Around 36% of complaints were filed on the West Coast and the Pacific Northwest (11,796 complaints in HUD Regions 9 & 10). Around 30% of complaints (approximately 9,920) originated out of HUD Regions 1-4 on the East Coast (e.g., Florida to Maine). The reminder arose out of the central United States. However, the vast majority of those complaints (over 63%) are from Region 5 (e.g., Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota). That leaves very few coming from HUD Regions 6, 7, and 8 (about 11% of the national complaints filed). While disability discrimination dominates across all regions, the geographic distribution of other complaint types reveals meaningful shifts. States such as California, Michigan, Oregon, and Pennsylvania saw some of the largest increases in national origin complaints. These regional trends may reflect demographic changes, linguistic barriers, tenant-screening practices, and varying state and local protections that interact with federal fair housing law. Enforcement Outcomes: What Drives Action? Although the report does not label any category as “most successful,” the types of complaints that most frequently lead to findings, charges, settlements, or other enforcement action continue to be: Disability-related cases, including failures to provide reasonable accommodations and accessibility violations Retaliation, which has become more visible and more frequently substantiated Appraisal discrimination, an emerging area where complaints rose among private organizations HUD and FHAP agencies together issued 471 “cause" determinations or charges in 2024. The DOJ filed 44 cases, including significant actions involving sexual harassment in housing, discriminatory zoning decisions, lending discrimination, and accessibility issues. Many of these resulted in substantial monetary relief and mandated policy changes. Which Housing Sectors Generate the Most Complaints? Rental housing continues to dwarf all other categories. In 2024, more than 27,000 complaints — over 83% of all fair housing complaints — stemmed from rental housing transactions. This category has dominated for years and continues to be the most common source of discrimination complaints. Sales, mortgage lending, homeowners insurance, and appraisals make up much smaller slices of activity. Still, certain areas are gaining attention, especially appraisal discrimination and complaints involving homeowners associations (HOAs) and condominium associations. Systemic Issues Identified in this Year’s Report Funding Instability In February 2025, HUD terminated 78 Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants — valued at more than $30 million in active funding — before litigation forced the agency to reverse course. Although some funding was reinstated, long-term consequences are likely if the enforcement system continues to lose capacity. High Monetary Costs The DOJ secured approximately $50 million in monetary relief during 2024. Cases included sexual harassment settlements, disability discrimination findings, zoning-related race discrimination, and accessibility violations. Several individual outcomes exceeded $500,000, and one settlement exceeded $38 million. Growing Backlogs Both HUD and FHAP agencies continue to struggle with “aged” cases — those pending for well beyond the 100-day timeline. By the end of 2024: HUD had more than 2,600 aged cases, and FHAP agencies had more than 8,100 aged cases. These delays leave tenants, property managers, and housing providers waiting months (or years) for resolution. Increasing Algorithmic and Technology-Driven Risks Artificial intelligence (AI) – powered systems — including tenant-screening software, dynamic pricing tools, and automated appraisal technologies — are introducing bases for discrimination complaints. Many of these tools operate as opaque, “black box” systems that housing providers may rely on without understanding potential fair housing implications. NFHA suggests that algorithmic discrimination may be one of the most serious emerging threats in the housing market. Bottom Line: What This Means for 2025 and Beyond The NFHA’s 2025 Trends Report delivers a clear message: fair housing enforcement mechanisms remain strained. For multifamily owners, managers, developers, and legal professionals, the implications are clear: Disability-based issues remain the most significant area of exposure National origin and retaliation complaints are rising and deserve attention Algorithmic tools used for tenant screening, pricing, and marketing should be carefully reviewed for compliance gaps Enforcement actions involving appraisals, HOAs, and accessibility will likely continue to grow Ultimately, this report underscores the ongoing need for proactive fair housing compliance, rigorous documentation, and thoughtful risk management as discrimination risks evolve in both traditional and technology-driven contexts.
January 21, 2026
Labor and Employment
The EEOC’s New Posture on DEI Under Chair Andrea Lucas: What Executives and Corporate Counsel Need to Know
The landscape of workplace civil rights enforcement is shifting — and fast. With Andrea Lucas now serving as Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), organizations should expect a markedly different approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. EEOC Chair Lucas has long expressed concerns that many DEI programs, as commonly implemented, cross the line into unlawful employment discrimination. Recent public statements and actions by the EEOC under her leadership make clear that this is no longer a theoretical stance — it is now an enforcement priority. A New Enforcement Philosophy: “Colorblind” Civil Rights Compliance Public reporting indicates that Lucas has consistently advocated for what she describes as a “colorblind” approach to civil rights enforcement, arguing that some DEI initiatives risk unlawful “reverse discrimination”. She has also emphasized heightened scrutiny of practices that classify or treat employees differently based on protected characteristics — even when the stated purpose is to advance diversity. This represents a significant departure from the more permissive posture many organizations have relied on in designing DEI programs over the past decade. Recent EEOC Actions Signal a Clear Direction In March 2025, the EEOC — under Lucas’s leadership as then-temporary Chair — sent letters to 20 major law firms requesting detailed information about their DEI related employment practices. The letters expressed concern that certain DEI programs may involve: Unlawful disparate treatment in hiring, promotion, or compensation Limiting or segregating employees based on protected traits Classifying employees in ways that could violate Title VII This is one of the most direct and public signals to date that the EEOC intends to scrutinize DEI programs not only in theory but in practice. Statements by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas in Her Recent Reuters Interview Recent reporting from Reuters provides the most transparent window yet into Andrea Lucas’s enforcement philosophy and her expectations for corporate DEI programs. In her December 2025 interview with Reuters, Lucas made several notable statements that senior executives and corporate counsel should pay close attention to: DEI Programs Are Facing a “Reckoning” Lucas told Reuters that federal inquiries into corporate DEI programs are already underway and represent a “major shift in civil rights enforcement” under the current administration. A Shift Toward a More Conservative Interpretation of Civil Rights Law Lucas described her approach as “a more conservative view of civil rights,” emphasizing that the EEOC will prioritize cases involving discrimination against any protected group — including white men. This signals a significant pivot from prior enforcement patterns. Explicit Warning That DEI Programs Using Protected Traits May Be Unlawful According to Reuters reporting, Lucas warned that DEI initiatives that explicitly use race, sex, or other protected characteristics as “motivating factors” in employment decisions could violate Title VII and face enforcement action. Lucas expressed concern that many corporate DEI programs may cross the line into unlawful disparate treatment, even when the intent is remedial or inclusion‑focused. Enforcement Actions Are Already in Motion Lucas confirmed that the EEOC has already begun federal inquiries into corporate DEI practices, signaling that this is not merely a policy stance but an active enforcement priority. What This Means for Employers For senior executives and corporate legal counsel, the implications are significant. The EEOC’s new posture does not prohibit DEI efforts — but it greatly restricts the use of commonly implemented DEI efforts and does require a recalibration of how those efforts are structured, documented, and communicated. Key Risk Areas Organizations should pay particular attention to: Hiring or promotion goals tied to specific demographic categories. These may be interpreted as quotas or preferential treatment. Programs limited to certain protected groups. Even well‑intentioned initiatives (e.g., leadership programs for women or minorities) may be scrutinized for exclusionary effects. Use of demographic data in ways that influence employment decisions. Lucas has signaled concern about any practice that treats demographic characteristics as determinative factors. Supplier diversity requirements that impose demographic criteria. These may also fall within the scope of EEOC review. Strategic Steps for Organizations Executives and counsel should consider the following actions: Conduct a Privileged Audit of DEI Programs Review all DEI initiatives — hiring programs, mentorships, leadership pipelines, public statements, web pages, recruiting and marketing literature, supplier diversity, and training — to identify potential disparate‑treatment risks. Reframe DEI Around Compliance‑Safe Principles Focus on:Equal opportunity Barrier removal Inclusive culture Skills-based hiring Broad outreach and recruitment These approaches align with Title VII and avoid the pitfalls of demographic preferences. Ensure Documentation Reflects Legally Defensible Intent Policies, training materials, and internal communications should emphasize:Nondiscrimination Equal treatment Voluntary participation Business‑driven rationales Prepare for Potential EEOC Inquiries Given the agency’s recent outreach to law firms, other industries may be next. Organizations should be ready to respond quickly and accurately to information requests. The Bottom Line Andrea Lucas’s recent statements to Reuters confirm a decisive shift in the EEOC’s approach to DEI. The agency is moving from passive observation to active enforcement. Organizations that proactively align their DEI programs with Title VII’s equal‑treatment framework will be best positioned to mitigate regulatory and litigation risk.
January 20, 2026
Labor and Employment
Power, Proof, and Perception in the Blake Lively–Justin Baldoni Litigation
This blog provides an update on the ongoing litigation involving Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. If the original blog explored how this case began, this chapter is about what it has become. Some lawsuits resolve disputes, and there are lawsuits that reveal systems. The litigation between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni belongs squarely in the latter category. What began as a conflict arising out of the production of It Ends With Us has become a slow-moving but oddly illuminating seminar on how modern employment law operates when the workplace is glamorous, the parties are famous, and the stakes extend well beyond liability. At a distance, this case is often flattened into a familiar cultural shorthand. Two celebrities. Competing narratives. A public eager to assign heroes and villains before the pleadings have even settled. Up close, however, the litigation is far more interesting and far less cinematic. It is not about grand gestures or dramatic revelations. It is about burden shifting, evidentiary texture, and the unromantic mechanics of proving what the law actually requires rather than what public opinion might prefer. Lively’s claims are rooted in doctrinally orthodox territory. Hostile work environment and retaliation are not exotic causes of action, even in Hollywood. What complicates matters is not the legal framework but the context in which it must be applied. Film sets are workplaces that market intimacy, emotional exposure, and creative vulnerability as professional virtues. That does not exempt them from employment law, but it does make line-drawing more delicate. Conduct that might be clearly inappropriate in a corporate office can appear, at least superficially, normalized when wrapped in the language of art and collaboration. Juries are asked to navigate that ambiguity without losing sight of the legal question, which is not whether the environment was intense or uncomfortable, but whether it crossed a legally cognizable threshold. This is where the case becomes less about personalities and more about proof. Severity and pervasiveness are not abstract concepts. They are constructed through accumulation. Frequency. Context. Reaction. Silence or objection. Response or indifference. The text messages and communications that have emerged through discovery are legally interesting not because they are personal, but because they are contemporaneous. They are the breadcrumbs juries are trained to follow when reconstructing intent and impact long after the moment has passed. Baldoni’s defense strategy reflects a sophisticated understanding of those dynamics. His posture has not been limited to denial. Instead, it has focused on reframing. Recharacterizing interactions as misread. Suggesting that objections were unclear or retrospective. Implicitly arguing that what the plaintiff experienced as coercive or hostile was, in fact, part of a fraught but mutual creative process. This is not an argument that misconduct never occurs. It is an argument that ambiguity exists, and in civil litigation, ambiguity can be a powerful ally. The brief countersuit, though procedurally unsuccessful, fits neatly within that strategy. Its real value was never doctrinal. It was narrative. It signaled resistance rather than retreat and attempted to reposition reputational harm as a two-way street. Courts can dispatch weak claims with relative ease. Jurors, however, carry impressions with them long after motions are denied. Litigation is as much about what lingers as what survives. The retaliation component of the case may ultimately prove more consequential than the underlying harassment claims. Retaliation law is less concerned with tone and more with timing. It asks whether adverse consequences followed protected activity and whether those consequences can be explained without resort to post hoc rationalization. In industries where decisions are informal and documentation is sparse, that inquiry can quickly become uncomfortable. Silence, in these cases, is rarely neutral. Hovering over all of this is the court’s increasingly difficult task of managing relevance in an era of celebrity saturation. Discovery disputes over third-party anonymity and sealing are not merely procedural housekeeping. They reflect a more profound anxiety about what happens when litigation escapes the courtroom and becomes cultural content. The law presumes openness for good reason, but it was not designed for cases where relevance is routinely conflated with notoriety. Judges are left to perform a delicate balancing act while everyone else watches for entertainment. What makes this case compelling is not the promise of a dramatic verdict, but the way it exposes the friction between legal standards and human storytelling. Employment law is intentionally unsentimental. It reduces experience to elements and burdens and asks factfinders to be disciplined in their empathy. Celebrity culture, by contrast, thrives on immediacy, identification, and moral clarity. When the two collide, neither emerges entirely intact. By the time this case reaches a jury, if it does, much will already have been decided in quieter ways. In discovery conferences. In evidentiary rulings. In how jurors are primed to interpret ambiguity. And perhaps in how the industry itself recalibrates its tolerance for informality masquerading as creativity. This lawsuit will not end Hollywood’s reckoning with power or fix the uneasy relationship between art and accountability. The law is not built for that kind of closure. What it can do, and what this case is already doing, is force a conversation about what workplaces owe their employees, even when the workplace happens to come with a red carpet. What is perhaps most striking about this litigation is how little of it turns on dramatic moments and how much of it turns on endurance. Employment cases of this kind rarely win with a single revelation. They win through accumulation. Through patience. Through the unglamorous discipline of discovery, motion practice, and evidentiary framing. In that sense, the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni case is an unusually pure illustration of how civil law actually functions when stripped of narrative shortcuts. The public tends to assume that credibility is something a party either has or lacks. Courts know better. Credibility is constructed incrementally through consistency, corroboration, and the absence of convenient revision. It is shaped as much by what parties do when no one is watching as by what they say once litigation begins. That is why contemporaneous documentation looms so large here, and why informal industries often find themselves at a disadvantage once formality is imposed retroactively by a lawsuit. Film production culture has long relied on trust, improvisation, and professional intimacy as operating norms. Those norms are not inherently unlawful, but they are legally fragile. They assume good faith, mutual understanding, and aligned incentives. Litigation, by contrast, assumes none of those things. It assumes conflict, misinterpretation, and self-interest. When a dispute moves from the set to the courtroom, the cultural currency of collaboration is abruptly converted into the legal currency of proof. Not all industries make that exchange gracefully. This case also illustrates the quiet but significant role of institutions that never appear in the caption. Insurers, production companies, distributors, and financiers are watching closely, not for moral lessons but for risk signals. They are asking whether existing safeguards are sufficient, whether reporting mechanisms function in practice, and whether informal authority structures create exposure that contracts alone cannot neutralize. These are not abstract questions. They affect underwriting decisions, contractual provisions, and the degree of oversight studios are willing to impose on creative leads who have historically operated with broad discretion. There is, too, a cautionary tale here about the limits of reputational self-help through litigation. Aggressive narrative counteroffensives may satisfy an immediate impulse to respond, but they also lengthen disputes and deepen entanglement. The longer litigation persists, the less control any party has over how they are perceived. The law does not reward eloquence. It rewards coherence. And it is remarkably indifferent to whether a party feels misunderstood. For lawyers, this case is a reminder that celebrity does not simplify litigation. It complicates it. Famous clients are scrutinized differently by jurors, judges, and adversaries alike. Their communications are read with suspicion. Their motives are interrogated. Their silence is rarely interpreted as restraint. Representing them requires not just technical competence but also strategic restraint and a tolerance for ambiguity, which can be difficult to maintain under public pressure. For workplaces, particularly creative ones, the lesson is not that informality must disappear, but that it must be bounded. Clarity, documentation, and meaningful response mechanisms are not bureaucratic intrusions. They are legal insulation. They protect not only employees but also leadership by ensuring that disputes are addressed early, internally, and with a record that reflects intent rather than reconstruction. And for observers tempted to treat this case as entertainment, it offers a quieter but more durable insight. The law is not a referendum on character. It is a method for resolving disputes under conditions of uncertainty. It does not promise catharsis. It promises a process. When we mistake one for the other, we misunderstand both. As this case continues its methodical progress toward trial, it will likely generate more headlines, more commentary, and more attempts to distill it into a morality play. That impulse is understandable. It is also misleading. The real work of this litigation is happening in places that do not trend. In conference rooms. In discovery disputes. In evidentiary rulings that shape what a jury will ultimately be allowed to hear. That is where outcomes are decided. Quietly. Incrementally. Without a soundtrack. Again, while the original blog examined the origins of this case, this chapter focuses on how the matter has evolved and what it has now become. Not a scandal, but a study. Not a spectacle, but a process. And for anyone interested in how the law actually mediates power, creativity, and accountability, it is a study worth paying attention to.
January 16, 2026
Family Law
New York Medical Aid in Dying Will Become Law After Decade-Long Debate
After more than a decade of legislative debate, New York is poised to join a growing number of jurisdictions recognizing a terminally ill patient’s right to medical aid in dying. Governor Kathy Hochul recently reached an agreement with the New York State Senate on the Medical Aid in Dying Act (“MAID”), clearing the final obstacles to enactment. The bill, which had already passed the Assembly following a lengthy and emotional debate, will be signed into law later this month with agreed-upon amendments and will take effect six months after signing. Once implemented, New York will become the eleventh U.S. state, along with the District of Columbia, to codify medical aid in dying for eligible terminally ill adults. Overview of the Medical Aid in Dying Act The MAID Act permits mentally competent adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less to receive a prescription for life-ending medication. Eligibility is conditioned on strict procedural safeguards designed to ensure voluntariness, capacity, and the absence of coercion. A qualifying patient must personally request medical aid in dying both in writing and orally. Two physicians must independently confirm the terminal diagnosis, prognosis, and the patient’s capacity to make an informed decision. While terminal diagnosis and prognosis are generally clinical determinations, assessments of capacity have historically been among the most contested issues in New York health care and elder law. The law also requires that the request be witnessed by two individuals. Certain parties are expressly prohibited from serving as witnesses, including relatives, individuals entitled to inherit from the patient, health care facility employees, treating physicians, and the patient’s health care proxy or agent under a power of attorney. Additional Guardrails Agreed Upon by the Governor and Legislature As originally passed, the MAID Act included multiple protections for patients and health care providers, including provisions ensuring that participation is voluntary for both physicians and religiously affiliated institutions. As part of the Governor’s agreement with legislative leadership, a series of additional guardrails will be enacted to further safeguard patient autonomy and ensure responsible implementation. These additional protections include a mandatory five-day waiting period between the issuance and filling of a prescription for life-ending medication and a requirement that a patient’s oral request be recorded by video or audio. The agreement also mandates a mental health evaluation by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist for all patients seeking medical aid in dying. To further guard against undue influence, the law will prohibit anyone who may benefit financially from a patient’s death from serving as a witness or interpreter to the oral request. Medical aid in dying will be limited to New York residents, and the initial physician evaluation must be conducted in person. Religiously oriented home hospice providers will be permitted to opt out of offering medical aid in dying altogether. The agreement also clarifies enforcement, specifying that violations of the statute constitute professional misconduct under the New York Education Law. The six-month delayed effective date is intended to give the Department of Health time to promulgate implementing regulations and allow healthcare facilities to develop compliant policies, procedures, and staff training. Implications and Ongoing Debate Supporters of the MAID Act argue that it provides a compassionate option for terminally ill individuals seeking autonomy and dignity at the end of life. Advocacy organizations point to polling indicating broad public support among New Yorkers. Opponents, including certain religious and disability rights groups, continue to raise concerns about potential pressure on vulnerable populations and the broader ethical implications of physician-assisted death. Although enactment of the MAID Act represents a significant shift in New York law, it is unlikely to settle the debate. Questions surrounding end-of-life decision-making, professional responsibility, and the role of government in matters of life and death will continue to evolve as the law is implemented and tested in practice.
January 16, 2026
Labor and Employment
Cannabis in the Workplace: From Stigma to Acceptance
The recent federal policy shift, marked by Executive Order 14370: Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research, reflects not only a legal development but also a broader cultural transformation. Cannabis is increasingly viewed less as a dangerous narcotic and more like alcohol — a substance that, while legal in many contexts, still requires responsible use. This evolving perception influences employee attitudes and expectations, making it critical for employers to reassess how they approach cannabis in the workplace. While cannabis remains classified as illegal under federal law, many employer obligations are driven by state and local law, where legalization and employee protections continue to develop. For employers not subject to federal contractor requirements or safety-sensitive regulations, the challenge lies in addressing impairment without overreaching into lawful off-duty conduct. This is where the alcohol analogy becomes especially useful. Most organizations do not prohibit employees from having a glass of wine at home; they prohibit being intoxicated at work. A similar framework can apply to cannabis. Rather than banning all use, employers can focus on what truly matters: performance, safety, and productivity. Policies can prohibit use during work hours, impairment on the job, and conduct that compromises workplace safety, while respecting employees’ lawful off-duty choices. However, employees should understand that while cannabis may be legal and more socially accepted, being impaired at work is never acceptable. Employers should review their drug and alcohol policies to ensure they reflect both legal requirements and company values. Consider whether a zero-tolerance approach aligns with your operational needs, or whether a policy modeled on alcohol use – prohibiting on-duty use and impairment – makes more sense. Managers should be trained to recognize signs of impairment and respond consistently and objectively. Because cannabis laws vary widely by jurisdiction, consulting legal counsel before implementing changes remains essential. Thoughtful policy design allows employers to manage risk effectively while acknowledging the reality of a rapidly changing legal and cultural landscape.
January 15, 2026
Real Estate
Delaware Real Estate Closings: Why Delaware Attorneys Are Always Required
Contrary to just about every jurisdiction in the country, all real estate settlements for real property located within the State of Delaware must be performed by a Delaware-licensed attorney. The Delaware Supreme Court has determined that nearly all aspects of a real estate transaction constitute as the practice of law. Therefore, every real estate settlement — whether residential or commercial, purchase or refinance — must be conducted by a Delaware-licensed attorney. Anyone not a Delaware-licensed attorney performing these services is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and is subject to sanctions. The practice of law, as defined in Delaware, “occurs where there is an exercise of judgment on a legal matter by someone acting in a representative capacity.” Delaware State Bar Association v. Alexander, Del. Supr., 386 A.2d 652, 661 (Del.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 808 (1978). The basis for Delaware attorneys’ requirement to perform all real estate settlements derives from the case of In the Matter of: Mid-Atlantic Settlement Servs., et al. 755 A. 2d 389 (Del. 2000) (commonly referred to as “Mid-Atlantic). On September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of Delaware approved the report and recommendations of the Delaware Board on Professional Responsibility, which determined as follows: An attorney licensed to practice law in Delaware is required to conduct a closing of a sale of Delaware real property. An attorney licensed to practice law in Delaware is required to conduct a closing of a refinancing loan secured by Delaware real property. An attorney licensed to practice law in Delaware is required to be involved in a direct or supervisory capacity in drafting or reviewing all documents affecting transfer of title to Delaware real property or where Delaware real property is used as security for the repayment of a debt or the performance of an obligation, with the exception of home equity loans in which the lender is acting in a pro se capacity and no evaluation of exceptions to title is required. The participation of an attorney licensed to practice law in Delaware is necessary in evaluating the legal rights and obligations of the parties, representing the buyer in examining the title and removing exceptions to the title, supervising the disbursement of funds, and responding to questions concerning the legal effect of documents and ramifications of a transaction by which title to Delaware real property is transferred or where Delaware real property is used as security for the repayment of a debt or the performance of an obligation, with the exception of home equity loans in which the lender is acting, in a pro se capacity and no evaluation of exceptions to title is required. Subsequent to Mid-Atlantic, the question arose whether Delaware attorneys could perform “witness only” closings, in which the Delaware attorney was present for the signing of the documents and to answer questions, while the rest of the transaction was performed by non-lawyers. The main issue is whether attorneys are required to perform disbursements. On September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of Delaware approved the report and recommendations of the Delaware Board on Professional Responsibility, finding that attorneys must directly supervise the disbursement of funds from real estate transactions pursuant to Rule 1.15(A) trust accounts. According to the report, attorneys who allow title companies or other third parties to disburse settlement funds are engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and could face sanctions.
January 15, 2026
Construction
Practical Steps to Take When a Schedule or Time Impact Dispute Arises
Construction projects are frequently delayed and take longer than originally anticipated. When a project is delayed, claims often arise for liquidated damages, delays, disruptions, and cost overages. Here are a few practical considerations for where to start when organizing your time impact dispute. Start with the Schedule Often, litigants immediately send threatening letters regarding costs, claims, losses, blame, etc.; however, it is best to start with a clear understanding of the delay as shown on the schedule. To do so, your project manager, attorney, and any expert consultant should start by reviewing key, fundamental information. Was there a written contract with a completion date or milestone deadlines? Were those deadlines extended by already approved change orders or extensions of time? Did the contract have a baseline schedule? Was the project schedule updated throughout the project? Were there updated as-built schedules (showing the work durations, as actually performed), as well as updated projected schedules for the work yet to be completed? Are the schedules available in the native software format? Are there accompanying schedule narratives? An initial analysis should start with a clear understanding of the schedule itself. Establish why the Project was Delayed Alongside the schedule for as-built and projected work, it is necessary to understand what events, incidents, acts, or omissions are the supposed causes of the delay. Frequently, claimants will identify a list of issues or problems on the project and assert that these caused the delays. That’s a good start. But even better: You should be able to identify a list of time-impact events (incidents, acts, or omissions) that are the cause of the delay. And for each event, identify how and to what duration/extent it impacted the critical path of the work. Additionally, for each event there should be proof. Text messages and emails are typically very burdensome, inefficient, and sometimes inadequate to show the event. For example, if your work is delayed because a separate trade’s predecessor work is incomplete (or incorrect), it is best to have more documentation than an email. There should be documentation showing the origin, investigation, remedial action, and conclusion of the incident. There should be photographs, daily logs, meeting minutes, RFIs, redesign, and/or change order proposals. For each event, you should be able to present a narrative and supporting proof that concisely explains what the event was and how it impacted the critical path for the work. Establish that Notice of the Event was Issued, and Progress it to a Formal Claim if Necessary Typically, the contract documents differentiate notice of the event as different than a formal claim. Notice of the event is for the purpose of addressing the issue. This serves both a legal purpose, as well as a construction purpose— to keep the project moving forward. Most contract documents will require notice to be given with reasonable promptness. This should be a documented written notice, which might accompany an RFI or other documentation, such as a change order proposal. Recognize that notice of the issue should clarify what the issue is, and if you believe it will cause additional costs or time. If you only request additional costs or additional time, but not both, you may be waiving your right to full relief. Generally, after the notice of the event has been issued, if the matter has not been resolved through some other means, it is best practice to issue a formal request for equitable adjustment, change order, or invoice, seeking the remedy of additional time, money, or both. It is important to track costs and delays with precision so that your requested relief is specific, reasonable, and supported by the evidence. If you fail to submit the REA/CO, then, it may be more difficult to obtain relief. Most contracts have deadlines for submitting such requests, and, further, most project players are unimpressed with end-of-project REA/CO, because it is preferred to address these issues while the item is pending and immediate. Most contract documents will then have a “claims process” for transitioning the proposed or rejected REA/CO to a formal claim. When consulting with your attorney or expert, the quantifications (and supporting proof) for the requested time or compensation should be organized to facilitate the most efficient approach to claims handling. To summarize: Start with clear, organized documentation of the project schedule and deadlines Prepare organized explanations and proof of the time impact events Accurately quantify the impact with supporting proof so that the requested time and compensation are based on credible data/evidence Promptly notice the time impact issue, the request for relief and, if the request is rejected, the claim When handling time impact issues on a project, whether that be delays, disruptions, liquidated damages, or related cost overages, it is best to consult with your attorney and experts. By properly organizing, supporting, and noticing requests/claims, the preference is to reach amicable resolutions without the need for lengthy claims processes or litigation. This article also appears in the January 2026 edition of the Spokesman, a publication of ABC Keystone.
January 14, 2026
Family Law
Penalty Clauses in Prenuptial Agreements: Lessons from the Reported “Cocaine Clause”
Prenuptial agreements have long evolved beyond simple asset division roadmaps. Modern prenups address conduct during marriage, incorporating so-called “penalty” or “incentive” provisions that attach financial consequences to specific behaviors. While these clauses can be powerful planning tools, they also sit at the intersection of contract law, family law, and public policy — an intersection that courts carefully scrutinize. Frequently, penalty or incentive clauses find their way into celebrity prenuptial agreement. Keith Urban is an Australian-American country music performer who has won four Grammys and 15 Academy of Country Music Awards. Nicole Kidman is an Australian-American actress and producer. The couple was married on 25 June 2006 at Cardinal Cerretti Memorial Chapel on the grounds of St Patrick’s Estate, Manly, in Sydney. They have two daughters. Various news outlets are reporting that Keith and Nicole negotiated an extensive, detailed prenuptial agreement before getting married. Interestingly, it appears that one clause of the prenuptial agreement provided a monetary reward to Keith if he maintained his sobriety. Per sources, Keith was to abstain from alcohol and other drugs, including cocaine, and would earn $600,000 per year for doing so. Considering Keith has reportedly been sober since 2006, he could be in line to receive more than $11 million as a result of the alleged prenuptial agreement clause. Penalty clauses in prenuptial agreements generally impose financial consequences if one spouse engages in specified conduct during the marriage. These provisions may be framed negatively (a reduction or forfeiture of benefits upon breach) or positively (financial incentives for compliance.) Common subjects include infidelity, substance abuse, gambling, or other addictive behaviors, and failure to pursue agreed-upon education or employment goals. Other not so common subjects include weight gain, boundaries on family visits— even going so far as to ban specific relatives from making appearances—regulating social media behaviors, clauses protecting pets and money available for their support. A creative mind can find a penalty for the gambit of behaviors. In theory, these clauses allow parties to align financial outcomes with shared values or risk management goals. However, in practice, enforceability is far from guaranteed. Courts typically analyze prenuptial agreements under contract principles, tempered by heightened scrutiny due to the marital context. Penalty clauses raise particular concerns: Public Policy Courts are reluctant to enforce provisions that appear to regulate personal behavior in a way that undermines the marital relationship or encourages divorce. A clause that functions as a punishment rather than a reasonable allocation of risk may be deemed void as against public policy. Fault-Based Restrictions Many jurisdictions have moved away from fault-based divorce regimes. Provisions that effectively reintroduce fault — by attaching severe financial penalties to personal misconduct — may be disfavored. Vagueness and Proof Problems Behavioral clauses often hinge on subjective or difficult-to-prove conduct. What constitutes “use,” “relapse,” or “impairment”? Who bears the burden of proof? Ambiguity can render a clause unenforceable. Unconscionability at Enforcement Even if a clause was reasonable at the time of signing, courts may examine whether enforcement at divorce would be unconscionable given the parties’ circumstances at that time. Whether or not the reported clause would ultimately be enforced, it serves as a useful illustration of how parties attempt to balance compassion, risk allocation, and financial certainty. For practitioners and clients considering penalty clauses in prenups, several best practices emerge: Frame provisions as incentives or risk allocation, not punishment Define conduct precisely and address evidentiary standards Ensure proportionality between the conduct and the financial consequence Confirm full disclosure and independent counsel for both parties Revisit public policy considerations in the relevant jurisdiction Penalty clauses in prenuptial agreements occupy legally sensitive territory. While high-profile examples like the reported Urban–Kidman provision capture public attention, their real value lies in what they teach about careful drafting and realistic expectations. Prenuptial agreements are strongest when they anticipate future uncertainty without attempting to police the marriage itself — a balance that remains as delicate as it is essential. Stay tuned for what interesting penalties may find their way into the potential and highly probable Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce prenuptial agreement.
January 13, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
Embedded Videos — Fair Use or Infringement? What the Latest Court Decision Means for Publishers
In early December 2025, the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Level 12 Productions, LLC v. Mediaite, LLC. The holding highlights a growing risk for publishers and businesses that use embedded social media content in their online publications – a widely used practice among a multitude of media companies. This case concerns two videos created by journalist Brendan Gutenschwager, both of which are owned by Plaintiff Level 12 Productions. Defendant Mediaite embedded these videos in articles without obtaining licenses from the plaintiff. The first video showed an anti-immigration rally outside New York City’s Gracie Mansion; the second captured celebrity couple Chrissy Teigen and John Legend walking through a protest at a White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Mediaite’s use of the latter video also included commentary by pundit Megyn Kelly during the playing of the video. Both videos were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Mediaite argued that its embedding of these videos did not constitute infringement under the Ninth Circuit’s “server test” and claimed its use was fair use. The Ninth Circuit’s “server test” doctrine holds that a website does not infringe when it embeds protected material hosted on a third-party server, because the site never creates or stores a copy of the work. Instead, a user’s browser is merely directed to retrieve it from its original source. In other words, embedded video is considered to be equivalent to linking to a source rather than a public display as defined by the Copyright Act. The Second Circuit has previously declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s server test in prior disputes involving similar uses of embedded video. Judge Vargas followed the Second Circuit’s precedent, rejecting the server test and reaffirming that embedded video constitutes a public display under 17 U.S.C. § 101 even if the content itself is hosted on a third-party server. Regarding fair use, the court reached different conclusions for the two videos. In video one, the court did not overturn the lower court’s holding, which found no fair use. For video two, however, the court held that Mediaite’s use was fair, since Mediaite embedded the copyright-protected video in a manner featuring Megyn Kelly’s commentary on the same, and thus the copyright-protected material was effectively transformed. The fact that media publishers cannot rely on the Ninth Circuit’s server test in the Second Circuit, while not surprising, remains significant, as it limits publishers’ ability to embed media in online publications without a license. On the other hand, this holding does little to affect either Circuit’s application of highly contextual fair use analyses. Courts will still look for a transformative purpose to establish that a use is fair. For publishers and media outlets, the takeaway is clear: audit your embedding practices and treat embedded social media content as you would any other copyrighted material. When in doubt, secure a license, especially if the embedded content is central to your story but not the subject of commentary.
January 9, 2026
Labor and Employment
The Post-Holiday Reset: Re-Establishing Communication and Availability Norms
The weeks following the holidays often bring a familiar feeling: full inboxes, overlapping priorities, and a sudden return to urgency after a brief pause. During the holiday season, many teams naturally loosen expectations around response times and availability. The challenge in January is not simply returning to work, but resetting clear and healthy norms before old habits (or unhealthy ones) take hold again. In today’s hybrid and remote work environments, boundaries around communication are rarely self-correcting. Without intentional reset moments, employees may assume they are expected to remain as available as they were during peak periods, even when that level of responsiveness is no longer necessary or sustainable. The post-holiday return provides a rare opportunity to recalibrate. One of the most common sources of confusion is silence. When organizations do not explicitly restate expectations, employees are left to infer them based on behavior. A single late-night email or weekend message can unintentionally signal that immediate responses are once again required. Over time, these small signals shape norms that are difficult to unwind. Re-establishing healthy expectations starts with clarity. Teams benefit from shared understanding around what constitutes urgent communication versus what can wait. Not every message needs an instant reply, yet modern tools make everything feel immediate. Resetting norms means reinforcing that responsiveness should be purposeful, not constant. Manager behavior plays an outsized role in this process. Employees tend to mirror what they see, not what they are told. If leaders resume sending messages at all hours or praising rapid responses, boundaries quickly erode. Conversely, when leaders model reasonable response times and respect off-hours, those practices spread organically across teams. It is also important to acknowledge that flexibility cuts both ways. Many employees value the autonomy to step away during the day or adjust schedules as needed. That flexibility works best when paired with mutual respect for personal time. Resetting expectations is not about reducing productivity; it is about ensuring that availability aligns with actual business needs rather than habit or inertia. January is also an ideal time to address roles that genuinely require extended availability. Rather than allowing informal expectations to creep back in, organizations should be intentional about when and why off-hours communication is necessary. Clear parameters reduce frustration and help employees understand when responsiveness truly matters. Healthy communication norms do more than protect work-life balance. They improve focus, reduce burnout, and enhance collaboration. When employees are not operating in a constant state of interruption, the quality of work and decision-making improves. As teams settle back into routine after the holidays, the question is not how quickly everyone can return to being “always on.” The better question is: which norms will support sustainable performance throughout the year? A thoughtful reset now can prevent misunderstandings, protect morale, and set a tone that lasts well beyond the first quarter.
January 7, 2026
Mergers and Acquisitions
Preparing for a Sale in 2026: What Retiring Business Owners Need to Know
As we begin 2026, we find ourselves right in the middle of “Peak 65,” the period of time between 2024 and 2027 when approximately 4.1 million Americans will turn 65 each year. Also known as the “gray tsunami,” this powerful demographic shift has profound implications for closely held and family-owned businesses. For many of these business owners finding themselves at retirement age, 2026 will be a pivotal year, particularly for those who want to exit on their own terms through a sale. We previously examined this issue in 2025, but as the next round of business owners look at a potential sale in 2026, it’s time to revisit the issue and some of the specific considerations for sellers this year. Market Timing and Buyer Behavior In 2026, buyers are still disciplined. They will pay for quality, predictability, and growth, but they will penalize uncertainty. This means it is important to position the business as “recession-resilient,” showing recurring revenue, diversified customers, and stable margins. Sellers should also avoid sending a signal of urgency. Many buyers view a retirement-driven sale as a “must sell.” This can weaken the leverage on the seller’s side. In 2026, sellers should also anticipate longer diligence and tougher deal terms, especially if your house is not in order. Financial Readiness Having strong, clean financials is the single biggest value driver. 2026 buyers are going to heavily scrutinize everything from the last 24-36 months of financials to working capital trends to cash flow vs. EBITDA. This means it is important that your financials tell a clean story. Look carefully at issues such as owner compensation, what family is on the payroll, personal expenses, and one-time expenses. Remember that buyers will discount anything that is unclear or that you must overly explain. If it takes more than 30 seconds to explain an adjustment, you can likely expect pushback. Owner Dependence and Transition It is important to understand that buyers are not buying you. They want to buy a business that works without you. They will be looking for red flags such as too much control over key customer relationships or pricing, hiring or spending. If the owner is the only one who really “knows how things work,” it doesn’t instill confidence in the future of the business. Make sure you are delegating customer relationships, creating formal processes for pricing, approvals, and reporting, and identifying or elevating a second in charge or leadership team that can carry the torch moving forward. You should also document key processes and procedures so that there is a clear roadmap once you exit. Deal Terms In 2026, deal terms are going to be just as important as the headline price. Many sellers are focused just on the price, but they will regret the deal terms down the road. This year, buyers will be focused on terms such as earnouts tied to performance, seller notes, escrows and indemnity exposure, and post-closure employment or consulting obligations. Before you decide to sell, you must determine how long you are willing to stay involved, as well as what level of risk you’re willing to tolerate after the close. Are you looking for certainty or are you looking for upside? The more clarity you have on these issues going into negotiations, the less likely you are to make an emotional decision you will regret later. Family Dynamics One often overlooked issue that sellers do not consider is the dynamics of the family within the business. Emotional risk is viewed as financial risk, and this can be tricky when a family business comes up for sale. Do you intend for any children or relatives to stay on with the business? Is everyone aligned on value and timing? And what kind of family perks are embedded in the business? All of these are vital questions to answer well ahead of a sale. 2026 buyers will move away from uncertainty around family involvement or adjust the price accordingly. Looking Ahead For retiring business owners, selling a company is one of the most consequential transactions of their lives. In the context of the gray tsunami and an increasingly active middle-market M&A environment, 2026 is filled with opportunities as well as risks. With thoughtful preparation, it is possible not only to maximize value, but also to protect the legacy built over decades and transition into the next chapter on favorable terms.
January 6, 2026
M&A Nuggets
M&A Nugget: A Failed Transaction is Not the End — It is the Beginning of M&A Success
Many business owners have experienced a failed transaction. After devoting months, if not years, and extraordinary amounts of time, resources, and money to complete a business sale, the acquirer backs out. The reasons vary from external forces (general market or industry conditions) to seller’s internal issues (usually operational or financial challenges) to substantial due diligence items that raise the risk level for the acquirer (such as a large unanticipated liability, tax debt, or technology debt) to a change in the acquirer’s business direction. Although a termination of a transaction by an acquirer is disappointing, it can also present an opportunity to the business owner. The failure of a transaction should lead the business owner to examine the reasons for the acquirer backout and address them diligently and continuously. For example, one common internal factor leading to a buyer backout is an inadequate sales team, resulting in lower than expected revenues, or an insufficient EBITDA. Like a major league baseball team that makes a sizeable investment by signing a free agent, investing in an upgrade in the sales team can provide an ultimate payoff multiple times the investment. If an acquirer backout is a result of risky due diligence items that arose, steps should be taken to address them, for instance, by implementing more robust risk management policies and procedures. The fact is that many sellers left standing at the altar by their purchaser ultimately engage in a very successful transaction. Two specific experiences I have had in this regard are (1) a seller whose purchaser backed out in early 2020 because of lower than hoped for EBITDA projections, the seller then doubling down its efforts to increase sales and EBITDA with a resulting transaction three years later with the same purchaser for a purchase price 40% higher than the proposed 2020 purchase price; and (2) a seller’s potential acquirer backed out of a $100,000,000 purchase in 2022, leading to the seller redoubling its efforts to increase sales and EBITDA, with an ultimate sale only one year later for an enterprise value of $160,000,000. The lesson here is that in the M&A world, as in life, a failure can lead to great success.
January 6, 2026
Construction
Will New Rules Kill Mid-Level Construction in NYC?
In politics, in building, in personal goods, and in anything else, for years now I’ve been asking the same question…how is that going to be paid for? New government programs sound great if the funds are available, but if they will require raising taxes, in my lifetime, it has been a nonstarter. My kid wants a drone for Christmas, but I can’t afford it. And for builders and contractors, new legislation has led to another step in the direction of development being just too darn expensive. RPAPL 881 was amended and recently signed into law by New York Governor Hochul, and it contains provisions that will drive development costs even higher. In my opinion, amendments will either cause or contribute to pricing the small and medium size players out of the market, thereby impacting all construction projects other than the very, very biggest. Anecdotally, New York buildings have been turning over beautifully at all economies of scale. Many tenements of old have been replaced by new, more modern low and medium rises and other types of buildings. The city now has a vibrant new look, and I don’t just mean the skyscrapers. I would hate to see that stunted. The principle behind amending RPAPL 881 was a good one, to make an extraordinarily ambiguous statute more specific. Its aim was to provide guidance and to manage everyone’s expectations. However, in my reading of the final language, even though the governor has requested amendments, the bill primarily opens new cans of worms rather than closing them. For instance, there’s expanded consideration of the occupants of multiple dwellings. Under the old law, developers typically only dealt with neighboring boards and building owners. Now they are going to have to deal with the tenants and occupants, too. Litigation is going to be untenable insofar as requiring joinder of numerous parties, to effectuate service on that expanded number of people, and to engage with many more parties in the litigation process. Negotiations will be just as onerous. Agreements will have to specifically consider the needs and wants of everyone affected down to the individual. Each individual in a building will have expanded standing and a larger seat at the table to assert their own priorities. In addition, the new bill provides for the potential of a license fee for a reduction in value of a neighboring property. This will impact costs across multiple areas. In litigation, it will require expanded expert testimony and fact-finding, and in a negotiation context, practitioners will be seeking fees higher than what was previously available on this basis. In my humble opinion, the largest problem with this bill, actually benefits the developer over the neighbor. I read the legislation as having a private takings clause. The new bill permits a court to grant a developer the right to underpin the adjoining property. If you understand what underpinning is, you will know that this inclusion constitutes a permanent takings clause that does not have to involve any government. Eminent domain in a private context, is not permissible. Only governments may seize property from others on a permanent basis, and even in those cases they must provide fair market value (which, if implemented, would be an additional cost to the developer) as a result, I believe this provision to be unconstitutional. In this world where insurance costs for New York development are through the roof, or strict liability should cause any developer to look over their shoulder, anything that further drives up development costs, in my opinion, is going to kill mid to low-level development. Jobs that are under $5 million, those jobs that the big guys don’t want to do, the risk will simply be too high for the medium and smaller players. I fear that aside from the ivory towers, the buildings in NYC will be left to crumble. There will be too few willing to take the risk due to ever escalating costs. The underpinning rule is at least one portion of the bill that I believe to be unconstitutional, so if that can be attacked, perhaps they will go back to the drawing board and start again. **The impressions contained herein are the impressions and interpretations of the author based upon review of the new statutory language, synthesized with existing law; not on any updated decisional authority.
December 30, 2025
Bankruptcy
2025 WRAPPED
2025 is nearly in the books, but before we turn the page, we’re taking a step back to reflect on some overlooked lessons from the bankruptcy courts. We’ve combed through the year’s rulings and selected three cases that merit a closer look, along with practical takeaways you can apply going forward. Bankruptcy Remote Structures, In re 301 W N. Ave., LLC, 666 B.R. 583 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2025) 301 W North Avenue, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. Its primary asset is a mixed-use real estate development known as the North Park Pointe Apartments, located at 301 West North Avenue in Chicago, Illinois (“301 West North Property”). The debtor borrowed $26 million secured by the 301 West North Property. The lender required the debtor to be a bankruptcy-remote entity and to have an independent director. The independent director was sourced through CT Corporation Staffing, Inc. (“CTCS”). As part of the financing, the debtor entered into a limited liability company agreement (the “LLC Agreement”) and appointed the independent manager identified by CTCS. The LLC Agreement governed the duties of the managers and the actions requiring the manager’s consent, including the filing of a bankruptcy petition. 301 W. North Avenue LLC ultimately defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy without the consent of an independent manager. The debtor asserted that the consent was not necessary because lender-mandated terms imposed constituted provisions eliminating its right to file bankruptcy, and as such, violated public policy and unenforceable. In its analysis of whether the filing was properly authorized, the Court ruled that the LLC Agreement and appointment of the independent director were enforceable. In 301 W North Avenue, the debtor’s LLC agreement required unanimous consent of the managers, including the independent manager, to file for bankruptcy. The independent manager was neither consulted nor consented. The court dismissed the case: no authority, no case. At the same time, the court distinguished disfavored “golden share” vetoes held by creditors, considered void as against public policy, from fiduciary-based consent structures, which are enforceable when drafted to protect the entity and its stakeholders — not just the lender. Takeaway: If a lender has the right to appoint an independent director for a limited liability company, and the operating agreement creates a structure in which a director’s fiduciary duties are respected and that complies with applicable statutes, the agreement is enforceable. Treatment of SAFEs In Bankruptcy Proceedings, In re Rhodium Encore, 2025 WL 2501132 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Tex.) SAFEs (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) are financial instruments commonly used in startup financing as an alternative to convertible notes. In a first reported decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas found that SAFE notes in that case gave their holders not a mere equity interest but a contingent claim, and they could recover ahead of common stockholders. The Court emphasized that the contractual language mandated this outcome and followed Delaware’s objective theory of contracts, i.e., a contract's construction should be that which an objective, reasonable third party would understand. The SAFEs were not shares of stock but contracts that required the company to return the purchase price received from SAFE holders upon certain triggering events. This right to payment contingent on future events fits the Bankruptcy Code definition of a “claim” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(A). The notes also explicitly created a liquidation priority for cash-out amounts. The relevant provision stated that the cash-out amount was junior to creditor claims but senior to common stock. Takeaway: If your SAFE has cash out on dissolution/liquidity, you likely hold a contingent claim that ranks ahead of common but behind creditors. When drafting a SAFE note, if the economic deal is equity-only risk, remove cash-out rights, or subordinate expressly to common; if investor protection is essential, state the cash-out priority unambiguously and ensure charter and cap table modeling reflect it. SPAC Redemptions, In re Indus. Hum. Cap., Inc., No. 23-11014-LMI, 2025 WL 3534176, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Dec. 9, 2025) The court addressed whether funds held in a SPAC trust account were property of the bankruptcy estate. Industrial Human Capital (“IHC”), a SPAC[1], raised $116.7 million in its IPO and deposited the proceeds into a trust account managed by Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company (“CSTTC”) under a Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement provided for CSTTC to manage, supervise, and administer the Trust Account. Although the parties to the Trust Agreement are IHC andCSTTC, the named beneficiaries of the Trust Agreement are IHC and the purchasers of the shares issued through the IPO, identified as the “Public Stockholders.” IHC did not find suitable acquisition targets, and investors asked for redemption, which the company made. Against the advice of counsel that payment to creditors should be made first, IHC CEO authorized CSTTC to release the funds to investors. Then, creditors put the company in an involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding, and a trustee was appointed. The trustee filed lawsuits to claw back the payments. Although the agreement named the public stockholders as beneficiaries, the court emphasized that the funds originated from the sale of IHC’s stock and were therefore property of IHC and, upon bankruptcy, property of the estate. The investors’ argument that the funds were held in trust for their benefit was rejected because the trust did not alter the fundamental nature of the funds as proceeds of stock sales belonging to the debtor. Takeaway: SPAC trust funds remain property of the debtor’s estate in bankruptcy, even if held in a trust account for redemption purposes. The existence of a trust agreement and redemption rights does not override the fact that IPO proceeds are corporate assets. Investors should understand that redemption rights do not insulate funds from clawback or estate claims in insolvency proceedings. [1] As the Court explained, a SPAC, also known as a blank check company, is a company that is formed for the sole purpose of acquiring, usually through merger, another company. In addition to funds contributed to fund the cost of forming the SPAC, the SPAC then raises funds from investors, which are placed in trust until the target is identified. Generally, there is a time limit to find the target; after the expiration of that time, the funds are subject to return by the original investors.
December 30, 2025
Page 6 of 36
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
