Family Law
Can My Spouse Move Away with the Kids? What the Law Says About Relocation During Divorce
When parents separate, questions about where the children will live, and whether one parent can move away with them, often become some of the most emotionally charged and legally complex issues. Before a custody order is in place, understanding your rights and the court’s approach to relocation is essential. If a custody order has not yet been entered, both parents technically have equal rights to the children. However, that doesn’t mean one parent can pack up and leave. Courts view relocation during a pending divorce as a major decision that directly affects the children’s stability and the other parent’s rights. A move, even within the same state, can impact where the case is heard and how custody is ultimately decided. Judges base relocation decisions on the best interests of the child, not the convenience of the parent who wants to move. Factors may include: The reason for the move (new job, family support, safety, etc.) The distance involved and how it affects visitation The child’s age, school, and community ties Each parent’s relationship with the child Whether the move appears to be an attempt to interfere with the other parent’s time If your spouse has already moved or is threatening to, contact your lawyer immediately to determine whether or not an emergency order or injunction is warranted to have the child returned or to stop the move. Once custody is established, a parent who wishes to move usually provides advance written notice-often 60 to 90 days-before relocating. The other parent may then object and request that the court hold a hearing. In Maryland, for example, the court may include language in a custody order that requires the moving parent to file written notice with the court, the non-moving party, or both at least 90 days before the proposed move, whether it’s in-state or out-of-state. If you fear your spouse may move away with your children, speak with a family law attorney immediately. Taking early action may prevent a relocation before it happens. It is also important to document communication — texts, emails, or statements about moving. You may request temporary custody or access orders as soon as possible. Be sure to stay calm and cooperative. Courts tend to favor parents who act responsibly and keep the children’s needs first. Law protects both parents’ rights to maintain meaningful relationships with their children, and judges look closely at whether a move truly benefits the child or simply disrupts the other parent’s bond.
October 21, 2025
Labor and Employment
The Hidden Cost of Remote Work: Who Pays for the Home Office?
Remote work is now a customary feature of many workplaces. Until recently, employer policies (if any) governed payment of the job-related expenses incurred by remote workers. However, a number of states have now enacted express mandates for payment of remote employment expenses. California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and the District of Columbia have statutes that require employers to reimburse employees for certain remote work expenses. The city of Seattle also requires payment of “remote work expenses” under its wage payment statute. There are three different types of expense reimbursement laws: Required Reimbursement Most of these states require reimbursement of “necessary” expenses that relate to the performance of the employee’s duties. Those states are California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and the District of Columbia. Conditional Reimbursement Two states make reimbursement conditional on the employer’s policy. Iowa requires reimbursement of expenses “authorized by the employer;” and New York only requires payment for expenses that are “promised” to the employee. Equipment/Tools Reimbursement Two states do not have the “necessary” condition for reimbursement but require payment for equipment or tools based on their use in connection with employment. Minnesota requires reimbursement of expenses for “equipment used” in for work, except “tools of the trade.” New Hampshire similarly requires payment for any expenses “incurred at the request of the employer” except for “expenses normally borne by the employee.” All of these state laws commonly require more extensive reimbursement for work expenses compared with the narrower typical expense reimbursement practices historically used by employers. However, detailed guidance on the scope and nature of required reimbursements is not yet provided in these state laws. State laws that require employers to reimburse the expenses of remote workers typically define the costs covered in terms of whether they are “necessary” for discharge of the employee’s duties and directly related to the kind of work performed. Although not expressly stated in these laws, the underlying premise is that the expenses would not have been incurred unless the employee was performing remote work for the employer. Clearly, the definition of reimbursable expenses is very broad, since any equipment, software, connectivity, or furniture that is actually and routinely used to perform work can be seen as “necessary.” Typical examples of reimbursable expenses would include computer equipment, printers, cellphones, internet connections, software licenses, and cameras/microphones for video conferencing. However, the definition of expenses that are required to be reimbursed is broader than the typical scope of equipment that is reimbursed or furnished to the employee. For example, if a desk or an ergonomic chair is necessary for performance of the employee’s duties, then it may well fit the definition of a reimbursable expense under state law. As a general rule, any expenses that would be incurred by the employee if the employee were not working for the employer are not covered by the state reimbursement laws. Certainly, any normal living expenses (such as food, furniture, electric power, etc.) are not reimbursable under these laws. Also, any personal luxury items that are not necessary for the work (such as decorations for a home office) are not covered. The state statutes do not distinguish between temporary and more long-term remote work for purposes of reimbursement. None of the state laws address how the allocation of expenses that are used both for work and personal activities should be handled. Under the laws of the seven states that use the “necessary expense” test, it would probably violate the law to require pro rata apportionment, since the expenses are fully reimbursable if “necessary” for work. In the two states where the test is whether the equipment or tools are “used” in connection with employment, a similar analysis could apply. In the two states where the employer reimburses pursuant to its authorization or promises, the employer may allow for partial reimbursement as part of its policy. However, establishing and enforcing the separation of employment-related costs and personal costs would be very difficult. The state of Illinois is an exception to the lack of guidance on reimbursable expenses under state laws. The Illinois law supplies a five-part test for determining what expenses are covered: Whether the employee has any expectation of reimbursement Whether the expense is required or necessary to perform the employee’s job duties Whether the employer is receiving a value that it would otherwise need to pay for How long does the employer receive the benefit Whether the expense is required for the job In more than 75% of the states, reimbursement of remote work expenses is neither required by law nor regulated. As a best practice, however, employers should establish clear, detailed policies that describe what remote work expenses are considered to be necessary and directly related to employee duties, as well as policies for documentation and reimbursement of expenses. These policies may need to vary depending upon the job description, work performed, or disability accommodation.
October 20, 2025
Real Estate
Five Reasons Delaware Reigns Supreme for Business Formation
Why is the majority of Fortune 500 companies incorporated in the state of Delaware? Why are more than 75% of all new initial public offerings in the United States done by companies incorporated in Delaware? Why is Delaware able to generate more than 25% of its general fund revenue from the incorporation business? And, why have other states been unable to steal this business away from Delaware? Here are the top five reasons to form an artificial entity in Delaware. The Delaware court system is well established and highly respected. The Delaware Court of Chancery specializes in corporate issues and uses judges instead of juries. This means that in every litigation, a judge with a lot of expertise in complex corporate law matters will preside, and the opinions are relatively consistent. In addition, Delaware has historically and consistently been ranked one of the top judiciaries in the country. Delaware offers a lot of flexibility for structuring a business entity. Delaware’s corporate statutes are highly flexible with respect to corporate governance, allowing significant freedom in determining the composition, powers, and management structure of the board of directors. The Delaware limited liability company statute creates even more flexibility. If a structure can be imagined, chances are it can be accomplished with a Delaware LLC. Delaware offers greater privacy. Delaware entities do not need to disclose officer or director names on the formation documents. Delaware LLCs do not need to disclose the names of its members. This creates a certain level of privacy, if needed or desired. Investors prefer Delaware entities. Venture Capital investors, investment banks and other lending institutions typically prefer Delaware entities above all other states because of the reasons stated herein. Bi-partisan political consensus. When it comes to corporate law in Delaware, the politicians understand its importance, and Delaware’s importance. The bi-partisan political consensus in Delaware, therefore, attempts to keep the Delaware entities’ statutes modern and up-to-date, and to rely on Delaware’s corporate law specialists for advice on how to do this.
October 20, 2025
Sports Entertainment and Media
From Cameo to Courtroom: George Santos’ Copyright Claims Fall Flat
Despite the best efforts of the government, George Santos refuses to leave the public eye – for now, at least. On September 15, 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of former Congressman George Santos' copyright infringement and state law claims against late night show host and comedian, Jimmy Kimmel, as well as the Walt Disney Company. The case arose from Kimmel's use of personalized videos on his late-night show, Jimmy Kimmel Live! that Santos created through the Cameo platform. Kimmel and his staff submitted paid requests to George Santos through the popular app, Cameo, in which notable public individuals record and send personalized messages in exchange for money. Kimmel proceeded to air these recordings on his late-night show as part of "Will Santos Say It?" segments, which mocked Santos' willingness to create content for money. The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the Fair Use doctrine barred the copyright claims, while the state law claims for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and fraudulent inducement either failed on the merits or were preempted. On the copyright claims, the Second Circuit conducted a thorough fair use analysis under 17 U.S.C. § 107, focusing primarily on the transformative nature of Kimmel's use of the materials for satirical purposes. The court rejected Santos' argument that the use wasn't transformative because Kimmel had "instigated" the videos' creation, emphasizing that transformativeness is judged by what a reasonable observer would think rather than the subjective intent of either party creating the work at issue. The court found Kimmel's use was clearly transformative commentary and criticism, noting that while Santos claimed Kimmel’s purpose in soliciting the recordings was also to mock Santos and demonstrate Santos’ willingness to say absurd things for money, a reasonable observer would view the videos as conveying "feelings of hope, strength, perseverance, encouragement, and positivity." The court also found no harm to the market, since Kimmel's use didn't usurp Santos' market by offering a competing substitute. As for Santos’ state claims, the court affirmed their dismissal on substantive grounds. Santos' direct breach of contract claim failed because he was not considered a party to Cameo's Terms of Service and could not establish third-party beneficiary status under Illinois state law, which requires implied terms to a contract to be "so strong as to be practically an express declaration." His implied contract claim failed under New York law for not pleading essential contractual terms or demonstrating a meeting of the minds. Finally, his fraudulent inducement claim failed because he could not allege actual out-of-pocket losses as required under New York law. While Kimmel could have relied on commentary under Section 107 of the Copyright Act as a non-infringing use, this case reaffirms the power that satire also has to transform a work under the Fair Use doctrine. While deceit may not endear one to the deceiver, neither will it necessarily endanger them in a court of law (depending on the use, of course).
October 17, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Protect Your Loved Ones With a Spendthrift Trust
Providing for someone you care about can be one of life’s great challenges. You may have a spouse or partner who depends on you financially. Or a relative with money problems who sometimes turns to you for help. Perhaps you are fortunate enough to have children and want to give them every possible advantage in life. Whoever you care for, your life’s work may well focus on supporting them. If someone does rely on you, one of the hardest questions to consider is what they would do without you. You might be able to provide for the person financially by leaving them an inheritance under your will or making them the beneficiary of your life insurance. But money can be squandered, and it may need to be protected from bill collectors, unscrupulous “friends,” and possibly even the loved one himself. One of the most effective ways to avoid these hazards is to create a “spendthrift trust.” Whether you are leaving cash, securities, real estate, or the proceeds of an insurance policy, the assets will be managed by one person, called the “trustee,” for the benefit of your loved one, the “beneficiary.” The trust can be set up to disburse money in a controlled manner, ensuring that your loved one is well provided for. The “spendthrift” provisions protect the trust by preventing a creditor from “attaching” the assets — essentially, placing a lien on the trust to satisfy an unpaid debt. Once a distribution is made to the beneficiary, however, the money does become vulnerable to the claims of creditors. The best approach, then, is often to give the trustee the discretion to make or withhold payments as appropriate to help the beneficiary while protecting the trust principal. For a child, you might allow expenses related to health care, education, and general support to be payable in the trustee’s discretion. These could include the cost of health insurance, braces, a private tutor, tuition, the down payment on a house, or the cost of a wedding. You could also include mandatory distributions, such as regular disbursements of any income the trust generates, as well as payments of principal when the beneficiary reaches certain life milestones, such as completing college or reaching a particular age. Under a trust you establish for an irresponsible relative, the trustee might need broader discretion. In this case, perhaps only those expenses the trustee considered to be in the relative’s best interest could be paid for from the trust assets. The trustee could also be required to take into account other resources that might be available to the beneficiary. For example, if the beneficiary makes a reasonable income, the trustee could withhold any distributions, preserving the trust’s assets for things like a financial emergency or eventual retirement. The assets that continued to be held in trust would then lie beyond the reach of most creditors. Another benefit of a spendthrift trust is that it can protect the beneficiary from himself. Most spendthrift clauses prevent the beneficiary from using the trust as collateral for a loan or assigning his interest in the trust to another person. In addition, the trustee can make distributions by paying the beneficiary’s tuition, medical bills, or other expenses directly to the provider, rather than having the money deposited into the beneficiary’s personal bank account. By circumventing the beneficiary himself, these distributions will also generally not be susceptible to creditor claims. The commitment to take care of someone you love doesn’t end when you’re gone. Talk to an experienced estates and trusts attorney to find out whether a spendthrift trust should be part of your estate plan.
October 17, 2025
Estates and Trusts
More Than a Game:Why Young Athletes Need Estate Planning for Their NIL Assets
When college athletes gained the right to profit from their name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), a new era of opportunity began. Take, for example, the University of Texas’s quarterback, Arch Manning, with a deal estimated to be worth $5M; Miami’s Carson Beck, and Ohio’s Jeremiah Smith’s deals are reported to be north of $4M. Endorsement deals, social media sponsorships, appearances, and personal brands have turned student-athletes into entrepreneurs before they have even stepped onto a professional court or field. With these new opportunities come adult-sized responsibilities, and one of the most overlooked is estate planning. Estate planning usually conjures images of elderly retirees or high-net-worth professionals meeting with their equally elderly lawyers. For young athletes making real money from NIL deals, estate planning has become a critical part of protecting what they have built, planning for what comes next, and hopefully, building generational wealth. NIL Rights Are Real Assets A young athlete’s NIL is an intangible but very real property right. The value of your name, image, and likeness can outlast your playing career and even your lifetime. A player’s legacy lives on through merchandise, video games, brand partnerships – to name a few. Without an estate plan, those rights and the income they generate may not be handled according to your wishes if something unexpected happens. Engaging an estate planning lawyer to create a corporate entity like an LLC and then transferring that corporate entity into a trust ensures your NIL assets are managed and protected during your life and transferred to the people or causes you care about when you die - not left to be sorted out in court. Protecting Family and Future Generations Many athletes sign their first contracts by age 18. Despite their young age, it is not uncommon for athletes earning a salary from NIL to already serve as a financial resource to other family members, consider a life after their playing days by investing in businesses, and look for opportunities to give back to the communities that helped them achieve their success in the first place. Each of these reasons amplifies the need for a proper estate plan and the legal infrastructure to ensure that those commitments are carried forward and honored upon injury and death. By establishing an LLC and a trust, you can manage and protect your NIL earnings during your life, manage how those funds are used after your death, and, in some circumstances, minimize taxes. The infrastructure of a trust that holds your LLC that owns your NIL rights allows the you to appoint a trusted adult or a professional fiduciary to help manage the assets responsibly while you focus on your education and athletic career. Building a Foundation for Long-Term Wealth Estate planning not only plans for what happens after you are gone, it also maximizes the growth and preserves wealth while you are here. By thinking strategically, setting up an LLC and a trust to hold your NIL assets, you may also gain tax advantages, protect yourself from lawsuits, and prepare for life after sports. Proper planning can mean the difference between athletes who simply make money and those athletes who build a legacy. Estate planning plays an integral part in ensuring that your brand is a business, and your future is an investment. Modeling Financial Maturity, Responsibility, and Control For young athletes, especially those in the public eye, planning ahead sets an example. It shows future sponsors, teammates, and fans that you are serious about your career, your money, and your name and your legacy. In the same way you train your body and mind, you can also train your financial and legal muscles. Estate planning is part of that discipline — it is another way to take control of your story. Your NIL is more than a paycheck — it is part of your personal legacy. Whether you are signing your first deal or building a brand that will last for decades, estate planning ensures that your hard work benefits you and the people and causes you care about most. Young athletes are learning that financial power comes with legal responsibility. Getting an estate plan in place now is not just smart—it is part of playing the long game.
October 17, 2025
Commercial Litigation
From Onboarding to Offboarding: Building a Turnover Plan That Works
Generally, employees are free to resign at any time. This is the core of “at-will” employment: just as an employer can decide the employment relationship can come to an end, an employee can also make that decision. However, some employees have agreements in place that set the rules for their departure and the associated process. Often, those agreements also set the rules for after the employee has departed. Those rules can include barring the employee from: disclosing confidential information obtained during their employment soliciting the former employer’s clients or customers competing with the former employer If there is no employment agreement, then an employee can leave at any time, and with or without notice. In that situation, it is crucial for an employer to plan what the transition period would look like if an employee chooses to depart. It is a best practice for employers to plan out the offboarding process when the employee is being onboarded. Employers should also prepare for the risk of litigation brought by the former employee. A former employee may choose to file claims against the employer for allegedly violating wage and hour laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or federal, state, or local discrimination laws. The statutes of limitations periods for those claims vary, and it becomes crucial that employers focus on keeping records related to each employee. In the event that a former employee commences a lawsuit against a former employer, it becomes crucial to look to documents and records related to the employment relationship. It is a best practice for employers to have an active system for maintaining records related to employees beyond the statutes of limitations periods. Those records may include: Emails Formal reports or complaints Work product Performance reviews Management/operations notes Payroll documents (paystubs, W-2s, 1099s) In New York, courts have strict standards for admitting these types of records into evidence at a trial. The employer’s process for creating and maintaining records is critically important for increasing the chances for success, when faced with these types of claims. One approach that many employers implement is to have an agreement ready for when an employee departs. Often, those agreements include a waiver of claims which can also be customized to the employer’s business, including terms protecting proprietary materials, such as client or customer lists, barring the soon-to-be-former employee from disclosing confidential information obtained during the employment, soliciting the former employer’s clients or customers, or competing with the former employer.
October 16, 2025
Business
Due Diligence: It's Not Just a Checklist
Selling a business is never just about numbers on a page, it’s about preparation, people, and navigating the unexpected. Mike Mercurio presents a compelling series of conversations with client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin, as she shares the real story behind her company’s sale. From the private moment she first decided to sell, to the surprise challenges of disclosure schedules, and the essential role of trusted advisors, Anna offers a rare, inside look at what the process truly feels like. Whether you’re years away from a sale or already planning one, her journey provides invaluable lessons on timing, team, and trust. In Part 5 of our Selling Your Business series, client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin reflects with her M&A attorney, Mike Mercurio, what it really felt like to go through due diligence and how even with a well-run, clean business, it was more intense than expected. Initially confident and prepared to tackle a long checklist, she quickly realized that diligence wasn’t just about ticking boxes it was a full-blown deep dive into every corner of the business. From finances and leases to operations and infrastructure, nothing was off limits. She compares it to an IRS audit but ten times. If you're heading into diligence, this is a must-watch for understanding what could be ahead.
October 16, 2025
Family Law
Keeping Divorce Out of the Spotlight
When a marriage ends, most people want the details to stay between them - not in headlines, social media feeds, or public court records. For high-net-worth individuals, business owners, or anyone with a public profile, privacy can be one of the most valuable assets in a divorce. Fortunately, there are proactive steps you can take to protect it. The best way to keep a divorce private is to stay out of court. Litigation creates a public record, including financial disclosures, allegations, and agreements. Mediation is a resolution option that allows both parties to work through issues confidentially with a neutral facilitator. The collaborative divorce process keeps negotiations in private meetings with attorneys and other professionals committed to settlement. Even if court filings are required, resolving most issues privately first minimizes what ends up in the public file. In high-profile cases, attorneys often include confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements. These can restrict both parties from sharing details about finances, parenting arrangements, or personal matters. If you own a business or have sensitive professional information, a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) can prevent your spouse or their advisors from revealing proprietary or reputational details. While court records are generally public, judges may seal specific documents for good cause, for example to protect children’s identities, confidential business information, or sensitive financial data. Your attorney can file a motion to seal portions of the case to limit public access. Privacy in the digital age goes beyond court filings. Avoid discussing the divorce online and ask friends and family not to share posts about it. Even seemingly harmless comments can fuel speculation or reach the media. If you are a public figure, your attorney may coordinate with a public relations professional to handle inquiries or issue a short, neutral statement that minimizes attention. Use secure email and file-sharing systems when exchanging documents with your attorney. Avoid using joint devices or cloud accounts. Anything stored or sent through a shared platform could be accessed or copied. It’s natural to confide in close friends, but word spreads quickly, especially in small or social circles. Limit detailed discussions about your divorce and resist the urge to “set the record straight.” Silence often protects more than explanation. Nothing draws unwanted attention faster than public conflict. Staying composed — even under pressure — helps preserve dignity, credibility, and privacy. The less drama you create, the less there is for others to discuss. Divorce doesn’t have to mean exposure. With the right legal strategy and careful communication, you can protect your family, your reputation, and your peace of mind while moving forward privately.
October 16, 2025
Labor and Employment
EEOC Regains Quorum and Signals Major Policy Shifts Ahead
On October 7, 2025, the United States Senate confirmed President Trump’s nomination of Brittany Panuccio as the third commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Her confirmation restores the commission’s quorum for the first time since early 2025 and gives the agency the power to issue, amend, or rescind regulations and guidance, and to take formal policy action under all major civil rights statutes. Since January, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas has led the EEOC without a quorum, which prevented the agency from adopting or revising rules and limited its ability to pursue systemic litigation or other actions requiring a majority vote. With Commissioner Panuccio joining Lucas and Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, the EEOC now holds a two-to-one Republican majority. The agency is positioned to act quickly in reshaping key regulations and enforcement priorities consistent with the administration’s civil rights enforcement agenda. Acting Chair Lucas has stated that the EEOC will focus on restoring “evenhanded enforcement of employment civil rights laws for all Americans.” She has identified several priorities, including addressing what she describes as race- and sex-based discrimination linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, expanding protections for religious liberty, reinforcing sex-based rights rooted in biological distinctions, and increasing enforcement in areas involving national origin and religious discrimination. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Will Likely Be the First Target The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) Final Rule, issued in 2024 under a Democratic majority, is expected to be the first regulatory area the commission revisits. Lucas has long expressed concern that the Final Rule improperly expands the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” to include conditions such as menstruation, infertility, abortion, and menopause. She has argued that these conditions are tied to female biology and not to a specific pregnancy or childbirth, and therefore fall outside the statute’s scope. When the Final Rule was approved in April 2024, Lucas voted against it and issued a statement explaining her opposition. She stated that the regulation “fundamentally errs in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex.” She also warned that the rule’s structure makes it difficult to sever the portions she viewed as unlawful from those she considered reasonable. In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana agreed in part, vacating the section of the Final Rule that interpreted the PWFA as requiring accommodations for elective abortions. The court ordered the EEOC to revise the rule, but the agency was unable to do so without a quorum. Now that a quorum has been restored, the EEOC is well-positioned to issue a revised version that reflects both the court’s order and Lucas’s interpretation of the statute. Until the revised rule is published, the current PWFA Final Rule remains in effect except for the vacated abortion provision. Employers should therefore continue to comply with existing requirements while preparing for potential revisions that may narrow the definition of “related medical conditions” and reduce the range of circumstances requiring accommodation. Anticipated Shifts in Other Enforcement Priorities The EEOC is expected to move quickly in several additional areas. The first is diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The agency has already emphasized that Title VII does not recognize any “diversity” or “equity” justification for making employment decisions based on protected characteristics. Employers should expect additional technical assistance and enforcement activity aimed at programs that take race, sex, or other protected traits into account in hiring, promotion, compensation, or participation in mentorship and employee resource programs. The second is religious accommodation. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, which heightened the standard employers must meet to show that a religious accommodation would create an undue hardship, the EEOC is expected to take an expansive approach favoring employees. Lucas has a long record of supporting religious liberty initiatives and is likely to prioritize this area in future enforcement actions. The third involves LGBTQ protections. The EEOC may reconsider its interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton County and revisit its 2024 harassment guidance, which included examples related to pronoun usage and access to facilities consistent with gender identity. The agency has already removed certain gender identity resources from its website, suggesting that further revisions are imminent. Finally, the restoration of a quorum means that the EEOC can again authorize systemic or “pattern or practice” litigation and file amicus briefs in significant appellate cases. While reports indicate that the commission has deprioritized cases based on disparate impact theory, employers should remember that private plaintiffs and state enforcement agencies can still pursue such claims under Title VII and related laws. What Employers Should Do Now Employers should continue to comply with the current PWFA Final Rule, but monitor developments closely as the EEOC prepares revisions. They should review their diversity and inclusion programs to confirm that participation criteria and selection practices are neutral and compliant with Title VII. Religious accommodation policies should be updated to reflect the stricter standard established in Groff v. DeJoy, and harassment and equal opportunity training materials should be reviewed for consistency with potential upcoming changes to EEOC guidance. The restoration of a quorum marks a turning point for the EEOC. With full authority restored and a clear policy direction under Acting Chair Lucas, the agency is likely to move swiftly to revise the PWFA regulations, issue new guidance on DEI and religious rights, and revisit prior positions on gender identity and sexual orientation. Employers should expect significant regulatory activity in the coming months and prepare to adapt their workplace policies and practices accordingly.
October 15, 2025
Sports Entertainment and Media
Neil Young and Backing Band Hit Like a Hurricane, Sued for Trademark Infringement by Luxury Jewelry Brand
Luxury jewelry and apparel brand, Chrome Hearts, LLC has filed a lawsuit against rock legend Neil Young and his current backing band, the Chrome Hearts, in the Central District of California, alleging that both the backing band’s use of the “CHROME HEARTS” phrase and Young's use of "Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts" on merchandise (NYTCH) generates significant consumer confusion in the market, and infringes Chrome Hearts' federally registered CHROME HEARTS trademarks. The complaint asserts five causes of action including, federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition under California law, and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. Chrome Hearts, which has operated its brand since 1988, and frequently collaborates with well-known musicians, argues that Young's band’s incorporation of the exact CHROME HEARTS word mark on merchandise and promotional materials violates their federally protected rights. In support of their contention, Chrome Hearts alleges salient instances of actual confusion, strengthening the plaintiff’s allegations beyond mere hypotheticals. Per the complaint, multiple apparel vendors have already mistakenly assumed a connection between NYTCH and Chrome Hearts, strongly suggesting the consumer perception of a purported relationship between Chrome Hearts, Young, and his band. The complaint also includes images of specific instances of use of Chrome Hearts designs, or designs evocative of Chrome Hearts’ IP, by third party vendors adorning the t-shirts and other merchandise sold at Young’s concerts, even though Young’s official merchandise does not use Chrome Hearts’ registered designs. The complaint further alleges that Young and Co. had knowledge of the alleged infringement, as Chrome Hearts had sent multiple notice letters regarding this alleged misuse prior to filing suit. Chrome Hearts seeks aggressive relief including temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions to halt all use of the NYTCH name and Chrome Hearts marks, mandatory recall and destruction of infringing inventory, and damages including attorney fees. If Chrome Hearts’ allegations make it to trial, we will see whether Neil Young truly has a Heart of Gold, or whether this Old Man’s callous disregard for well-established intellectual property rights were left Down by the River back in 1969.
October 14, 2025
Landlord Representation
Rent Filings During the Federal Shutdown: What DC, VA & MD Landlords Need to Know
With the federal shutdown underway, landlords in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are asking: Should we pause filings for federal workers? The short answer — no, and here’s why. As the federal government shutdown begins, landlords across the region are understandably concerned about the potential impact on tenants who are federal employees or contractors. While certain state laws provide limited relief for furloughed tenants, landlords should not pause nonpayment filings or alter their standard procedures. Virginia Under Va. Code § 44-209, tenants who are federal employees, independent contractors for the federal government, or employees of companies under contract with the federal government may be eligible for a 60-day continuance of an unlawful detainer case for rent due after the shutdown began. To qualify, the tenant must: Appear in court on the initial hearing date, and Provide written proof that they were furloughed or otherwise not receiving wages or payments due to the shutdown. Importantly, this continuance applies only when the case is for nonpayment of rent, not for other lease violations. Landlords should continue to file nonpayment cases as usual; the court will decide whether a tenant meets the statutory criteria for a continuance. Maryland Under Md. Real Property § 8-401(d), courts may stay (temporarily pause) eviction proceedings for tenants who show that: The property is their primary residence They are a federal, state, or local government employee They were involuntarily furloughed without pay because of the shutdown The stay lasts for a period the court deems reasonable, generally not exceeding 30 days after the end of the shutdown, unless a longer delay is justified. Again, this is a court-granted stay, not a reason for landlords to delay filing. Washington, D.C. D.C. previously enacted the Federal Worker Housing Relief Act of 2019, which temporarily allowed furloughed workers to request up to a 90-day stay of eviction proceedings. That law expired in early 2020 and is no longer in effect. Today, landlords should note that under the D.C. Human Rights Act, treating tenants differently based on their source of income, including federal employment, may constitute discrimination. Overall Takeaway Landlords in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. should continue handling nonpayment matters in the normal course, allowing courts to determine whether tenants qualify for relief. Do not delay filings or make selective accommodations. Do allow the courts to apply the applicable continuance or stay provisions if a tenant demonstrates eligibility. Avoid differential treatment of tenants based on employment type or source of income. In short: issue notices, file as usual — we will handle the rest in court.
October 9, 2025
Business
The Unsung Heroes of a Successful Exit: Your Advisors
Selling a business is never just about numbers on a page, it’s about preparation, people, and navigating the unexpected. Mike Mercurio presents a compelling series of conversations with client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin, as she shares the real story behind her company’s sale. From the private moment she first decided to sell, to the surprise challenges of disclosure schedules, and the essential role of trusted advisors, Anna offers a rare, inside look at what the process truly feels like. Whether you’re years away from a sale or already planning one, her journey provides invaluable lessons on timing, team, and trust. In Part 4 of our Selling Your Business series, M&A attorney Mike Mercurio along with client and former Fireline owner, Anna Gavin touch on the critical role that advisors, including financial advisors and Offit Kurman as legal advisors, play throughout the deal process, especially in those intense final weeks leading up to closing. From reviewing contracts and translating legalese into plain English, to offering a safe space for honest questions, Anna reflects on how her legal team became both a guide and sounding board. If you’re thinking about selling, this is a reminder that having experts in your corner isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity.
October 9, 2025
Elder Law and Advocacy
Guiding Families and Caregivers Dealing with Dementia: Medicare’s New GUIDE Program
If you are caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s disease or another form of dementia, you already know how overwhelming the journey can be. Between doctor visits, medications, daily routines, and the emotional toll on the family, it can feel totally overwhelming, patching together resources and support. Medicare has finally recognized just how hard this journey is for the patient and the caregiver and recently launched the GUIDE Program (Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience). The GUIDE program was developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and its purpose is to provide comprehensive and coordinated care for people living with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, while also offering much-needed support for the caregiver, who shoulders most of the day-to-day responsibilities. GUIDE was designed to improve the quality of life, enabling individuals to stay in their homes and communities longer while also reducing the strain on families by integrating medical, social, and community resources into a cohesive plan. Instead of leaving families to figure things out alone, GUIDE now offers a way to connect you with a care team and a dedicated dementia care navigator. When you enroll in GUIDE, the program starts with a thorough assessment of your loved one’s needs, as well as yours, as a caregiver. From there, the care team works to create a plan that covers both medical and day-to-day support. Every participant in the program is connected with a dementia care “navigator,” someone who helps coordinate services and create individualized care plans, which are updated as needs evolve. That plan might include help with managing medications, guidance on connecting to community services like transportation or meal programs, or even just having someone to call when you need advice. GUIDE also includes education and coaching for the caregiver so that they can feel more confident in their caregiving role. The care team also manages transitions and offers around-the-clock access to provide guidance in moments of crisis. The best part of the GUIDE program is that it is free. To participate, your loved one must be enrolled in traditional Medicare and have a formal diagnosis of dementia. They cannot already be in hospice care, living in a nursing facility, or enrolled in certain other programs, such as Medicare Advantage or PACE. GUIDE’s focus is on people living and remaining in the community, where support is often the most fragmented and where families typically struggle to navigate a confusing array of resources. What makes this program especially unique is that it puts caregivers at the center of the care plan. Medicare has long covered medical services, but this is one of the first times it has stepped in to consider long-term care and recognize and support the unpaid family members and friends who provide most of the hands-on care. GUIDE acknowledges what caregivers already know: that supporting the caregiver is essential to supporting the person with dementia. Since the program is still new, not every provider is currently offering it. To determine if GUIDE is an option for your family, you should check with your loved one’s primary care physician or reach out to your local Alzheimer’s Association chapter. While GUIDE is just beginning, it has the potential to make a real difference for families. Instead of feeling alone in the maze of dementia care, families will have someone helping to coordinate, guide, and support. For caregivers in the Sandwich Generation who are often stretched to their limits, that extra layer of help means less stress, fewer crises, and more time to focus on what really matters: spending meaningful moments with the person they love.
October 7, 2025
Labor and Employment
Government Shutdown Pauses E-Verify Operations, But I-9 Rules Still Apply
The government shutdown has closed the E-Verify program, meaning employers cannot access their E-Verify accounts. As a result, enrollment, creation of cases, running reports, and terminations are all suspended. Additionally, all customer service channels are closed. Temporary Policies The “three-day rule” for the creation of E-Verify cases is suspended, but the I-9 rules and verification requirements continue. This means that employers must still complete Form I-9 no later than the third business day after an employee starts work for pay and comply with all other Form I-9 requirements. Employers will need to assist employees with completing a paper version of Form I-9, and for any employee whose E-Verify+ cases were “Pending Employee Response” or “Ready for Review” in the E-Verify system. Any pending E-Verify mismatches during the shutdown will not accrue time towards deadlines. If a SSA mismatch has occurred, employees will have to wait until E-Verify is back in operation to correct their mismatch at the SSA. Employers are advised they may not take any adverse action against an employee whose E-Verify case is “Interim case status.” Federal contractors are advised to contact contracting officers regarding deadlines.
October 6, 2025
Business
Due Diligence in M&A Transactions: Why First-Time Buyers Should Avoid Analysis Paralysis
For many first-time buyers, the initial instinct in M&A transactions is to scrutinize every financial detail, prolonging the diligence process until they have an answer to every single question. This is certainly understandable, particularly for first-time buyers; however, this approach can often do more harm than good. The reason many deals fall apart is because they lose momentum, conditions shift over time, or sellers simply lose patience and walk away. All of these are considerable risks when the diligence process extends too long. Over-Diligence While thorough diligence is essential in any M&A transaction, when there is too much focus on financial minutiae, it can result in decision making paralysis. For first-time buyers, this can be difficult as they struggle to quantify risk and get caught in over-diligence, or a cycle of analysis and re-analysis. What can end up happening is analysis paralysis, meaning the fear of the unknown stops a deal from progressing. When buyers engage in over-diligence, it can lead to deal fatigue, where one or more parties lose interest or confidence as the process drags on for too long. When the diligence process stretches out, market conditions can also shift during the delay, or there could be internal changes such as an executive departing or a new business challenge arising. Timing is Essential In any transaction, momentum is key, and timing is everything. During the diligence process in M&A transactions, there are three ways in which timing can make a critical difference. First, timing is essential to the overall process. By keeping diligence tight, you can better ensure that the entire process will be compact and efficient. Then, there is timing of the market. When external factors such as regulatory shifts or new competitors pop up, they can start to impact deal value when a deal lingers. And finally, there is the internal timing of the target company itself. Over time, internal challenges could arise with leadership or operations that can lead to unnecessary hurdles. So, when diligence drags on too long, buyers run a significant risk of paying the same price for a business that could be fundamentally different, or even losing the deal all together. Buyers should also consider the period of exclusivity to complete diligence outlined in the LOI. That period of exclusivity can run out, and buyers could be forced to request extensions if they spend too much time focusing on incremental details. At a minimum, this can erode confidence, and at the worst, the seller could walk. Built In Protections It important for first-time buyers to understand one constant in M&A transactions: there is risk in every deal. But equally as important to understand is that you do not need to chase every risk. That is why there are built-in protections in transactions to help buyers move forward even when every minute detail is not fully uncovered during the diligence process. Buyers should work closely with legal counsel and advisors to structure agreements that include contractual provisions such as representations, warranties, indemnifications, and insurance solutions to protect parties from anything that was not uncovered. These kinds of tools are designed to balance the interests of buyers and sellers, and they allow buyers to focus their diligence efforts on those issues that affect valuation or viability of the deal, rather than wasting valuable time attempting to eliminate all risks. At the end of the day, diligence is designed to manage risk, not to eliminate it entirely. When you resist the tendency to over analyze financials, and stay focused instead, you can better maintain the necessary momentum and avoid paralysis. This leads to deals that close with confidence and are set up for long-term success.
October 6, 2025
Business
The Part of the Deal No One Warns You About: Disclosure Schedules
Selling a business is never just about numbers on a page, it’s about preparation, people, and navigating the unexpected. Mike Mercurio presents a compelling series of conversations with client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin, as she shares the real story behind her company’s sale. From the private moment she first decided to sell, to the surprise challenges of disclosure schedules, and the essential role of trusted advisors, Anna offers a rare, inside look at what the process truly feels like. Whether you’re years away from a sale or already planning one, her journey provides invaluable lessons on timing, team, and trust. In Part 3 of our Selling Your Business series, client and former Fireline owner, Anna Gavin chats with her M&A attorney Mike Mercurio about a step that often catches sellers completely off guard — disclosure schedules. After what feels like the heavy lifting of diligence, you're suddenly asked to translate everything into a legal document that modifies your reps and warranties. It’s tedious, detailed, and critical to the final outcome. Anna shares her first-hand surprise at how complex this stage was and why having the right legal support made all the difference.
October 2, 2025
Labor and Employment
New York City Expands Minimum Pay Protections to Grocery Delivery Workers
On September 10, 2025, the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Eric Adams’ vetoes and enacted legislation extending workplace protections and minimum pay standards to grocery delivery workers. With this development, app-based couriers delivering groceries through third-party platforms, such as Shipt or Instacart, will now be entitled to the same $21.44 per hour minimum pay rate that has been in effect for restaurant delivery workers since April 2025. Background: How We Got Here New York City has steadily built out a framework for regulating app-based delivery work. In 2021, the city became the first in the nation to pass comprehensive legislation creating wage and workplace protections for restaurant delivery couriers. That law prohibited companies from charging workers fees to access their pay, guaranteed restroom access at restaurants, required companies to provide insulated delivery bags, and mandated greater transparency around pay and tips. It also authorized the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to study working conditions and establish a minimum pay standard. Following DCWP’s review, the city implemented a pay floor for restaurant couriers in 2023. After scheduled increases, the minimum pay rate reached $21.44 per hour as of April 1, 2025. Until now, however, grocery delivery workers have remained excluded from those protections. The July 2025 Legislation On July 14, 2025, the City Council passed a package of bills aimed at closing that gap. In addition to extending the minimum pay standard to grocery couriers, the bills required delivery apps to build in a 10% tipping option at checkout and mandated that workers be paid within seven days of the close of a pay period. When Mayor Adams did not act within 30 days, most of the bills automatically became law on August 13, 2025. However, Adams vetoed two of the most significant measures, including those that would have extended minimum pay to grocery delivery workers. In his veto message, he expressed concern that higher labor costs would lead to rising grocery prices at a time when many New Yorkers, particularly seniors, families relying on SNAP or EBT, and individuals with disabilities, already face food insecurity. The Council Override The City Council strongly disagreed, emphasizing that grocery couriers face the same risks and exploitation as restaurant couriers and deserve equal treatment. On September 10, 2025, the council voted to override the mayor’s vetoes, enacting the measures in full. While some provisions are tied to the effective dates of related safe-access legislation, the core result is that grocery delivery workers are now covered by the same $21.44 hourly pay standard as restaurant couriers. Reactions and What Comes Next The legislation has sparked vigorous debate. Worker advocates and council sponsors hailed the change as a victory for fairness, pointing out that grocery and restaurant couriers often perform identical tasks under similar conditions. Delivery platforms and some grocers, by contrast, have warned that the laws will significantly raise costs, potentially by as much as 46%, reduce tipping, cut shifts, and increase fees for local grocers. At least one company has already threatened litigation against the city. DCWP will continue monitoring compliance, and enforcement is expected to be strict. For businesses operating in New York City, this means both restaurant and grocery delivery models are now subject to enhanced wage obligations, new in-app tipping requirements, and accelerated payment timelines. Employer Takeaway The expansion of New York City’s delivery worker protections represents another step in the city’s effort to regulate the gig economy. App-based service providers should act quickly to review pay practices, update app functionality, and confirm compliance protocols to avoid penalties or reputational risk. Grocers that rely on third-party platforms should also be prepared for potential increases in delivery costs and related contract renegotiations.
September 29, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Who Gets the Sofa? Dividing Up Your Stuff Without Drama
Benjamin Franklin famously said that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. A close third would be family squabbles over who gets the personal property when someone dies. Even a well-thought-out estate plan may leave room for disagreements. For example, if Mom leaves everything to her children “in equal shares,” assets like investment accounts and real estate can simply be liquidated and divided up. But when it comes to household items like photos and family heirlooms, each item is unique — and sometimes holds deep sentimental value. What’s the value of the old sofa where Dad used to read to the kids versus the cake plate Mom used to pull out for each child’s birthday? These can be difficult questions to grapple with, especially in the emotionally fraught time after a profound loss. With a little extra planning, however, you can help head off a family row over who gets what. The first step is to choose a personal representative (“executor”) with experience in settling estates and distributing personal property. In many cases, a lawyer or other third party who is not a family member can be the best choice. This person has no personal stake in the matter and can remain above the fray of family politics. Regardless of whom you appoint, your personal representative can choose from several methods of administering your tangible property. The beneficiaries can draw numbers and then, in the order of the numbers they chose, take turns picking one item each from the estate until everything has been selected. A similar approach is to have the children take turns choosing an item, starting with the oldest child and working down to the youngest. If the beneficiaries get along well, each can simply be given a pad of Post-its in a different color to place on the items he or she wants. If more than one sticker appears on an item, the beneficiaries who placed them can negotiate who should get the piece, perhaps in exchange for allowing the other person to receive another item that is in dispute. Having all the beneficiaries agree to the process beforehand is the best first step. There may still be grumblings among those who don’t get something they wanted, but at least they can agree that the process was fair. An even better approach is to say who gets what before anyone dies. Specific bequests of tangible personal property can be included in your will. Naming the individual who is to receive an item, whether it’s a laptop, a ginger jar, or an Ikea sofa, will help keep disputes to a minimum. A “catchall” clause can state that any property not specifically named is to be sold, with the proceeds of the sale to become part of the remainder of your estate. Alternatively, many wills allow the testator to write a memo that says that certain items go to certain people. It’s important to verify first that the will allows for such a memo, and the memo should reference the section of the will that does this. The benefit of writing a memo is that it doesn’t need to involve a lawyer or notary. If you decide to sell an item on eBay, or if the relative who was supposed to receive it has fallen out of favor, you can simply tear up the memo and write a new one. A well-drafted will should also allow for the estate to pay for the cost of insuring and shipping any items that go to beneficiaries who live out of the area. “A cynic,” said Oscar Wilde, is someone who knows “the price of everything, and the value of nothing.” Accounting for the sentimental value of your personal property can help prevent an outbreak of cynicism after you are gone. If you’re not sure where to start, call an estates and trusts attorney for help.
September 29, 2025
Bankruptcy
When the Subsidiary Fails: Litigation Risks for Officers and Directors of Parent Companies
A recent decision in an adversary proceeding in Delaware, arising from the Chapter 7 liquidation of Rosetta Genomics, Inc., serves as a cautionary tale for corporate officers and directors — especially those of parent companies operating across borders. In Beskrone v. Berlin (In re Rosetta Genomics Inc.), 18-11316 (Bankr. D. Del. July 14, 2025), the complaint, which survived a motion to dismiss, underscores how fiduciary and fraud-related claims can reach beyond the immediate debtor to implicate leadership at the parent level, even when that parent is based outside the United States. Rosetta Genomics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosetta Genomics, Ltd., an Israeli biotechnology company. The U.S. entity was created to commercialize diagnostic tests in the American market. The parent company developed new diagnostic tests based on various genomics markets, including DNA, microRNA, and protein biomarkers, using various technologies, including qPCR, microarrays, Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), and Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization. The complaint alleges that the Delaware subsidiary’s most significant assets were its subsidiaries Minuet Diagnostics, Inc. and GynoGen, Inc., as well as the diagnostic test RosettaGX Reveal (“Reveal”). The latter accounted for the vast majority of the debtor’s revenue (up to 85%). The Israeli parent company owned another diagnostic test RosettaGX Cancer Origin Test. In 2012 Medicare established a reimbursement rate for Cancer Origin and published a formalized coverage decision through a Local Coverage Determination. This meant that the debtor and/or parent received approved automatic payments for claims submitted to Medicare and private insurers for Cancer Origin. The Reveal test was rarely reimbursed, but it was often billed under the coding for Cancer Origin. Central to the claims is the alleged miscoding of RosettaGX Reveal, which led to inflated revenues. Despite learning of Medicare scrutiny in mid-2017, the executives allegedly failed to disclose the issue to investors and continued to raise capital, ultimately contributing to the collapse of both entities. According to the complaint, Sabby Healthcare and Sabby Volatility Warrant Master Funds (collectively “Sabby”) and a potential merger partner incorporated financial statements that allegedly misrepresented the true source of revenue, omitting the coding irregularities. After the merger partner walked away, the Delaware subsidiary was placed in a Chapter 7 proceeding in 2018. Years after the subsidiary was put in a Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee, Don Beskrone, initiated litigation not only against the officers of the debtor but also against the executives of the Israeli parent. Interestingly, a lawsuit was first commenced in the Southern District of New York in 2021, and the case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. What facilitated the litigation was an assignment of claims from the Israeli parent’s liquidator and Sabby, which had invested nearly $8 million in the parent company under securities purchase agreements signed. The lawsuit asserts a number of causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, against Kenneth Berlin (CEO of the parent and sole director of the debtor), Ron Kalfus (CFO of both entities), and Brian Markison (chairman of the parent’s board). All are U.S. citizens, yet their roles in the foreign parent did not shield them from liability in the U.S. bankruptcy court. The defendants in their motion to dismiss emphasize that Rosetta, Ltd. operated in the intensely competitive and rapidly changing biotechnology marketplace, and it had a consistently disclosed history of losses, as well as extensive disclosures in its public filings detailing the many risks inherent in investment (including, but not limited to, the risks inherent in Medicare billing determinations). Its failure was a risk that was clearly disclosed both early and often. Sabby, on the other hand, was a sophisticated investor that well understood the risks associated with investment in biotechnology and healthcare startups. The defendants challenged the complaint on numerous procedural grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, statute of limitations, forum non-conveniens, and failure to state claims. Nonetheless, the court allowed the case to proceed, signaling that directors and officers, even of foreign parents, can face serious litigation exposure when a U.S. subsidiary fails. This case is particularly instructive because it highlights how liability can extend across borders and corporate structures, exposing parent company officers to U.S. litigation and broadening the scope of claims through investor and liquidator assignments.
September 26, 2025
Labor and Employment
The Heat Is On: OSHA’s Proposed Heat Safety Rule Advances with June 16 Hearing
Update: OSHA Extends Post-Hearing Comment Deadline On September 17, 2025, OSHA extended the deadline for submitting post-hearing comments on its proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings rule. Chief Administrative Law Judge Steven Henley granted a 30-day extension, moving the deadline to October 30, 2025. As a reminder, OSHA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024 and held an informal public hearing from June 16 through July 2, 2025. The agency has received more than 43,000 comments to date. Only stakeholders who filed a Notice of Intent to Appear at the hearing may submit post-hearing comments at this stage. Submissions, including supporting data, must be filed electronically through www.regulations.gov (Docket No. OSHA-2021-0009). What this means for employers: Employers who are eligible to file post-hearing comments should review their earlier submissions and consider whether supplemental comments are warranted before the October 30 deadline. Even if not eligible, employers should continue to monitor this rulemaking closely, as OSHA is moving forward quickly with finalizing the heat standard. Proactive compliance planning — including assessing current heat-illness prevention measures — will help employers stay ahead of regulatory changes. Original article published on June 19, 2025 As summer temperatures soar, so does the urgency for workplace safety measures to protect employees from heat-related illnesses. On July 2, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) unveiled its proposed rule, “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings,” a groundbreaking step toward establishing the first nationwide standard to combat excessive heat in workplaces. With a public hearing scheduled to begin on June 16, 2025, this proposed rule is poised to reshape how employers across industries manage heat hazards. OSHA will hold the hearing virtually, and it will continue through July 2, 2025. The purpose of the hearing is to gather public input on the proposed rule, which aims to protect workers from hazardous heat exposure. What is the Proposed Rule? OSHA’s proposed standard is a comprehensive framework designed to protect approximately 36 million workers in both indoor and outdoor settings. The rule applies to all employers and activates when the heat index hits 80°F for more than 15 minutes during any 60-minute period — termed the “initial heat trigger.” At 90°F, the “high heat trigger” introduces additional requirements. Here’s a snapshot of what employers would need to do: Written Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP): Employers must develop and implement a tailored, written plan to evaluate and control heat hazards. This includes designating a heat safety coordinator to oversee compliance. Temperature Monitoring: Outdoor employers must monitor temperatures frequently to assess heat exposure accurately. Indoor employers need to identify areas where the heat index may reach 80°F and incorporate a monitoring plan into their HIIPP. Mandatory Breaks and Cool-Down Areas: At the initial heat trigger, employers must provide access to drinking water and break areas. At the high heat trigger, mandatory 15-minute breaks every two hours and observation systems (similar to buddy systems) to monitor for heat illness symptoms are required. Training and Acclimatization: Employees must receive training on heat hazards, emergency responses, and acclimatization protocols to gradually build tolerance to higher temperatures, especially for new or returning workers. Hazard Alerts and Signage: Employers must issue heat hazard alerts before shifts or when high heat is recognized, using accessible communication methods that are easily understood by all employees. For indoor areas frequently exceeding 120°F, warning signs are mandatory. This isn’t just a suggestion—it’s a specification standard, meaning employers have little wiggle room to deviate from OSHA’s requirements. The rule’s scope is vast, covering general industry, construction, maritime, and agriculture; however exemptions apply to work with no reasonable expectation of reaching the initial heat trigger or areas consistently air-conditioned below 80°F. Why This Rule Is a Big Deal OSHA’s push for a federal heat standard has been simmering since 2021, fueled by President Biden’s Executive Order 13990 on climate change. The agency’s National Emphasis Program on heat hazards, launched in April 2022, underscored the need for action, though citations under the General Duty Clause have been sparse and often overturned in litigation. This proposed rule aims to close those gaps, providing clear, enforceable requirements to protect workers from heat-related illnesses, which can range from heat exhaustion to life-threatening heatstroke. The timing is critical. Rising temperatures are no longer just a summer concern—record-breaking heat waves are hitting year-round, especially in regions like the Southwest. States like California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington already have heat illness prevention standards, and California’s recent indoor heat rule (effective July 23, 2024) shares similarities with OSHA’s proposal. For employers with existing plans, the good news is that OSHA’s rule doesn’t mandate changes if your program already includes the proposed elements. However, aligning your plan with OSHA’s requirements could be a smart move to avoid General Duty Clause violations. The Public Hearing: Your Chance to Shape the Future The public hearing begins on June 16, 2025 (and continues through July 2, 2025), offering a platform for employers, industry groups, and workers to weigh in. Only those individuals who filed a timely Notice of Intention to Appear (NOITA) will be allowed to testify or ask questions at the hearing. The comment period, which closed on December 30, 2024, saw robust engagement, and this hearing is the next step in refining the rule. Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, have raised questions about the authority of federal agencies, potentially impacting OSHA’s rulemaking. Additionally, the Trump administration’s “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” issued on January 20, 2025, could delay or alter the rule’s trajectory, though its impact on ongoing rulemaking remains unclear. The hearing will be a critical moment to gauge the rule’s momentum and OSHA’s response to these dynamics. Practical Tips for Employers While the rule is still in the proposal stage, proactive employers can get ahead of the curve. Here’s how: Review Existing Plans: If you have a heat illness prevention program, compare it to OSHA’s proposed elements. Gaps in training, monitoring, or break policies could expose you to future citations. Engage in the Hearing: Attend the hearing (even if you failed to submit a timely NOITA) to stay informed and, if able, to voice practical concerns, especially if your industry faces unique challenges (e.g., indoor heat in manufacturing or outdoor work in construction). Train Your Team: Start training supervisors and employees on heat hazards and acclimatization now. Early adoption can reduce risks and demonstrate compliance readiness. Monitor State Standards: If you operate in states with existing heat rules, ensure compliance while preparing for potential federal alignment. California’s indoor rule, for example, has trigger points at 82°F and 87°F, slightly different from OSHA’s. The Heat Is On—Are You Ready? OSHA’s proposed heat injury and illness prevention standard is a wake-up call for employers to prioritize worker safety in a warming world. With the public hearing kicking off on June 16, 2025, now is the time to engage, prepare, and adapt. Whether you’re a small business or a multinational corporation, this rule could redefine your workplace safety obligations.
September 25, 2025
Sports Entertainment and Media
Court Reinstates Jury Finding in Disney Motion Capture Copyright Dispute
The Ninth Circuit recently issued a partial reversal of a grant of summary judgment to Disney in a dispute stemming from the misuse of motion capture software. This case arose when Disney's visual effects contractor, Digital Domain 3.0 “DD3,” allegedly used Rearden's copyrighted MOVA motion capture software without authorization during production of the 2017 Beauty and the Beast film. While a jury found Disney vicariously liable and awarded $250,638 in actual damages plus $345,098 in profits, the district court granted Disney's motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that Disney lacked the ability to supervise DD3's directly infringing conduct. The ability of Disney to supervise DD3’s misuse constitutes a necessary element of vicarious liability. The Ninth Circuit disagreed on appeal, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Disney had the practical ability to supervise and control DD3's conduct. The court rejected Disney's arguments that it was impractical to conduct due diligence on every piece of software used by vendors and that it had no way to identify the infringement, finding that the jury could reasonably conclude Disney had the reasonable ability to identify DD3's potentially infringing use of MOVA. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to treat the jury's profit award as advisory, ruling that there is no jury trial right for profit remedies under the Copyright Act. This decision has the potential to motivate large studios such as Disney to rethink their due diligence obligations in cases involving large-scale productions with multiple vendors and complex technological workflows.
September 25, 2025
Mergers and Acquisitions
Finding the Right Deal Partners: Why Pace and Fit Matter
Selling a business is never just about numbers on a page, it’s about preparation, people, and navigating the unexpected. Mike Mercurio presents a compelling series of conversations with client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin, as she shares the real story behind her company’s sale. From the private moment she first decided to sell, to the surprise challenges of disclosure schedules, and the essential role of trusted advisors, Anna offers a rare, inside look at what the process truly feels like. Whether you’re years away from a sale or already planning one, her journey provides invaluable lessons on timing, team, and trust. In Part 2 of our Selling Your Business series, Anna Gavin dives into one of the most overlooked but critical aspects of selling a business: choosing the right partners for the deal. She discusses with her deal counsel, M&A attorney Mike Mercurio, that from legal advisors to teammates, not everyone is the right fit for every situation. From the sell side perspective, she shares how important it was to align not just on expertise, but on pace, communication style, and approach. Keeping things simple, focused, and moving forward became the guiding principle and it made all the difference.
September 25, 2025
Labor and Employment
Visa Uncertainty: The Presidential Proclamation on H-1Bs and a $100,000 for New Petitions
On September 19, 2025, the Trump administration issued a Presidential Proclamation “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” effective at 12:01 a.m. September 21, 2025. The Presidential Proclamation specifically targets H-1B Visa Holders who are outside of the United States. Any H-1B visa holder attempting to enter the United States after the effective date must be accompanied by proof of payment of an additional $100,000 fee. This action created panic among large H-1B employers and employees as employees scrambled to return to the United States before the effective date and time. The Administration, through United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Press Secretary’s office, had to “clarify” that their rule was only effective for new H-1B petitions. USCIS Statement attempting to clarify the situation: This proclamation only applies prospectively to petitions that have not yet been filed. The proclamation does not apply to aliens who: are the beneficiaries of petitions that were filed prior to the effective date of the proclamation, are the beneficiaries of currently approved petitions, or are in possession of validly issued H-1B non-immigrant visas. All officers of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services shall ensure that their decisions are consistent with this guidance. The proclamation does not impact the ability of any current visa holder to travel to or from the United States. Accordingly, individuals in H-1B status in the United States are unaffected. The vast majority of H-1B cases pending for this cap year will also not be affected. Individuals traveling outside of the country with valid H-1B visas or seeking to obtain renewal of an H-1B visa, will also be unaffected. Instead, the focus will be on certain key groups. The first major group will be the new H-1B cap applicants in 2026. These applicants will be required to demonstrate payment of a $100,000 fee before filing their petition with the USCIS. Also, the effective date of the order will directly impact cap-exempt employers looking to hire new workers in H-1B status. These employers tend to be in research, medical, academia, and related fields. It should be noted that there is currently no guidance on how to make the fee payment. Exemptions are also built into the order, but they are not specific. Currently, it appears that they may exist for an individual, a company, or potentially a whole industry, if DHS determines that it is in the national interest of the United States and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States. Crucially, the Proclamation does not address whether the fee and restriction apply to cap-exempt H-1B workers outside of the U.S., who are typically exempt from the majority of H-1B fees. What should employers do? We currently believe that international travel will not be affected for the vast majority of H-1B visa holders. We recommend all non-immigrant visa holders consult with counsel before international travel, given the current climate. Employers and individuals looking to apply in the 2026 H-1B lottery or seeking employment with a Cap Exempt H-1B employer should seek legal advice immediately. How long is this effective for? The Presidential Proclamation is effective for a period of 12 months. What Happens in the future? The proclamation is likely to face legal challenges as it directly contradicts the will of Congress in the issuance of the H-1B visa program and its implementing regulations, including the introduction of application fees without notice and comment. Entry of nonimmigrants, however, is controlled by the executive branch, so potentially a modified version of this proclamation will continue.
September 22, 2025
Family Law
A Game-Changer for Divorcing Homeowners in Maryland
One of the biggest challenges for divorcing clients is determining how to handle the marital home. Even when both parties agree on who will remain in the home, the refinancing hurdle often proves to be insurmountable, especially given the recent climb in interest rates. Starting October 1, 2025, a new Maryland law will give divorcing homeowners the chance to stay in their home without refinancing. Same loan. Same interest rate. Same mortgage payment. But goodbye to financial entanglement with your spouse. For years, I have counseled homeowner clients on how to keep their home while removing their spouse from liability. Most people can’t pay off their entire mortgage, so it meant having to refinance into a new loan, which often involved higher interest rates, closing costs, and the challenge of qualifying alone. If refinancing wasn’t an option, homeowners would either have to sell the home or convince their spouse to stay financially connected on the mortgage. The options weren’t ideal. Starting October 1, 2025, Maryland is changing the game. A new law requires certain mortgage lenders to allow a divorcing spouse to assume the mortgage, that is, take over the mortgage without refinancing. (House Bill 1018). The spouse assuming the mortgage can keep their same mortgage payment and avoid refinancing fees such as closing costs and appraisals. The law applies to new loans but can also be retroactively applied to loans obtained prior to October 1, 2025, if the divorce decree is entered on or after October 1, 2025. Of course, every law has exceptions. The new law applies to most conventional mortgages, which are commonly used by Maryland families when purchasing a home. It doesn’t automatically cover government-backed loans like FHA, VA, or USDA, or mortgages from major national banks such as Wells Fargo, Chase, or Bank of America. That said, assumption may still be possible with those loans. In fact, we have helped some clients successfully arrange assumptions even before this law has gone into effect. Even though lenders will be required to offer assumption, homeowners will still have to meet the lender’s requirements to qualify for the loan. A skilled family law attorney can assist with crafting a settlement or obtaining a judgment that improves the chances of qualifying and gives families the best opportunity to stay in their home. This new law helps Maryland families worry about one less thing when getting divorced. The law will help families stay in their home, keep children in their same schools, and maintain a sense of normalcy during a time of change.
September 19, 2025
Labor and Employment
The Social Media Aftermath of the Charlie Kirk Assassination – Can An Employer Fire An Employee for Offensive Social Media Posts?
In an article in the September 16, 2025, edition of The Washington Post, the lead paragraph read as follows: “The wave of companies and other institutions firing or suspending employees over what they’ve said in reaction to last week’s killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk has expanded in recent days, as some of his supporters in and outside the government amp up a push against speech they say crosses lines.” Thus, the question that arises in the minds of both employees and employers related to the voluminous publicity surrounding the recent Kirk assassination is whether an employee’s social media post, which is deemed to be offensive, can justify the potential termination of such an employee. The short answer to this inquiry is that in the private sector, as opposed to the arena of public employment, where First Amendment protections may be applicable, employers have wide discretion to discipline and even fire employees for posts which are deemed to be unduly offensive, inflammatory, or violative of their cultural or internal policies. The caveat for private sector employers is that employees enjoy statutory protections under the National Labor Relations Act for speech of a political or social nature when such speech or posted comment is related to such employee’s workplace’s wages, hours or terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, employees also enjoy protections under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act if, for instance, their social media posts protest discrimination in the workplace, when that alleged discrimination refers to any protected status, such as religion, national origin, race, disability, etc. Private employers would be well-advised in this incendiary political climate to analyze each situation based on the facts and circumstances of the post in question, and to evaluate whether such post is violative of its internal policies, is deemed to be overly inflammatory and/or offensive to a person(s), is disparaging or defamatory to the employer or its employees or customers, is damaging to the company’s reputation or cultivated image, or is deemed to be simply inconsistent with civilized and acceptable societal discourse. In any situation where termination may be predicated upon a social media post and where uncertainty may exist regarding potential legal exposure and/or a looming public relations crisis, it is always advisable for the employer to consult with competent employment counsel and/or a public relations crisis expert. Howard Kurman is a founder of Offit Kurman, a AmLaw 200 law firm. He is a principal in the firm’s labor/employment practice and regularly counsels employers on all facets of employment and labor relations law and practice. To contact Howard, he may be emailed at hkurman@offitkurman.com, or by phone at his office: 410-209-6417.
September 18, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Planning for Responsible Inheritance: What "Brewster’s Millions" Can Teach Us About Estate Planning
The plot of the 1985 comedy “Brewster’s Millions,” starring Richard Pryor and John Candy, centers around Montgomery Brewster, a minor league baseball player who stands to inherit $300 million from a previously unknown great-uncle. The catch? To receive his inheritance, he must spend $30 million[1] within 30 days without receiving any assets in return, and without merely giving away all the money. If Brewster does not spend the entire $30 million in 30 days, he will inherit nothing. Hijinks ensue. At its core, the movie is a satire on capitalism and consumerism, playing on the common fantasy of inheriting a life-changing fortune from a wealthy relative. However, the film also explores a common concern that many clients have when making their estate plans. They are worried that their beneficiaries will squander their life’s savings and exhaust their inheritance on luxury items or speculative investments. These clients consider how they can ensure that their beneficiaries will responsibly manage a significant inheritance. Brewster’s great-uncle explains that his contest is not an arbitrary one. He wishes to teach Brewster a lesson, to hate spending money so much that he will learn to manage his inheritance wisely. By forcing Brewster to exhaust a fortune, he teaches Brewster to think very carefully about how he spends his money, making strategic and methodical decisions in pursuit of a singular goal. While the movie’s plot is exaggerated for comedic effect, in reality, there are several well-established estate planning techniques a client may consider to instill fiscal responsibility in a beneficiary without going to such extremes. Staggered Distributions and Trustee Discretion It is common sense that a client would not wish for a minor beneficiary to receive an outright inheritance, and virtually all wills and trusts will provide that a minor’s share will be held in trust until a milestone birthday. This ensures that a beneficiary will not receive their inheritance outright until they attain a mature age. To further mitigate the risk of a beneficiary squandering their inheritance, a client may stagger distributions over a significant period of time. For example, the client may direct that the beneficiary’s inheritance be held in trust until the beneficiary turns 25, at which time one-third of the trust assets will be distributed outright. A second distribution of one-half of the assets may be made at 30, with the assets becoming fully distributable upon the beneficiary's attainment of age 35. This approach enables beneficiaries to mature into their inheritance gradually. While the assets remain in trust, distributions may still be made by an independent trustee pursuant to an ascertainable standard, such as for the beneficiary’s health, education, maintenance and support (the “HEMS” standard). The trustee is empowered to decide if, when, and how much to distribute to the beneficiary. If, like Monty Brewster, the beneficiary appears to be recklessly spending their inheritance, the trustee can act as a stopgap and cease making distributions. Incentives Another common strategy is to incentivize the beneficiary to achieve specific goals to receive distributions. By dangling a “carrot” in front of the beneficiary, the client can guide and influence their beneficiary’s personal development and early career path. For example, the client may direct that the beneficiary will only receive a distribution upon obtaining a bachelor’s degree; if the beneficiary does not obtain a bachelor’s degree, their inheritance could be withheld for a longer period or even redirected to a charity. A client might further direct that distributions be made to the beneficiary for every year that they maintain full-time employment. A client could also include directions requiring a trustee to make distributions provided that they are used toward some productive goal, such as the purchase of a home. The client may encourage a beneficiary to keep a family home or vacation house in the family by providing an annual stipend for every year that the premises are maintained in good order. If the client is uncomfortable with such rigid, dead-hand influence over their beneficiary’s actions, they may still consider imparting some non-binding guidance or wisdom. For example, a client may express a preference for their beneficiary to use a portion of their inheritance for charitable purposes or to support a worthy cause. A client might also suggest, but not require, that their beneficiary employs a trusted family financial manager or accountant to assist them with managing their inheritance. Designating the Beneficiary as a Co-Trustee Another great strategy to foster fiscal responsibility is to name the beneficiary as the co-trustee of their trust fund until it is fully distributable. The client will then name a trusted individual or financial institution to serve as co-trustee together with the beneficiary. The beneficiary may be permitted to make distributions pursuant to the HEMS standard, but would not be permitted to participate in making discretionary distributions. This strategy provides greater flexibility and management over the beneficiary’s inheritance and the timing of distributions, while allowing the beneficiary the opportunity to manage their funds under the guidance and mentorship of a more experienced party. This may be especially valuable when the beneficiary has had little to no financial education or experience managing large sums of money. Conclusion Estate planning is much more than merely transferring assets; it is about preserving the client’s values and ensuring appropriate stewardship of the assets they leave upon their death. Estate planners have a variety of techniques and tools that can be employed to protect beneficiaries from themselves, oftentimes used in conjunction to maximize their effectiveness. The key is thoughtful and deliberate planning, exploring with the client the myriad of methods that can be used to achieve their goals and ensure preservation of their legacy. [1] Adjusted for inflation, this $30 million bequest would be approximately $90 million in today’s dollars.
September 18, 2025
Mergers and Acquisitions
What Really Happens When You Decide to Sell Your Business?
Selling a business is never just about numbers on a page, it’s about preparation, people, and navigating the unexpected. Mike Mercurio presents a compelling series of conversations with client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin, as she shares the real story behind her company’s sale. From the private moment she first decided to sell, to the surprise challenges of disclosure schedules, and the essential role of trusted advisors, Anna offers a rare, inside look at what the process truly feels like. Whether you’re years away from a sale or already planning one, her journey provides invaluable lessons on timing, team, and trust. In Part 1 of our Selling Your Business series, client and former Fireline owner Anna Gavin shares her personal and professional journey that followed her pivotal decision to sell her business. From quietly sitting with the decision for a year to finally voicing it to her spouse, she walks M&A attorney Mike Mercurio, who served as her counsel and deal attorney, through the early steps she took to get informed and prepared. By attending panels, listening to expert advice, and beginning the groundwork a year in advance, her story highlights the importance of planning and just how early that planning really needs to begin.
September 18, 2025
Labor and Employment
The FTC’s Noncompete Ban Is Dead – But Enforcement Is Alive and Well
The Federal Trade Commission has officially withdrawn its appeal in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, putting an end to its controversial attempt to ban noncompete agreements through agency rulemaking. That effort may be over, but the commission has made clear that employers are not free to impose noncompetes “willy-nilly.” As FTC Chair Ferguson recently cautioned, the failure of the Biden Administration’s sweeping ban does not mean the agency is abandoning the field. From Rulemaking to Case-by-Case Enforcement Rather than pursuing broad regulations, the FTC has pivoted toward an enforcement model. On September 4, the commission announced a complaint against Gateway Services, Inc. over its use of noncompete clauses. Alongside the complaint, Commissioners Ferguson and Holyoak issued a joint statement emphasizing a new philosophy – using targeted enforcement to signal to the market what the FTC views as unlawful practices. In their words, a “steady stream of enforcement actions” provides transparency and nudges employers toward compliance without sweeping rulemaking. This case-by-case strategy echoes traditional antitrust enforcement – send a clear warning through precedent, not regulation. Public Input Still Matters At the same time, the FTC issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking data about how noncompetes are used, justified, and experienced across industries. While the agency insists this is not a return to rulemaking, the RFI will likely shape enforcement priorities, especially sector-specific initiatives. Employers with legitimate business interests in protecting trade secrets or client relationships should consider submitting comments before the November 3 deadline to ensure their perspective is not drowned out by opponents. Healthcare in the Crosshairs The FTC has already signaled special scrutiny of healthcare employers. On September 10, Chair Ferguson sent letters to large health systems and staffing firms urging them to review restrictive covenants in their employment agreements. The move is striking given that states already regulate healthcare noncompetes more aggressively than nearly any other sector – dozens of new bills have been proposed in the past year alone. Why the added federal attention? One explanation may be the flood of public comments targeting healthcare during last year’s failed rulemaking process. In other words, political pressure and anecdotal evidence may be driving the FTC’s focus more than labor market data – where healthcare remains one of the strongest employment sectors nationwide. How Employers Can Avoid the “Willy-Nilly” Label The Gateway Services complaint and other FTC actions provide insight into what will draw scrutiny. Employers should work closely with counsel to design noncompete and restrictive covenant programs that focus on legitimate interests rather than blanket employee control. Key considerations include: Legitimate purpose: Use restrictive covenants to prevent unfair competition and protect confidential information, not merely to retain employees or block mobility. Role-specific tailoring: Reserve noncompetes for positions where they are truly necessary (e.g., senior executives, client-facing sales roles). Apply different restrictions for different levels of employees. Narrower alternatives: Consider whether non-solicitation, confidentiality, or customer protection clauses can adequately protect the business. Reasonable scope: Draft restrictions that are proportionate in duration, geography, and covered activities. Agreements that prevent someone from working for a competitor “in any capacity” – say, even as a janitor – are likely to raise red flags. Compliance with state law: Many states have already tightened restrictions on noncompetes. Ignoring state law not only risks invalidation but may also invite FTC scrutiny. The Bottom Line While the federal ban is off the table, the FTC is not retreating. Employers should expect enforcement actions to continue, particularly in sectors like healthcare, and should take this moment to review their agreements. A thoughtful, legally sound approach to restrictive covenants will make it much harder for regulators to paint your practices as “willy-nilly.”
September 18, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Trust Issues: Did the Clippers’ Leonard's Aspiration Deal Skirt the NBA Salary Cap?
As a trust and estates attorney for professional athletes, I was shocked when news broke that fintech start-up Aspiration owed the LA Clippers small forward, Kawhi Leonard’s personal LLC millions of dollars heading into its bankruptcy. At first glance, it sounded like a straightforward endorsement dispute. However, buried in the otherwise mundane bankruptcy filings was a “companion trust,” another name for an LLC, one that I have drafted for clients, but which has certainly raised some questions. The biggest question of all was whether the LLC was just a conduit for the Clippers’ clumsy attempt to boost Leonard’s income outside the NBA’s salary cap? The Players and the Paperwork Aspiration was founded as a banking platform invested heavily in by Clippers owner, Steve Ballmer. Leonard, a talented 10-year veteran, was already paid well by the Clippers on a max contract with the team. Then in 2022, he signed a four-year, $28 million “endorsement” deal through his personal limited liability company called KL2 Aspire. According to bankruptcy records, a “companion trust,” namely Leonard’s personal LLC, was set up to receive payments from Aspiration. That trust reportedly included a clause voiding the deal made with Leonard and any future payments if Leonard left [1]the Clippers. It should be noted that I draft LLCs and trusts for players all of the time; both can be an integral part of a properly drafted estate plan. Athletes, like all my clients, use trusts and LLCs for probate avoidance, creditor protection, privacy, and tax efficiency. In Leonard’s case, it seems that the LLC was instead drafted to function as a private channel to funnel money received from a company partly funded by the Clippers’ owner into a vehicle controlled by Leonard. The contract then tied the payments specifically to Leonard’s role with the Clippers[2]. Why It Matters Under NBA Rules The NBA’s collective bargaining agreement forbids “salary-cap circumvention”: a team is prohibited from channeling extra compensation to a player under the guise of a third-party deal. The use of a trust or an LLC to marshal assets or income does not change that rule. If the pay by a third party is well above market value for actual promotional work expected of the athlete, or contingent upon staying with the team, it still fits the bill as “compensation” and therefore a violation. It seems there is no evidence that Leonard performed any promotional duties that one would expect of a professional athlete paid millions of dollars. According to podcast host and journalist Pablo Torre, former Aspiration employees have said the marketing component was minimal. Despite the lack of service provided by Leonard, so far, the Clippers and Ballmer have denied any involvement with the generous arrangement. However, the combination of Ballmer’s hefty investment, reportedly in the tens of millions, the team-service clause, and the LLC’s transfers, provides the NBA with plenty to investigate. To be clear, the question is not whether the use of LLCs and trusts to hold players’ assets, or even income, is legal—they are—but whether this one was used as a poorly drafted device to mask Leonard’s compensation as an end-run around the cap rules. If investigators find that the LLC collected “endorsement” distributions meant to keep Leonard in Los Angeles playing for the Clippers, the repercussions will be steep, resulting in hefty fines, loss of draft picks, or perhaps even voided contracts. Until the league finishes its review, the Aspiration deal and Leonard’s LLC remain a cautionary tale to all in the professional sports world and their lawyers. Estate-planning tools like LLCs and trusts are perfectly legitimate and appropriate, but when the use of these documents intersects with team ownership and conditional contracts, these documents may look less like tools in a properly drafted estate plan and more like an end-run around the salary cap. [1] Report - Kawhi Leonard paid after Clippers partner's investment - ESPN [2] Kawhi Leonard situation explained as NBA investigates Clippers
September 18, 2025
Page 8 of 35
About the Blog
Receive timely content, newsletters and event information delivered to your inbox.
