-
Series
Law school teaches you to quickly apply intellect and logic when handling a legal issue, but every fact pattern also involves a person, making the ability to balance expertise with empathy critical to the growth of relationships with clients, colleagues and adversaries, says Rachel Adcox at Adcox Strategies.
-
In response to U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down tariffs issued by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, there are several actions federal contractors should take to preserve their place in any refund waterfall, and to manage audit, overpayment and False Claims Act risk, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.
-
As companies continue to leave Delaware and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission begins allowing companies to implement mandatory arbitration provisions, these developments could have a major impact on the initial public offering, securities class action, and directors and officers insurance landscapes, says Walker Newell at Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
-
As prediction markets experience tremendous growth and rapid mainstream adoption, regulators have begun to exercise enforcement authority to ensure market integrity and protect participants, though forthcoming guidance will shed light on how aggressively the agencies will police the fast-changing landscape, say attorneys at Latham.
-
As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly accessible, lawyers with a niche practice may stand out as clients seek specialized judgment that automation cannot replicate, but it is important to choose a niche that is durable, engaging and a good personal fit, says Daniel Borneman at Lowenstein Sandler.
-
Regulatory responses following the dot-com collapse reflected a consistent emphasis on whether public disclosures enabled investors to understand the economic reality underlying reported performance, a focus that is likely to shape how artificial intelligence infrastructure disclosures are evaluated if market expectations similarly deteriorate, say Diana Connor, Adrienna Huffman and Bin Zhou at the Brattle Group.
-
By imposing temporary tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act as a stopgap measure while it pivots to less transitory statutory authorities, the Trump administration sent a clear message that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, invalidating duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, will not precipitate a change in policy direction, say attorneys at Snell & Wilmer.
-
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s recent proposal to create a formal process for issuing payment stablecoins arrives with several practical implications for FDIC‑supervised banks pursuing digital asset strategies, including a safe harbor for early applicants and a focus on ownership and governance, say attorneys at Troutman.
-
The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit's North American Derivatives Exchange v. Nevada case declines to define the boundary between swaps and wagers, leaving market participants, exchanges and intermediaries operating within a regulatory framework whose boundaries remain undrawn, says Tamara de Silva at De Silva Law Offices.
-
Series
Podcasting has changed how I ask questions and connect with people, sharpening my ability to listen without interrupting or prejudging, and bringing me closer to what law is meant to be: a human profession grounded in understanding, judgment and trust, says Donna DiMaggio Berger at Becker.
-
The Delaware Court of Chancery's recent decision in Grabski v. Andreessen, finding that a member of the Coinbase special litigation committee was not independent, provides guidance for Delaware boards regarding the formation, composition and operation of SLCs, while offering a counterpoint to the procedures available to Texas-incorporated companies, says John Lawrence at Baker Botts.
-
The National Credit Union Administration, a historically conservative federal agency, recently proposed a detailed stablecoin licensing framework, confirming that the proposition of building a regulatory architecture within the banking industry has moved well past "whether" and firmly into "how," says Stephen Aschettino at Fox Rothschild.
-
The justices' varied opinions in Learning Resources v. Trump, which held the International Emergency Economy Powers Act did not confer the power to impose tariffs, offer a meaningful window into the U.S. Supreme Court's perspective on the major questions doctrine that will likely shape lower courts' approach to executive action challenges, say attorneys at Venable.
-
To replace tariffs formerly imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the administration will rely on a patchwork of statutes, potentially leading to procedural challenges and a complex tariff landscape with varying levels, durations and applicability, says Joseph Grossman-Trawick at King & Spalding.
-
According to a D.C. federal court in Sztrom v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy did not eliminate the commission's ability to pursue industry bars through administrative follow-on proceedings, a major blow for future Article 3 challenges — so long as it stands, say attorneys at Venable.