Businesses
Here's a look at documents from U.S. and international businesses
Businesses
Featured Stories
Vanguard Launches Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF
MALVERN, Pennsylvania, Nov. 13 -- Vanguard Group, an investment management company, issued the following news release:
* * *
Vanguard Launches Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF
VALLEY FORGE, PA (November 12, 2026)--Vanguard today announced the launch of Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF (VEMB), an actively managed fixed income ETF designed to provide clients with broad exposure across emerging markets bonds while offering active management. The ETF is managed by Vanguard Fixed Income Group.
"Investors are increasingly seeking active approaches to emerging markets bonds, where ... Show Full Article MALVERN, Pennsylvania, Nov. 13 -- Vanguard Group, an investment management company, issued the following news release: * * * Vanguard Launches Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF VALLEY FORGE, PA (November 12, 2026)--Vanguard today announced the launch of Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF (VEMB), an actively managed fixed income ETF designed to provide clients with broad exposure across emerging markets bonds while offering active management. The ETF is managed by Vanguard Fixed Income Group. "Investors are increasingly seeking active approaches to emerging markets bonds, wherethe complexity and dispersion across markets can make disciplined security selection and risk management particularly valuable," said Sara Devereux, CIO, Vanguard Capital Management, Global Head of Vanguard Fixed Income Group. "With VEMB, investors gain access to Vanguard Fixed Income Group's deep emerging markets expertise through a flexible, low-cost ETF designed to help them capture opportunities across this dynamic segment of the market."
Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF invests across emerging markets hard currency sovereign bonds, quasi-sovereign bonds, corporate bonds, and EM local currency bonds, serving investors seeking both exposure beyond core fixed income sectors and active investing in an ETF format. The ETF has an expense ratio of 0.35%, positioning it among the lowest-cost active products in the emerging markets bond category.
For more than 40 years, Vanguard's Fixed Income Group has distinguished itself with deep investment capabilities, disciplined security selection processes, and rigorous risk management techniques, resulting in consistent long-term performance. Vanguard Fixed Income Group is one of the world's largest managers of bond mutual funds and ETFs, overseeing the full spectrum of fixed income asset classes and sectors. The team oversees more than $2.9 trillion in global assets under management and has more than 200 investment professionals across the globe./1
Vanguard has a strong track record as an investment manager--92% of Vanguard active taxable fixed income funds outperformed their Morningstar peer group medians over the past ten years as of September 30, 2026./2
Daniel Shaykevich and Mauro Favini serve as the portfolio managers responsible for day-to-day management of the fund, each with deep experience in emerging markets bond investing. The pair also manage the $5.7 billion Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Fund (VEGBX/VEMBX).
* * *
1/ All figures as of September 30, 2026, unless stated otherwise.
2/ For the 10-year period ended September 30, 2026, 12 of 13 Vanguard active taxable bond funds outperformed their peer group median; results will vary for other time periods. Only funds with a minimum 10-year history were included, and when multiple share classes were present only the lowest cost was included in the comparison. (Source: Morningstar). Note that the competitive performance data shown represents past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results, and that all investments are subject to risks. For the most recent performance, visit our website advisors.vanguard.com/investments/all.
* * *
About Vanguard
Founded in 1975, Vanguard is one of the world's leading investment management companies. The firm offers investments, advice, and retirement services to tens of millions of individual investors around the globe--directly, through workplace plans, and through financial intermediaries. Vanguard operates under a unique, investor-owned structure where Vanguard fund shareholders own the funds, which in turn own Vanguard. As such, Vanguard adheres to a simple purpose: To take a stand for all investors, to treat them fairly, and to give them the best chance for investment success. For more information, visit vanguard.com.
For more information about Vanguard funds and Vanguard ETFs, visit vanguard.com to obtain a prospectus or, if available, a summary prospectus. Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information are contained in the prospectus; read and consider it carefully before investing.
Vanguard ETF Shares are not redeemable with the issuing Fund other than in very large aggregations worth millions of dollars. Instead, investors must buy and sell Vanguard ETF Shares in the secondary market and hold those shares in a brokerage account. In doing so, the investor may incur brokerage commissions and may pay more than net asset value when buying and receive less than net asset value when selling.
Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF is a standalone product and is separate and distinct from the Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Fund, a mutual fund. These products are independent of one another. Differences in scale, investment strategies, certain investment processes and underlying holdings are expected to produce different investment returns by these products.
All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest.
Bond funds are subject to interest rate risk, which is the chance bond prices overall will decline because of rising interest rates, and credit risk, which is the chance a bond issuer will fail to pay interest and principal in a timely manner or that negative perceptions of the issuer's ability to make such payments will cause the price of that bond to decline.
Investments in bonds issued by non-U.S. companies are subject to risks including country/regional risk and currency risk. Investments in emerging markets are subject to higher degrees of risk and volatility than investments in developed markets.
High-yield bonds generally have medium- and lower-range credit quality ratings and are therefore subject to a higher level of credit risk than bonds with higher credit quality ratings.
* * *
Original text here: https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/pressroom/press-release-vanguard-launches-vanguard-emerging-markets-bond-active-etf-111226.html
[Category: BizFinancial Services]
* * *
Vanguard Launches Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF
VALLEY FORGE, PA (November 12, 2026)--Vanguard today announced the launch of Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF (VEMB), an actively managed fixed income ETF designed to provide clients with broad exposure across emerging markets bonds while offering active management. The ETF is managed by Vanguard Fixed Income Group.
"Investors are increasingly seeking active approaches to emerging markets bonds, where ... Show Full Article MALVERN, Pennsylvania, Nov. 13 -- Vanguard Group, an investment management company, issued the following news release: * * * Vanguard Launches Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF VALLEY FORGE, PA (November 12, 2026)--Vanguard today announced the launch of Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF (VEMB), an actively managed fixed income ETF designed to provide clients with broad exposure across emerging markets bonds while offering active management. The ETF is managed by Vanguard Fixed Income Group. "Investors are increasingly seeking active approaches to emerging markets bonds, wherethe complexity and dispersion across markets can make disciplined security selection and risk management particularly valuable," said Sara Devereux, CIO, Vanguard Capital Management, Global Head of Vanguard Fixed Income Group. "With VEMB, investors gain access to Vanguard Fixed Income Group's deep emerging markets expertise through a flexible, low-cost ETF designed to help them capture opportunities across this dynamic segment of the market."
Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF invests across emerging markets hard currency sovereign bonds, quasi-sovereign bonds, corporate bonds, and EM local currency bonds, serving investors seeking both exposure beyond core fixed income sectors and active investing in an ETF format. The ETF has an expense ratio of 0.35%, positioning it among the lowest-cost active products in the emerging markets bond category.
For more than 40 years, Vanguard's Fixed Income Group has distinguished itself with deep investment capabilities, disciplined security selection processes, and rigorous risk management techniques, resulting in consistent long-term performance. Vanguard Fixed Income Group is one of the world's largest managers of bond mutual funds and ETFs, overseeing the full spectrum of fixed income asset classes and sectors. The team oversees more than $2.9 trillion in global assets under management and has more than 200 investment professionals across the globe./1
Vanguard has a strong track record as an investment manager--92% of Vanguard active taxable fixed income funds outperformed their Morningstar peer group medians over the past ten years as of September 30, 2026./2
Daniel Shaykevich and Mauro Favini serve as the portfolio managers responsible for day-to-day management of the fund, each with deep experience in emerging markets bond investing. The pair also manage the $5.7 billion Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Fund (VEGBX/VEMBX).
* * *
1/ All figures as of September 30, 2026, unless stated otherwise.
2/ For the 10-year period ended September 30, 2026, 12 of 13 Vanguard active taxable bond funds outperformed their peer group median; results will vary for other time periods. Only funds with a minimum 10-year history were included, and when multiple share classes were present only the lowest cost was included in the comparison. (Source: Morningstar). Note that the competitive performance data shown represents past performance, which is not a guarantee of future results, and that all investments are subject to risks. For the most recent performance, visit our website advisors.vanguard.com/investments/all.
* * *
About Vanguard
Founded in 1975, Vanguard is one of the world's leading investment management companies. The firm offers investments, advice, and retirement services to tens of millions of individual investors around the globe--directly, through workplace plans, and through financial intermediaries. Vanguard operates under a unique, investor-owned structure where Vanguard fund shareholders own the funds, which in turn own Vanguard. As such, Vanguard adheres to a simple purpose: To take a stand for all investors, to treat them fairly, and to give them the best chance for investment success. For more information, visit vanguard.com.
For more information about Vanguard funds and Vanguard ETFs, visit vanguard.com to obtain a prospectus or, if available, a summary prospectus. Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information are contained in the prospectus; read and consider it carefully before investing.
Vanguard ETF Shares are not redeemable with the issuing Fund other than in very large aggregations worth millions of dollars. Instead, investors must buy and sell Vanguard ETF Shares in the secondary market and hold those shares in a brokerage account. In doing so, the investor may incur brokerage commissions and may pay more than net asset value when buying and receive less than net asset value when selling.
Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Active ETF is a standalone product and is separate and distinct from the Vanguard Emerging Markets Bond Fund, a mutual fund. These products are independent of one another. Differences in scale, investment strategies, certain investment processes and underlying holdings are expected to produce different investment returns by these products.
All investing is subject to risk, including the possible loss of the money you invest.
Bond funds are subject to interest rate risk, which is the chance bond prices overall will decline because of rising interest rates, and credit risk, which is the chance a bond issuer will fail to pay interest and principal in a timely manner or that negative perceptions of the issuer's ability to make such payments will cause the price of that bond to decline.
Investments in bonds issued by non-U.S. companies are subject to risks including country/regional risk and currency risk. Investments in emerging markets are subject to higher degrees of risk and volatility than investments in developed markets.
High-yield bonds generally have medium- and lower-range credit quality ratings and are therefore subject to a higher level of credit risk than bonds with higher credit quality ratings.
* * *
Original text here: https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/pressroom/press-release-vanguard-launches-vanguard-emerging-markets-bond-active-etf-111226.html
[Category: BizFinancial Services]
Sun Chemical to Showcase Advanced Electronic Materials Solutions at HKPCA 2026
PARSIPPANY, New Jersey, Nov. 13 -- Sun Chemical, a member of DIC Group, issued the following news:
* * *
Sun Chemical to Showcase Advanced Electronic Materials Solutions at HKPCA 2026
Sun Chemical's high-performance solder masks and inkjet technologies will support next-generation PCB manufacturing
-
PARSIPPANY, N.J., U.S.A. - November 12th, 2026 - Sun Chemical will showcase its latest electronic materials innovations at HKPCA 2026, held December 2-4, 2026, at the Shenzhen World Exhibition & Convention Center in Shenzhen, China. Visitors can meet Sun Chemical experts in Hall 8, booth E17, ... Show Full Article PARSIPPANY, New Jersey, Nov. 13 -- Sun Chemical, a member of DIC Group, issued the following news: * * * Sun Chemical to Showcase Advanced Electronic Materials Solutions at HKPCA 2026 Sun Chemical's high-performance solder masks and inkjet technologies will support next-generation PCB manufacturing - PARSIPPANY, N.J., U.S.A. - November 12th, 2026 - Sun Chemical will showcase its latest electronic materials innovations at HKPCA 2026, held December 2-4, 2026, at the Shenzhen World Exhibition & Convention Center in Shenzhen, China. Visitors can meet Sun Chemical experts in Hall 8, booth E17,to explore solutions for printed circuit board fabrication, including solder masks, notation inks, etch resists, and plating resists.
The exhibit will focus on technologies designed to help PCB manufacturers meet demanding requirements for thermal durability, electrical reliability, precision, productivity and responsible materials selection across automotive, artificial intelligence and other high-performance electronics applications.
A key highlight will be the Imagecure IMC7000 Series of ultra-high-temperature-resistant solder mask inks, designed to withstand demanding thermal cycling and storage conditions in high-power applications with high thermal loads.
Sun Chemical will also feature the Imagecure IMC8000 Series, high-voltage-resistant solder masks formulated for high-humidity, high-temperature bias testing, including CAF and SIR performance requirements. The series is suited for electric vehicles, smart cockpit and autonomous-driving electronics, AI power modules and AI storage devices.
The broader Imagecure solder mask portfolio supports screen, HVLP air-spray and electrostatic-spray application, plus UV and direct-imaging processes using UV LED, UV and LDI exposure. The portfolio includes low-Dk/Df formulations for high-speed signal transmission and high-performance HHBT solutions.
For manufacturers seeking more responsible formulations, Sun Chemical will introduce its Imagecure SVHC-Free Soldermask range. Formulated without substances currently listed as Substances of Very High Concern under ECHA/REACH as of October 2026, the RoHS-compliant range offers adhesion, thermal resistance and chemical durability. It supports screen printing, spray, curtain coating, direct imaging and conventional contact exposure.
Additional highlights include EMD8201 Inkjet Dual-Curing Legend Ink, which combines UV LED and thermal curing for fast cure, precision, adhesion, anti-yellowing performance and scratch resistance, and the Imagecure IMC5000 Series, a direct-imaging solder mask range designed for high-speed, low-energy and stable production.
Tony John Searle, Managing Director, Screen & Electronic Materials, Sun Chemical, comments: "PCB manufacturers are balancing higher thermal and electrical performance demands with the need for precise, efficient and more responsible production. Our broad electronic materials portfolio gives customers access to application expertise and technologies engineered for the next generation of automotive, AI and high-performance electronics."
Visit Sun Chemical in Hall 8, booth E17, at HKPCA 2026 from December 2-4, 2026. For more information, visit www.sunchemical.com/materials_electronics_pcb/.
* * *
About Sun Chemical
Sun Chemical, a member of the DIC Group, is a leading producer of packaging and graphic solutions, color and display technologies, functional products, electronic materials, and products for the automotive and healthcare industries. Together with DIC, Sun Chemical is continuously working to promote and develop sustainable solutions to exceed customer expectations and better the world around us. With combined annual sales of more than $7 billion and 21,000+ employees worldwide, the DIC Group companies support a diverse collection of global customers.
Sun Chemical Corporation is a subsidiary of Sun Chemical Group Cooperatief U.A., the Netherlands, and is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, U.S.A. For more information, please visit our website at www.sunchemical.com or connect with us on LinkedIn, or Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sunchemical.com/sun-chemical-to-showcase-advanced-electronic-materials-solutions-at-hkpca-2026/
[Category: BizIndustrial Materials]
* * *
Sun Chemical to Showcase Advanced Electronic Materials Solutions at HKPCA 2026
Sun Chemical's high-performance solder masks and inkjet technologies will support next-generation PCB manufacturing
-
PARSIPPANY, N.J., U.S.A. - November 12th, 2026 - Sun Chemical will showcase its latest electronic materials innovations at HKPCA 2026, held December 2-4, 2026, at the Shenzhen World Exhibition & Convention Center in Shenzhen, China. Visitors can meet Sun Chemical experts in Hall 8, booth E17, ... Show Full Article PARSIPPANY, New Jersey, Nov. 13 -- Sun Chemical, a member of DIC Group, issued the following news: * * * Sun Chemical to Showcase Advanced Electronic Materials Solutions at HKPCA 2026 Sun Chemical's high-performance solder masks and inkjet technologies will support next-generation PCB manufacturing - PARSIPPANY, N.J., U.S.A. - November 12th, 2026 - Sun Chemical will showcase its latest electronic materials innovations at HKPCA 2026, held December 2-4, 2026, at the Shenzhen World Exhibition & Convention Center in Shenzhen, China. Visitors can meet Sun Chemical experts in Hall 8, booth E17,to explore solutions for printed circuit board fabrication, including solder masks, notation inks, etch resists, and plating resists.
The exhibit will focus on technologies designed to help PCB manufacturers meet demanding requirements for thermal durability, electrical reliability, precision, productivity and responsible materials selection across automotive, artificial intelligence and other high-performance electronics applications.
A key highlight will be the Imagecure IMC7000 Series of ultra-high-temperature-resistant solder mask inks, designed to withstand demanding thermal cycling and storage conditions in high-power applications with high thermal loads.
Sun Chemical will also feature the Imagecure IMC8000 Series, high-voltage-resistant solder masks formulated for high-humidity, high-temperature bias testing, including CAF and SIR performance requirements. The series is suited for electric vehicles, smart cockpit and autonomous-driving electronics, AI power modules and AI storage devices.
The broader Imagecure solder mask portfolio supports screen, HVLP air-spray and electrostatic-spray application, plus UV and direct-imaging processes using UV LED, UV and LDI exposure. The portfolio includes low-Dk/Df formulations for high-speed signal transmission and high-performance HHBT solutions.
For manufacturers seeking more responsible formulations, Sun Chemical will introduce its Imagecure SVHC-Free Soldermask range. Formulated without substances currently listed as Substances of Very High Concern under ECHA/REACH as of October 2026, the RoHS-compliant range offers adhesion, thermal resistance and chemical durability. It supports screen printing, spray, curtain coating, direct imaging and conventional contact exposure.
Additional highlights include EMD8201 Inkjet Dual-Curing Legend Ink, which combines UV LED and thermal curing for fast cure, precision, adhesion, anti-yellowing performance and scratch resistance, and the Imagecure IMC5000 Series, a direct-imaging solder mask range designed for high-speed, low-energy and stable production.
Tony John Searle, Managing Director, Screen & Electronic Materials, Sun Chemical, comments: "PCB manufacturers are balancing higher thermal and electrical performance demands with the need for precise, efficient and more responsible production. Our broad electronic materials portfolio gives customers access to application expertise and technologies engineered for the next generation of automotive, AI and high-performance electronics."
Visit Sun Chemical in Hall 8, booth E17, at HKPCA 2026 from December 2-4, 2026. For more information, visit www.sunchemical.com/materials_electronics_pcb/.
* * *
About Sun Chemical
Sun Chemical, a member of the DIC Group, is a leading producer of packaging and graphic solutions, color and display technologies, functional products, electronic materials, and products for the automotive and healthcare industries. Together with DIC, Sun Chemical is continuously working to promote and develop sustainable solutions to exceed customer expectations and better the world around us. With combined annual sales of more than $7 billion and 21,000+ employees worldwide, the DIC Group companies support a diverse collection of global customers.
Sun Chemical Corporation is a subsidiary of Sun Chemical Group Cooperatief U.A., the Netherlands, and is headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey, U.S.A. For more information, please visit our website at www.sunchemical.com or connect with us on LinkedIn, or Instagram.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sunchemical.com/sun-chemical-to-showcase-advanced-electronic-materials-solutions-at-hkpca-2026/
[Category: BizIndustrial Materials]
Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca Van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 13 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, posted the following news release:
* * *
Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix
11.12.2026
(Phoenix) -- The national law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP today announced that Rebecca van Doren has joined the firm's Phoenix office as senior counsel in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She has more than 20 years of experience helping clients successfully navigate complex business disputes.
Van Doren handles most types of business disputes, ... Show Full Article MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 13 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, posted the following news release: * * * Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix 11.12.2026 (Phoenix) -- The national law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP today announced that Rebecca van Doren has joined the firm's Phoenix office as senior counsel in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She has more than 20 years of experience helping clients successfully navigate complex business disputes. Van Doren handles most types of business disputes,as well as appeals to both state and federal court. She handles a broad spectrum of matters, such as higher education law, including Title IX disputes and litigation; constitutional claims; employment law, including restrictive covenants and confidentiality agreements; contract disputes; and independent investigations prior to litigation.
She earned both her B.S. and J.D. from Arizona State University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/news/quarles-brings-on-seasoned-commercial-litigator-rebecca-van-doren-as-senior-counsel-in-phoenix
* * *
Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix
11.12.2026
(Phoenix) -- The national law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP today announced that Rebecca van Doren has joined the firm's Phoenix office as senior counsel in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She has more than 20 years of experience helping clients successfully navigate complex business disputes.
Van Doren handles most types of business disputes, ... Show Full Article MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 13 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, posted the following news release: * * * Quarles Brings On Seasoned Commercial Litigator Rebecca van Doren as Senior Counsel in Phoenix 11.12.2026 (Phoenix) -- The national law firm of Quarles & Brady LLP today announced that Rebecca van Doren has joined the firm's Phoenix office as senior counsel in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Practice Group. She has more than 20 years of experience helping clients successfully navigate complex business disputes. Van Doren handles most types of business disputes,as well as appeals to both state and federal court. She handles a broad spectrum of matters, such as higher education law, including Title IX disputes and litigation; constitutional claims; employment law, including restrictive covenants and confidentiality agreements; contract disputes; and independent investigations prior to litigation.
She earned both her B.S. and J.D. from Arizona State University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/news/quarles-brings-on-seasoned-commercial-litigator-rebecca-van-doren-as-senior-counsel-in-phoenix
Littler: Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements
By Tom Carroll and Nicholas Hankins
November 12, 2026
At a Glance
* The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the penalty and fee provisions in Colorado's noncompete statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113, can apply to attempts to enforce a covenant not to compete entered into before the law's August 10, 2022, effective date, if the covenant was void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed.
* The Colorado Court ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements By Tom Carroll and Nicholas Hankins November 12, 2026 At a Glance * The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the penalty and fee provisions in Colorado's noncompete statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113, can apply to attempts to enforce a covenant not to compete entered into before the law's August 10, 2022, effective date, if the covenant was void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed. * The Colorado Courtof Appeals ruled that for a covenant not to compete to have been entered into for "the protection of trade secrets," at the merits stage of a case, an employer must prove it actually had bona fide trade secrets the covenant was protecting.
-
On November 5, 2026, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a significant decision interpreting Colorado's noncompete statute in Huset v. EIS Ultimate Holding, LP, 2026 COA 81 (Nov. 5, 2026). Huset is a published decision addressing, among other things, whether the remedy provisions in Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8) apply to covenants not to compete entered into before those enforcement provisions went into effect on August 10, 2022.
After the Huset ruling, employers that attempt to enforce covenants that are void under Colorado law could be liable for a $5,000 penalty, costs, attorneys' fees, and actual damages--regardless of when the covenant was entered into or renewed. What's more, the court of appeals concluded that an employer's promise not to enforce a void covenant was insufficient to moot an employee's claim for relief under Sec. 8-2-113. And the court of appeals rejected the former employer's argument that it had acted in good faith in attempting to enforce the void covenant not to compete.
The court also provided some important clarification on what it means for an agreement to be for the "protection of trade secrets." Specifically, the court of appeals held that at the merits stage of the case, an employer is required to prove it actually had bona fide trade secrets to protect in the first place.
Background on Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113
Colorado has long had a statute regulating covenants not to compete (e.g., noncompete provisions and customer nonsolicit provisions): Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113. Effective August 10, 2022, Colorado substantially amended the statute to void covenants not to compete unless the employee (1) earns certain threshold amounts (which vary based on the type of covenant not to compete); (2) the covenant is "for the protection of trade secrets"; and (3) the employer complies with the statute's particular notice requirements. In addition, the August 2022 amendments also introduced Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8), which prohibits employers from attempting to enforce any covenant not to compete that is void. Employers that do so are liable to employees for a penalty of $5,000, actual damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Case Background
The plaintiff worked for Earth Services & Abatement, LLC ("ESA"), which provides abatement, demolition, and soil and water remediation services. In March 2022, he signed an incentive unit agreement (the "Agreement") with ESA's parent company. The Agreement contained a confidentiality provision and a two-year, nationwide noncompete purportedly tied to the protection of trade secrets.
The plaintiff resigned in May 2023 to work for a trucking brokerage he co-founded. Shortly after he resigned, ESA sent the plaintiff three demand letters advising him it intended to enforce the restrictive covenants in his Agreement. Two days after receiving the demand letters, the plaintiff and his new company sued in Colorado state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the covenants in his Agreement were void. The ESA entities, for their part, responded by filing their own lawsuit in federal court and contemporaneously initiated an arbitration, asserting claims, among others, for breaches of the restrictive covenants in the Agreement.
The Colorado state case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court found that the plaintiff's new trucking-brokerage business did not compete with ESA and that ESA failed to prove it owned any trade secrets. The trial court further declared the covenants void, awarded the plaintiff and his new company attorneys' fees and costs, and assessed a $5,000 penalty against the employer. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
Key Holdings
Section 8-2-113(8)'s Remedies Apply to Covenants Signed Before the 2022 Amendments. Huset's central holding regards the scope of the remedy provisions in Sec. 8-2-113(8). That section prohibits an employer from entering into, presenting, or attempting to enforce "any covenant that is void under this section." The enacting legislation, H.B. 22-1317, states that the 2022 amendments apply only to covenants "entered into or renewed on or after" August 10, 2022. The court of appeals held, however, that Sec. 8-2-113(8) applies to enforcement of covenants not to compete that were void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed. Importantly, the court of appeals only considered whether the covenants in the plaintiff's Agreement were void under the pre-amendment version of the statute. What this means is that courts are not likely to assess whether a pre-amendment agreement is void under the current statute. Rather, we would expect that courts will continue to assess whether a covenant not to compete is void based on the version of Colorado's noncompete statute that was in effect when the agreement was signed. Also important is the court's strong suggestion that Sec. 8-2-113(8)'s prohibitions on "entering into" or "presenting" a void covenant not to compete do not apply to pre-amendment agreements.
In a related, but uncontested, point, the court of appeals said that Sec. 8-2-113's choice-of-law provision is not limited by H.B. 22-1317's effective date and applies to all covenants not to compete--regardless of when they were entered into--if the employee resides in Colorado at the time of termination of employment.
The Plaintiff's Claims Were Not Mooted by Either the Expiration of the Covenants or the ESA Entities' Disavowal of Enforcement. On appeal, the ESA entities argued that the plaintiff's claims were moot because they had advised the trial court they no longer intended to enforce the plaintiff's Agreement. The court of appeals rejected this argument because ESA, in disavowing enforcement, never agreed to pay the plaintiff anything in connection with its attempts to enforce the agreement. Because the plaintiff was seeking fees, costs, and penalties under Sec. 8-2-113, the court of appeals reasoned, there were still remedies the trial court could offer the plaintiff. Further, the court concluded that the ESA entities' assurances they would not enforce the agreement now provided the plaintiff little comfort they would not attempt to enforce the agreement later. The ESA entities also argued that the plaintiff's action before the Colorado state court was moot because the covenants in dispute expired before the trial court entered its findings of act and conclusions of law after the two-day bench trial. In rejecting this argument, the court applied a similar logic: the plaintiff's claims were not mooted by expiration of his covenants because he still had economic claims.
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rejected the ESA Entities' Good-Faith Argument. ESA and its parent entities argued that it acted in good faith on the basis that they did not attempt to enforce the agreement. Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8)(c) currently provides that if an "employer shows that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that [its] act or omission was not a violation," courts may, in their discretion, decline to award aggrieved workers the $5,000 statutory penalty. In Huset, the court of appeals agreed with the district court in reasoning that the ESA entities did not act in good faith because they knew they did not have protectable trade secrets (as evidenced by testimony from ESA and ESA's failure to challenge the district court's finding that ESA did not have protectable trade secrets on appeal), but continued to vigorously defend against the plaintiff's action in Colorado state court and continued to proceed with litigation against the plaintiff and his new company in arbitration and in federal court.
For a Covenant Not to Compete to Be "For the Protection of Trade Secrets," the Employer Must Actually Have Trade Secrets. The trial court concluded that the covenants not to compete in the plaintiff's agreement were void because ESA failed to establish at trial that it actually had trade secrets in the first place. The court of appeals noted that there was a difference in what an employer needs to prove at various stages of the case. At the injunctive-relief stage (i.e., temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction), courts focus on whether a covenant not to compete is a contract for the protection of trade secrets, but not that any particular trade secret is at risk of disclosure. The court of appeals clarified that this standard changes at the merits stage. There, the "court decides--by a preponderance of the evidence--whether the trade secrets exception applies, including whether any bona fide trade secrets actually exist." While the context of the court of appeals' holding was under the pre-amendment statutory framework, its holding likely applies to covenants entered into after August 10, 2022 as well. What this means is that employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete should be prepared to identify specific trade secrets that the covenant is designed to protect.
What Huset Means for Employers
Huset's holding overall increases the risks of attempting to enforce older restrictive covenants against individuals who reside in or work in Colorado. A covenant signed before August 10, 2022, is not shielded from Sec. 8-2-113(8)'s penalties and attorneys'-fee provision if it was void under the prior statute and the employer tries to enforce it now. Employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete against Colorado employees should confirm they can prove specific, bona fide trade secrets before sending demand letters or filing suit.
* * *
Authors
Thomas W. Carroll
Shareholder
Denver
tcarroll@littler.com
* * *
Nicholas Hankins
Associate
Denver
nhankins@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/colorado-extends-noncompete-penalties-older-agreements
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements
By Tom Carroll and Nicholas Hankins
November 12, 2026
At a Glance
* The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the penalty and fee provisions in Colorado's noncompete statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113, can apply to attempts to enforce a covenant not to compete entered into before the law's August 10, 2022, effective date, if the covenant was void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed.
* The Colorado Court ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 13 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Colorado Extends Noncompete Penalties to Older Agreements By Tom Carroll and Nicholas Hankins November 12, 2026 At a Glance * The Colorado Court of Appeals held that the penalty and fee provisions in Colorado's noncompete statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113, can apply to attempts to enforce a covenant not to compete entered into before the law's August 10, 2022, effective date, if the covenant was void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed. * The Colorado Courtof Appeals ruled that for a covenant not to compete to have been entered into for "the protection of trade secrets," at the merits stage of a case, an employer must prove it actually had bona fide trade secrets the covenant was protecting.
-
On November 5, 2026, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a significant decision interpreting Colorado's noncompete statute in Huset v. EIS Ultimate Holding, LP, 2026 COA 81 (Nov. 5, 2026). Huset is a published decision addressing, among other things, whether the remedy provisions in Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8) apply to covenants not to compete entered into before those enforcement provisions went into effect on August 10, 2022.
After the Huset ruling, employers that attempt to enforce covenants that are void under Colorado law could be liable for a $5,000 penalty, costs, attorneys' fees, and actual damages--regardless of when the covenant was entered into or renewed. What's more, the court of appeals concluded that an employer's promise not to enforce a void covenant was insufficient to moot an employee's claim for relief under Sec. 8-2-113. And the court of appeals rejected the former employer's argument that it had acted in good faith in attempting to enforce the void covenant not to compete.
The court also provided some important clarification on what it means for an agreement to be for the "protection of trade secrets." Specifically, the court of appeals held that at the merits stage of the case, an employer is required to prove it actually had bona fide trade secrets to protect in the first place.
Background on Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113
Colorado has long had a statute regulating covenants not to compete (e.g., noncompete provisions and customer nonsolicit provisions): Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113. Effective August 10, 2022, Colorado substantially amended the statute to void covenants not to compete unless the employee (1) earns certain threshold amounts (which vary based on the type of covenant not to compete); (2) the covenant is "for the protection of trade secrets"; and (3) the employer complies with the statute's particular notice requirements. In addition, the August 2022 amendments also introduced Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8), which prohibits employers from attempting to enforce any covenant not to compete that is void. Employers that do so are liable to employees for a penalty of $5,000, actual damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
Case Background
The plaintiff worked for Earth Services & Abatement, LLC ("ESA"), which provides abatement, demolition, and soil and water remediation services. In March 2022, he signed an incentive unit agreement (the "Agreement") with ESA's parent company. The Agreement contained a confidentiality provision and a two-year, nationwide noncompete purportedly tied to the protection of trade secrets.
The plaintiff resigned in May 2023 to work for a trucking brokerage he co-founded. Shortly after he resigned, ESA sent the plaintiff three demand letters advising him it intended to enforce the restrictive covenants in his Agreement. Two days after receiving the demand letters, the plaintiff and his new company sued in Colorado state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the covenants in his Agreement were void. The ESA entities, for their part, responded by filing their own lawsuit in federal court and contemporaneously initiated an arbitration, asserting claims, among others, for breaches of the restrictive covenants in the Agreement.
The Colorado state case proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court found that the plaintiff's new trucking-brokerage business did not compete with ESA and that ESA failed to prove it owned any trade secrets. The trial court further declared the covenants void, awarded the plaintiff and his new company attorneys' fees and costs, and assessed a $5,000 penalty against the employer. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
Key Holdings
Section 8-2-113(8)'s Remedies Apply to Covenants Signed Before the 2022 Amendments. Huset's central holding regards the scope of the remedy provisions in Sec. 8-2-113(8). That section prohibits an employer from entering into, presenting, or attempting to enforce "any covenant that is void under this section." The enacting legislation, H.B. 22-1317, states that the 2022 amendments apply only to covenants "entered into or renewed on or after" August 10, 2022. The court of appeals held, however, that Sec. 8-2-113(8) applies to enforcement of covenants not to compete that were void under the version of the statute in effect when the covenant was signed. Importantly, the court of appeals only considered whether the covenants in the plaintiff's Agreement were void under the pre-amendment version of the statute. What this means is that courts are not likely to assess whether a pre-amendment agreement is void under the current statute. Rather, we would expect that courts will continue to assess whether a covenant not to compete is void based on the version of Colorado's noncompete statute that was in effect when the agreement was signed. Also important is the court's strong suggestion that Sec. 8-2-113(8)'s prohibitions on "entering into" or "presenting" a void covenant not to compete do not apply to pre-amendment agreements.
In a related, but uncontested, point, the court of appeals said that Sec. 8-2-113's choice-of-law provision is not limited by H.B. 22-1317's effective date and applies to all covenants not to compete--regardless of when they were entered into--if the employee resides in Colorado at the time of termination of employment.
The Plaintiff's Claims Were Not Mooted by Either the Expiration of the Covenants or the ESA Entities' Disavowal of Enforcement. On appeal, the ESA entities argued that the plaintiff's claims were moot because they had advised the trial court they no longer intended to enforce the plaintiff's Agreement. The court of appeals rejected this argument because ESA, in disavowing enforcement, never agreed to pay the plaintiff anything in connection with its attempts to enforce the agreement. Because the plaintiff was seeking fees, costs, and penalties under Sec. 8-2-113, the court of appeals reasoned, there were still remedies the trial court could offer the plaintiff. Further, the court concluded that the ESA entities' assurances they would not enforce the agreement now provided the plaintiff little comfort they would not attempt to enforce the agreement later. The ESA entities also argued that the plaintiff's action before the Colorado state court was moot because the covenants in dispute expired before the trial court entered its findings of act and conclusions of law after the two-day bench trial. In rejecting this argument, the court applied a similar logic: the plaintiff's claims were not mooted by expiration of his covenants because he still had economic claims.
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rejected the ESA Entities' Good-Faith Argument. ESA and its parent entities argued that it acted in good faith on the basis that they did not attempt to enforce the agreement. Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 8-2-113(8)(c) currently provides that if an "employer shows that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that [its] act or omission was not a violation," courts may, in their discretion, decline to award aggrieved workers the $5,000 statutory penalty. In Huset, the court of appeals agreed with the district court in reasoning that the ESA entities did not act in good faith because they knew they did not have protectable trade secrets (as evidenced by testimony from ESA and ESA's failure to challenge the district court's finding that ESA did not have protectable trade secrets on appeal), but continued to vigorously defend against the plaintiff's action in Colorado state court and continued to proceed with litigation against the plaintiff and his new company in arbitration and in federal court.
For a Covenant Not to Compete to Be "For the Protection of Trade Secrets," the Employer Must Actually Have Trade Secrets. The trial court concluded that the covenants not to compete in the plaintiff's agreement were void because ESA failed to establish at trial that it actually had trade secrets in the first place. The court of appeals noted that there was a difference in what an employer needs to prove at various stages of the case. At the injunctive-relief stage (i.e., temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction), courts focus on whether a covenant not to compete is a contract for the protection of trade secrets, but not that any particular trade secret is at risk of disclosure. The court of appeals clarified that this standard changes at the merits stage. There, the "court decides--by a preponderance of the evidence--whether the trade secrets exception applies, including whether any bona fide trade secrets actually exist." While the context of the court of appeals' holding was under the pre-amendment statutory framework, its holding likely applies to covenants entered into after August 10, 2022 as well. What this means is that employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete should be prepared to identify specific trade secrets that the covenant is designed to protect.
What Huset Means for Employers
Huset's holding overall increases the risks of attempting to enforce older restrictive covenants against individuals who reside in or work in Colorado. A covenant signed before August 10, 2022, is not shielded from Sec. 8-2-113(8)'s penalties and attorneys'-fee provision if it was void under the prior statute and the employer tries to enforce it now. Employers seeking to enforce covenants not to compete against Colorado employees should confirm they can prove specific, bona fide trade secrets before sending demand letters or filing suit.
* * *
Authors
Thomas W. Carroll
Shareholder
Denver
tcarroll@littler.com
* * *
Nicholas Hankins
Associate
Denver
nhankins@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/colorado-extends-noncompete-penalties-older-agreements
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Experian Named One of the World's Best Workplaces for Third Consecutive Year
COSTA MESA, California, Nov. 13 -- Experian, an information services company, posted the following news release:
* * *
Experian Named One of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) for Third Consecutive Year
Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune recognize Experian among the top 25 companies globally for workplace culture
-
DUBLIN, Ireland, 12 November 2026 - Experian today announced it has been named one of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) 2026 by Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune, earning a place among the top 25 organizations worldwide for the third consecutive year.
The recognition is based on confidential ... Show Full Article COSTA MESA, California, Nov. 13 -- Experian, an information services company, posted the following news release: * * * Experian Named One of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) for Third Consecutive Year Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune recognize Experian among the top 25 companies globally for workplace culture - DUBLIN, Ireland, 12 November 2026 - Experian today announced it has been named one of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) 2026 by Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune, earning a place among the top 25 organizations worldwide for the third consecutive year. The recognition is based on confidentialemployee feedback from around the world and reflects Experian's commitment to creating a workplace where people can develop their careers, contribute meaningfully and help drive the company's success.
"This recognition belongs to our people. Their talent and commitment make Experian a place where individuals can grow professionally while contributing to work that matters. What makes this achievement especially meaningful is that it's based on feedback from our employees around the world. Their experiences continue to shape how we strengthen our culture and create an environment where people can thrive and help drive innovation for our customers," said Jacky Simmonds, Chief People Officer at Experian.
The World's Best Workplaces(TM) list recognizes 25 global organizations that excel in building trust, fostering employee engagement and creating positive workplace experiences. To be considered, companies must employ at least 5,000 people globally and be recognized on at least five Great Place To Work(R) Best Workplaces(TM) lists across regions including Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa, North America or Australia.
Great Place To Work(R) evaluates organizations using rigorous analytics based on confidential employee feedback as well as an assessment of workplace programs and people practices. Survey results measure employee experiences related to trust, inclusion, support, innovation, leadership and connection with colleagues.
Employee feedback continues to highlight confidence in Experian's culture, opportunities for career growth and the company's investment in emerging technologies. More employees report feeling positive about their development opportunities, while growing adoption of AI-enabled tools is helping teams work more effectively and bring new ideas forward.
The recognition builds on a strong year of accolades for Experian in 2026, including:
* Gold 2026 Globee(R) Award for Best Conversational AI & Next-Gen Chatbot Solution
* 2026 BIG Innovation Award winner in the Innovative Products category
* Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For in Europe
* Great Place To Work(R) Best Workplaces in Latin America
* India's Best Companies to Work For 2026
* * *
About Experian
Experian is a global data and technology company, powering opportunities for people and businesses around the world. We help to redefine lending practices, uncover and prevent fraud, simplify healthcare, deliver digital marketing solutions, and gain deeper insights into the automotive market, all using our unique combination of data, analytics and platforms. We also assist millions of people to realise their financial goals and help them to save time and money.
We operate across a range of markets, from financial services to healthcare, automotive, agrifinance, insurance, and many more industry segments.
We invest in talented people and new advanced technologies to unlock the power of data and to innovate. A FTSE 100 Index company listed on the London Stock Exchange (EXPN), we have a team of 25,200 people across 33 countries. Our corporate headquarters are in Dublin, Ireland. Learn more at experianplc.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.experianplc.com/newsroom/press-releases/2026/experian-named-one-of-the-world-s-best-workplaces--for-third-con
[Category: BizFinancial Services]
* * *
Experian Named One of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) for Third Consecutive Year
Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune recognize Experian among the top 25 companies globally for workplace culture
-
DUBLIN, Ireland, 12 November 2026 - Experian today announced it has been named one of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) 2026 by Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune, earning a place among the top 25 organizations worldwide for the third consecutive year.
The recognition is based on confidential ... Show Full Article COSTA MESA, California, Nov. 13 -- Experian, an information services company, posted the following news release: * * * Experian Named One of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) for Third Consecutive Year Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune recognize Experian among the top 25 companies globally for workplace culture - DUBLIN, Ireland, 12 November 2026 - Experian today announced it has been named one of the World's Best Workplaces(TM) 2026 by Great Place To Work(R) and Fortune, earning a place among the top 25 organizations worldwide for the third consecutive year. The recognition is based on confidentialemployee feedback from around the world and reflects Experian's commitment to creating a workplace where people can develop their careers, contribute meaningfully and help drive the company's success.
"This recognition belongs to our people. Their talent and commitment make Experian a place where individuals can grow professionally while contributing to work that matters. What makes this achievement especially meaningful is that it's based on feedback from our employees around the world. Their experiences continue to shape how we strengthen our culture and create an environment where people can thrive and help drive innovation for our customers," said Jacky Simmonds, Chief People Officer at Experian.
The World's Best Workplaces(TM) list recognizes 25 global organizations that excel in building trust, fostering employee engagement and creating positive workplace experiences. To be considered, companies must employ at least 5,000 people globally and be recognized on at least five Great Place To Work(R) Best Workplaces(TM) lists across regions including Asia, Europe, Latin America, Africa, North America or Australia.
Great Place To Work(R) evaluates organizations using rigorous analytics based on confidential employee feedback as well as an assessment of workplace programs and people practices. Survey results measure employee experiences related to trust, inclusion, support, innovation, leadership and connection with colleagues.
Employee feedback continues to highlight confidence in Experian's culture, opportunities for career growth and the company's investment in emerging technologies. More employees report feeling positive about their development opportunities, while growing adoption of AI-enabled tools is helping teams work more effectively and bring new ideas forward.
The recognition builds on a strong year of accolades for Experian in 2026, including:
* Gold 2026 Globee(R) Award for Best Conversational AI & Next-Gen Chatbot Solution
* 2026 BIG Innovation Award winner in the Innovative Products category
* Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For in Europe
* Great Place To Work(R) Best Workplaces in Latin America
* India's Best Companies to Work For 2026
* * *
About Experian
Experian is a global data and technology company, powering opportunities for people and businesses around the world. We help to redefine lending practices, uncover and prevent fraud, simplify healthcare, deliver digital marketing solutions, and gain deeper insights into the automotive market, all using our unique combination of data, analytics and platforms. We also assist millions of people to realise their financial goals and help them to save time and money.
We operate across a range of markets, from financial services to healthcare, automotive, agrifinance, insurance, and many more industry segments.
We invest in talented people and new advanced technologies to unlock the power of data and to innovate. A FTSE 100 Index company listed on the London Stock Exchange (EXPN), we have a team of 25,200 people across 33 countries. Our corporate headquarters are in Dublin, Ireland. Learn more at experianplc.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.experianplc.com/newsroom/press-releases/2026/experian-named-one-of-the-world-s-best-workplaces--for-third-con
[Category: BizFinancial Services]
Courier Issues Commentary: What Democrats' Historic Majority Demands of Hakeem Jeffries
NEW YORK, Nov. 13 -- Courier, an independent advocacy news and media network, issued the following commentary by Michael Jones, author of Once Upon a Hill:
* * *
November 12, 2026
What Democrats' historic majority demands of Hakeem Jeffries
Hakeem Jeffries hadn't even finished celebrating Democrats' historic midterm victory before some of the party's most vocal progressive critics began questioning whether he was prepared to use his newfound power.
The backlash followed an appearance last Wednesday on MS NOW's Morning Joe, where the incoming House speaker said voters wanted Democrats to deliver ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 13 -- Courier, an independent advocacy news and media network, issued the following commentary by Michael Jones, author of Once Upon a Hill: * * * November 12, 2026 What Democrats' historic majority demands of Hakeem Jeffries Hakeem Jeffries hadn't even finished celebrating Democrats' historic midterm victory before some of the party's most vocal progressive critics began questioning whether he was prepared to use his newfound power. The backlash followed an appearance last Wednesday on MS NOW's Morning Joe, where the incoming House speaker said voters wanted Democrats to deliveron affordability rather than seek revenge against President Donald Trump and his administration.
For critics eager to see Democrats aggressively investigate Trump, the remarks raised concerns that accountability would take a back seat to a more cautious governing agenda.
But Jeffries has repeatedly promised both. The more consequential question is how he intends to deliver on those commitments while managing a Democratic majority that includes everyone from democratic socialists to lawmakers elected in conservative districts.
When asked on Monday whether progressives, center-left New Dems or the moderate Blue Dog Coalition had a particular mandate following the election, Jeffries rejected the premise that any one faction could claim the victory.
"When every single vote is counted across the country, House Democrats are going to have the largest majority of any party this century," Jeffries said. He called the results a mandate "to make life more affordable for the American people, to hold the crooks accountable, and to make sure that this country can return to being the best version of herself."
His response echoed a message he had delivered throughout the campaign, tying government corruption to the cost-of-living crisis. Jeffries has long argued that public officials who prioritize enriching themselves and their donors aren't focused on improving Americans' lives.
He also served as an impeachment manager during Trump's first presidency and has identified House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) as central figures in the aggressive oversight agenda Democrats intend to pursue.
None of that guarantees Jeffries will deliver the accountability his critics demand. But his record offers little evidence that he views affordability and accountability as competing priorities.
The challenge will be reconciling the competing interests within his caucus.
Democrats' incoming majority includes lawmakers who campaigned on ambitious progressive policies alongside others who won in traditionally Republican territory. Their constituents may agree that health care is too expensive, corporate power needs greater scrutiny and government corruption should have consequences, but they won't necessarily agree on how Congress should address those problems.
Jeffries' responsibility is to bridge those differences and advance legislation that can command enough support to pass. Senior aides and people familiar with his thinking tell me that won't always mean embracing the most ambitious proposal on the table. But it shouldn't mean automatically abandoning progressive priorities to accommodate the caucus's more conservative members, either.
Progressives, for their part, believe the size of the majority creates an opportunity to pass legislation that narrower Democratic majorities couldn't.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) made that case at an event on Sunday introducing the group's incoming members, arguing that Democrats across the ideological spectrum had campaigned on ending the Iran war, confronting corruption and bringing down prices.
"The American people handed us a big majority to get big things done," Casar said. "With a big majority, we can finally get big things done."
The Progressive Caucus, which expects to have more than 105 members in the next Congress, wants to expand Social Security, raise the minimum wage, reverse Republican health care cuts and pursue aggressive oversight of both the Trump administration and major corporations.
But in a memo I obtained outlining its strategy, Casar made clear that progressives don't view their growing numbers as a mandate to wage an internal ideological battle.
"Our goal is not to win a battle against other Democratic caucuses," he wrote. "It is to pass longstanding progressive priorities that bring down costs, root out corruption, and boost wages."
That agenda overlaps considerably with the priorities Jeffries has outlined.
The disagreements will emerge when Democrats have to decide which proposals receive floor votes, how far to push legislation Trump is likely to veto and whether to pursue opportunities for bipartisan cooperation.
Still, even the Progressive Caucus acknowledges those competing considerations. Its strategy calls for advancing ambitious legislation regardless of Trump's likely opposition while also pursuing measures on prescription drug prices, credit card interest rates and housing that could attract his support.
That approach reflects a reality Democrats will have to confront as they transition from opposition to governing: Passing legislation through the House is only the first step toward delivering the changes voters were promised.
The Senate presents another challenge. Democrats' newly elected members from traditionally Republican states will face pressure to advance the party's agenda while maintaining the independence that helped them win their races.
Those competing interests are part of the responsibility Jeffries is preparing to assume.
The Brooklyn Democrat has spent years building relationships across the Democratic caucus and protecting members whose political circumstances differ considerably from his own. His leadership style has generally emphasized consensus and deliberate decision-making, qualities that have sometimes frustrated critics who want a more confrontational approach. It deserves scrutiny, particularly when consensus-building risks becoming an excuse for inaction.
So do Jeffries' decisions on oversight. His handling of the public reporting on his summer meeting with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner raised legitimate concerns about transparency and his record on Israel remains a source of disagreement within the party.
But his allies argue that Democrats' accountability agenda should ultimately be judged by what the new majority does with its investigative authority, including whether committee chairs receive the resources and independence to pursue credible allegations of wrongdoing.
Jeffries was asked Monday to identify his first affordability bill and accountability investigation. He declined to announce either unilaterally, saying House Democrats would begin discussing their priorities as a caucus.
He did, however, point to reversing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid cuts, extending Affordable Care Act tax credits, ending Trump's tariffs and addressing the economic consequences of the Iran war as immediate legislative priorities. Whether Democrats can translate those commitments into law will depend on the choices their leaders and members make in the months ahead.
The progressive movement has every reason to demand ambitious action from a party that campaigned on dramatic change. Jeffries, in turn, has an obligation to take those demands seriously while representing the interests of the entire Democratic caucus.
Voters have every right to expect both accountability for corruption and meaningful improvements in their daily lives. Democrats now have the majority to pursue both. Jeffries' speakership will be measured by what he does with it.
* * *
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
* * *
Original text here: https://couriernewsroom.com/news/what-democrats-historic-majority-demands-of-hakeem-jeffries/
[Category: BizMedia]
* * *
November 12, 2026
What Democrats' historic majority demands of Hakeem Jeffries
Hakeem Jeffries hadn't even finished celebrating Democrats' historic midterm victory before some of the party's most vocal progressive critics began questioning whether he was prepared to use his newfound power.
The backlash followed an appearance last Wednesday on MS NOW's Morning Joe, where the incoming House speaker said voters wanted Democrats to deliver ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 13 -- Courier, an independent advocacy news and media network, issued the following commentary by Michael Jones, author of Once Upon a Hill: * * * November 12, 2026 What Democrats' historic majority demands of Hakeem Jeffries Hakeem Jeffries hadn't even finished celebrating Democrats' historic midterm victory before some of the party's most vocal progressive critics began questioning whether he was prepared to use his newfound power. The backlash followed an appearance last Wednesday on MS NOW's Morning Joe, where the incoming House speaker said voters wanted Democrats to deliveron affordability rather than seek revenge against President Donald Trump and his administration.
For critics eager to see Democrats aggressively investigate Trump, the remarks raised concerns that accountability would take a back seat to a more cautious governing agenda.
But Jeffries has repeatedly promised both. The more consequential question is how he intends to deliver on those commitments while managing a Democratic majority that includes everyone from democratic socialists to lawmakers elected in conservative districts.
When asked on Monday whether progressives, center-left New Dems or the moderate Blue Dog Coalition had a particular mandate following the election, Jeffries rejected the premise that any one faction could claim the victory.
"When every single vote is counted across the country, House Democrats are going to have the largest majority of any party this century," Jeffries said. He called the results a mandate "to make life more affordable for the American people, to hold the crooks accountable, and to make sure that this country can return to being the best version of herself."
His response echoed a message he had delivered throughout the campaign, tying government corruption to the cost-of-living crisis. Jeffries has long argued that public officials who prioritize enriching themselves and their donors aren't focused on improving Americans' lives.
He also served as an impeachment manager during Trump's first presidency and has identified House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) as central figures in the aggressive oversight agenda Democrats intend to pursue.
None of that guarantees Jeffries will deliver the accountability his critics demand. But his record offers little evidence that he views affordability and accountability as competing priorities.
The challenge will be reconciling the competing interests within his caucus.
Democrats' incoming majority includes lawmakers who campaigned on ambitious progressive policies alongside others who won in traditionally Republican territory. Their constituents may agree that health care is too expensive, corporate power needs greater scrutiny and government corruption should have consequences, but they won't necessarily agree on how Congress should address those problems.
Jeffries' responsibility is to bridge those differences and advance legislation that can command enough support to pass. Senior aides and people familiar with his thinking tell me that won't always mean embracing the most ambitious proposal on the table. But it shouldn't mean automatically abandoning progressive priorities to accommodate the caucus's more conservative members, either.
Progressives, for their part, believe the size of the majority creates an opportunity to pass legislation that narrower Democratic majorities couldn't.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) made that case at an event on Sunday introducing the group's incoming members, arguing that Democrats across the ideological spectrum had campaigned on ending the Iran war, confronting corruption and bringing down prices.
"The American people handed us a big majority to get big things done," Casar said. "With a big majority, we can finally get big things done."
The Progressive Caucus, which expects to have more than 105 members in the next Congress, wants to expand Social Security, raise the minimum wage, reverse Republican health care cuts and pursue aggressive oversight of both the Trump administration and major corporations.
But in a memo I obtained outlining its strategy, Casar made clear that progressives don't view their growing numbers as a mandate to wage an internal ideological battle.
"Our goal is not to win a battle against other Democratic caucuses," he wrote. "It is to pass longstanding progressive priorities that bring down costs, root out corruption, and boost wages."
That agenda overlaps considerably with the priorities Jeffries has outlined.
The disagreements will emerge when Democrats have to decide which proposals receive floor votes, how far to push legislation Trump is likely to veto and whether to pursue opportunities for bipartisan cooperation.
Still, even the Progressive Caucus acknowledges those competing considerations. Its strategy calls for advancing ambitious legislation regardless of Trump's likely opposition while also pursuing measures on prescription drug prices, credit card interest rates and housing that could attract his support.
That approach reflects a reality Democrats will have to confront as they transition from opposition to governing: Passing legislation through the House is only the first step toward delivering the changes voters were promised.
The Senate presents another challenge. Democrats' newly elected members from traditionally Republican states will face pressure to advance the party's agenda while maintaining the independence that helped them win their races.
Those competing interests are part of the responsibility Jeffries is preparing to assume.
The Brooklyn Democrat has spent years building relationships across the Democratic caucus and protecting members whose political circumstances differ considerably from his own. His leadership style has generally emphasized consensus and deliberate decision-making, qualities that have sometimes frustrated critics who want a more confrontational approach. It deserves scrutiny, particularly when consensus-building risks becoming an excuse for inaction.
So do Jeffries' decisions on oversight. His handling of the public reporting on his summer meeting with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner raised legitimate concerns about transparency and his record on Israel remains a source of disagreement within the party.
But his allies argue that Democrats' accountability agenda should ultimately be judged by what the new majority does with its investigative authority, including whether committee chairs receive the resources and independence to pursue credible allegations of wrongdoing.
Jeffries was asked Monday to identify his first affordability bill and accountability investigation. He declined to announce either unilaterally, saying House Democrats would begin discussing their priorities as a caucus.
He did, however, point to reversing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's Medicaid cuts, extending Affordable Care Act tax credits, ending Trump's tariffs and addressing the economic consequences of the Iran war as immediate legislative priorities. Whether Democrats can translate those commitments into law will depend on the choices their leaders and members make in the months ahead.
The progressive movement has every reason to demand ambitious action from a party that campaigned on dramatic change. Jeffries, in turn, has an obligation to take those demands seriously while representing the interests of the entire Democratic caucus.
Voters have every right to expect both accountability for corruption and meaningful improvements in their daily lives. Democrats now have the majority to pursue both. Jeffries' speakership will be measured by what he does with it.
* * *
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
* * *
Original text here: https://couriernewsroom.com/news/what-democrats-historic-majority-demands-of-hakeem-jeffries/
[Category: BizMedia]
Clark Hill: AI in Attorney Fee Petitions - Tenth Circuit Rules AI Use Alone Won't Reduce a Fee Award
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Nov. 13 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update:
* * *
AI in Attorney Fee Petitions: Tenth Circuit Rules AI Use Alone Won't Reduce a Fee Award
November 12, 2026
Author
Michael J. Laszlo
For the past few years, firms and parties have folded generative AI into research and drafting while a quieter question was developing: When a lawyer uses AI and then bills for the time, can the other side cut the fee on that basis alone? On October 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be the first federal court of appeals to squarely address the ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Nov. 13 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update: * * * AI in Attorney Fee Petitions: Tenth Circuit Rules AI Use Alone Won't Reduce a Fee Award November 12, 2026 Author Michael J. Laszlo For the past few years, firms and parties have folded generative AI into research and drafting while a quieter question was developing: When a lawyer uses AI and then bills for the time, can the other side cut the fee on that basis alone? On October 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be the first federal court of appeals to squarely address theissue. In Flux Drive Inc. v. Rong, it answered "no" ... at least not without proof. And in getting there, the court did something more useful than announce a special rule for AI: It declined to make one.
How The AI Fee Question Arose
The AI fees issue surfaced in the context of an ordinary fee fight. The plaintiffs brought a Colorado trade-secrets suit (CUTSA and the federal DTSA) and named, among others, a set of Illinois defendants (the "Rong Defendants") as alleged "go-betweens." Those defendants won dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and that dismissal triggered Colorado's mandatory fee-shifting statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 13-17-201, which entitles a defendant to "reasonable attorney fees" when a tort action is dismissed out on a Rule 12(b) motion. The district court awarded the full lodestar requested: $114,663.11. Supplemental fees for the fee litigation pushed the total to $183,653.61, and the Tenth Circuit noted that appellate fees may yet be added under the same statute. The plaintiffs appealed, and among their challenges to the amount was the argument that matters here: that defense counsel's use of AI should have shrunk the bill.
The Holding: AI Use Alone is Not a Discount
The plaintiffs argued that defense counsel "should have billed fewer hours due to their reliance on artificial intelligence ('AI') and other online research tools." The Tenth Circuit panel was unpersuaded and affirmed the award in full. The rule the court applied is the one it already uses for every fee dispute, now pointed at a new fact: AI use, standing alone, does not render billed hours unreasonable. A party that wants an AI-related reduction must come forward with evidence that the hours actually billed were excessive. Pointing at the presence of the technology does not carry that burden.
The Court's Reasoning
The court's analysis has three steps worth separating, because together they explain why this is a win for recoverability rather than a one-off.
First, the court conceded the plaintiffs' premise in theory. It acknowledged that a firm's use of AI and online research tools "may '[]reduce the number of hours required' for research and thereby lower the lodestar amount," citing the Second Circuit's Arbor Hill for the unremarkable point that research efficiencies can cut compensable time. Efficiency, in other words, is a legitimate lodestar consideration.
Second, it put the burden where it belongs. The court found the plaintiffs had no proof, stating that they "identify no evidence that counsel's use of AI resulted in excessive billing." A generalized assertion that the hours were too high is, as the court put it quoting Anchondo, "an insufficient basis upon which to disturb the district court's lodestar fee determination."
Third, it supplied the counterweight that blunts the efficiency argument: Verification is not optional. "[E]thical rules require counsel to verify the cases cited and to ensure that all arguments are grounded in legal authority." The panel cited three recent AI-hallucination and Rule 11 decisions: Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines (10th Cir. 2026), Wadsworth v. Walmart (D. Wyo. 2025), and Coomer v. Lindell (D. Colo. 2025) to make the point that whatever time AI saves on the front end, counsel must still spend time confirming the output. That verification labor is part of what legitimizes the hours. So the bottom line: Even assuming AI makes lawyers more efficient, "Plaintiffs have not shown that defense counsel's use of AI rendered the hours that they actually expended unreasonable."
The record ultimately carried the award across the line. Defense counsel tracked time to the tenth of an hour, did not block-bill, reduced hours where appropriate, and absorbed extra work when the plaintiffs amended their pleading. On that record, the lodestar presumption held.
What This Means for Practitioners
The practical significance is that the Tenth Circuit folded AI into ordinary lodestar doctrine instead of carving out a special regime. The questions are the familiar ones: reasonable hours, reasonable rate, billing judgment, and AI is just another fact the parties litigate inside that frame.
For fee applicants who use AI, the lesson is clean and complete record-keeping. The award survived because the time entries could withstand a lodestar review: granular increments, no block billing, voluntary reductions. Counsel who use AI should expect opposing counsel (and their own clients) to ask what the tools did and did not do and should keep records that answer it.
For the party challenging a bill, the lesson is that indignation is not evidence. "They used AI, so it should have taken less time" will not move a court. The challenge has to identify specific entries, quantify the claimed excess, and tie it to the hours actually billed which is the same showing required to attack any fee request. Absent that, the lodestar presumption carries the day.
Key Take Aways of the Flux Drive Decision
The Flux Drive ruling rests heavily on burden and the plaintiffs' failure of proof, so its weight on the deeper question, i.e., should AI efficiency reduce a fee? wasn't reached. The court expressly left that door open: It allowed that AI "might thereby reduce the hours necessary to litigate a case" and faulted the plaintiffs only for not building the record to show it had. A challenger who builds a case against the fees might bring in expert declarations, task-level analysis, and a concrete comparison of AI-assisted time to what the task reasonably required may get a reduction in a future case.
The larger takeaway is almost reassuring. Faced with a genuinely new tool, the Tenth Circuit reached for established principles and found they still worked. AI did not break the lodestar; it just became one more thing the parties have to prove.
Mike Laszlo is a Colorado attorney who speaks regularly on attorneys' fees in Colorado and serves as a retained expert in attorney fee disputes, advising counsel and parties on the reasonableness of fees, lodestar analysis, and fee recovery under Colorado and federal law.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/tenth-circuit-ai-attorney-fee-awards-flux-drive/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
AI in Attorney Fee Petitions: Tenth Circuit Rules AI Use Alone Won't Reduce a Fee Award
November 12, 2026
Author
Michael J. Laszlo
For the past few years, firms and parties have folded generative AI into research and drafting while a quieter question was developing: When a lawyer uses AI and then bills for the time, can the other side cut the fee on that basis alone? On October 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be the first federal court of appeals to squarely address the ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Nov. 13 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update: * * * AI in Attorney Fee Petitions: Tenth Circuit Rules AI Use Alone Won't Reduce a Fee Award November 12, 2026 Author Michael J. Laszlo For the past few years, firms and parties have folded generative AI into research and drafting while a quieter question was developing: When a lawyer uses AI and then bills for the time, can the other side cut the fee on that basis alone? On October 30, 2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be the first federal court of appeals to squarely address theissue. In Flux Drive Inc. v. Rong, it answered "no" ... at least not without proof. And in getting there, the court did something more useful than announce a special rule for AI: It declined to make one.
How The AI Fee Question Arose
The AI fees issue surfaced in the context of an ordinary fee fight. The plaintiffs brought a Colorado trade-secrets suit (CUTSA and the federal DTSA) and named, among others, a set of Illinois defendants (the "Rong Defendants") as alleged "go-betweens." Those defendants won dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and that dismissal triggered Colorado's mandatory fee-shifting statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 13-17-201, which entitles a defendant to "reasonable attorney fees" when a tort action is dismissed out on a Rule 12(b) motion. The district court awarded the full lodestar requested: $114,663.11. Supplemental fees for the fee litigation pushed the total to $183,653.61, and the Tenth Circuit noted that appellate fees may yet be added under the same statute. The plaintiffs appealed, and among their challenges to the amount was the argument that matters here: that defense counsel's use of AI should have shrunk the bill.
The Holding: AI Use Alone is Not a Discount
The plaintiffs argued that defense counsel "should have billed fewer hours due to their reliance on artificial intelligence ('AI') and other online research tools." The Tenth Circuit panel was unpersuaded and affirmed the award in full. The rule the court applied is the one it already uses for every fee dispute, now pointed at a new fact: AI use, standing alone, does not render billed hours unreasonable. A party that wants an AI-related reduction must come forward with evidence that the hours actually billed were excessive. Pointing at the presence of the technology does not carry that burden.
The Court's Reasoning
The court's analysis has three steps worth separating, because together they explain why this is a win for recoverability rather than a one-off.
First, the court conceded the plaintiffs' premise in theory. It acknowledged that a firm's use of AI and online research tools "may '[]reduce the number of hours required' for research and thereby lower the lodestar amount," citing the Second Circuit's Arbor Hill for the unremarkable point that research efficiencies can cut compensable time. Efficiency, in other words, is a legitimate lodestar consideration.
Second, it put the burden where it belongs. The court found the plaintiffs had no proof, stating that they "identify no evidence that counsel's use of AI resulted in excessive billing." A generalized assertion that the hours were too high is, as the court put it quoting Anchondo, "an insufficient basis upon which to disturb the district court's lodestar fee determination."
Third, it supplied the counterweight that blunts the efficiency argument: Verification is not optional. "[E]thical rules require counsel to verify the cases cited and to ensure that all arguments are grounded in legal authority." The panel cited three recent AI-hallucination and Rule 11 decisions: Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines (10th Cir. 2026), Wadsworth v. Walmart (D. Wyo. 2025), and Coomer v. Lindell (D. Colo. 2025) to make the point that whatever time AI saves on the front end, counsel must still spend time confirming the output. That verification labor is part of what legitimizes the hours. So the bottom line: Even assuming AI makes lawyers more efficient, "Plaintiffs have not shown that defense counsel's use of AI rendered the hours that they actually expended unreasonable."
The record ultimately carried the award across the line. Defense counsel tracked time to the tenth of an hour, did not block-bill, reduced hours where appropriate, and absorbed extra work when the plaintiffs amended their pleading. On that record, the lodestar presumption held.
What This Means for Practitioners
The practical significance is that the Tenth Circuit folded AI into ordinary lodestar doctrine instead of carving out a special regime. The questions are the familiar ones: reasonable hours, reasonable rate, billing judgment, and AI is just another fact the parties litigate inside that frame.
For fee applicants who use AI, the lesson is clean and complete record-keeping. The award survived because the time entries could withstand a lodestar review: granular increments, no block billing, voluntary reductions. Counsel who use AI should expect opposing counsel (and their own clients) to ask what the tools did and did not do and should keep records that answer it.
For the party challenging a bill, the lesson is that indignation is not evidence. "They used AI, so it should have taken less time" will not move a court. The challenge has to identify specific entries, quantify the claimed excess, and tie it to the hours actually billed which is the same showing required to attack any fee request. Absent that, the lodestar presumption carries the day.
Key Take Aways of the Flux Drive Decision
The Flux Drive ruling rests heavily on burden and the plaintiffs' failure of proof, so its weight on the deeper question, i.e., should AI efficiency reduce a fee? wasn't reached. The court expressly left that door open: It allowed that AI "might thereby reduce the hours necessary to litigate a case" and faulted the plaintiffs only for not building the record to show it had. A challenger who builds a case against the fees might bring in expert declarations, task-level analysis, and a concrete comparison of AI-assisted time to what the task reasonably required may get a reduction in a future case.
The larger takeaway is almost reassuring. Faced with a genuinely new tool, the Tenth Circuit reached for established principles and found they still worked. AI did not break the lodestar; it just became one more thing the parties have to prove.
Mike Laszlo is a Colorado attorney who speaks regularly on attorneys' fees in Colorado and serves as a retained expert in attorney fee disputes, advising counsel and parties on the reasonableness of fees, lodestar analysis, and fee recovery under Colorado and federal law.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/tenth-circuit-ai-attorney-fee-awards-flux-drive/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]