Businesses
Businesses
Here's a look at documents from U.S. and international businesses
Featured Stories
Unisys Reaffirms Full-Year Guidance Amid Improved Profitability and Strong New Business Signings
BLUE BELL, Pennsylvania, May 9 -- Unisys, a technology solutions company, issued the following news release:* * *
Unisys Announces 1Q26 Results
Unisys Reaffirms Full-Year Guidance Amid Improved Profitability and Strong New Business Signings
* Revenue of $437.6 million, up 1.3% year over year (YoY), down 4.5% in constant currency(1)
* Excluding License and Support (Ex-L&S)(13) revenue of $372.1 million, up 3.1% YoY, down 2.9% in constant currency
* Gross profit margin of 25.7%, up 80 bps YoY; Ex-L&S gross profit margin of 19.5%, up 170 bps YoY
* Operating profit margin of 3.7%, improved ... Show Full Article BLUE BELL, Pennsylvania, May 9 -- Unisys, a technology solutions company, issued the following news release: * * * Unisys Announces 1Q26 Results Unisys Reaffirms Full-Year Guidance Amid Improved Profitability and Strong New Business Signings * Revenue of $437.6 million, up 1.3% year over year (YoY), down 4.5% in constant currency(1) * Excluding License and Support (Ex-L&S)(13) revenue of $372.1 million, up 3.1% YoY, down 2.9% in constant currency * Gross profit margin of 25.7%, up 80 bps YoY; Ex-L&S gross profit margin of 19.5%, up 170 bps YoY * Operating profit margin of 3.7%, improved250 bps YoY; non-GAAP operating profit(6) margin of 4.5%, improved 170 bps YoY
* New Business(5) Total Contract Value (TCV)(3) of $158 million, an increase of 45% YoY
* Unisys expands AI capabilities with key product releases for the ClearPath(R) Forward ecosystem
* Unisys reaffirms 2026 full-year guidance ranges for both constant currency revenue growth and non-GAAP operating profit margin
*
Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) reported financial results for the first quarter of 2026 (1Q26).
"We are off to a good start in 2026, with solid financial performance and double-digit growth in New Business signings in the first quarter," said Michael Thomson, Unisys CEO and President. "Our proven ability to move tangible AI use cases into production, with measurable results, is making Unisys more relevant to clients and alliance partners. We also released a number of ClearPath Forward products and tools that enable enterprise AI both on our platforms and external systems, reinforcing the long-term value proposition of the ClearPath Forward ecosystem."
Unisys Chief Financial Officer Deb McCann said, "We are pleased to reaffirm our full-year financial guidance ranges for both revenue and profitability. Our strong first quarter client signings reinforce our confidence in our revenue outlook. Consistent progress on delivery and operational efficiency initiatives improved our first quarter margins and keeps us on track to meet our free cash flow expectations."
Financial Highlights
Please refer to the accompanying financial tables for a reconciliation of the GAAP to non-GAAP measures presented, except for financial guidance since such a reconciliation is not practicable without unreasonable effort.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
* * *
First Quarter 2026 Results
Revenue increased 1.3% YoY, down 4.5% in constant currency. Foreign currency fluctuations contributed a 6 percentage-point positive impact on revenue in the current period compared with the prior-year period, which was partially offset by the timing of software license renewals, and a 2.9% decline in Ex-L&S revenue in constant currency.
Gross profit margin improved 80 bps YoY. Ex-L&S gross profit margin increased 170 bps YoY, primarily driven by delivery improvement and labor cost savings initiatives in the Cloud, Applications & Infrastructure Solutions (CA&I) segment.
During the first quarter of 2026, a transaction within the company's United Kingdom business process outsourcing consolidated joint venture generated approximately $3 million of gross margin benefit, resulting in a positive impact on gross profit margin and Ex-L&S gross profit margin of 50 basis points and 70 basis points, respectively. This transaction is expected to generate approximately $12 million of gross margin benefit for 2026.
* * *
Table: Financial Highlights by Segment
* * *
First Quarter 2026 Segment Results
DWS revenue declined 0.3% YoY, down 6.5% in constant currency. Fluctuations in foreign currency contributed a 6 percentage-point positive impact on DWS revenue compared to the prior-year period. DWS gross profit margin was 13.5%, a decrease of 70 bps YoY. The decreases in revenue and gross profit margin were primarily driven by lower volume due to client attrition.
CA&I revenue increased 3.1% YoY, down 2.4% in constant currency. Fluctuations in foreign currency contributed a 5 percentage-point positive impact on CA&I revenue compared to the prior-year period. This positive impact was partially offset by reduced volume due to client attrition. CA&I gross profit margin was 21.8%, an increase of 230 bps YoY, primarily driven by delivery improvement and labor cost savings initiatives.
ECS revenue declined 2.9% YoY, down 8.4% in constant currency. Foreign currency fluctuations contributed a 5 percentage-point positive impact on ECS revenue in the current period compared with the prior-year period. ECS gross profit margin was 46.9%, a decrease of 80 bps YoY. The decreases in revenue and gross profit margin were primarily driven by the timing of software license renewals.
* * *
Table: Balance Sheet and Cash Flows
The decrease in both free cash flow and pre-pension and postretirement free cash flow was primarily due to the timing of cash interest payment related to the 2031 Notes.
* * *
Table: Other Metrics
* * *
2026 Financial Guidance
The company reaffirms full-year 2026 revenue growth and profitability guidance:
[View table in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Non-GAAP operating profit margin 9.0% to 11.0%
Constant currency revenue guidance translates to reported revenue growth of (3.5)% to (1.5)%, based on exchange rates as of April 30, 2026, and assumes L&S revenue of approximately $415 million and Ex-L&S constant currency revenue growth of (7.0)% to (4.5)%.
* * *
Conference Call
Unisys will hold a conference call with the financial community on Wednesday, May 6, at 8 a.m. Eastern Time to discuss the results of the first quarter of 2026.
The live, listen-only webcast, as well as the accompanying presentation materials, can be accessed on the Unisys Investor Website at www.unisys.com/investor. In addition, domestic callers can dial 1-844-695-5518 and international callers can dial 1-412-902-6749 and provide the following conference passcode: Unisys Corporation Call.
A webcast replay will be available on the Unisys Investor Website shortly following the conference call. A replay will also be available by dialing 1-855-669-9658 for domestic callers or 1-412-317-0088 for international callers and entering access code 2479208 from two hours after the end of the call until May 20, 2026.
* * *
(1) Constant currency - A significant amount of the company's revenue is derived from international operations. As a result, the company's revenue has been and will continue to be affected by changes in the U.S. dollar against major international currencies. The company refers to revenue growth rates in constant currency or on a constant currency basis so that the business results can be viewed without the impact of fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates to facilitate comparisons of the company's business performance from one period to another. Constant currency is calculated by retranslating current and prior-period revenue at a consistent exchange rate rather than the actual exchange rates in effect during the respective periods.
(2) Backlog - Represents the estimated amount of future revenue to be recognized under contracted work, which has not yet been delivered or performed. The company believes that actual revenue reflects the most relevant measure necessary to understand the company's results of operations, but backlog can be a useful metric and indicator of the company's estimate of contracted revenue to be realized in the future, subject to certain inherent limitations. The timing of conversion of backlog to revenue may be impacted by, among other factors, the timing of execution, the extension, nullification or early termination of existing contracts with or without penalty, adjustments to estimates in pricing or volumes for previously included contracts, seasonality and foreign currency exchange rates. Investors are cautioned that backlog should not be relied upon as a substitute for, or considered in isolation from, measures in accordance with GAAP.
(3) Total Contract Value (TCV) - Represents the initial estimated revenue related to contracts signed in the period without regard for early termination or revenue recognition rules. Changes to contracts and scope are treated as TCV only to the extent of the incremental new value. New Business TCV represents TCV attributable to expansion and new scope for existing clients and new logo contracts. L&S TCV is driven by software license renewals, and as such, changes in timing or terms of renewals can lead to fluctuations from period to period. The company believes that actual revenue reflects the most relevant measure necessary to understand the company's results of operations, but TCV can be a useful leading indicator of the company's ability to generate future revenue over time, subject to certain inherent limitations. Measuring TCV involves the use of estimates and judgments and the extent and timing of conversion of TCV to revenue may be impacted by, among other factors, the types of services and solutions sold, contract duration, the pace of client spending, actual volumes of services delivered as compared to the volumes anticipated at the time of contract signing, and contract modifications, including, without limitation, contract nullification and termination, over the lifetime of a contract. Investors are cautioned that TCV should not be relied upon as a substitute for, or considered in isolation from, measures in accordance with GAAP.
(4) Book-to-bill - Represents total contract value booked divided by revenue in a given period.
(5) New Business - Represents expansion and new scope for existing clients and new logo contracts.
(6) Non-GAAP operating profit - This measure excludes pretax pension and postretirement expense, pretax goodwill impairment charge and pretax charges or gains associated with certain legal matters related to settlements, professional services and legal fees, including legal defense costs, associated with certain legal proceedings, and cost-reduction activities and other expenses.
(7) EBITDA & adjusted EBITDA - Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is calculated by starting with net income (loss) attributable to Unisys Corporation common shareholders and adding or subtracting the following items: net income (loss) attributable to noncontrolling interests, interest expense (net of interest income), provision for (benefit from) income taxes, depreciation and amortization. Adjusted EBITDA further excludes pension and postretirement expense; goodwill impairment charge, foreign exchange (gains) losses, debt extinguishment, certain legal matters related to settlements, professional services and legal fees, including legal defense costs, associated with certain legal proceedings; environmental matters related to previously disposed businesses; costreduction activities and other expenses; non-cash share-based expense; and other (income) expense adjustments.
(8) Non-GAAP net income (loss) and non-GAAP diluted earnings (loss) per share - These measures exclude pension and postretirement expense and charges or (credits) in connection with goodwill impairment; foreign exchange (gains) losses, debt extinguishment, certain legal matters related to settlements, professional services and legal fees, including legal defense costs, associated with certain legal proceedings; environmental matters related to previously disposed businesses; and cost-reduction activities and other expenses. The tax amounts related to these items for the calculation of non-GAAP diluted earnings (loss) per share include the current and deferred tax expense and benefits recognized under GAAP for these items.
(9) Free cash flow - Represents cash flow from operations less capital expenditures.
(10) Pre-pension and postretirement free cash flow - Represents free cash flow before pension and postretirement contributions.
(11) Adjusted free cash flow - Represents free cash flow less cash used for pension and postretirement funding; debt extinguishment, certain legal matters related to settlements, professional services and legal fees, including legal defense costs, associated with certain legal proceedings; environmental matters related to previously disposed businesses; and cost-reduction activities and other payments.
(12) License and Support (L&S) - Represents software license and related support services, primarily ClearPath Forward(R), within the company's ECS segment.
(13) Excluding License and Support (Ex-L&S) - These measures exclude revenue, gross profit and gross profit margin in connection with software license and support services within the company's ECS segment. The company provides these measures to allow investors to isolate the impact of software license renewals, which tend to be significant and impactful based on timing, and related support services in order to evaluate the company's business outside of these areas.
* * *
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Unisys cautions readers that the assumptions forming the basis for forward-looking statements include many factors that are beyond Unisys' ability to control or estimate precisely, such as estimates of future market conditions, the behavior of other market participants and that TCV is based, in part, on the assumption that each of those contracts will continue for their full contracted term. Words such as "anticipates," "estimates," "expects," "projects," "may," "will," "intends," "plans," "believes," "should" and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements and such forward-looking statements are made based upon management's current expectations, assumptions and beliefs as of this date concerning future developments and their potential effect upon Unisys. There can be no assurance that future developments will be in accordance with management's expectations, assumptions and beliefs or that the effect of future developments on Unisys will be those anticipated by management. Because actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements, we caution readers not to place undue reliance on these statements. Forward-looking statements in this release and the accompanying presentation include, but are not limited to, statements made in Mr. Thomson's and Ms. McCann's quotations, any projections or expectations of revenue growth, margin expansion, achievement of operational efficiencies and savings, effective use of technology, investments in our solutions and artificial intelligence adoption and innovation, TCV and Ex-L&S New Business TCV, the impact of new logo signings, backlog, book-to-bill(4), full-year 2026 revenue growth and profitability guidance, including constant currency revenue, Ex-L&S constant currency revenue growth, L&S revenue, non-GAAP operating profit margin, free cash flow generation and the assumptions and other expectations made in connection with our full-year 2026 financial guidance, the reduction of uncertainty and volatility of cash requirements, including pension contributions, our pension liability, debt extinguishment, future economic benefits from net operating losses and statements regarding future economic conditions or performance.
Additional information and factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from Unisys' expectations are contained in Unisys' filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including Unisys' Annual Reports on Form 10-K and subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, recent Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other SEC filings, which are available at the SEC's web site, http://www.sec.gov. Information included in this release is representative as of the date of this release only, and any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which that statement is made. While Unisys periodically reassesses material trends and uncertainties affecting Unisys' results of operations and financial condition in connection with its preparation of management's discussion and analysis of results of operations and financial condition contained in its Quarterly and Annual Reports filed with the SEC, Unisys does not, by including this statement, assume any obligation to review, revise or update any forward-looking statement in light of future events or circumstances, except as required by applicable law.
* * *
Non-GAAP Information
This release includes certain non-GAAP financial measures that exclude certain items such as pension and postretirement expense; goodwill impairment charge, foreign exchange (gains) losses, debt extinguishment, certain legal and other matters related to professional services and legal fees, including legal defense costs, associated with certain legal proceedings; environmental matters related to previously disposed businesses; and cost-reduction activities and other expenses that the company believes are not indicative of its ongoing operations, as they may be unusual or nonrecurring. The inclusion of such items in financial measures can make the company's profitability and liquidity results difficult to compare to prior periods or anticipated future periods and can distort the visibility of trends associated with the company's ongoing performance. Management also believes that non-GAAP measures are useful to investors because they provide supplemental information about the company's financial performance and liquidity, as well as greater transparency into management's view and assessment of the company's ongoing operating performance.
Non-GAAP financial measures are often provided and utilized by the company's management, analysts, and investors to enhance comparability of year-over-year results. These items are uncertain, depend on various factors, and could have a material impact on the company's GAAP results for the applicable period. These measures should not be relied upon as substitutes for, or considered in isolation from, measures calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable financial measures calculated and reported in accordance with GAAP can be found below except for financial guidance and other forward-looking information since such a reconciliation is not practicable without unreasonable efforts as the company is unable to reasonably forecast certain amounts that are necessary for such reconciliation. This information has been provided pursuant to the requirements of SEC Regulation G.
* * *
About Unisys
Unisys is a global technology solutions company that powers breakthroughs for the world's leading organizations. Our solutions - cloud, AI, digital workplace, applications and enterprise computing - help our clients challenge the status quo and unlock their full potential. To learn how we have been helping clients push what's possible for more than 150 years, visit unisys.com and follow us on LinkedIn.
* * *
Unisys and other Unisys products and services mentioned herein, as well as their respective logos, are trademarks or registered trademarks of Unisys Corporation. Any other brand or product referenced herein is acknowledged to be a trademark or registered trademark of its respective holder.
* * *
Original text: https://www.unisys.com/siteassets/investor-relations/earnings-files/2026/1q-2026-050526.pdf
[Category: BizComputer Technology]
Protecting APIs at Scale: Akamai Introduces Security Posture Center and Code-to-Runtime Mapping
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, May 9 -- Akamai Technologies, a provider of content delivery network services, issued the following news release:* * *
Protecting APIs at Scale: Akamai Introduces Security Posture Center and Code-to-Runtime Mapping
New capabilities transform fragmented API findings into measurable security posture and connect runtime activity to code ownership to accelerate remediation
*
Helping organizations understand and enforce API security posture at scale, Akamai (NASDAQ: AKAM) today introduced Security Posture Center and enhanced APIs-from-code capabilities. Together, these ... Show Full Article CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts, May 9 -- Akamai Technologies, a provider of content delivery network services, issued the following news release: * * * Protecting APIs at Scale: Akamai Introduces Security Posture Center and Code-to-Runtime Mapping New capabilities transform fragmented API findings into measurable security posture and connect runtime activity to code ownership to accelerate remediation * Helping organizations understand and enforce API security posture at scale, Akamai (NASDAQ: AKAM) today introduced Security Posture Center and enhanced APIs-from-code capabilities. Together, theseinnovations translate fragmented API findings into business-aligned controls and link live API activity directly to source code ownership.
As APIs rapidly expand to power modern digital services and AI-driven applications, security teams struggle to move beyond alert-driven workflows and quantify their overall risk. Akamai addresses this challenge by providing a unified system of record for API risk across the development lifecycle, enabling teams to measure, prioritize, and improve security consistently.
Key elements of these new capabilities include:
* Security Posture Center: Rather than chasing individual alerts, teams can measure compliance with API security best practices across areas such as authentication, data protection, and API hygiene. By mapping findings into a structured set of controls, organizations gain a clear view of their security posture and can track progress toward a defined end state: full alignment with API security best practices.
* Code-to-runtime mapping: Akamai links APIs observed in live traffic to their specific repositories, code files, and last committers. This eliminates the need to manually trace ownership and provides developers with the context required to understand, reproduce, and remediate issues quickly, significantly reducing mean time to remediation (MTTR).
"API security has historically been driven by fragmented findings, making it difficult for organizations to understand their true security posture or measure progress," said Oz Golan, Vice President, API Security at Akamai. "Security Posture Center changes that by defining what 'secure' looks like through policy-based controls. At the same time, our ability to map any API directly to code directly closes a critical gap in the industry. By combining visibility across traffic, code, and configurations, Akamai helps organizations not only identify risk, but also act on it quickly and with confidence."
Together, these capabilities reinforce Akamai API Security as a vital tool for API security and risk management, providing comprehensive visibility across the API lifecycle -- from discovery and posture management to runtime protection and remediation. By aligning technical findings to enforceable controls and connecting them directly to development workflows, organizations can better govern API sprawl in the age of agentic AI, demonstrate compliance, and reduce risk without slowing innovation.
* * *
About Akamai
Akamai is the cybersecurity and cloud computing company that powers and protects business online. Our market-leading security solutions, superior threat intelligence, and global operations team provide defense in depth to safeguard enterprise data and applications everywhere. Akamai's full-stack cloud computing solutions deliver performance and affordability on the world's most distributed platform. Global enterprises trust Akamai to provide the industry-leading reliability, scale, and expertise they need to grow their business with confidence.
* * *
Original text: https://www.akamai.com/newsroom/press-release/protecting-apis-at-scale-akamai-introduces-security-posture-center-and-code-to-runtime-mapping
[Category BizComputer Technology]
Lubrizol and HD Hyundai Oilbank Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Collaboration in Lubricants Innovation
WICKLIFFE, Ohio, May 9 -- Lubrizol Corp., a Berkshire Hathaway company, issued the following news:* * *
Lubrizol and HD Hyundai Oilbank Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Collaboration in Lubricants Innovation
Strengthening technical collaboration, market insight sharing, and market relevant lubricant solutions across Korea and the Asia Pacific
* Lubrizol and HD Hyundai Oilbank sign MOU to collaborate on lubricant innovation across Korea and Asia Pacific
* Partnership combines base oil expertise and advanced additives to accelerate market relevant lubricant solutions
* Collaboration ... Show Full Article WICKLIFFE, Ohio, May 9 -- Lubrizol Corp., a Berkshire Hathaway company, issued the following news: * * * Lubrizol and HD Hyundai Oilbank Sign Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Collaboration in Lubricants Innovation Strengthening technical collaboration, market insight sharing, and market relevant lubricant solutions across Korea and the Asia Pacific * Lubrizol and HD Hyundai Oilbank sign MOU to collaborate on lubricant innovation across Korea and Asia Pacific * Partnership combines base oil expertise and advanced additives to accelerate market relevant lubricant solutions * Collaborationfocuses on technical development, market insight sharing, and joint product initiatives
*
Seoul, South Korea - Lubrizol, a science based specialty chemical company with leading positions in additives, and HD Hyundai Oilbank, a leading Korean oil refinery and chemical company, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore strategic collaboration opportunities in the Korea and Asia Pacific lubricants market, underscoring the increasing role of cross value chain partnerships in meeting evolving performance, sustainability, and customer expectations.
The MOU provides a structured platform for deeper technical and market collaboration, combining HD Hyundai Oilbank's base oil expertise with Lubrizol's leadership in additives and specialty chemicals. By strengthening technical dialogue and aligning complementary capabilities, the two companies aim to accelerate innovation in lubricant solutions that better address evolving market needs in global and local markets.
"As the lubricants industry evolves, innovation increasingly happens at the intersection of materials science, application expertise, and market insight," said Henry Liu, Asia Pacific Vice President, Lubrizol. "This collaboration with HD Hyundai Oilbank reflects Lubrizol's commitment to building a strong innovation ecosystem - one that connects expertise across the value chain to deliver differentiated solutions to respond more effectively to emerging customer needs and market trends."
Under the agreement, Lubrizol and HD Hyundai Oilbank will explore cooperation in technical development of additives and lubricant solutions, sharing of market insights, joint product development initiatives, and product qualification activities. This integrated approach is intended to enhance speed to market, improve solution relevance, and support customers as requirements continue to evolve.
"Working with Lubrizol allows us to co create lubricant solutions from the early stages of development," said Tae-Oh Jung, Executive Vice President, HD Hyundai Oilbank. "Together, we can turn market insights into practical, high value solutions that support customers' evolving technical and operational requirements."
The MOU reinforces both companies' focus on advancing lubricant technology through collaboration - strengthening competitiveness, supporting sustainable growth, and contributing to a more resilient and innovative lubricants ecosystem in a rapidly changing market environment.
* * *
About The Lubrizol Corporation
Lubrizol, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is a science-based company whose specialty chemistry delivers sustainable solutions to advance mobility, improve well-being and enhance modern life. Every day, the innovators of Lubrizol strive to create extraordinary value for customers at the intersection of science, market needs and business success, driving discovery and creating breakthrough solutions that enhance life and make the world work better. Founded in 1928, Lubrizol has global reach and local presence, with more than 100 manufacturing facilities, sales and technical offices and more than 7,000 employees around the world. For more information, visit www.Lubrizol.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.lubrizol.com/company/news/2026/05/lubrizol-and-hyundai-oilbank-sign-mou
[Category: BizChemicals]
Littler Issues Commentary: New Jersey Department of Labor Publishes Final ABC Rule
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by shareholders Alexander T. MacDonald and Rachel Seaton Brownell:* * *
New Jersey Department of Labor Publishes Final ABC Rule
At a Glance
* New Jersey DOL issued final rule implementing the "ABC" test for assessing whether workers are employees or independent contractors under state law.
* The final rule scaled back or deleted some of the provisions to which the business community objected, but left much of the proposed ABC test intact.
*
After more than a year's delay, the New Jersey ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 9 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by shareholders Alexander T. MacDonald and Rachel Seaton Brownell: * * * New Jersey Department of Labor Publishes Final ABC Rule At a Glance * New Jersey DOL issued final rule implementing the "ABC" test for assessing whether workers are employees or independent contractors under state law. * The final rule scaled back or deleted some of the provisions to which the business community objected, but left much of the proposed ABC test intact. * After more than a year's delay, the New JerseyDepartment of Labor announced a final rule implementing the state's "ABC" test. The ABC test is used to determine a worker's status as either an employee or as an independent contractor under multiple laws, including New Jersey's wage-and-hour laws. After the Department first proposed the rule last year, it received hundreds of comments expressing concern about the rule's breadth. In response, the final rule scales back many of the proposed rule's most controversial features, including "examples" that would have singled out companies in certain industries. The final rule also takes a softer approach to issues like legal compliance. Whereas the proposed rule would have treated precautions a business takes to comply with other laws as evidence of the business's "control" over the worker, the final rule takes the opposite approach: legal compliance is not evidence of control.
In all, the final rule is narrower than the original proposal. It responds to vigorous criticism by the business community by removing many of the proposal's most concerning features. And while it is by no means simple, it takes a lighter approach than many had feared.
What Was Proposed?
In April 2025, the Department proposed rules to implement the state's "ABC test." The ABC distinguishes between employees and independent contractors. It would have been stricter (and more likely to cause a worker to be deemed to be an employee) than many other common classification tests, such as the "common law" test or the "economic realities" test. Unlike those tests, the ABC requires a worker to meet all of three specific criteria: to be an independent contractor, the worker must (a) be free from control both under the contract and in fact; (b) work outside a company's usual course of business or all the company's places of business; and (c) work in an independently established business, profession, or trade. If workers fail any one of those criteria, they are deemed employees.
The ABC test is often used in state unemployment statutes: more than 20 states use it to decide whether a worker is eligible for unemployment compensation. But it is rarer in other contexts. In contrast, only a handful of states use it to determine whether a worker is eligible for overtime or minimum wages. States more often use a more flexible test, such as the common-law test or the multi-factor "economic realities" test.
In New Jersey, the test is used for multiple purposes. It appears not only in the state's unemployment-compensation laws, but also in its wage-and-hour and wage-payment rules. So rules implementing the test have a broader effect in New Jersey than they would in most states.
The proposed rule would have made New Jersey's version of the test one of the strictest in the country. It took an especially hard line against certain industries, including the construction and app-based services industries. But in response to negative feedback from the business community, the final rule significantly scales back the proposal's most controversial elements.
What Was Removed?
The final rule removes many controversial sections:
* Examples. The proposed rule listed examples of workers who provide work within the usual course of a company's business. These examples included rideshare drivers who use a transportation network company's app, drywall installers who work at a drywall-installation company's worksites, and caddies who work at a country club. The proposed rule also includes examples of workers who work within a company's usual places of business. These examples included delivery drivers who deliver goods through a delivery network company's app using their own cars. (The proposed rule treated the car as a place of the company's business.) All of these examples have been removed.
* Applications as control. The proposed rule would have treated software, including smartphone applications, as a form of control. It stated that if a business required a worker to use its software or applications, the business was controlling the worker. The final rule deletes this language.
* Actual work vs. right to work. The proposed rule would have minimized the right to work for other clients. It stated that the relevant question is not whether a worker has a right to work for others. Rather, the question is whether the worker actually works for others and is paid for that work. The final rule deletes that section.
* Definition of off-site work. The proposed rule would have differentiated between off-site work that is "essential" to a company's business and work that is only "ancillary" to the business. It would have treated "essential" work as performed at the employer's usual places of business, even when performed off site. This distinction has been removed.
* Legal compliance. The proposed rule would have discounted the importance of legal compliance. It stated that when a business controls a worker, the control is evidence of employment even when the business must control that aspect of the work to comply with some other law. The final rule eliminates that language.
What Was Added?
The final rule also adds a handful of less-controversial sections:
* Examples of exclusions. The final rule states that it does not affect any exclusion set out in a statute. It then lists several examples of these exclusions, including exclusions from minimum-wage and overtime requirements for "white collar" professionals. The rule clarifies that these exclusions continue to work in the same way as they did before the rule.
* Work from home. The final rule clarifies how the Department approaches remote work. It explains that when a person works from home, the person's home is not automatically part of the company's usual places of business. So remote workers do not automatically become employees just because they work from their homes rather than an independent office.
* Legal compliance. The final rule also takes a new approach to legal compliance. It states explicitly that steps a business takes to comply with federal, state, or local law is not "control" under the ABC test. In other words, it reverses the proposed rule's approach.
What Is Left?
While these changes are important, much of the proposed rule remains intact. The final rule still sets out the Department's general approach to the ABC test. It still puts the burden on a business to prove that a worker meets all three criteria. It also still lists certain facts that are relevant under each criterion, such as whether workers control their own schedule or set their own pay rate. And the final rule still says that some facts are not enough on their own to avoid a worker being deemed to be an employee. These facts include whether the worker has an independent-contractor agreement, whether the worker uses a business entity, whether the worker earns a low salary, and whether the worker has multiple jobs.
The final rule hardly makes New Jersey an independent-contracting haven. But it does step back from the aggressive approach taken in the proposed rule. On balance, it is positive news for businesses that work with independent suppliers and service providers in New Jersey.
* * *
Authors
Alexander T. MacDonald
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Rachel Seaton Brownell
Shareholder
Newark
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/new-jersey-department-labor-publishes-final-abc-rule
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Full Transcript: Former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta on "The Conversation With Dasha Burns"
ARLINGTON, Virginia, May 9 -- Politico issued the following news release:* * *
Full Transcript: Former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta on "The Conversation with Dasha Burns"
This is a full unedited transcript of POLITICO's interview with Leon Panetta on "The Conversation with Dasha Burns":
Leon Panetta: I do not see a deal that the United States can agree to right now, and that means we have a prolonged war on our hands.
Dasha Burns: Hello, hello, and welcome to The Conversation. I'm Dasha Burns, and on this show, I talk to the most compelling and sometimes unexpected power ... Show Full Article ARLINGTON, Virginia, May 9 -- Politico issued the following news release: * * * Full Transcript: Former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta on "The Conversation with Dasha Burns" This is a full unedited transcript of POLITICO's interview with Leon Panetta on "The Conversation with Dasha Burns": Leon Panetta: I do not see a deal that the United States can agree to right now, and that means we have a prolonged war on our hands. Dasha Burns: Hello, hello, and welcome to The Conversation. I'm Dasha Burns, and on this show, I talk to the most compelling and sometimes unexpected powerplayers in Washington and beyond. And this week, I sat down with Leon Panetta. Panetta served as both secretary of defense and CIA director in the Obama administration so in this moment of turbulent conflict with Iran, I was eager to hear his perspective on where the war is and where it's headed.
[Audio clip playing - In the case of Iran, we're not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And we're not going to let that happen. We're dealing with people that want to make a deal very much, and we'll see whether or not they can make a deal that's satisfactory to us.]
Dasha Burns: We dug deep into the objectives of the Iran war, the execution of Operation Epic Fury, the US relationship with Israel, and more broadly, his views on the future of American foreign policy.
But before we get to this week's interview, I wanted to note that we're coming up on the one-year anniversary of The Conversation. To celebrate, we want to hear from you. What questions do you have for me about the show, how we put it together, or the state of politics at this moment? Shoot us a text or leave us a voicemail at 202-643-1536, and I'll answer your questions on an upcoming show. And now, Leon Panetta joins The Conversation.
Leon Panetta, former defense secretary, former CIA director, former many other titles that we don't have time to get to, thank you so much for joining The Conversation.
Leon Panetta: Good to be with you.
Dasha Burns: You're such a great voice to have this week because we've talked about Iran on this podcast a lot because it is um, such a prevalent story in the news right now. But there's been so much whiplash, and I want to start with the objectives of this war. Look, the ceasefire is shaky at best. There have been multiple Iranian attacks in the Strait of Hormuz this past week. But the administration has repeatedly said that the military objectives of the war have been met and that it's now over.
[Audio clip playing - Together with our Israeli partners, America's military achieved every single objective on plan, on schedule, exactly as laid out from day one.
Well, one way or the other, we win. We either make the right deal or we win very easily from the military standpoint. We've already won that.
Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation.]
Dasha Burns: Give us your assessment. Is the administration right when it says that the war objectives have been met here?
Leon Panetta: The basic objective that the president was after, which was regime change, did not happen. And since that time uh, the president has come up with a number of reasons why the United States got involved in this war and has really confused the issue uh, saying that uh, it was because there was an imminent attack, which again, our intelligence people made clear there was no imminent threat coming from Iran; secondly, that it was because of the Israelis uh, that they had to attack; uh, thirdly, that you can just think through all of the different uh, comments that have been made about why we're there. Uh, nuclear, obviously, the importance of making sure they never get a nuclear bomb has become another arguing point. But the problem is there's just a...there isn't any kind of very clear objective.
And...and now we're at a point, this was going to be a short war, six to eight weeks. We're obviously in, what, almost the tenth week of this war. Both sides are exhausted. Both...both sides would like to bring this war to an end. Uh, they have a ceasefire, that's in place. And there are two very large issues that have to be addressed in order to now bring this war to an end, one being the Straits of Hormuz uh, which are closed.
Dasha Burns: To begin with, I mean, it's been fascinating to watch that so much of the focus has been on the Strait of Hormuz, which was never in any of the objectives that were laid out by the administration. I mean uh, the president has talked about preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. That was one thing he has been saying for years. Now he's been saying it wasn't for regime change, but the regime has changed, which isn't exactly uh, the case, as you said. But the strait was...was never a part of this.
Leon Panetta: The administration miscalculated badly when uh, they were surprised by the fact that uh, Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz. You know, I've been in the uh, National Security uh, Council meetings when we were talking in the past about a possible conflict with Iran uh, and from the very beginning, it was always pointed out that one...one clear consequence would be that Iran would close the Straits of Hormuz uh, if they were attacked. We had to have plans as to how we would reopen the Straits of Hormuz. Uh, this administration said it was surprised by the fact that they closed the Straits of Hormuz, and there's no question that closing the Straits of Hormuz and not doing anything to open up the Straits of Hormuz has resulted in giving Iran a tremendous amount of leverage.
Dasha Burns: How would you have done this differently if you were in the administration at this point? How would you have planned for uh, the Strait of Hormuz issue?
Leon Panetta: I think, very frankly, that the United States had to take a position that we could not allow Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz and that uh, if we could not find a way to open it through diplomacy, that I think we should've used uh, our military capability in order to do that. It would not be easy. It'd be tough. You have to basically protect an area 50 miles on each side of the straits. Uh, it would mean putting boots on the ground. You'd have to protect an area about 100 miles in from the straits. But uh, militarily, I think that uh, it was important to take the step to make sure that the Straits of Hormuz would not be closed. And doing that was because of our national security.
The reality is that what you're seeing now is the closure is threatening the American economy and the global economy. Uh, our prices are now reaching out here in California almost seven dollars a gallon, for goodness sakes. The price of diesel fuel is going through the roof. Fertilizers are going to increase the cost of food. The IMF basically said if this continues, there's...there's a possibility of a worldwide recession occurring.
Dasha Burns: There are peace negotiations going on that...that look promising. Uh, I...I'm curious to get your perspective on that. Look, it...it took President Obama more than 20 months and 20 rounds of high-level talks with Iran to reach the 2015 nuclear deal. What do you think are the prospects for a deal with Iran now?
Leon Panetta: It's very difficult to uh...to trust the word of the president right now because you know, it...it was long ago he said that within a couple days uh, the war would be over. Every few weeks, he basically says oh, no, we're very close uh, to getting an agreement. Uh, oh, no, we're...we're...we're now...you know, we really think that we're even closer. And he...he keeps saying that and it doesn't happen. And for that reason, you know, it's just...it's very hard to kinda be able to rely uh, on what he says because uh, it doesn't happen.
Dasha Burns: There's also quite an unconventional team uh, Mr. Panetta, doing these negotiations. We've had Vice President JD Vance uh, but also Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, you know, former real estate developer and...and Kushner, who's the president's son-in-law, as the chief negotiators for the US.
Leon Panetta: Let's cut to the bottom line here. The bottom line goes back to what happened uh, on the initial attach, which was the failure to be able to bring down the regime. Because what...what you have now is a very hardline regime uh, probably a lot more hardline than what we had before the war began. They're controlled by the IRGC uh, the revolutionary guard and the military. To a large extent uh, they're...they probably think that they're winning this war right now uh, because the United States has backed off. It keeps...has cut...has gotten to the point where uh, the president has made clear that, you know, the ceasefire is in existence. Marco Rubio basically said we're now beyond uh, the initial plan for uh...for the war. We're in a different area. And so, you know, Iran thinks that it's probably winning this combat of wills right now as to who's going to blink first.
The problem is that when you're dealing with that kind of regime, when it comes to the Straits of Hormuz, they're going to be very tough about maintaining control of the Straits of Hormuz. Even though they may agree to opening it up, they may even agree to allow allied ships to try to help uh, in terms of uh, opening up traffic, but the bottom line is that I think it's going to be very difficult to basically say that Iran cannot control the Straits of Hormuz. That's the bottom line on that issue.
On the nuclear issue, which is much more complex, the president, in order to deal with the threat of Iran using enriched fuel to develop a nuclear weapon, you have to go after the enriched fuel that's buried, but you also have to go after whatever other enriched fuel capability Iran may have. And intelligence indicates that they may have other operations in terms of enriched fuel. So you're going to need to have very specific inspections by the IAEA. You're going to have to be able to have a full picture of just what's available to them in order to make sure that they haven't hidden enriched fuel someplace that could ultimately be turned into uh, a nuclear weapon. And that takes negotiation. It's complex. It took President Obama two years to come to some agreement. I just don't see that kind of negotiation going on right now; may be, but it's just not very obvious. So on the two issues that are critical to ending this war right now, I do not see a deal that the United States can agree to right now, and that means we have a prolonged war on our hands.
Dasha Burns: What do you make of the...the diplomacy and the negotiating team of this administration?
Leon Panetta: Well, you know, frankly, I don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to be able to uh, negotiate with what is a very tough group of negotiators uh, that uh, come from Iran. Ask anybody who participated uh, in the nuclear negotiations, and you can understand that they're a very tough group to deal with. It's not easy that it involves a lot of complexity. It involves a lot of determination to keep at it. You've got to continue to negotiate. You can't just pick up and walk out of the room. You gotta stay there, negotiate, make sure that you ultimately force them to be able to meet the terms that you're after. And so, I...I just don't see right now uh, that kind of tough negotiating going on.
I think what they're relying on is rumors that come out of the...out...out of the regime. I can imagine that the regime is very tough to deal with because there are different elements to the regime now. You're not quite sure what word to trust, whether it's really coming from the supreme leader or whether it's coming from other leaders in the regime. But ultimately, you've got to be able to get people who speak for the regime that you can negotiate with in order to ultimately arrive at a deal.
Dasha Burns: Back to the military piece of this, I want to ask you about the way the war is being conducted. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said there would be "no quarter for Iranian enemies."
[Audio clip playing - We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.]
Dasha Burns: That's a phrase in military law that implies denying surrender and is prohibited under the laws of war. Hundreds of civilians have been killed, infrastructure destroyed. Do you believe that the way this operation is being conducted is in full compliance with international law?
Leon Panetta: You know, we obviously engaged in a military attack. Uh, we did have military objectives. I think the administration did define military objectives. Uh, we went after, what, something like 15,000 targets uh, that were hit. I think we probably have achieved most of those military objectives that were part of it. We went after their nuclear capability. That actually happened in the 12-Day War uh, but we continue to go after that. We continue to go after their missile capability, their drone capability, their military command. So there's no question in my mind that the United States did through our military operations weaken uh, Iran. That's one of the reasons Iran is willing now to try to negotiate some kind of end to the war. Uh, so it did produce some kind of result.
The real question though is what happens if Iran does not agree to the terms that the United States wants either on the Straits of Hormuz or on the nuclear enrichment issue. What happens? Does the administration agree to whatever Iran is willing to do in order to just get out or does it have to respond militarily? That's a tough issue. And I...I don't know the answer to that. I mean, right now, my sense is the administration does not want to go back to war. When Iran sent missiles into the UAE, the United States did not respond to try to protect the UAE or respond to that kind of attack. That sent uh, a message to the Iranians that uh, the United States wants out right now. I think that's a bad negotiating position for the United States to be into. You've got to be able to show the Iranians that you aren't just going to walk away uh, and let them have whatever they want.
Dasha Burns: As a former defense secretary, did it concern you when...when Hegseth brought up the idea of...of no quarter?
Leon Panetta: I don't like the language that the secretary uses because it's uh, a secretary who's churlating rather than leading the military uh, and working with the military. And every time you use that kind of language, whether the president is threatening to wipe out their civilization or the other day he said we're gonna blow the hell out of them uh, I mean, that kind of language, frankly, nobody listens to anymore because it's not real. It's not real.
Dasha Burns: As a former defense secretary, how would you assess Hegseth's tenure so far?
Leon Panetta: I did not think he was qualified to take that position. Uh, I still don't think he's qualified. He doesn't want to sit down and work with the military and allow them the ability to be able to have their commanders and their leaders be able to determine exactly what steps need to be taken. Uh, as a secretary of defense, I think you have to rely on the military leadership. They're the best in the world, by the way, and when he keeps changing those leaders, when he gets rid of them uh, he basically undermines the strength of our military because frankly, we need experienced leaders leading the military of the United States. I think we have the strongest military on the face of the earth. I think we have the best military on the face of the earth. But you have to let them do their job.
Dasha Burns: What are you hearing from folks inside the Pentagon? Are you...are you still in touch with...with some people over there? Are you getting a sense of what...what's going on?
Leon Panetta: There's a lot of concern, particularly about uh, his efforts to uh, go after the military commanders who are experienced. We have some of the most experienced commanders of any country who've been involved in war, who understand war, who understand the risks that are involved. There's been no reason indicated as to why they were not promoted uh, and why they were relieved of their jobs. There really has not been an explanation as to why. And when that happens, everybody is impacted because it effects the morale of not only the military leaders, but of our men and women in uniform as well.
Dasha Burns: Is the $1.5 trillion defense budget reasonable, do you think?
Leon Panetta: My view as a former director of OMB and also former secretary of defense.
Dasha Burns: Many titles, as we've discussed, yep.
Leon Panetta: I just think the military obviously needs to be well-funded. We live in a dangerous world. There's a lot of technology we have to do research in, a lot of new weapons systems that we have to be involved with. But I also think that the defense department has to look at where savings can be achieved. I mean, they throw a lot of money at procurement. These weapons systems uh, are...involve a lot of cost overruns on weapons systems. Uh, and uh, I think procurement needs to be tightened up so that uh, we...so that tax payers are getting their money's worth. I still think there's a lot of duplication in the military. We tried to basically reduce some of that duplication with our combat commands. I think there's other duplication uh, that can be uh, gotten rid of. So there are areas where, frankly, they can exercise better fiscal control. Look, the defense department has not passed an audit, and before we throw another billion uh, at the defense uh, establishment, I think that tax payers need to know that the defense department can audit itself like every other department.
Dasha Burns: I want to talk a little bit about um, Israel's role in this war. You know this as well as anybody that Israel has been pushing the United States to take military action against Iran for decades. I'm sure you were probably given that cell during your tenure. Even some of the president's former allies are saying that he was pulled into this war by Israel.
[Audio clip playing - In my eyes, and...and many other people, I believe this is a war on behalf of Israel and it shouldn't be happening.
This was not a normal decision-making process, and my strong impression was that Trump was more a hostage than...than a...than a sovereign decision-maker in this.]
Dasha Burns: Is that how you saw it?
Leon Panetta: I hate to talk about things that I wasn't a part of or...or that I saw so I...I'm not...I'm not sure uh, what happened here and how it happened. But in my time when I was secretary of defense, Israel argued that they wanted to go after nuclear capability of Iran then. Now this was during the Obama administration, and the president was...was concerned because he knew that ultimately the United States would have to get involved if that happened. I had long conversations with the uh, defense minister, Ehud Barak and I made clear that if, you know, Israel attacked, the problem was that it would, first of all, destroy the alliance that we had developed with other Arab countries against uh, Iran, but also that they did not have the capability to really go after uh, the underground nuclear enrichment facilities that Iran had developed. And so we just made clear that that kind of attack was basically going to hurt the coalition that was necessary to stand up to Iran. Uh, and I actually showed uh, the defense minister the capability we had with a weapon that would penetrate deeply into the ground and be able to go after uh, their nuclear things uh, weapons that were ultimately used in the 12-Day War. And because of that uh, they agreed not to go.
Dasha Burns: Why didn't Obama use those weapons? Why didn't this happen until President Trump's second term?
Leon Panetta: Uh, because as we've learned, you know, some were saying they're close to a nuclear weapon. It's only a couple days away. But intelligence always made clear that it would take a while for them to develop a nuclear weapon even though they had enriched fuel uh, that it would take a year or more than a year in order for them to develop a nuclear weapon. The sense was...and it's the same position of this administration, we did not want them to have a nuclear weapon. President Obama was very clear he didn't want to have a nuclear weapon. Other presidents have said the same thing. But you also have to rely on your intelligence and what it's saying. How close are they? Is there an imminent threat? And what intelligence made very clear is that there was no imminent threat uh, that they had a nuclear weapon.
Dasha Burns: Is there any part of you though that wishes that the Obama administration had been harder on Iran or had done more to...to prevent or to uh, eliminate their nuclear capability? Because when I talk to administration officials in the Trump White House, they say well, we had to do this because President Biden didn't do it, President Obama didn't do it. This is...Iran has been a problem for...for decades and...and no president would...would take them on.
Leon Panetta: One of the obvious mistakes that President Trump made when he became president was to get rid of the agreement that had been negotiated by President Obama. Uh, even though it...it obviously had its weaknesses, the reality is that it was working to limit Iran in terms of their ability to enrich fuel. It was working. We had the IAEA confirming, doing inspections, making sure that they were not developing or enriching fuel. It was working. And when the president got rid of that agreement, he replaced it with nothing. He replaced it with nothing. And so what happened is that Iran then charged ahead doing enrichment and developing enriched fuel and as a result, became an even greater threat to the possibility that they could develop a nuclear weapon. That was a lousy way to deal with a concern about Iran and nuclear enrichment.
Dasha Burns: Knowing though that the military capability that...that you all had and uh, forgetting the conflict that we're in now but the...the 12-Day War that a lot of, you know, Democrats ultimately were in support of as well, that very targeted attack on Iran's nuclear uh, facilities, is there any part of you that wishes you guys had done something like that under Obama?
Leon Panetta: I think when you use your military capabilities, you have to do it based on the best intelligence that you have. You can't just send a B-1 bomber in there. You can't just send a fighter plane in there and blow up things unless you know exactly what you're blowing up and you know exactly what the targets are. I think we were handling it uh, much better in the Obama administration because we were dealing with what we were concerned about, which was their ability to ultimately develop a nuclear weapon. And so we dealt with enrichment. We were limiting enrichment. There was no need to just go in and blow them up because if we did, very frankly, we'd be in the same place that Donald Trump is right now, which is he's stuck in a stalemate with Iran in which we don't know whether this war will ever end.
Dasha Burns: This conflict has raised a conversation nationally about the US relationship with Israel. And people's view on this are...are changing, and it's not even a...a party line issue anymore. At this point, eight in ten Democrats have an unfavorable view of Israel, up nearly 30% since 2022. Forty Democratic senators recently voted against selling arms to Israel. What do you make of the...the evolution of...of the Democratic party on this issue? And...and does whoever Democrats put up in '28 need to keep their distance from Israel? Like where do you see this issue in...in the party right now?
Leon Panetta: Look, I...I don't look at it uh, from a Democratic point of view. I look at it in terms of what is the best policy for the United States when it comes to dealing with Israel. And the best policy of the United States dealing with Israel has been to support Israel. Israel's an important ally in that part of the world. We've provided them weapons systems. We've supported them. They are a democracy and...and that's important. But United States has always maintained the role of intermediary. We have not been in the pocket of Israel. We have not been in the pocket of other Arab republics. We have always tried to operate as an intermediary because our goal has been to try to negotiate some kind of long-term peaceful solution to the fundamental problems of the Middle East; namely, to ultimately establish some kind of Palestinian state uh, and try to develop...what I think the administration did do in the right direction, develop the Abraham Accords to have other countries recognize Israel and try to develop the kind of security and economic relationships that can produce uh, peace in the Middle East. That's what the United States ought to be about. You cannot just be a puppet for Israel. You have to be a country that operates on what is in the best interest for achieving peace in the Middle East.
Dasha Burns: You know, a lot of this sentiment among American voters does stem from uh, Israel's actions in Gaza. And I'm curious, looking back at the...how did the Biden administration handle this, do you think that the Biden administration should've more forcefully pushed back against Israel in Gaza?
Leon Panetta: No, I...look, I...as I said, I think the United States always had to be able to stand back and be able to look at the situation uh, and try to urge uh, the right steps when it came to trying to ultimately resolve uh, the war with Gaza. I think that uh, the Biden administration was trying to do that, and to some extent, that was the Trump administration was trying to do that and actually did achieve some kind of ceasefire, to their credit uh, in...in that area. So the role of the United States has to be what is in the best interest of achieving a peaceful solution that can ultimately promote an approach in the Middle East that will avoid war.
One of the problems with the Iran war is that if we do not arrive at a meaningful agreement with Iran, there's no question considering the fact that the regime is what it is that in four or five years, we may have to go back to war with Iran. That's the reality. And that only repeats what we've seen over 80 years in the Middle East. Every few years, Israel has gone after an adversary of one kind or another, whether it's Lebanon, whether it's Hezbollah, whether it's Hamas, whatever, defeats it, and then within a few years, back at war. And I think there's a danger right now that we're going to repeat that same cycle.
Dasha Burns: Speaking of the US role in the world, I do want to end by talking a bit more big picture because we have witnessed over the course of the last couple of years the president has offended decades of US foreign policy and alliances and is threatening to leave NATO. How much of an impact and how long-term do you think is the impact of this sort of shaking up of the world order under this administration?
Leon Panetta: I think we're going to have to go back to the same principles that have guided foreign policy in America going back to World War II. For 80 years since World War II, whether it was a Republican president or whether it was a Democratic president, regardless of their politics, political differences, they believed in the same principles when it came to foreign policy. They believed that America had to be a world leader. They believed that America had to support strong alliances, particularly NATO. They believed that we had to have a strong military. They also believed we had to have a strong diplomatic capability as well. And they believed that they had to stand up to tyrants. Those are all principles that both Democratic and Republican presidents believed in.
This president has basically turned a lot of that on its head. He's really not a strong believer that America should provide world leadership in the sense that it's not just about power, it's about democratic values as well. He's basically backed off of that. Steve Miller basically said it's all about power; it's not about values. He's wrong. It's about power but it's also about our values. He's then walked away from a lot of our allies. He's threatening to leave NATO. Uh, our allies, frankly, do not trust the United States right now, and that's hurting us in terms of our ability to deal with danger points in the world. And I think diplomacy, frankly, has been undercut a great deal at the State Department. We don't have the experienced diplomats that we should have in order to be able to deal with issues in the world from China to uh, the Middle East.
And lastly, this president has not been willing to stand up to Vladimir Putin when it comes to Ukraine. Putin invaded a sovereign democracy. It was clear we had to draw a line on Putin and that he could not be allowed to succeed. That's why we joined with NATO in making sure that Ukraine would be able to defend itself. The president keeps talking about, you know, he might be able to work out some kind of peace. But he's never willing to really draw a line on Putin and say if you don't agree to some kind of ceasefire, we are going to do everything we can to help Ukraine succeed in this war.
Dasha Burns: That story has now, you know, completely fallen out of the headlines given what's going on uh, in...in Iran.
Leon Panetta: That's right. And it's...it's sad because frankly, Ukraine is extremely important to our national security because Ukraine represents democratic values, and Putin represents exactly the opposite. He represents a tyrant who believes that the people of Ukraine do not have the right to govern themselves.
Dasha Burns: Do you think that there's something that the Biden administration could have or should have done differently on Ukraine when Biden was in office?
Leon Panetta: I think Biden should've been much tougher in providing the weapons that Ukraine needed. They were asking for missiles. They were asking for all kinds of sophisticated weaponry. Frankly, we should've given them much more sophisticated weaponry uh, in order to be able to go after Russia. I give Zelensky and Ukraine a lot of credit because we have seen drone warfare, and they have learned how to use drones very effectively. Uh, and that's what that war is all about. It's really told us that in the wars of the future, drones are going to be the military weapon of choice.
Dasha Burns: The world order has changed. I don't think there's any denying that at this point. The next president, whether that's a Democrat or a Republican or Independent or who knows what the...what the future may hold uh, by...by 2028, but how does the next leader of the United States pick this up? Where should that next leader take our role on the world stage?
Leon Panetta: Whoever that leader is, that leader is commander in chief and has the responsibility to make sure that the United States protects our national security. And to protect our national security, it is very important that we remain the strongest military power on the face of the earth. It's also incredibly important that we strengthen our alliances in the world. We live in a dangerous world, and once we get past this administration, it's still going to be a dangerous world. We're dealing with China. We're dealing with Russia. We're dealing with Iran. We're dealing with North Korea. We're dealing with terrorism. If we're going to effectively deal with all of those danger points, we have to build strong alliances with other countries in order to provide for our security. So in essence, the next president of the United States has to return America not just to military power but to protecting our values as a democracy.
Dasha Burns: All right. Mr. Leon Panetta, thank you so much for taking the time and walking through all of these very complicated global issues with us. Thank you.
Leon Panetta: You bet. Good to be with you.
Dasha Burns: This has been The Conversation with Dasha Burns. And don't forget to leave us a voicemail or shoot us a text with your questions and comments for our anniversary special by calling in to 202-643-1536. We'll be back next week. If you want to catch future episodes of The Conversation, be sure to click that subscribe button below. Thanks for watching.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-press/2026/05/08/full-transcript-former-secretary-of-defense-and-cia-director-leon-panetta-on-the-conversation-with-dasha-burns-00911452
[Category: BizMedia]
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath Issues Commentary: Multimillion-Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Reversed by Federal Circuit Due to Prior Disclosure in Patents and Self-Evident Concepts in California Case
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by partner Thatcher A. Rahmeier and associate Leah S. Chrisbacher:* * *
Multimillion-Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Reversed by Federal Circuit Due to Prior Disclosure in Patents and Self-Evident Concepts in California Case
International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, No. 25-1843 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2026)
At a Glance
* Concepts that were already disclosed in prior patents were not protectable trade secrets because they were generally known to the public, regardless ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 9 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by partner Thatcher A. Rahmeier and associate Leah S. Chrisbacher: * * * Multimillion-Dollar Trade Secret Verdict Reversed by Federal Circuit Due to Prior Disclosure in Patents and Self-Evident Concepts in California Case International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, No. 25-1843 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2026) At a Glance * Concepts that were already disclosed in prior patents were not protectable trade secrets because they were generally known to the public, regardlessof whether they were ever made into actual products.
* Self-evident or common concepts may be unprotectable even if the concept is put to a different use than originally intended or anticipated.
*
Summary
The plaintiffs, urologist Dr. James Elist and his company International Medical Devices, Inc., developed the Penuma(R) cosmetic implant. Penuma(R) is a silicone penile implant for the aesthetic improvement of penile appearance in men. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Robert Cornell and others misappropriated four trade secrets related to the implant's design and procedure and breached a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). Dr. Cornell had attended a Penuma(R) surgical training session hosted by Dr. Elist and signed an NDA in which he agreed not to disclose or use confidential information supplied to him. During the training, Dr. Elist disclosed to Dr. Cornell several ideas for improving the implant, which the plaintiffs alleged to be trade secrets subject to the NDA. The disputed trade secrets involved:
* Internal pockets within the implant for flexibility
* Mesh tabs for tissue ingrowth
* Use of absorbable sutures
* A particular instrument list for the procedure
The defendants countered that these concepts were already disclosed in prior patents and the general knowledge in the art, and thus were not protectable trade secrets. After a jury trial on liability in favor of the plaintiffs, the district court awarded $18.3 million in damages, including exemplary damages, and issued an injunction. The defendants appealed.
The Federal Circuit's Analysis
In their appeal, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' asserted trade secrets had been publicly disclosed in patents, making them generally known and ineligible for trade secret protection. The plaintiffs argued that the prior patents had never been embodied in actual products, and therefore could not have been generally known.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument. Relying on well-settled case law, the court emphasized the principle that what is disclosed in a patent is "generally known to the public" and cannot be a trade secret. Further, the "patent disclosures make the alleged trade secrets generally known whether or not they were ever made into real-world products."
The plaintiffs asserted that the patent design was intended for a therapeutic use as opposed to the cosmetic use of Penuma(R). The court found, however, that therapeutic and cosmetic implants do not present different problems or require different solutions such that translating the generally known internal-pockets design from therapeutic use to a cosmetic use cannot sustain trade secret protection. The court also found other purported trade secrets unprotectable by coupling patent disclosures with knowledge in the art based on undisputed record evidence.
For the asserted trade secret of the instrument list for the procedure, the plaintiffs argued that although the instruments were not specialized, they were not typical of other types of penile surgery and were therefore a trade secret. Without resolving that argument, the court found that the list could not derive independent economic value from secrecy -- and thus did reach trade secret status -- because the plaintiffs did not preserve the secrecy of the list contents by emailing the list to Dr. Cornell and others without designating it as confidential, and the NDA did not provide that all communications between the parties were confidential or specifically designate the instrument list as confidential.
Because the court found that the alleged trade secrets did not qualify as trade secrets, the plaintiffs could not succeed on their claim for breach of the NDA either, as the plaintiffs did not identify any alleged confidential information other than the asserted trade secrets. The court also reversed patent invalidity due to improper inventorship because the unprotectable trade secrets that were generally known could not support an inventive contribution.
Key Takeaways
* Concepts or designs that have already been disclosed in patent publications may not qualify as trade secrets even if they are put towards a different use.
* The well-settled principle remains that publicly available information is not secret and therefore may not be afforded trade secret protection, regardless of whether the information was ever embodied in an actual product or is a self-evident variant.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Thatcher A. Rahmeier
Partner
Wilmington
+1 302 467 4211
thatcher.rahmeier@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Leah S. Chrisbacher
Associate
Los Angeles
+1 310 203 4030
leah.chrisbacher@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/multimillion-dollar-trade-secret-verdict-reversed-by-federal-circuit-due-to-prior-disclosure-in-patents-and-self-evident-concepts-in-california-case
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
BMJ Group: Review Finds No Direct Link Between Aluminium Adjuvanted Vaccines and Serious or Long Term Health Conditions
LONDON, England, May 9 (TNSjou) -- BMJ Group issued the following news release about The BMJ:* * *
Review finds no direct link between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health conditions
Findings align with existing safety data, supporting continued use of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines in immunisation programmes.
*
Current evidence does not support direct (causal) associations between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health outcomes, including autism, diabetes and asthma, finds a review of the latest data published by The BMJ today.
Small amounts ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, May 9 (TNSjou) -- BMJ Group issued the following news release about The BMJ: * * * Review finds no direct link between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health conditions Findings align with existing safety data, supporting continued use of aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines in immunisation programmes. * Current evidence does not support direct (causal) associations between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health outcomes, including autism, diabetes and asthma, finds a review of the latest data published by The BMJ today. Small amountsof aluminium salts (adjuvants) are commonly used in vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis, HPV, and meningitis to make them more effective and longer-lasting. Yet, despite a decades-long safety record, questions about potential long term effects continue to arise in scientific and public settings.
To address this, researchers searched scientific databases to identify randomised controlled trials and observational studies published up to 27 November 2025 that assessed health outcomes after exposure to aluminium adjuvants included in vaccines.
They found 59 eligible studies that investigated a range of outcomes including autism, asthma, headache, muscle pain (myalgia), and skin reactions (nodules and granulomas) at the injection site. Studies of investigational vaccines were excluded, as their findings are not directly applicable to existing immunisation programmes.
The studies were of varying quality, but the researchers were able to assess their risk of bias and certainty of evidence using established tools.
High quality evidence from randomised controlled trials and large observational studies consistently showed no association between aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines and health outcomes including autism, type 1 diabetes, asthma, and myalgia.
Although some case series and one cohort study reported a rare muscle disease (macrophagic myofasciitis or MMF) in some people who had biopsies for musculoskeletal symptoms after vaccination, these studies were generally small and at serious or critical risk of bias, so did not provide credible evidence of a causal association.
The most consistently documented reactions were persistent nodules or granulomas at the injection site, but they were uncommon, local, and self-limited.
The researchers acknowledge various limitations to their findings, such as evidence on specific vaccine components is sparse compared with whole vaccine research, with a high proportion of methodologically weak studies, predominantly from high income countries.
However, they say: "Current evidence does not support causal associations between aluminium adjuvanted vaccines and serious or long term health outcomes. These findings are consistent with the broader post-licensure safety evidence base, which supports continued use of aluminium adjuvanted vaccines in immunisation programmes."
"Taken together, the convergent findings of higher quality studies provide a meaningful evidence base to inform public health decision making on aluminium adjuvanted vaccines," they add.
* * *
Notes for editors
Research: Aluminium adjuvants in vaccines and potential health effects: systematic review doi: 10.1136/bmj-2025-088921 (https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj-2025-088921)
External funding: Public Health Agency of Canada
Link to Academy of Medical Sciences press release labelling system: http://press.psprings.co.uk/AMSlabels.pdf
Externally peer reviewed? Yes
Evidence type: Systematic review
Subjects: People
* * *
Original text here: https://bmjgroup.com/review-finds-no-direct-link-between-aluminium-adjuvanted-vaccines-and-serious-or-long-term-health-conditions/
[Category: BizMedia]