Businesses
Here's a look at documents from U.S. and international businesses
Businesses
Featured Stories
Newmark Arranges $515 Million Refinancing for Rithm Capital's 31 West 52nd Street in Midtown Manhattan
NEW YORK, July 7 -- Newmark Group, a commercial real estate company that says they offer comprehensive suite of services and products, posted the following news release:
* * *
Newmark Arranges $515 Million Refinancing for Rithm Capital's 31 West 52nd Street in Midtown Manhattan
Newmark Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMRK) ("Newmark" or "the Company"), a leading commercial real estate advisor and service provider to large institutional investors, global corporations and other owners and occupiers, announces the Company has arranged $515 million in fixed-rate financing on behalf of Rithm Capital for 31 ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 7 -- Newmark Group, a commercial real estate company that says they offer comprehensive suite of services and products, posted the following news release: * * * Newmark Arranges $515 Million Refinancing for Rithm Capital's 31 West 52nd Street in Midtown Manhattan Newmark Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMRK) ("Newmark" or "the Company"), a leading commercial real estate advisor and service provider to large institutional investors, global corporations and other owners and occupiers, announces the Company has arranged $515 million in fixed-rate financing on behalf of Rithm Capital for 31West 52nd Street, a 785,000-square-foot Class A office tower in Midtown Manhattan's Plaza District.
Co-Head of Global Debt & Structured Finance Jordan Roeschlaub, Co-Head of U.S. Capital Markets Adam Spies, Executive Vice Chairman Adam Doneger and Vice Chairman Nick Scribani arranged the financing on behalf of Rithm Capital. Director Tim Polglase, Associate Director Dan Axelson and Analyst Jack Fenton also provided strategic support on the refinancing.
The financing package, led by Wells Fargo, consists of a $415 million senior mortgage, a $40 million B-note and a $60 million mezzanine loan. The lending group also includes Bank of America, Barclays, Citi, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.
The refinancing follows Rithm Capital's acquisition of the broader Paramount office portfolio, a $1.6 billion transaction on which Newmark served as financial advisor to Rithm. The financing supports the firm's long-term business plan for one of the portfolio's premier New York City assets.
Located directly across from The Museum of Modern Art, 31 West 52nd Street occupies one of Midtown Manhattan's premier office locations. The property's high-quality tenancy, long-term leasing profile and institutional ownership continue to make it an attractive investment for lenders seeking exposure to best-in-class office assets.
Cushman & Wakefield's Gideon Gil, Zach Kraft and Cecelia Galligan also advised on the transaction.
* * *
About Newmark
Newmark Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMRK), together with its subsidiaries ("Newmark"), is a world leader in commercial real estate, seamlessly powering every phase of the property life cycle. Newmark's comprehensive suite of services and products is uniquely tailored to each client, from owners to occupiers, investors to founders, and startups to blue-chip companies. Combining the platform's global reach with market intelligence in both established and emerging property markets, Newmark provides superior service to clients across the industry spectrum. For the twelve months ended March 31, 2026, Newmark generated revenues of more than $3.4 billion. As of March 31, 2026, Newmark and its business partners together operated from over 185 offices with more than 9,600 professionals across four continents. To learn more, visit nmrk.com or follow @newmark.
* * *
Discussion of Forward-Looking Statements about Newmark
Statements in this document regarding Newmark that are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements" that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. These include statements about the Company's business, results, financial position, liquidity, and outlook, which may constitute forward-looking statements and are subject to the risk that the actual impact may differ, possibly materially, from what is currently expected. Except as required by law, Newmark undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of additional risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see Newmark's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including, but not limited to, the risk factors and Special Note on Forward-Looking Information set forth in these filings and any updates to such risk factors and Special Note on Forward-Looking Information contained in subsequent reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q or Form 8-K.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nmrk.com/insights/press-releases/newmark-arranges-515-million-refinancing-for-rithm-capitals-31-west-52nd-street-in-midtown-manhattan
[Category: BizReal Estate]
* * *
Newmark Arranges $515 Million Refinancing for Rithm Capital's 31 West 52nd Street in Midtown Manhattan
Newmark Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMRK) ("Newmark" or "the Company"), a leading commercial real estate advisor and service provider to large institutional investors, global corporations and other owners and occupiers, announces the Company has arranged $515 million in fixed-rate financing on behalf of Rithm Capital for 31 ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 7 -- Newmark Group, a commercial real estate company that says they offer comprehensive suite of services and products, posted the following news release: * * * Newmark Arranges $515 Million Refinancing for Rithm Capital's 31 West 52nd Street in Midtown Manhattan Newmark Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMRK) ("Newmark" or "the Company"), a leading commercial real estate advisor and service provider to large institutional investors, global corporations and other owners and occupiers, announces the Company has arranged $515 million in fixed-rate financing on behalf of Rithm Capital for 31West 52nd Street, a 785,000-square-foot Class A office tower in Midtown Manhattan's Plaza District.
Co-Head of Global Debt & Structured Finance Jordan Roeschlaub, Co-Head of U.S. Capital Markets Adam Spies, Executive Vice Chairman Adam Doneger and Vice Chairman Nick Scribani arranged the financing on behalf of Rithm Capital. Director Tim Polglase, Associate Director Dan Axelson and Analyst Jack Fenton also provided strategic support on the refinancing.
The financing package, led by Wells Fargo, consists of a $415 million senior mortgage, a $40 million B-note and a $60 million mezzanine loan. The lending group also includes Bank of America, Barclays, Citi, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan.
The refinancing follows Rithm Capital's acquisition of the broader Paramount office portfolio, a $1.6 billion transaction on which Newmark served as financial advisor to Rithm. The financing supports the firm's long-term business plan for one of the portfolio's premier New York City assets.
Located directly across from The Museum of Modern Art, 31 West 52nd Street occupies one of Midtown Manhattan's premier office locations. The property's high-quality tenancy, long-term leasing profile and institutional ownership continue to make it an attractive investment for lenders seeking exposure to best-in-class office assets.
Cushman & Wakefield's Gideon Gil, Zach Kraft and Cecelia Galligan also advised on the transaction.
* * *
About Newmark
Newmark Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMRK), together with its subsidiaries ("Newmark"), is a world leader in commercial real estate, seamlessly powering every phase of the property life cycle. Newmark's comprehensive suite of services and products is uniquely tailored to each client, from owners to occupiers, investors to founders, and startups to blue-chip companies. Combining the platform's global reach with market intelligence in both established and emerging property markets, Newmark provides superior service to clients across the industry spectrum. For the twelve months ended March 31, 2026, Newmark generated revenues of more than $3.4 billion. As of March 31, 2026, Newmark and its business partners together operated from over 185 offices with more than 9,600 professionals across four continents. To learn more, visit nmrk.com or follow @newmark.
* * *
Discussion of Forward-Looking Statements about Newmark
Statements in this document regarding Newmark that are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements" that involve risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. These include statements about the Company's business, results, financial position, liquidity, and outlook, which may constitute forward-looking statements and are subject to the risk that the actual impact may differ, possibly materially, from what is currently expected. Except as required by law, Newmark undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. For a discussion of additional risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements, see Newmark's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including, but not limited to, the risk factors and Special Note on Forward-Looking Information set forth in these filings and any updates to such risk factors and Special Note on Forward-Looking Information contained in subsequent reports on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q or Form 8-K.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nmrk.com/insights/press-releases/newmark-arranges-515-million-refinancing-for-rithm-capitals-31-west-52nd-street-in-midtown-manhattan
[Category: BizReal Estate]
Navigating the Data Center Construction Boom: Key Takeaways From Troutman Pepper Locke's Three-Part Webinar Series
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Navigating the Data Center Construction Boom: Key Takeaways From Troutman Pepper Locke's Three-Part Webinar Series
Key Points
* Available near-term power is the most important consideration in data center site selection, with projects requiring hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts amid growing grid congestion and interconnection delays.
* Air permitting is a critical-path issue for data centers containing emitting structures, with permit timelines ranging from months to years depending on the permit ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Navigating the Data Center Construction Boom: Key Takeaways From Troutman Pepper Locke's Three-Part Webinar Series Key Points * Available near-term power is the most important consideration in data center site selection, with projects requiring hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts amid growing grid congestion and interconnection delays. * Air permitting is a critical-path issue for data centers containing emitting structures, with permit timelines ranging from months to years depending on the permitcategory and jurisdiction.
* Lenders require a bankable project and evaluate four key factors: power and interconnection availability, creditworthiness of all parties, project budget and capital timing, and future revenue stability -- with hyperscaler tenants providing significantly more lender comfort than less established counterparties.
* Supply chain constraints on critical components -- including transformers, switchgear, GPUs, and generators -- are driving sourcing creativity, such as developers placing deposits and entering reimbursement agreements with hyperscaler tenants well before leases are finalized.
* With approximately 3,000 data center projects projected in the U.S. through 2030, labor shortages and schedule pressure are structural features of the current market, necessitating flexible contract pricing, phased construction strategies, and robust risk allocation and dispute resolution provisions.
-
Global data center investment is projected to reach $6.7 trillion by 2030, including $2.7 trillion in the U.S. Troutman Pepper Locke recently concluded a three-part series examining the legal, financial, and operational complexities of the booming data center construction industry. The series brought together practitioners from the firm's construction, real estate, energy, and environmental groups to address all aspects of data center development, including power and energy considerations, site selection, permitting, financing, construction execution, and risk allocation. We are pleased to highlight key themes and practical takeaways from the series.
Power as the Threshold Issue
The name of the data center construction game is "speed to power." The ability to source or generate near-term power is the single most important consideration for data center projects, with such projects requiring hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts. Surging demand is colliding with structural limitations in the U.S. electricity system, driving stakeholders toward alternative power solutions to meet strict project deadlines.
* Available near-term power is the single most important consideration in data center site selection.
* The traditional model of generation, transmission, and distribution is under strain, with grid congestion, interconnection queues, and the need for significant infrastructure upgrades emerging as major bottlenecks.
* Stakeholders are turning to hybrid solutions, such as behind-the-meter generation and on-site renewables, to reduce grid dependence, with some operators pursuing fully off-grid projects to bypass interconnection delays entirely.
The Permitting Landscape
Data centers present a fundamental tension between an industry requiring incredible speed to market and a complex regulatory framework. The resulting challenges are multifaceted, highly jurisdiction-specific, and capable of creating critical-path delays if not addressed at the outset.
* Many data centers contain emitting structures, requiring major or minor air permits. Obtaining the requisite air permits can take months or even years depending on the permit category, making it a critical item to build into project development and scheduling from day one.
* Recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance and a proposed rulemaking clarify that federal rules prohibiting construction without an air permit apply only to construction of emitting activities, which may provide flexibility for data centers to proceed with the construction of nonemitting aspects of their facilities.
* Permit challenges are low-frequency but high-consequence -- consequences can range from a modest delay during the pendency of a challenge to project suspension if the necessary permits are rejected or pulled.
* County-level permitting has become just as important, with local governments finding creative ways to regulate data center development (g., road-use authority, special-use permits, and constitutional powers tied to water bodies, etc.).
* Most states define a public utility as any entity that owns or operates generation, transmission, or distribution assets for service to the public or for compensation. As a result, self-generating data centers risk classification as public utilities under state law if commercial arrangements are not carefully structured to fit within available exceptions.
Community Opposition
Community opposition to data center projects is growing and reshaping the development landscape. Concerns center on environmental impacts, water consumption, air quality, and the cost to ratepayers of grid upgrades required to serve large loads. Opposition extends beyond the data centers themselves to the utilities building new generation to serve them, creating multiple paths through which community resistance can derail a project.
* Federal and state policymakers have introduced legislative measures targeting rising electricity costs, grid strain, environmental impacts, and tax incentives.
* Many local governments have gone further by exploring moratoria on data center construction.
* Environmental interest groups are becoming sophisticated opponents, leveraging air quality modeling, emissions control technologies, and other tools to challenge projects.
* Proactive engagement can help prevent opposition from crystallizing and reduce permit challenge risk. Some strategies may include publicly demonstrating project benefits, voluntarily conducting air quality modeling, and building relationships with local affected communities before permit applications are filed.
Bankability and the Bespoke Capital Stack
Bankability in data center development turns on whether the project presents a credible path to power, revenue, completion, and repayment. Because these projects require substantial upfront commitments before revenue begins, financing structures must remain flexible while preserving lender protections.
* Lenders evaluate, at minimum, four key factors to assess a project's ability to generate sufficient returns to service debt: power and interconnection availability, the creditworthiness and capabilities of all parties, the project budget and timing of capital needs (g., equipment, stored materials, equity sources), and future revenue stability.
* Lenders do not just evaluate the developer or contractor -- they also look through to the end-user. A reputable hyperscaler tenant provides lenders significantly more comfort than a less established counterparty, particularly where the developer has an ongoing relationship with that tenant across multiple projects.
* Capital stacks are often tailored to bridge early power, equipment, and infrastructure costs before permanent financing or project revenue is available. For example, preferred equity or private credit may fund upfront costs, senior construction debt typically becomes available once conditions precedent are met (g., power and tenant commitments are in place), and a permanent takeout loan replaces the construction debt once the project is complete.
* Project documents should include financeability protections from the outset, including assignment rights, notice and cure periods, lender accommodation language, and practical step-in rights.
Competing Stakeholder Expectations
Data center transactions involve an unusually large number of parties with legitimate interests in project completion, producing layers of inter-creditor complexity without a clear analog in traditional commercial construction. The resulting contractual structures must balance competing step-in rights across multiple stakeholder categories while maintaining practical executability.
* Hyperscaler tenants, lenders, and generation-side lenders all require step-in rights, creating overlapping claims that must be resolved before a default scenario forces the question.
* Lender accommodations should be obtained early in the documentation process, with agreements contemplating how step-in rights will actually be executed with engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors and equipment suppliers.
* Equipment financing decisions should be explored at the letter of intent (LOI) stage -- deferring them to lease negotiation risks reopening deal economics after terms have already been agreed upon.
* Lease provisions that might trigger termination rights (particularly those tied to failure of power delivery) receive the highest lender scrutiny.
Supply Chain Constraints
Critical components (transformers, switchgear, graphics processing units (GPU), cooling systems, and generators) face lead times often exceeding one year. Increasing demand and constant schedule pressures have spawned creative procurement strategies and risk-sharing arrangements.
* Developers are purchasing components or placing deposits on equipment and materials well before sites are confirmed or build-to-suit leases are finalized.
* To manage risk, developers are turning to reimbursement agreements with hyperscaler tenants. Under these arrangements, the tenant agrees to reimburse the developer for equipment costs if the lease does not execute, and in exchange receives the right to take the equipment and redeploy it elsewhere.
* Force majeure provisions are being drafted to account for schedule delays due to supply chain issues and other events outside of the contractor's control.
The Labor Market Inflection Point
With approximately 3,000 data center projects projected in the U.S. through 2030, the demand for electricians and other skilled trades is outstripping supply at a pace that may have a dramatic near-term impact on project delivery. Data centers are drawing skilled workers from other project types, intensifying cross-sector competition.
* Trade partners command better margins for supplemental workforces than in a balanced market, and construction managers are seeking greater flexibility in contingency use to absorb labor cost escalation.
* Schedule planning and contract pricing must account for labor constraints as a structural feature of the current market rather than a temporary anomaly.
Construction Phasing and Execution
Phasing provides owners with flexibility to manage risk exposure, accommodate evolving tenant requirements, and align expenditures with revenue. The typical approach involves an initial contract for core and shell with subsequent phases triggered as tenant commitments materialize. The intense schedule pressure on data center projects creates a construction environment distinct from other commercial real estate sectors.
* Phasing allows developers to tie liquidated damages to components with actual rent abatement exposure and deploy multiple builders, but carries operational risk if subsequent phases fail or power delivery falls short while tenants are already in occupancy.
* Structuring each phase under separate ownership entities with standalone documents facilitates independent financeability, saleability, and valuation.
* Mid-construction design changes (g., converting air-cooled suites to water-cooled for a late-signing tenant) are common and require construction partners willing to adapt without impacting completion dates. Contractors faced with in-construction changes and strict schedule obligations must remain flexible.
Risk Allocation and Default
Schedule is the number one risk across all stakeholder categories. The financial consequences of delay create enormous pressure to maintain completion dates. Contractual negotiations over force majeure, utility delay, and budget provisions are among the most intensely contested in data center agreements.
* Force majeure clauses are highly negotiated because developers seek credit for every day of delay while tenants resist minor claims that erode schedule certainty.
* Tenants typically demand guaranteed maximum prices with controls on contingency use and change order overruns.
* Contractor termination in a tight market is acutely disruptive; replacement contractors are difficult to find, and parties pushing for short cure periods to enable fast replacement face risk of wrongful termination claims.
* Interim dispute resolution provisions are being incorporated to keep projects moving through disagreements without work stoppages.
Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys continue to monitor developments across the data center industry and are well positioned to advise clients on power procurement strategies, permitting and regulatory challenges, financing structures, construction risk allocation, and the full range of legal issues shaping this rapidly evolving market.
This webinar series was made possible by the contributions of the following speakers: Jason Spang, Vaughn Morrison, Brandon Lobb, Carl Bivens, Mack McGuffey, Melissa Horne, Ben Cowan, Matt Dials, Cindy DeLisi, and Shelli Willis. The series was moderated by Jamey Collidge. Resources from each session, including slide decks and recordings, are available below.
Session 1 - Rewriting the Rules: 2026 Data Center Contracting & Risk Allocation for AI-Driven Facilities
Access the slide deck here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/l0giiqjae1nhxq/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Access the recording here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/q4emnoxpwovemya/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Session 2 - Rethinking Contracts, Risk, and Regulatory Strategy for 2026 and Beyond
Access the slide deck here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/bxeczplxz35bjg/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Access the recording here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/mqk3ew3zwj1acw/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Session 3 - Navigating Power, Capital, and Construction in Data Center Development
Access the slide deck here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/tgk04ihcc5mq/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Access the recording here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/clu22uutmsekstq/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.troutman.com/insights/navigating-the-data-center-construction-boom-key-takeaways-from-troutman-pepper-lockes-three-part-webinar-series/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Navigating the Data Center Construction Boom: Key Takeaways From Troutman Pepper Locke's Three-Part Webinar Series
Key Points
* Available near-term power is the most important consideration in data center site selection, with projects requiring hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts amid growing grid congestion and interconnection delays.
* Air permitting is a critical-path issue for data centers containing emitting structures, with permit timelines ranging from months to years depending on the permit ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7 -- Troutman Pepper, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Navigating the Data Center Construction Boom: Key Takeaways From Troutman Pepper Locke's Three-Part Webinar Series Key Points * Available near-term power is the most important consideration in data center site selection, with projects requiring hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts amid growing grid congestion and interconnection delays. * Air permitting is a critical-path issue for data centers containing emitting structures, with permit timelines ranging from months to years depending on the permitcategory and jurisdiction.
* Lenders require a bankable project and evaluate four key factors: power and interconnection availability, creditworthiness of all parties, project budget and capital timing, and future revenue stability -- with hyperscaler tenants providing significantly more lender comfort than less established counterparties.
* Supply chain constraints on critical components -- including transformers, switchgear, GPUs, and generators -- are driving sourcing creativity, such as developers placing deposits and entering reimbursement agreements with hyperscaler tenants well before leases are finalized.
* With approximately 3,000 data center projects projected in the U.S. through 2030, labor shortages and schedule pressure are structural features of the current market, necessitating flexible contract pricing, phased construction strategies, and robust risk allocation and dispute resolution provisions.
-
Global data center investment is projected to reach $6.7 trillion by 2030, including $2.7 trillion in the U.S. Troutman Pepper Locke recently concluded a three-part series examining the legal, financial, and operational complexities of the booming data center construction industry. The series brought together practitioners from the firm's construction, real estate, energy, and environmental groups to address all aspects of data center development, including power and energy considerations, site selection, permitting, financing, construction execution, and risk allocation. We are pleased to highlight key themes and practical takeaways from the series.
Power as the Threshold Issue
The name of the data center construction game is "speed to power." The ability to source or generate near-term power is the single most important consideration for data center projects, with such projects requiring hundreds of megawatts or even gigawatts. Surging demand is colliding with structural limitations in the U.S. electricity system, driving stakeholders toward alternative power solutions to meet strict project deadlines.
* Available near-term power is the single most important consideration in data center site selection.
* The traditional model of generation, transmission, and distribution is under strain, with grid congestion, interconnection queues, and the need for significant infrastructure upgrades emerging as major bottlenecks.
* Stakeholders are turning to hybrid solutions, such as behind-the-meter generation and on-site renewables, to reduce grid dependence, with some operators pursuing fully off-grid projects to bypass interconnection delays entirely.
The Permitting Landscape
Data centers present a fundamental tension between an industry requiring incredible speed to market and a complex regulatory framework. The resulting challenges are multifaceted, highly jurisdiction-specific, and capable of creating critical-path delays if not addressed at the outset.
* Many data centers contain emitting structures, requiring major or minor air permits. Obtaining the requisite air permits can take months or even years depending on the permit category, making it a critical item to build into project development and scheduling from day one.
* Recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance and a proposed rulemaking clarify that federal rules prohibiting construction without an air permit apply only to construction of emitting activities, which may provide flexibility for data centers to proceed with the construction of nonemitting aspects of their facilities.
* Permit challenges are low-frequency but high-consequence -- consequences can range from a modest delay during the pendency of a challenge to project suspension if the necessary permits are rejected or pulled.
* County-level permitting has become just as important, with local governments finding creative ways to regulate data center development (g., road-use authority, special-use permits, and constitutional powers tied to water bodies, etc.).
* Most states define a public utility as any entity that owns or operates generation, transmission, or distribution assets for service to the public or for compensation. As a result, self-generating data centers risk classification as public utilities under state law if commercial arrangements are not carefully structured to fit within available exceptions.
Community Opposition
Community opposition to data center projects is growing and reshaping the development landscape. Concerns center on environmental impacts, water consumption, air quality, and the cost to ratepayers of grid upgrades required to serve large loads. Opposition extends beyond the data centers themselves to the utilities building new generation to serve them, creating multiple paths through which community resistance can derail a project.
* Federal and state policymakers have introduced legislative measures targeting rising electricity costs, grid strain, environmental impacts, and tax incentives.
* Many local governments have gone further by exploring moratoria on data center construction.
* Environmental interest groups are becoming sophisticated opponents, leveraging air quality modeling, emissions control technologies, and other tools to challenge projects.
* Proactive engagement can help prevent opposition from crystallizing and reduce permit challenge risk. Some strategies may include publicly demonstrating project benefits, voluntarily conducting air quality modeling, and building relationships with local affected communities before permit applications are filed.
Bankability and the Bespoke Capital Stack
Bankability in data center development turns on whether the project presents a credible path to power, revenue, completion, and repayment. Because these projects require substantial upfront commitments before revenue begins, financing structures must remain flexible while preserving lender protections.
* Lenders evaluate, at minimum, four key factors to assess a project's ability to generate sufficient returns to service debt: power and interconnection availability, the creditworthiness and capabilities of all parties, the project budget and timing of capital needs (g., equipment, stored materials, equity sources), and future revenue stability.
* Lenders do not just evaluate the developer or contractor -- they also look through to the end-user. A reputable hyperscaler tenant provides lenders significantly more comfort than a less established counterparty, particularly where the developer has an ongoing relationship with that tenant across multiple projects.
* Capital stacks are often tailored to bridge early power, equipment, and infrastructure costs before permanent financing or project revenue is available. For example, preferred equity or private credit may fund upfront costs, senior construction debt typically becomes available once conditions precedent are met (g., power and tenant commitments are in place), and a permanent takeout loan replaces the construction debt once the project is complete.
* Project documents should include financeability protections from the outset, including assignment rights, notice and cure periods, lender accommodation language, and practical step-in rights.
Competing Stakeholder Expectations
Data center transactions involve an unusually large number of parties with legitimate interests in project completion, producing layers of inter-creditor complexity without a clear analog in traditional commercial construction. The resulting contractual structures must balance competing step-in rights across multiple stakeholder categories while maintaining practical executability.
* Hyperscaler tenants, lenders, and generation-side lenders all require step-in rights, creating overlapping claims that must be resolved before a default scenario forces the question.
* Lender accommodations should be obtained early in the documentation process, with agreements contemplating how step-in rights will actually be executed with engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors and equipment suppliers.
* Equipment financing decisions should be explored at the letter of intent (LOI) stage -- deferring them to lease negotiation risks reopening deal economics after terms have already been agreed upon.
* Lease provisions that might trigger termination rights (particularly those tied to failure of power delivery) receive the highest lender scrutiny.
Supply Chain Constraints
Critical components (transformers, switchgear, graphics processing units (GPU), cooling systems, and generators) face lead times often exceeding one year. Increasing demand and constant schedule pressures have spawned creative procurement strategies and risk-sharing arrangements.
* Developers are purchasing components or placing deposits on equipment and materials well before sites are confirmed or build-to-suit leases are finalized.
* To manage risk, developers are turning to reimbursement agreements with hyperscaler tenants. Under these arrangements, the tenant agrees to reimburse the developer for equipment costs if the lease does not execute, and in exchange receives the right to take the equipment and redeploy it elsewhere.
* Force majeure provisions are being drafted to account for schedule delays due to supply chain issues and other events outside of the contractor's control.
The Labor Market Inflection Point
With approximately 3,000 data center projects projected in the U.S. through 2030, the demand for electricians and other skilled trades is outstripping supply at a pace that may have a dramatic near-term impact on project delivery. Data centers are drawing skilled workers from other project types, intensifying cross-sector competition.
* Trade partners command better margins for supplemental workforces than in a balanced market, and construction managers are seeking greater flexibility in contingency use to absorb labor cost escalation.
* Schedule planning and contract pricing must account for labor constraints as a structural feature of the current market rather than a temporary anomaly.
Construction Phasing and Execution
Phasing provides owners with flexibility to manage risk exposure, accommodate evolving tenant requirements, and align expenditures with revenue. The typical approach involves an initial contract for core and shell with subsequent phases triggered as tenant commitments materialize. The intense schedule pressure on data center projects creates a construction environment distinct from other commercial real estate sectors.
* Phasing allows developers to tie liquidated damages to components with actual rent abatement exposure and deploy multiple builders, but carries operational risk if subsequent phases fail or power delivery falls short while tenants are already in occupancy.
* Structuring each phase under separate ownership entities with standalone documents facilitates independent financeability, saleability, and valuation.
* Mid-construction design changes (g., converting air-cooled suites to water-cooled for a late-signing tenant) are common and require construction partners willing to adapt without impacting completion dates. Contractors faced with in-construction changes and strict schedule obligations must remain flexible.
Risk Allocation and Default
Schedule is the number one risk across all stakeholder categories. The financial consequences of delay create enormous pressure to maintain completion dates. Contractual negotiations over force majeure, utility delay, and budget provisions are among the most intensely contested in data center agreements.
* Force majeure clauses are highly negotiated because developers seek credit for every day of delay while tenants resist minor claims that erode schedule certainty.
* Tenants typically demand guaranteed maximum prices with controls on contingency use and change order overruns.
* Contractor termination in a tight market is acutely disruptive; replacement contractors are difficult to find, and parties pushing for short cure periods to enable fast replacement face risk of wrongful termination claims.
* Interim dispute resolution provisions are being incorporated to keep projects moving through disagreements without work stoppages.
Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys continue to monitor developments across the data center industry and are well positioned to advise clients on power procurement strategies, permitting and regulatory challenges, financing structures, construction risk allocation, and the full range of legal issues shaping this rapidly evolving market.
This webinar series was made possible by the contributions of the following speakers: Jason Spang, Vaughn Morrison, Brandon Lobb, Carl Bivens, Mack McGuffey, Melissa Horne, Ben Cowan, Matt Dials, Cindy DeLisi, and Shelli Willis. The series was moderated by Jamey Collidge. Resources from each session, including slide decks and recordings, are available below.
Session 1 - Rewriting the Rules: 2026 Data Center Contracting & Risk Allocation for AI-Driven Facilities
Access the slide deck here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/l0giiqjae1nhxq/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Access the recording here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/q4emnoxpwovemya/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Session 2 - Rethinking Contracts, Risk, and Regulatory Strategy for 2026 and Beyond
Access the slide deck here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/bxeczplxz35bjg/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Access the recording here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/mqk3ew3zwj1acw/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Session 3 - Navigating Power, Capital, and Construction in Data Center Development
Access the slide deck here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/tgk04ihcc5mq/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
Access the recording here (https://communications.troutman.com/e/clu22uutmsekstq/cd24c9bb-6cf2-4bf4-9883-2ff8f8d61a69).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.troutman.com/insights/navigating-the-data-center-construction-boom-key-takeaways-from-troutman-pepper-lockes-three-part-webinar-series/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Marcus & Millichap Brokers Sale of the 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment Property in Dallas
ENCINO, California, July 7 -- Marcus and Millichap issued the following news release on July 6, 2026:
* * *
Marcus & Millichap Brokers Sale of the 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment Property in Dallas
DALLAS -- Marcus & Millichap (NYSE: MMI), a leading commercial real estate brokerage firm specializing in investment sales, financing, research and advisory services, announced today the sale of 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment, a 26,494-square-foot mixed-use redevelopment property.
"Despite broader economic headwinds, buyers continue to pursue well-located redevelopment and value-add opportunities ... Show Full Article ENCINO, California, July 7 -- Marcus and Millichap issued the following news release on July 6, 2026: * * * Marcus & Millichap Brokers Sale of the 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment Property in Dallas DALLAS -- Marcus & Millichap (NYSE: MMI), a leading commercial real estate brokerage firm specializing in investment sales, financing, research and advisory services, announced today the sale of 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment, a 26,494-square-foot mixed-use redevelopment property. "Despite broader economic headwinds, buyers continue to pursue well-located redevelopment and value-add opportunitiesin Dallas' urban core," said Joe Santelli, senior managing director investments. "This transaction generated multiple competitive offers and demonstrates the continued demand for properties with long-term repositioning potential in high-growth neighborhoods."
Santelli, Nick Fluellen, Chris Pearson and Bard Hoover, investment specialists in Marcus & Millichap's Dallas office, exclusively marketed the property on behalf of the seller, an out-of-state REIT, and procured the buyer, a local private investor completing a 1031 exchange.
The property is primarily located at 2700 Live Oak St. in the Old East Dallas area. Built in 1923, the building was originally home to a bottling plant for soda manufacturer 7Up and had gone through a substantial conversion into loft apartment units and a retail center after a previous owner acquired the property.
The subject property occupies a total of 1.05 acres and features short-term leases at below-market rental rates. The transaction attracted multiple competitive offers before the seller selected the buyer, who closed in fewer than 40 days. The new ownership plans to redevelop the existing building while capitalizing on continued investment and growth throughout the surrounding urban core.
* * *
About Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (NYSE: MMI)
Marcus & Millichap, Inc. is a leading brokerage firm specializing in commercial real estate investment sales, financing, research and advisory services with offices throughout the United States and Canada. As of December 31, 2025, the company had 1,808 investment sales and financing professionals in over 80 offices who provide investment brokerage and financing services to sellers and buyers of commercial real estate. The company also offers market research, consulting and advisory services to clients. Marcus & Millichap closed 8,818 transactions in 2025, with a sales volume of approximately $50.9 billion. For additional information, please visit www.MarcusMillichap.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.marcusmillichap.com/news-events/press/2026/07/7-6-26-7up-lofts-and-retail
[Category: BizRealEstate]
* * *
Marcus & Millichap Brokers Sale of the 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment Property in Dallas
DALLAS -- Marcus & Millichap (NYSE: MMI), a leading commercial real estate brokerage firm specializing in investment sales, financing, research and advisory services, announced today the sale of 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment, a 26,494-square-foot mixed-use redevelopment property.
"Despite broader economic headwinds, buyers continue to pursue well-located redevelopment and value-add opportunities ... Show Full Article ENCINO, California, July 7 -- Marcus and Millichap issued the following news release on July 6, 2026: * * * Marcus & Millichap Brokers Sale of the 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment Property in Dallas DALLAS -- Marcus & Millichap (NYSE: MMI), a leading commercial real estate brokerage firm specializing in investment sales, financing, research and advisory services, announced today the sale of 7Up Lofts & Retail Redevelopment, a 26,494-square-foot mixed-use redevelopment property. "Despite broader economic headwinds, buyers continue to pursue well-located redevelopment and value-add opportunitiesin Dallas' urban core," said Joe Santelli, senior managing director investments. "This transaction generated multiple competitive offers and demonstrates the continued demand for properties with long-term repositioning potential in high-growth neighborhoods."
Santelli, Nick Fluellen, Chris Pearson and Bard Hoover, investment specialists in Marcus & Millichap's Dallas office, exclusively marketed the property on behalf of the seller, an out-of-state REIT, and procured the buyer, a local private investor completing a 1031 exchange.
The property is primarily located at 2700 Live Oak St. in the Old East Dallas area. Built in 1923, the building was originally home to a bottling plant for soda manufacturer 7Up and had gone through a substantial conversion into loft apartment units and a retail center after a previous owner acquired the property.
The subject property occupies a total of 1.05 acres and features short-term leases at below-market rental rates. The transaction attracted multiple competitive offers before the seller selected the buyer, who closed in fewer than 40 days. The new ownership plans to redevelop the existing building while capitalizing on continued investment and growth throughout the surrounding urban core.
* * *
About Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (NYSE: MMI)
Marcus & Millichap, Inc. is a leading brokerage firm specializing in commercial real estate investment sales, financing, research and advisory services with offices throughout the United States and Canada. As of December 31, 2025, the company had 1,808 investment sales and financing professionals in over 80 offices who provide investment brokerage and financing services to sellers and buyers of commercial real estate. The company also offers market research, consulting and advisory services to clients. Marcus & Millichap closed 8,818 transactions in 2025, with a sales volume of approximately $50.9 billion. For additional information, please visit www.MarcusMillichap.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.marcusmillichap.com/news-events/press/2026/07/7-6-26-7up-lofts-and-retail
[Category: BizRealEstate]
Littler Issues Commentary: California Embraces the Federal Arbitration Act - Legislature Imports FAA Exclusions Into the California Arbitration Act
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 6, 2026, knowledge management counsel Sebastian Chilco and shareholders Laura E. Devane and Robert F. Friedman:
* * *
California Embraces the Federal Arbitration Act: Legislature Imports FAA Exclusions into the California Arbitration Act
At a Glance
* Assembly Bill 2155, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, incorporates FAA enforceability provisions into state law.
* The bill's practical effect is to ensure that parties who fall outside the FAA's reach--or whose claims are excluded from mandatory ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 6, 2026, knowledge management counsel Sebastian Chilco and shareholders Laura E. Devane and Robert F. Friedman: * * * California Embraces the Federal Arbitration Act: Legislature Imports FAA Exclusions into the California Arbitration Act At a Glance * Assembly Bill 2155, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, incorporates FAA enforceability provisions into state law. * The bill's practical effect is to ensure that parties who fall outside the FAA's reach--or whose claims are excluded from mandatoryarbitration under federal law--cannot be compelled to arbitrate under state law.
-
On June 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2155 (AB 2155), amending California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 to provide that arbitration agreements are unenforceable under the California Arbitration Act (CAA) "to the extent" they would be unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The new law takes effect January 1, 2027.
Although brief, AB 2155 could have significant consequences for employers that rely on arbitration agreements in California. For years, the principal battleground in California arbitration litigation has focused on whether an arbitration agreement is governed by the FAA. Employers routinely relied on the FAA to defeat state-law efforts to limit arbitration agreements. AB 2155 turns that dynamic on its head. Rather than resisting the FAA, California has expressly incorporated FAA exclusions into state law.
The legislation is obviously intended to ensure that parties who fall outside the FAA's reach or whose claims are otherwise excluded from mandatory arbitration under federal law cannot be compelled to arbitrate under the CAA as an alternative pathway.
What AB 2155 Does
Before AB 2155, section 1281 broadly recognized written arbitration agreements as "valid, enforceable and irrevocable," subject to traditional contract defenses. AB 2155 adds this new subsection: "Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a written agreement to submit to arbitration is not enforceable under this section to the extent the agreement is not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act."
The legislature expressly stated that it intended to incorporate into California law "any and all exclusions" under the FAA, specifically identifying:
* The FAA transportation-worker exemption for "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"; and
* The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), which permits claimants to elect litigation rather than arbitration for covered sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes.
Why the Bill Matters
Transportation Worker Cases
The clearest and most immediate impact of AB 2155 will likely be in transportation-worker litigation.
Under FAA section 1, certain transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from the FAA. Recent federal and state cases have addressed expanded arguments about who qualifies for the exemption, including challenges involving certain rideshare drivers, delivery and last-mile workers, airline-related workers, and other transportation personnel.
Before AB 2155, employers often argued that if the FAA did not apply, arbitration could be compelled under the CAA--which did not include a transportation worker exemption. AB 2155 effectively eliminates that argument in California. If an agreement is unenforceable under the FAA because of the transportation-worker exemption, it will now be unenforceable under the CAA as well.
As a practical matter, workers who establish FAA transportation-worker exemption status will now have a materially stronger basis to resist arbitration altogether.
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Claims
AB 2155 also expressly incorporates the EFAA.
The EFAA provides that a person asserting a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute may elect to invalidate a predispute arbitration agreement with respect to covered claims. By incorporating FAA exclusions into the CAA, California seeks to ensure that litigants cannot avoid this provision of the EFAA by seeking to arbitrate such disputes under state arbitration law instead.
The effect may be less dramatic in the EFAA context because many courts likely would have reached the same result through application of federal law. AB 2155 removes any potential argument that the CAA independently authorizes enforcement of an arbitration agreement that federal law renders unenforceable.
Practical Considerations for Employers
California employers should consider reviewing arbitration agreements before the statute becomes effective on January 1, 2027.
Employers should review:
* Worker populations that may fall within the FAA's transportation-worker exemption;
* Choice-of-law and severability provisions;
* Delegation clauses; and
* Fallback provisions that rely on the CAA when FAA coverage is unavailable.
Many employers have drafted arbitration agreements with fallback provisions intended to preserve arbitration under state law if FAA coverage is later rejected. AB 2155 may diminish the effectiveness of that strategy in California where the basis for non-enforcement arises from an FAA exclusion that the legislature has now incorporated into the CAA.
Bottom Line
AB 2155 marks a notable shift in California arbitration law. Rather than challenging the FAA, the legislature used federal arbitration law as the mechanism for narrowing enforcement under state law. Rather than attempting to limit arbitration through a direct challenge to federal preemption (which is common in California courts and has been consistent in previous California statutes), the legislature has embraced the FAA--at least its exclusions. Effective January 1, 2027, California law will generally treat arbitration agreements that are unenforceable under the FAA as unenforceable under the California Arbitration Act as well.
The amendment appears targeted principally at transportation-worker disputes and EFAA-covered claims. However, because the statutory language is broader than just those examples, courts may be asked to determine whether California also imported other unspecified federal arbitration limits into state arbitration practice. The statute is primarily aimed at transportation-worker disputes and claims covered by the EFAA, but its language is broader than either category. As courts begin interpreting the amendment, employers should expect renewed challenges to arbitration agreements and should evaluate existing arbitration programs before the law takes effect on January 1, 2027.
* * *
Authors
Sebastian Chilco
Knowledge Management Counsel
San Francisco
schilco@littler.com
* * *
Call Sebastian
Laura E. Devane
Shareholder
Fresno
ldevane@littler.com
* * *
Call Laura
Robert F. Friedman
Shareholder
Dallas
rfriedman@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/california-embraces-federal-arbitration-act-legislature-imports-faa-exclusions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
California Embraces the Federal Arbitration Act: Legislature Imports FAA Exclusions into the California Arbitration Act
At a Glance
* Assembly Bill 2155, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, incorporates FAA enforceability provisions into state law.
* The bill's practical effect is to ensure that parties who fall outside the FAA's reach--or whose claims are excluded from mandatory ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 6, 2026, knowledge management counsel Sebastian Chilco and shareholders Laura E. Devane and Robert F. Friedman: * * * California Embraces the Federal Arbitration Act: Legislature Imports FAA Exclusions into the California Arbitration Act At a Glance * Assembly Bill 2155, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, incorporates FAA enforceability provisions into state law. * The bill's practical effect is to ensure that parties who fall outside the FAA's reach--or whose claims are excluded from mandatoryarbitration under federal law--cannot be compelled to arbitrate under state law.
-
On June 30, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2155 (AB 2155), amending California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 to provide that arbitration agreements are unenforceable under the California Arbitration Act (CAA) "to the extent" they would be unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The new law takes effect January 1, 2027.
Although brief, AB 2155 could have significant consequences for employers that rely on arbitration agreements in California. For years, the principal battleground in California arbitration litigation has focused on whether an arbitration agreement is governed by the FAA. Employers routinely relied on the FAA to defeat state-law efforts to limit arbitration agreements. AB 2155 turns that dynamic on its head. Rather than resisting the FAA, California has expressly incorporated FAA exclusions into state law.
The legislation is obviously intended to ensure that parties who fall outside the FAA's reach or whose claims are otherwise excluded from mandatory arbitration under federal law cannot be compelled to arbitrate under the CAA as an alternative pathway.
What AB 2155 Does
Before AB 2155, section 1281 broadly recognized written arbitration agreements as "valid, enforceable and irrevocable," subject to traditional contract defenses. AB 2155 adds this new subsection: "Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a written agreement to submit to arbitration is not enforceable under this section to the extent the agreement is not enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act."
The legislature expressly stated that it intended to incorporate into California law "any and all exclusions" under the FAA, specifically identifying:
* The FAA transportation-worker exemption for "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"; and
* The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), which permits claimants to elect litigation rather than arbitration for covered sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes.
Why the Bill Matters
Transportation Worker Cases
The clearest and most immediate impact of AB 2155 will likely be in transportation-worker litigation.
Under FAA section 1, certain transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce are exempt from the FAA. Recent federal and state cases have addressed expanded arguments about who qualifies for the exemption, including challenges involving certain rideshare drivers, delivery and last-mile workers, airline-related workers, and other transportation personnel.
Before AB 2155, employers often argued that if the FAA did not apply, arbitration could be compelled under the CAA--which did not include a transportation worker exemption. AB 2155 effectively eliminates that argument in California. If an agreement is unenforceable under the FAA because of the transportation-worker exemption, it will now be unenforceable under the CAA as well.
As a practical matter, workers who establish FAA transportation-worker exemption status will now have a materially stronger basis to resist arbitration altogether.
Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Claims
AB 2155 also expressly incorporates the EFAA.
The EFAA provides that a person asserting a sexual assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute may elect to invalidate a predispute arbitration agreement with respect to covered claims. By incorporating FAA exclusions into the CAA, California seeks to ensure that litigants cannot avoid this provision of the EFAA by seeking to arbitrate such disputes under state arbitration law instead.
The effect may be less dramatic in the EFAA context because many courts likely would have reached the same result through application of federal law. AB 2155 removes any potential argument that the CAA independently authorizes enforcement of an arbitration agreement that federal law renders unenforceable.
Practical Considerations for Employers
California employers should consider reviewing arbitration agreements before the statute becomes effective on January 1, 2027.
Employers should review:
* Worker populations that may fall within the FAA's transportation-worker exemption;
* Choice-of-law and severability provisions;
* Delegation clauses; and
* Fallback provisions that rely on the CAA when FAA coverage is unavailable.
Many employers have drafted arbitration agreements with fallback provisions intended to preserve arbitration under state law if FAA coverage is later rejected. AB 2155 may diminish the effectiveness of that strategy in California where the basis for non-enforcement arises from an FAA exclusion that the legislature has now incorporated into the CAA.
Bottom Line
AB 2155 marks a notable shift in California arbitration law. Rather than challenging the FAA, the legislature used federal arbitration law as the mechanism for narrowing enforcement under state law. Rather than attempting to limit arbitration through a direct challenge to federal preemption (which is common in California courts and has been consistent in previous California statutes), the legislature has embraced the FAA--at least its exclusions. Effective January 1, 2027, California law will generally treat arbitration agreements that are unenforceable under the FAA as unenforceable under the California Arbitration Act as well.
The amendment appears targeted principally at transportation-worker disputes and EFAA-covered claims. However, because the statutory language is broader than just those examples, courts may be asked to determine whether California also imported other unspecified federal arbitration limits into state arbitration practice. The statute is primarily aimed at transportation-worker disputes and claims covered by the EFAA, but its language is broader than either category. As courts begin interpreting the amendment, employers should expect renewed challenges to arbitration agreements and should evaluate existing arbitration programs before the law takes effect on January 1, 2027.
* * *
Authors
Sebastian Chilco
Knowledge Management Counsel
San Francisco
schilco@littler.com
* * *
Call Sebastian
Laura E. Devane
Shareholder
Fresno
ldevane@littler.com
* * *
Call Laura
Robert F. Friedman
Shareholder
Dallas
rfriedman@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/california-embraces-federal-arbitration-act-legislature-imports-faa-exclusions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
K&L Gates Advises Cromwell Property Group on Brisbane Office Venture
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, July 7 -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
K&L Gates Advises Cromwell Property Group on Brisbane Office Venture
Global law firm K&L Gates has advised ASX-listed Cromwell Property Group on the establishment of a new investment venture with an Asia-Pacific institutional investor for the acquisition of 100 Creek Street, Brisbane for approximately AU$159 million.
The transaction establishes a new investment venture between Cromwell and the Asia-Pacific investor, with Cromwell retaining a 5% co-investment and continuing to manage the asset ... Show Full Article PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, July 7 -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * K&L Gates Advises Cromwell Property Group on Brisbane Office Venture Global law firm K&L Gates has advised ASX-listed Cromwell Property Group on the establishment of a new investment venture with an Asia-Pacific institutional investor for the acquisition of 100 Creek Street, Brisbane for approximately AU$159 million. The transaction establishes a new investment venture between Cromwell and the Asia-Pacific investor, with Cromwell retaining a 5% co-investment and continuing to manage the assetthrough its integrated real estate platform.
K&L Gates advised Cromwell on all aspects of the transaction, including the joint venture agreement, investment mandate, and property acquisition.
The team was led by Capital Markets and Investment Funds partner Naomi Philp, with support from Real Estate partner Jennifer McCosker, Investment Funds partner Lisa Lautier, special counsel Scott Allen, and lawyer Aibelle Espino.
Mallesons acted for the institutional investor.
* * *
K&L Gates is a globally integrated law firm trusted by sophisticated clients to deliver market leading legal counsel across jurisdictions and industries. Operating as one firm worldwide, K&L Gates combines deep local insight with seamless global coordination to address clients' most complex legal and business challenges. Guided by a relentless focus on client service, the firm delivers practical, high impact solutions with consistency, efficiency, and a clear emphasis on results.
* * *
URL: Cromwell Property Group
* * *
Original text here: https://www.klgates.com/KL-Gates-Advises-Cromwell-Property-Group-on-Brisbane-Office-Venture-7-6-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
K&L Gates Advises Cromwell Property Group on Brisbane Office Venture
Global law firm K&L Gates has advised ASX-listed Cromwell Property Group on the establishment of a new investment venture with an Asia-Pacific institutional investor for the acquisition of 100 Creek Street, Brisbane for approximately AU$159 million.
The transaction establishes a new investment venture between Cromwell and the Asia-Pacific investor, with Cromwell retaining a 5% co-investment and continuing to manage the asset ... Show Full Article PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, July 7 -- K&L Gates, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * K&L Gates Advises Cromwell Property Group on Brisbane Office Venture Global law firm K&L Gates has advised ASX-listed Cromwell Property Group on the establishment of a new investment venture with an Asia-Pacific institutional investor for the acquisition of 100 Creek Street, Brisbane for approximately AU$159 million. The transaction establishes a new investment venture between Cromwell and the Asia-Pacific investor, with Cromwell retaining a 5% co-investment and continuing to manage the assetthrough its integrated real estate platform.
K&L Gates advised Cromwell on all aspects of the transaction, including the joint venture agreement, investment mandate, and property acquisition.
The team was led by Capital Markets and Investment Funds partner Naomi Philp, with support from Real Estate partner Jennifer McCosker, Investment Funds partner Lisa Lautier, special counsel Scott Allen, and lawyer Aibelle Espino.
Mallesons acted for the institutional investor.
* * *
K&L Gates is a globally integrated law firm trusted by sophisticated clients to deliver market leading legal counsel across jurisdictions and industries. Operating as one firm worldwide, K&L Gates combines deep local insight with seamless global coordination to address clients' most complex legal and business challenges. Guided by a relentless focus on client service, the firm delivers practical, high impact solutions with consistency, efficiency, and a clear emphasis on results.
* * *
URL: Cromwell Property Group
* * *
Original text here: https://www.klgates.com/KL-Gates-Advises-Cromwell-Property-Group-on-Brisbane-Office-Venture-7-6-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Did Your Business Get a Website Privacy Demand Letter From Vivek Shah? Here's What You Should Do Now
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 6, 2026:
* * *
Did Your Business Get a Website Privacy Demand Letter From Vivek Shah? Here's What You Should Do Now
Many businesses nationwide are receiving demand letters from the same person seeking money for alleged privacy violations on their websites. Indeed, we estimate that from Fall 2025 through June 2026 Vivek Shah has already sent thousands of these letters to businesses and nonprofits throughout the country, claiming violations of California's wiretapping law, and he doesn't appear to be ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 6, 2026: * * * Did Your Business Get a Website Privacy Demand Letter From Vivek Shah? Here's What You Should Do Now Many businesses nationwide are receiving demand letters from the same person seeking money for alleged privacy violations on their websites. Indeed, we estimate that from Fall 2025 through June 2026 Vivek Shah has already sent thousands of these letters to businesses and nonprofits throughout the country, claiming violations of California's wiretapping law, and he doesn't appear to beslowing down. Many targets are not consumer-facing and are wondering why a former actor and convicted felon from California would have any legitimate reason to access their website. Some of his targets appear to have no connection to California. Here's what you should know and do if you receive one of these demands - and a five-step action plan to strengthen your data privacy compliance efforts.
What Is the Claim?
Specifically, Shah's letters allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which has prohibited wiretapping for nearly six decades but has only recently been used to assert website privacy claims.
Under CIPA, wiretapping occurs when someone intentionally taps into, connects to, or tries to access a phone line or other communication device without permission. It also includes trying to read, hear, or understand the contents of a communication without the consent of all parties to the communication.
Many plaintiffs now allege that the commonplace use of cookies, pixels, and similar tech on websites without opt-in consent constitutes illegal wiretapping - and Shah appears to be the most prolific of such plaintiffs.
In Shah's case, he typically sends a one-paragraph demand letter with a draft complaint for CIPA violations. His letters are often accompanied by website screenshots that allegedly support his claims. He usually threatens to file the complaint in state court or arbitration (if the website terms of use contain an arbitration clause) unless the business pays him to drop the claim. CIPA carries penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, and class actions routinely settle in the high six figures or even seven figures.
Since he began his campaign of asserting CIPA claims in Fall 2024, and through his wave of demand letters sent to companies in Fall 2025, Shah's claims have been premised on his use of a website's search bar, typing in some innocuous term like his first name in all caps ("VIVEK"), and then alleging the website transmitted his search terms to third parties like Google Analytics.
Shah asserts claims under CIPA Section 631, which prohibits wiretapping or aiding and abetting a third party in doing so. More recently in the last couple of months, Shah has pivoted to CIPA Section 638.51, which prohibits the use of a pen register or trap and trace device. Some courts have interpreted Section 638.51 to apply to website cookies while others have vehemently rejected such interpretation. You can read more about these claims here: In-House Counsel Asks California Appeals Court To Resolve CIPA Privacy Questions Amid Digital Wiretapping Litigation Flood
Who Has Been Targeted?
Vivek Shah has been indiscriminately targeting businesses across many industries, including manufacturers, schools, auto dealerships, mining companies, retailers, and B-to-B and B-to-C businesses. Essentially, if your website collects information from visitors, you are a target for privacy claims and a demand letter from Shah.
"The threat by Vivek Shah impacts businesses all over the country of every size and industry," says Usama Kahf, FP Partner and Co-Chair of the firm's Privacy and Cyber Practice Group. "Everyone is a potential target."
When companies don't agree to his settlement demands, Shah files lawsuits in arbitration or in court. In many of these lawsuits, Shah litigates these claims aggressively.
In a recent development, a federal court dismissed one of Shah's claims for lack of standing (though he has appealed the ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals).
When suing businesses for CIPA violations, Shah has been representing himself pro se without an attorney, but that doesn't mean you should ignore his demand letter. Moreover, he has sued in court when businesses have ignored his arbitration demands, seeking to compel arbitration under the website's terms of use. In those cases, Shah has been represented by an attorney.
What Should You Do If You Receive a Letter?
Don't simply toss the letter aside - but also don't engage or respond to him directly. "While Vivek Shah is pro se and his claims may feel like a meritless attack, working with an experienced attorney who knows this claimant and his history is important," says Danielle Kays, FP Partner and litigator in the firm's Privacy and Cyber Practice Group.
Your FP attorney can help you assess the risk and develop a game plan. At FP, we currently are handling 80+ matters against Vivek Shah, with that number increasing daily. Our team's experience also includes defending over 250 privacy claims related to use of tracking technology in websites, apps, and marketing emails.
It's also a good idea to be proactive. Document all relevant aspects of your website in real time, including third-party tracking technology, and your cookie banner, privacy policy, and terms of use. This is particularly important if you plan to make any changes, so you have documentation of your practices at the time of the demand letter. Additionally, follow our five-step action plan below to reduce your legal risk.
Your 5-Step Action Plan
Every business that operates a website should take a close look at what pixels, web beacons, cookies, and other tracking technologies you have on your website. Here are five specific steps you should consider taking now:
1. Review Your Website. Take a close look at your website to evaluate what pixels, web beacons, cookies, and other tracking tools are in use. Identify what data each tracking tool is disclosing and who is receiving it. Ascertain what third parties are doing with your data once they receive it. Audit every tracking tool currently running on your website. Know what cookies, pixels, analytics tools, and session replay software you're using, who operates them, and when they start collecting data.
2. Display Appropriate Disclosures. Ensure your website includes disclosures that adequately describe the parties to the communication, to whom the data is disclosed, the further use (if any) of the data, and where your consumers can access your privacy practices - and all before the consumer enters or provides any information. For example, cookie banners should state that data is being disclosed to third parties for targeted ad purposes, if that is the case, instead of only stating that the website uses cookies to improve user experience.
3. Opt-In and Opt-Out Choices. Website visitors should have the option to choose whether they opt in or opt out of the use of data as described in the disclosures. Each of these options should be just as easy to accomplish as the other, known as symmetry of choice. This may involve turning off collection of data through cookies or pixels until a consumer opts in by clicking a button. Opt-in consent may not be required by applicable consumer privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). But to avoid a wiretapping claim, your best bet may be installing an opt-in consent mechanism where no data is disclosed to third parties without a user's click on a button.
4. Track Evolving Legal Developments. Website privacy litigation under CIPA, as well as other federal and state privacy laws, is rapidly evolving. For a fuller picture of digital wiretapping litigation trends nationwide, visit our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Map, which tracks related cases across all 50 states.
5. Consult with Counsel. Before responding to a demand letter from Vivek Shah or changing your website, reach out to an attorney with experience in digital wiretapping litigation to develop the best strategy.
Conclusion
To stay current on CIPA developments, legislative progress, and other California privacy litigation trends, subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insights. For guidance specific to your situation, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any member of our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Team.
* * *
Related People
Darcey M. Groden, CIPP/US
Partner
858.597.9627
dgroden@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Anthony Isola
Partner
415.490.9018
aisola@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Usama Kahf, CIPP/US
Partner
949.798.2118
ukahf@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Danielle Kays
Partner
312.260.4751
dkays@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/did-your-business-get-a-website-privacy-demand-letter-from-vivek-shah
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Did Your Business Get a Website Privacy Demand Letter From Vivek Shah? Here's What You Should Do Now
Many businesses nationwide are receiving demand letters from the same person seeking money for alleged privacy violations on their websites. Indeed, we estimate that from Fall 2025 through June 2026 Vivek Shah has already sent thousands of these letters to businesses and nonprofits throughout the country, claiming violations of California's wiretapping law, and he doesn't appear to be ... Show Full Article ATLANTA, Georgia, July 7 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 6, 2026: * * * Did Your Business Get a Website Privacy Demand Letter From Vivek Shah? Here's What You Should Do Now Many businesses nationwide are receiving demand letters from the same person seeking money for alleged privacy violations on their websites. Indeed, we estimate that from Fall 2025 through June 2026 Vivek Shah has already sent thousands of these letters to businesses and nonprofits throughout the country, claiming violations of California's wiretapping law, and he doesn't appear to beslowing down. Many targets are not consumer-facing and are wondering why a former actor and convicted felon from California would have any legitimate reason to access their website. Some of his targets appear to have no connection to California. Here's what you should know and do if you receive one of these demands - and a five-step action plan to strengthen your data privacy compliance efforts.
What Is the Claim?
Specifically, Shah's letters allege violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which has prohibited wiretapping for nearly six decades but has only recently been used to assert website privacy claims.
Under CIPA, wiretapping occurs when someone intentionally taps into, connects to, or tries to access a phone line or other communication device without permission. It also includes trying to read, hear, or understand the contents of a communication without the consent of all parties to the communication.
Many plaintiffs now allege that the commonplace use of cookies, pixels, and similar tech on websites without opt-in consent constitutes illegal wiretapping - and Shah appears to be the most prolific of such plaintiffs.
In Shah's case, he typically sends a one-paragraph demand letter with a draft complaint for CIPA violations. His letters are often accompanied by website screenshots that allegedly support his claims. He usually threatens to file the complaint in state court or arbitration (if the website terms of use contain an arbitration clause) unless the business pays him to drop the claim. CIPA carries penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, and class actions routinely settle in the high six figures or even seven figures.
Since he began his campaign of asserting CIPA claims in Fall 2024, and through his wave of demand letters sent to companies in Fall 2025, Shah's claims have been premised on his use of a website's search bar, typing in some innocuous term like his first name in all caps ("VIVEK"), and then alleging the website transmitted his search terms to third parties like Google Analytics.
Shah asserts claims under CIPA Section 631, which prohibits wiretapping or aiding and abetting a third party in doing so. More recently in the last couple of months, Shah has pivoted to CIPA Section 638.51, which prohibits the use of a pen register or trap and trace device. Some courts have interpreted Section 638.51 to apply to website cookies while others have vehemently rejected such interpretation. You can read more about these claims here: In-House Counsel Asks California Appeals Court To Resolve CIPA Privacy Questions Amid Digital Wiretapping Litigation Flood
Who Has Been Targeted?
Vivek Shah has been indiscriminately targeting businesses across many industries, including manufacturers, schools, auto dealerships, mining companies, retailers, and B-to-B and B-to-C businesses. Essentially, if your website collects information from visitors, you are a target for privacy claims and a demand letter from Shah.
"The threat by Vivek Shah impacts businesses all over the country of every size and industry," says Usama Kahf, FP Partner and Co-Chair of the firm's Privacy and Cyber Practice Group. "Everyone is a potential target."
When companies don't agree to his settlement demands, Shah files lawsuits in arbitration or in court. In many of these lawsuits, Shah litigates these claims aggressively.
In a recent development, a federal court dismissed one of Shah's claims for lack of standing (though he has appealed the ruling to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals).
When suing businesses for CIPA violations, Shah has been representing himself pro se without an attorney, but that doesn't mean you should ignore his demand letter. Moreover, he has sued in court when businesses have ignored his arbitration demands, seeking to compel arbitration under the website's terms of use. In those cases, Shah has been represented by an attorney.
What Should You Do If You Receive a Letter?
Don't simply toss the letter aside - but also don't engage or respond to him directly. "While Vivek Shah is pro se and his claims may feel like a meritless attack, working with an experienced attorney who knows this claimant and his history is important," says Danielle Kays, FP Partner and litigator in the firm's Privacy and Cyber Practice Group.
Your FP attorney can help you assess the risk and develop a game plan. At FP, we currently are handling 80+ matters against Vivek Shah, with that number increasing daily. Our team's experience also includes defending over 250 privacy claims related to use of tracking technology in websites, apps, and marketing emails.
It's also a good idea to be proactive. Document all relevant aspects of your website in real time, including third-party tracking technology, and your cookie banner, privacy policy, and terms of use. This is particularly important if you plan to make any changes, so you have documentation of your practices at the time of the demand letter. Additionally, follow our five-step action plan below to reduce your legal risk.
Your 5-Step Action Plan
Every business that operates a website should take a close look at what pixels, web beacons, cookies, and other tracking technologies you have on your website. Here are five specific steps you should consider taking now:
1. Review Your Website. Take a close look at your website to evaluate what pixels, web beacons, cookies, and other tracking tools are in use. Identify what data each tracking tool is disclosing and who is receiving it. Ascertain what third parties are doing with your data once they receive it. Audit every tracking tool currently running on your website. Know what cookies, pixels, analytics tools, and session replay software you're using, who operates them, and when they start collecting data.
2. Display Appropriate Disclosures. Ensure your website includes disclosures that adequately describe the parties to the communication, to whom the data is disclosed, the further use (if any) of the data, and where your consumers can access your privacy practices - and all before the consumer enters or provides any information. For example, cookie banners should state that data is being disclosed to third parties for targeted ad purposes, if that is the case, instead of only stating that the website uses cookies to improve user experience.
3. Opt-In and Opt-Out Choices. Website visitors should have the option to choose whether they opt in or opt out of the use of data as described in the disclosures. Each of these options should be just as easy to accomplish as the other, known as symmetry of choice. This may involve turning off collection of data through cookies or pixels until a consumer opts in by clicking a button. Opt-in consent may not be required by applicable consumer privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). But to avoid a wiretapping claim, your best bet may be installing an opt-in consent mechanism where no data is disclosed to third parties without a user's click on a button.
4. Track Evolving Legal Developments. Website privacy litigation under CIPA, as well as other federal and state privacy laws, is rapidly evolving. For a fuller picture of digital wiretapping litigation trends nationwide, visit our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Map, which tracks related cases across all 50 states.
5. Consult with Counsel. Before responding to a demand letter from Vivek Shah or changing your website, reach out to an attorney with experience in digital wiretapping litigation to develop the best strategy.
Conclusion
To stay current on CIPA developments, legislative progress, and other California privacy litigation trends, subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insights. For guidance specific to your situation, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any member of our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Team.
* * *
Related People
Darcey M. Groden, CIPP/US
Partner
858.597.9627
dgroden@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Anthony Isola
Partner
415.490.9018
aisola@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Usama Kahf, CIPP/US
Partner
949.798.2118
ukahf@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Danielle Kays
Partner
312.260.4751
dkays@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/did-your-business-get-a-website-privacy-demand-letter-from-vivek-shah
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Invests in Future Leaders With Latest Partner and Lawyer Promotions
WASHINGTON, July 7 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news on July 6, 2026:
* * *
Dentons invests in future leaders with latest partner and lawyer promotions
Sydney--Dentons, has proudly announced the promotion of two partners and 21 senior lawyers, effective 1 July, 2026.
The promotions demonstrate Dentons' continued investment in the development of its employees and the opportunities available for career progression within the Firm.
Commenting on the promotions, Australian Chair and Chief Executive Officer Australasia, Amber Warren said: "I am excited to congratulate our newly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 7 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news on July 6, 2026: * * * Dentons invests in future leaders with latest partner and lawyer promotions Sydney--Dentons, has proudly announced the promotion of two partners and 21 senior lawyers, effective 1 July, 2026. The promotions demonstrate Dentons' continued investment in the development of its employees and the opportunities available for career progression within the Firm. Commenting on the promotions, Australian Chair and Chief Executive Officer Australasia, Amber Warren said: "I am excited to congratulate our newlypromoted lawyers. Each of them has demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication to client service and teamwork, and this achievement is thoroughly deserved. We look forward to continuing to support their development as they take this next step in their careers."
The full list of newly promoted senior lawyers is as follows:
Partners
* Tom Reid, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Urvashi Seomangal, Corporate, Sydney
Managing Associates
* Abbi Beckwith, Recovery & Restructuring, Perth
* Elizabeth Fredericks, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Faraz Rashid, Banking & Finance, Sydney
* Xiu Hui Chow, Banking & Finance, Sydney
Special Counsel
* Antonia Hudson, Intellectual Property & Technology, Melbourne
* Jack Williams, Corporate, Adelaide
* Joanna Yu, Recovery & Restructuring, Sydney
* Romina Rositano, Recovery & Restructuring, Sydney
* Sean Tang, Recovery & Restructuring, Sydney
* Stephanie Hendy, Real Estate, Sydney
Senior Associates
* Anna Sutton-Kunc, Employment & Safety, Sydney
* Bella Lin, Banking & Finance, Sydney
* Billy Duan, Construction, Brisbane
* Hugh Cranendonk, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Isabel McDowell, Real Estate, Sydney
* James Colliver, Corporate, Melbourne
* Joanne Sellathamboo, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Kathryn Murray, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Rhyann M'Gee, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Sam Dillon, Corporate, Sydney
* Shaneeza Shah, Banking & Finance, Brisbane
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2026/july/dentons-invests-in-future-leaders-with-latest-partner-and-lawyer-promotions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Dentons invests in future leaders with latest partner and lawyer promotions
Sydney--Dentons, has proudly announced the promotion of two partners and 21 senior lawyers, effective 1 July, 2026.
The promotions demonstrate Dentons' continued investment in the development of its employees and the opportunities available for career progression within the Firm.
Commenting on the promotions, Australian Chair and Chief Executive Officer Australasia, Amber Warren said: "I am excited to congratulate our newly ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, July 7 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news on July 6, 2026: * * * Dentons invests in future leaders with latest partner and lawyer promotions Sydney--Dentons, has proudly announced the promotion of two partners and 21 senior lawyers, effective 1 July, 2026. The promotions demonstrate Dentons' continued investment in the development of its employees and the opportunities available for career progression within the Firm. Commenting on the promotions, Australian Chair and Chief Executive Officer Australasia, Amber Warren said: "I am excited to congratulate our newlypromoted lawyers. Each of them has demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication to client service and teamwork, and this achievement is thoroughly deserved. We look forward to continuing to support their development as they take this next step in their careers."
The full list of newly promoted senior lawyers is as follows:
Partners
* Tom Reid, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Urvashi Seomangal, Corporate, Sydney
Managing Associates
* Abbi Beckwith, Recovery & Restructuring, Perth
* Elizabeth Fredericks, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Faraz Rashid, Banking & Finance, Sydney
* Xiu Hui Chow, Banking & Finance, Sydney
Special Counsel
* Antonia Hudson, Intellectual Property & Technology, Melbourne
* Jack Williams, Corporate, Adelaide
* Joanna Yu, Recovery & Restructuring, Sydney
* Romina Rositano, Recovery & Restructuring, Sydney
* Sean Tang, Recovery & Restructuring, Sydney
* Stephanie Hendy, Real Estate, Sydney
Senior Associates
* Anna Sutton-Kunc, Employment & Safety, Sydney
* Bella Lin, Banking & Finance, Sydney
* Billy Duan, Construction, Brisbane
* Hugh Cranendonk, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Isabel McDowell, Real Estate, Sydney
* James Colliver, Corporate, Melbourne
* Joanne Sellathamboo, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Kathryn Murray, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Rhyann M'Gee, Dispute Resolution, Sydney
* Sam Dillon, Corporate, Sydney
* Shaneeza Shah, Banking & Finance, Brisbane
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2026/july/dentons-invests-in-future-leaders-with-latest-partner-and-lawyer-promotions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]