Featured Stories
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Massachusetts High Court Makes It Harder to Win Injunctions in Trade Secret Cases - 4 Takeaways for Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
Massachusetts High Court Makes it Harder to Win Injunctions in Trade Secret Cases: 4 Takeaways for Employers
Oct 23, 2026
Massachusetts employers trying to stop former employees from launching a competing business should no longer assume that having a strong trade secrets claim will automatically allow them to also secure a court injunction. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just ruled in Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo that employers seeking a preliminary injunction must separately demonstrate
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
Massachusetts High Court Makes it Harder to Win Injunctions in Trade Secret Cases: 4 Takeaways for Employers
Oct 23, 2026
Massachusetts employers trying to stop former employees from launching a competing business should no longer assume that having a strong trade secrets claim will automatically allow them to also secure a court injunction. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just ruled in Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Russo that employers seeking a preliminary injunction must separately demonstrate"irreparable harm" sufficient to win a court order that will stop someone from using or sharing your trade secrets. What happened in this case, and what are the four key takeaways from the October 14 decision?
The Dispute
Daikin, a commercial HVAC company with offices in Massachusetts, alleged that two former employees took confidential information and used it to contact Daikin's customers and start a competing business. Daikin sued them and requested a preliminary injunction from the court, asking for a one-year non-solicitation restriction. The lower court denied the injunction request, finding that Daikin had not demonstrated the requisite "irreparable harm" sufficient to earn the court order. In an October 14 ruling, the SJC agreed.
The Holding: Irreparable Harm Requires Its Own Showing
In Massachusetts, like many states, a party must show the following to receive a preliminary injunction:
* it is likely to succeed on the merits;
* it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; and
* the risk of "irreparable harm" to the moving party outweighs the harm to the nonmoving party.
Daikin argued that the irreparable harm element was presumed because it had shown a likelihood of success on its trade secrets claims. The SJC rejected this shortcut, explaining that "presuming, rather than demonstrating, irreparable harm" departs from traditional principles of equity. The court aligned Massachusetts with the US Supreme Court's approach in patent and copyright cases and with federal appeals courts that have refused to presume harm in trade secret cases. It also distanced itself from several Massachusetts federal court decisions that had applied such a presumption.
It distinguished between economic losses (like lost sales and service contracts) which are generally fixable with money damages, and non-monetary injuries that warrant an injunction. Economic harm may be irreparable where the challenged conduct threatens the company's goodwill or the very existence of a business, but Daikin did not establish such circumstances.
Four Practical Takeaways for Employers
What should employers take from this ruling?
1. Establish the Threatened Harm, Not Just the Misappropriation
Employers seeking a preliminary injunction must show not only that someone took confidential information, but also that the resulting harm cannot be remedied through monetary damages. Before seeking an injunction, you should work with your FP counsel to document why monetary relief is inadequate.
2. Tailor the Requested Injunction to the Risk
An injunction protecting confidential information serves a different purpose than one restricting a former employee's ability to solicit customers. You should not ask for too much - a narrow request is more likely to be granted than a broad non-solicitation injunction.
3. Review Restrictive Covenants Before Employees Depart
You should review existing restrictive covenants and ensure they are protected by the agreements you have in place. If the agreements are not protective, you should consider rolling out tailored non-solicitation or non-competition agreements. You should keep in mind that all Massachusetts non-competition agreements require careful review and coordination with your FP counsel.
4. Act Quickly to Investigate Misappropriation and Preserve Evidence
When you suspect that departing employees may have taken confidential information, a quick response will help protect your data. Act quickly to identify the confidential information, preserve relevant records, and document business risks.
* * *
Related People
Gabriel S. Gladstone
Of Counsel
ggladstone@fisherphillips.com
617/532-6932
* * *
Raissa Lima
Associate
rlima@fisherphillips.com
617/722-0044
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/massachusetts-high-court-makes-it-harder-to-win-injunctions-in-trade-secret-cases
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Employer Cheat Sheet for 2026 Midterm Election Season
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
Employer Cheat Sheet for 2026 Midterm Election Season
Oct 23, 2026
Here's a handy cheat sheet that summarizes some key points from our Employer FAQs and Insight on navigating employee speech this election season.
Make sure to check out the full series to understand your rights and responsibilities.
Check out our full Election Season Resource Hub (https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/capabilities/resources/election-season-resource-hub) to review all of our offerings and practical resources.
If you
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
Employer Cheat Sheet for 2026 Midterm Election Season
Oct 23, 2026
Here's a handy cheat sheet that summarizes some key points from our Employer FAQs and Insight on navigating employee speech this election season.
Make sure to check out the full series to understand your rights and responsibilities.
Check out our full Election Season Resource Hub (https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/capabilities/resources/election-season-resource-hub) to review all of our offerings and practical resources.
If youhave questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Government Relations Practice Group.
Make sure to sign up for Fisher Phillips Insights to stay up to speed on the latest developments.
* * *
Related People
Leanne Lane Coyle
Associate
lcoyle@fisherphillips.com
610/230-6121
* * *
Joshua D. Nadreau
Regional Managing Partner and Vice Chair, Labor Relations Group
jnadreau@fisherphillips.com
617/722-0044
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/employer-cheat-sheet-for-2026-midterm-election-season
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: EEOC Cuts Response Deadlines in Half - 4-Step Action Plan for Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
EEOC Cuts Response Deadlines in Half: A 4-Step Action Plan for Employers
Oct 23, 2026
Employers responding to federal workplace discrimination charges may have a lot less time to prepare their defense now - and missing the deadline could come with serious consequences. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has traditionally given employers 30 days to submit a position statement, we're seeing reports that the agency recently started requiring responses in just 15 days, with little
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Oct. 24 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
EEOC Cuts Response Deadlines in Half: A 4-Step Action Plan for Employers
Oct 23, 2026
Employers responding to federal workplace discrimination charges may have a lot less time to prepare their defense now - and missing the deadline could come with serious consequences. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has traditionally given employers 30 days to submit a position statement, we're seeing reports that the agency recently started requiring responses in just 15 days, with littleflexibility for extensions. Even more concerning, some employers have reportedly received unfavorable determinations shortly after missing these tight deadlines. The EEOC, however, hasn't issued any guidance on this significant shift, so how can employers manage the new process? Here's our four-step guide.
Past Practices at the EEOC
Employers have historically had 30 days to respond to an EEOC charge of discrimination by submitting a position statement explaining their side of the story. The EEOC also routinely granted extensions, so long as employers made a request in writing explaining why it was necessary. Employers commonly received an additional 30 days.
A New Approach
A 15-day response deadline halves the time employers have to investigate allegations, gather documents, interview witnesses, and prepare a meaningful response. Employers seeking extensions are also experiencing greater resistance, with some EEOC field offices denying requests altogether and others granting only limited extensions of no more than 7 to 10 days.
Notably, the EEOC has yet to publicly announce its new approach. In fact, guidance on the EEOC's webpage continues to advise employers that the deadline to submit a position statement is generally 30 days. But based on our attorneys' recent encounters with the agency, and as confirmed by Bloomberg Law, the EEOC is enforcing its new 15-day response deadline in many of its field offices nationwide.
The consequences of missing a shorter deadline can be significant. In some instances, EEOC offices have issued "probable cause" findings to employers who did not submit position statements by the new, shorter deadline - with many of these adverse determinations being issued on day 16.
* Key Takeaway: Although agency practices may differ by office and investigation, the message for employers is clear: Don't assume you'll have 30 days to respond to an EEOC charge or that the agency will give you more time if you need it.
Your 4-Step Action Plan
The EEOC's apparent shift toward shorter response periods means employers may need to move faster than ever when a discrimination charge arrives. Here are four steps you should consider taking now to be prepared for a potential charge:
1. Get Your Records in Order Before Receiving a Charge
One of the first challenges is gathering the documents needed to investigate the allegations and prepare a response. That process becomes much harder when you're working against a 15-day deadline. Make sure personnel records, relevant HR documents, disciplinary records, and communications with supervisors are organized and readily available to those responsible for responding to a charge. The less time your team spends tracking down documents, the more time it will have to focus on the substance of the response.
2. Make Sure HR and Supervisors Know to Act Swiftly
Responding to an EEOC charge often requires input from multiple people, including HR staff and supervisors who may have firsthand knowledge of the allegations. Remind these employees that such requests are a priority. Delays in gathering documents, scheduling interviews, or responding to counsel's questions can quickly eat up an already short response period. It may also help to identify in advance who will coordinate the company's response so that important requests don't get lost in the shuffle.
3. Contact Employment Counsel Right Away
Legal counsel can help speed up the process by assessing the allegations, coordinating the investigation, preparing a response, and determining whether to request an extension.
4. Request an Extension Early, But Don't Count on Getting One
Although extensions are becoming harder to obtain, employers should still consider requesting additional time when necessary. In our experience, EEOC investigators are more likely to grant extensions, even under the recent approach, if the request is prompt.
If you need more time, make the request early, explain why the additional time is necessary, and work with counsel to confirm the applicable deadline. Most importantly, continue preparing the response while the request is pending rather than assuming the extension will be granted.
* * *
Related People
Sheila M. Abron
Partner
sabron@fisherphillips.com
803/740-7676
* * *
Zinnia Khan
Associate
zkhan@fisherphillips.com
617/904-7442
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/eeoc-cuts-response-deadlines-in-half
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Cooley: Lycia Therapeutics Announces Upsized $317.5 Million IPO
PALO ALTO, California, Oct. 24 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Lycia Therapeutics Announces Upsized $317.5 Million IPO
San Diego October 22, 2026
Cooley advised the underwriters of Lycia Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of novel therapeutics designed to degrade disease-causing extracellular proteins, in connection with Lycia Therapeutics' upsized $317.5 million initial public offering (IPO).
Lycia Therapeutics issued 17,640,000 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $18 per share, with
... Show Full Article
PALO ALTO, California, Oct. 24 -- Cooley, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Lycia Therapeutics Announces Upsized $317.5 Million IPO
San Diego October 22, 2026
Cooley advised the underwriters of Lycia Therapeutics, a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of novel therapeutics designed to degrade disease-causing extracellular proteins, in connection with Lycia Therapeutics' upsized $317.5 million initial public offering (IPO).
Lycia Therapeutics issued 17,640,000 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $18 per share, witha 30-day option for the underwriters to purchase up to an additional 2,646,000 shares. Lycia's common stock will begin trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on October 23, 2026, under the ticker symbol LYCA.
Jefferies, TD Cowen, Evercore ISI and Guggenheim Securities are acting as joint bookrunning managers for the offering.
LifeSci Capital is acting as a passive bookrunning manager for the offering.
Partners Charlie Kim, Denny Won, Kristin VanderPas and David Peinsipp led the Cooley team advising the underwriters.
* * *
About Cooley LLP
Clients partner with Cooley on transformative deals, complex IP and regulatory matters, and high-stakes litigation.
Cooley has nearly 1,400 lawyers across 19 offices in the United States, Asia and Europe, and a total workforce of more than 3,000 people.
* * *
URL: Lycia Therapeutics
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cooley.com/news/coverage/2026/2026-10-22-lycia-therapeutics-announces-upsized-317-million-ipo
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Baker Donelson Secures Dismissal of All Claims Against Former and Current UVA Health Leaders in Federal RICO Lawsuit
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, Oct. 24 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson Secures Dismissal of All Claims Against Former and Current UVA Health Leaders in Federal RICO Lawsuit
October 23, 2026
Baker Donelson successfully represented Dr. K. Craig Kent, former Executive Vice President for Health Affairs and Chief Executive Officer of the University of Virginia (UVA) Health System; Dr. Melina Kibbe, former Dean of the UVA School of Medicine and Chief Health Affairs Officer; Dr. Wendy Horton, former Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer of
... Show Full Article
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, Oct. 24 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson Secures Dismissal of All Claims Against Former and Current UVA Health Leaders in Federal RICO Lawsuit
October 23, 2026
Baker Donelson successfully represented Dr. K. Craig Kent, former Executive Vice President for Health Affairs and Chief Executive Officer of the University of Virginia (UVA) Health System; Dr. Melina Kibbe, former Dean of the UVA School of Medicine and Chief Health Affairs Officer; Dr. Wendy Horton, former Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer ofthe UVA Medical Center; and Dr. Allan Tsung, current Chair of the UVA Department of Surgery, in obtaining dismissal of all claims asserted against them in a federal lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia that was filed by four current and former physicians affiliated with UVA Health.
In an October 21, 2026, memorandum opinion and order, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against Drs. Kent, Kibbe, Horton, and Tsung, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish statutory standing and plead any RICO predicate acts.
The court also dismissed the RICO claims against two other former UVA physicians and the UVA Physicians Group, and all claims against the University of Virginia after determining that the university is immune from suit. Only two retaliation claims against UVA Physicians Group remain pending.
The court's ruling followed extensive briefing and jurisdictional discovery.
In a joint statement, Drs. Kent, Kibbe, and Horton said, "We are pleased by the court's decision and proud that our team led UVA Health - an organization with more than 18,000 employees and 1,200 physicians - over a period of many years, with integrity and proven success."
"We appreciate the court's careful consideration of the issues presented and the court's dismissal of all claims against our clients," said Sean B. O'Connell, managing shareholder of Baker Donelson's Washington, D.C., office. "This ruling represents a significant outcome for Drs. Kent, Kibbe, Horton, and Tsung," added John S. Ghose, special counsel in Baker Donelson's Atlanta, Georgia office.
The Baker Donelson team representing Drs. Kent, Kibbe, Horton, and Tsung was led by shareholder Sean B. O'Connell (Washington, D.C.), special counsel John S. Ghose (Atlanta, Georgia), and included associate Bethany R. Carroll (Atlanta, Georgia).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/baker-donelson-secures-dismissal-of-all-claims-against-former-and-current-uva-health-leaders-in-federal-rico-lawsuit
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Akerman Represents Craft Work Capital in Acquisition of Muschlitz Excavating and Stealth Clearing & Demolition
MIAMI, Florida, Oct. 24 -- Akerman, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akerman Represents Craft Work Capital in Acquisition of Muschlitz Excavating and Stealth Clearing & Demolition
October 23, 2026
Akerman represented Craft Work Capital, a private equity firm focused on specialty contracting firms, in its acquisition of Alpha Infrastructure, a civil and site development platform headquartered in Bath, Pa., whose operating companies include Muschlitz Excavating and Stealth Clearing & Demolition.
Founded in 1990, Muschlitz Excavating provides site development services to commercial,
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, Oct. 24 -- Akerman, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akerman Represents Craft Work Capital in Acquisition of Muschlitz Excavating and Stealth Clearing & Demolition
October 23, 2026
Akerman represented Craft Work Capital, a private equity firm focused on specialty contracting firms, in its acquisition of Alpha Infrastructure, a civil and site development platform headquartered in Bath, Pa., whose operating companies include Muschlitz Excavating and Stealth Clearing & Demolition.
Founded in 1990, Muschlitz Excavating provides site development services to commercial,industrial, and institutional clients across the Lehigh Valley, including mass earthwork, utility installation, grading, and paving. Stealth Clearing & Demolition provides demolition, land clearing, site remediation, and material recycling services across the region. The acquisition marks Craft Work Capital's first platform investment in civil and site development.
The Akerman team representing Craft Work Capital was led by Matthew O. Hendy, Partner, Corporate Practice Group, and E. Paul Quinn, Co-Chair, Corporate Practice Group, and included key support across the firm's national platform from:
* Thomas J. Kearney, Chair, Data Privacy and Security Practice
* Robyn D. Neely, Chair, Environment and Natural Resources Practice
* William Sullivan, Deputy Chair, Tax Practice Group
* Peter A. Chiabotti, Partner, Intellectual Property Practice Group
* Gabriel S. Marinaro, Partner, Tax Practice Group
* Felicia Leborgne Nowels, Partner, Government Strategies Practice Group
* Bryan L. Reese, Partner, Corporate Practice Group
* Paul J. Russo, Partner, Real Estate Practice Group
* Scott T. Silverman, Partner, Labor and Employment Practice Group
* Andrew Bayer, Associate, Corporate Practice Group
* Matthew D. Emery, Associate, Corporate Practice Group
* Charles A. Filips, Associate, Tax Practice Group
* Andrew J. Kim, Associate, Corporate Practice Group
* Santiago Lopez, Associate, Real Estate Practice Group
* Nicolas V. Maetta, Associate, Corporate Practice Group
* Amanda P. Weinick, Associate, Tax Practice Group
* * *
About Akerman
Founded in 1920, Akerman is an Am Law 100 firm recognized by Vault among the nation's most prestigious law firms. The firm has more than 700 lawyers and business professionals throughout the United States.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akerman.com/en/firm/newsroom/akerman-represents-craft-work-capital-in-acquisition-of-muschlitz-excavating-and-stealth-clearing-and-demolition.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
A&O Shearman: Luxembourg Issues Europe's First DLT-native Benchmark Bond
LONDON, England, Oct. 24 -- A&O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Luxembourg issues Europe's first DLT-native benchmark bond
Oct 23, 2026
We have advised Spuerkeess in connection with Luxembourg's EUR1.7 billion DLT-native sovereign benchmark bond, one of the first issuances of its kind in Europe.
The landmark ten-year transaction represents a major step in the development of digital capital markets in Luxembourg and Europe, demonstrating how distributed ledger technology (DLT) infrastructure can be deployed at scale for sovereign financing while operating within an established
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Oct. 24 -- A&O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Luxembourg issues Europe's first DLT-native benchmark bond
Oct 23, 2026
We have advised Spuerkeess in connection with Luxembourg's EUR1.7 billion DLT-native sovereign benchmark bond, one of the first issuances of its kind in Europe.
The landmark ten-year transaction represents a major step in the development of digital capital markets in Luxembourg and Europe, demonstrating how distributed ledger technology (DLT) infrastructure can be deployed at scale for sovereign financing while operating within an establishedinstitutional and regulatory framework. The bond is Eurosystem collateral eligible and allows for an international distribution.
The bond was issued via LuxCSD's D7 DLT platform, with Spuerkeess acting as joint lead manager, issuing agent and paying agent.
A&O Shearman's Luxembourg team was led by Frank Mausen, Philippe Noeltner and Enrico Dalle Mulle.
"This transaction is an important milestone for Luxembourg and for the development of digital capital markets in Europe. The issuance of a sovereign benchmark bond natively on DLT demonstrates that technological innovation can be accommodated within an established legal and regulatory framework, while retaining the characteristics and protections expected by institutional market participants." Frank Mausen
"What is particularly significant about this transaction is the way in which DLT has been integrated into existing capital markets infrastructure rather than developing as a parallel ecosystem. Combining native DLT issuance with a regulated CSD environment, conventional international distribution and Eurosystem collateral eligibility is an important step towards making tokenized securities part of mainstream capital markets." Philippe Noeltner
* * *
URL: Spuerkeess
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aoshearman.com/en/news/luxembourg-issues-europes-first-dlt-native-benchmark-bond
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
