Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Paul Bland Speaks About 100 Years of the Federal Arbitration Act
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Feb. 19 -- Berger Montague, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Paul Bland Speaks About 100 Years of the Federal Arbitration Act
Passed in 1925, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was designed to encourage arbitration agreements as an alternative dispute mechanism in commercial disputes between parties of roughly equal bargaining power. The statute has become very controversial, however, as it has been extended to settings such as consumer and employment contracts, and this discussion delves into some of the biggest disagreements about the way the Act has
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Feb. 19 -- Berger Montague, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Paul Bland Speaks About 100 Years of the Federal Arbitration Act
Passed in 1925, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was designed to encourage arbitration agreements as an alternative dispute mechanism in commercial disputes between parties of roughly equal bargaining power. The statute has become very controversial, however, as it has been extended to settings such as consumer and employment contracts, and this discussion delves into some of the biggest disagreements about the way the Act hasbeen interpreted.
Panelists including Paul Bland, co-chair of Berger Montague's Appeals and Complex Briefing Department; Pamela Bookman, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Fordham School of Law; John H. Chun, judge for the Western District of Washington, and Linda A. Klein, a senior managing shareholder at Baker Donelson and past president of the American Bar Association spoke aobut the FAA's centennial. Amelia Ashton Thorn, articles editor of Judicature, served as moderator.
Read more about their discussion in Judicature, published by the Bolch Judicial Institute Duke Law School here (https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/federal-arbitration-act-100-years-panel-discussion/).
Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. With more than $2.4 billion in 2025 post-trial judgments alone, the Firm is a leader in the fields of complex litigation, antitrust, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For over 55 years, Berger Montague has played leading roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE.
* * *
Original text here: https://bergermontague.com/news/paul-bland-speaks-about-100-years-of-the-federal-arbitration-act/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Nixon Peabody Elevates 12 Attorneys in 2026 Counsel Class
ALBANY, New York, Feb. 18 -- Nixon Peabody, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Nixon Peabody elevates 12 attorneys in 2026 counsel class
Boston, MA. Nixon Peabody LLP has promoted 12 attorneys in its 2026 counsel class, representing national markets and a wide range of litigation and transactional practices from each of the law firm's three legal departments.
"Each of the attorneys in our new counsel class demonstrates key characteristics that drive sustainable success: talent, dedication, commitment to our clients and firm, and a constant desire to grow," said Stacie B. Collier,
... Show Full Article
ALBANY, New York, Feb. 18 -- Nixon Peabody, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Nixon Peabody elevates 12 attorneys in 2026 counsel class
Boston, MA. Nixon Peabody LLP has promoted 12 attorneys in its 2026 counsel class, representing national markets and a wide range of litigation and transactional practices from each of the law firm's three legal departments.
"Each of the attorneys in our new counsel class demonstrates key characteristics that drive sustainable success: talent, dedication, commitment to our clients and firm, and a constant desire to grow," said Stacie B. Collier,Nixon Peabody Chief Talent Officer. "These colleagues have made significant contributions to our firm and the communities they serve, and we are thrilled to see them continue to grow in the next phase of their careers."
All of the attorneys in Nixon Peabody's 2026 partner class were elevated from counsel, illustrating the integral nature of the firm's counsel program for attorney development.
Business & Finance
Anthony Bova, Corporate, Boston
Anthony focuses his practice on a wide range of corporate mergers and acquisitions, including platform acquisitions and add-ons, recapitalizations, portfolio company guidance and considerations specific to private equity, and corporate governance, among other areas. He represents both public and private companies with a particular focus on buy- and sell-side private equity transactions. Anthony also actively represents family office investors and has extensive experience in guiding family-owned businesses through their first acquisition event. He is an active mentor and regularly serves as a presenter or panelist for firm programming. Anthony also serves as a Steering Committee member within the Boston Bar Association's Business Transactions section.
Alexandra Crean, Private Clients, Boston
Alex advises high-net-worth clients on estate planning, trusts, and tax matters, with a particular focus on cross-border planning. She also regularly guides fiduciaries through the administration of domestic and foreign estates and trusts. Alex helps clients build flexible structures that minimize transfer taxes, enhance income tax efficiency, preserve optionality, and simplify administration over time. She serves as co-chair of the Boston office's Women's Network and as clerk for the Board of Directors of the Alumnae Association of Mount Holyoke College. She was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the field of Trusts and Estates.
Maximilian Ferullo, Global Finance, New York City
A member of the firm's Leveraged Finance Team, Max advises sponsors, borrowers, arrangers, agents, and lenders on complex domestic and cross-border finance transactions, including leveraged and acquisition financings across secured and unsecured, single-lender and syndicated, and cash flow and asset-based facilities. He frequently collaborates with members of the Corporate, Mergers & Acquisitions, and Private Equity Teams on the financing and refinancing needs of general corporate and portfolio company clients. Max leverages his experience as a former bankruptcy and restructuring associate to bring a hybrid perspective to distress-related matters, including workouts, intercreditor disputes and debt restructurings both out-of-court and in Chapter 11. He has been selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in 2024 and 2025, in the field of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law.
Kaitlyn Greene, Private Clients, Boston
Kaitlyn's practice focuses on estate and tax planning, helping individuals, business owners, and families develop sophisticated estate plans that optimize tax efficiencies while advancing each client's unique values and long-term goals. She counsels clients and trusted advisors on various wealth transfer vehicles and drafts the necessary documents, such as wills, revocable trusts, irrevocable life insurance trusts, and gifting trusts. Kaitlyn also advises individual and corporate fiduciaries on estate and trust administration, with a focus on charitable trust administration and compliance in Massachusetts. She is an engaged mentor, presenting on panels and supporting recruitment efforts. Kaitlyn was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the field of Trusts and Estates.
Emily Holt, Corporate, Boston
Emily represents companies, financial institutions, and other creditors in complex restructuring efforts as they navigate the complexities and legal risks related to financially troubled companies. Her practice centers on corporate restructuring and insolvency matters, with a particular emphasis on creditors' rights in both in-court and out-of-court restructurings, workouts, liquidations, distressed financings, and acquisitions. Emily co-chairs the firm's Associates Council in the Boston office and she serves on the New England chapter of the Turnaround Management Associates (TMA) Network of Women committee. She was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the field of Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights/Insolvency and Reorganization Law.
Meghan Hopkins, Healthcare, Providence
Meghan represents healthcare and general corporate clients in various transactional, regulatory, and operational matters, including mergers, acquisitions, restructurings, joint ventures, and joint operating agreements. She is a trusted adviser and active firm citizen, participating in pro bono work and contributing to firm committees, including the Associates Council and the regional Green Committee. Meghan serves on the Board of Directors of Providence Community Health Center and the Board of Trustees of McAuley Ministries. In 2025, she was recognized by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly's Excellence in the Law in the "Up & Coming Lawyers" category and named to Providence Business News' 40 Under Forty list.
Litigation
Matthew Costello, Complex Disputes, Boston
Matt focuses on complex litigation matters at the federal and state levels, helping clients efficiently achieve their desired results and business goals while resolving disputes without resorting to litigation whenever possible. Among other involvements, Matt serves as co-chair of the Massachusetts LGBTQ Bar Association Board of Directors. He is a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association Complex Commercial Litigation Section Council and he was recently selected for the 2025-2026 Boston Bar Association Public Interest Leadership Program. Matt was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the field of Commercial Litigation and named to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly's Excellence in the Law list in the "Up & Coming Lawyers" category.
Catherine Hunstad, Government Investigations & White-Collar Defense, Washington, DC
Catherine handles high-stakes legal issues focused on compliance, internal investigations, criminal litigation, and complex immigration issues. She advises clients on criminal and civil matters involving government enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, among others. Catherine employs her deep knowledge of the international legal landscape as part of the firm's Cross-Border Risks Team, which represents businesses and high-net-worth individuals facing potential sanctions, international arrest warrants, criminal indictments, and other critical challenges. Catherine was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the fields of Criminal Defense: White-Collar and Immigration Law.
Conor McNamara, Construction & Real Estate Litigation, San Francisco
Conor represents public entities, major companies, and high-net-worth individuals in a wide array of disputes, including construction matters, contract and intellectual property disputes, and government investigations. He is experienced in all aspects of litigation, including e-discovery work and investigation work, motion practice and depositions in complex litigation, and witness examinations at multi-week arbitration evidentiary hearings. Conor has an active pro bono immigration practice and is a member of the firm's Veterans Network. He was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the fields of Commercial Litigation and Litigation--Construction.
Brianna Portu, Government Investigations & White-Collar Defense, Boston
Brianna represents clients through all stages of government investigations, internal investigations, and complex civil and criminal litigation. She skillfully navigates grand jury subpoenas, HIPAA subpoenas, and civil investigative demands involving various enforcement agencies, making her an asset to many teams across the firm. Brianna maintains an active pro bono practice and is dedicated to firm initiatives, including recruiting and mentoring associates in the Litigation Department. She was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the field of Criminal Defense: White-Collar.
Project Finance, Infrastructure, and Real Estate
Eric Brenner, Project Finance & Public Finance, Albany
Eric provides efficient, future-focused counsel to a wide variety of clients in project finance and public finance. He represents clients on all sides of taxable and tax-exempt projects that transform our communities, including issuers, underwriters, and borrowers. His work also includes representing lenders in financings for healthcare and nonprofit entities. Within his practice, Eric also represents industrial development agencies in transactions that foster economic development. He served as a member of the firm's Associates Council and was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for 2026 in the fields of Banking and Finance Law, Municipal Law, Project Finance Law, and Public Finance Law.
Spenser Sotolongo, Affordable Housing & Real Estate, Chicago
Spenser's practice encompasses the full spectrum of real estate matters throughout the Chicagoland area, the Midwest, and across the nation, including development, acquisitions, dispositions, leasing, and financing. He represents developers, property owners, tenants, and investors in these transactions, bringing a practical, client-focused approach to each matter. Whether navigating complex deal structures or addressing day-to-day real estate needs, Spenser is committed to understanding his clients' business objectives and delivering tailored solutions that advance their goals. Spenser also serves on the board of Holiday Heroes, a nonprofit benefiting pediatric patients. He has been selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch since 2022, including 2026, in the field of Real Estate Law.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nixonpeabody.com/about/media/2026/02/17/nixon-peabody-elevates-12-attorneys-in-2026-counsel-class
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Nearly Half of Business Rates Appeals Taking Over 12 Months to Resolve - Elizabeth Bradley Quoted in Property Week
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, Feb. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Nearly Half of Business Rates Appeals Taking Over 12 Months to Resolve - Elizabeth Bradley Quoted in Property Week
*
BCLP said the surge in cases, and the scale of the increase in cases taking more than 12 months, point to a system "under significant pressure".
The VOA's figures show half of challenges under the 2023 list resulted in an agreed adjustment.
BCLP partner Elizabeth Bradley said: "It is becoming the norm for business rates appeals to take more than
... Show Full Article
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, Feb. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Nearly Half of Business Rates Appeals Taking Over 12 Months to Resolve - Elizabeth Bradley Quoted in Property Week
*
BCLP said the surge in cases, and the scale of the increase in cases taking more than 12 months, point to a system "under significant pressure".
The VOA's figures show half of challenges under the 2023 list resulted in an agreed adjustment.
BCLP partner Elizabeth Bradley said: "It is becoming the norm for business rates appeals to take more thana year to resolve. For ratepayers, that means a much longer period of uncertainty.
"The system is clearly under strain and although around half of challenges do result in an agreed adjustment, the length of the process means many businesses are left without clarity for an extended period."
She added: "Prolonged uncertainty around their rates liability is now influencing investment decisions."
The hike in appeals comes ahead of new rateable values (RVs) coming into effect on 1 April - also the deadline for appeals under the 2023 list - and
BCLP said recent rates reforms, including new multipliers, are likely to generate a further increase in disputes. From 1 April, businesses will then be able to appeal their new RVs.
The draft RVs, released by the VOA after the November Budget, show total RV across all 2.13 million rated properties is set to rise 19.2% from the 2023 list to PS84.4bn.
Bradley added: "Every new rating list generates a surge of early challenges and the 2026 list will be no exception. The concern is that this surge will hit a system already under pressure.
"The VOA is still clearing appeals from the 2017 list while simultaneously dealing with a growing backlog from the 2023 list. With the 2026 list about to open, the system risks carrying two generations of unresolved disputes at once."
Read the full article : Nearly half of business rates appeals taking over 12 months to resolve | Property Week
***
Original text here: https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/events-insights-news/nearly-half-of-business-rates-appeals-taking-over-12-months-to-resolve-elizabeth-bradley-quoted-in-property-week.html
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: Revenue Sharing or Restrictive Employment? The Hidden Legal Risks in College Athletes' NIL Contracts
CLEVELAND, Ohio, Feb. 18 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 17, 2026, by associate Mitchell Capp:
* * *
Revenue sharing or restrictive employment? The hidden legal risks in college athletes' NIL contracts
The House v. NCAA settlement--finalized in June 2025--was celebrated as a watershed moment for college athletes. For the first time, Division I schools could share revenue directly with their players, with an initial cap of approximately $20.5 million per school per year. For athletes who had long been generating enormous commercial value for their institutions
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, Feb. 18 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 17, 2026, by associate Mitchell Capp:
* * *
Revenue sharing or restrictive employment? The hidden legal risks in college athletes' NIL contracts
The House v. NCAA settlement--finalized in June 2025--was celebrated as a watershed moment for college athletes. For the first time, Division I schools could share revenue directly with their players, with an initial cap of approximately $20.5 million per school per year. For athletes who had long been generating enormous commercial value for their institutionswithout direct compensation, the settlement represented long-overdue recognition of their economic contributions.
But as the first full season under the new framework has played out, a more complicated picture has emerged. The real story is not just what athletes gained, but what they are being asked to give up in return--and whether the agreements schools are presenting them with contain provisions that could not survive legal scrutiny if challenged in court.
The Big Ten template: A "licensing agreement" in name only
In January 2025, Sportico obtained and reported on a revenue-sharing memorandum of understanding (MOU) used by a Big Ten institution, with multiple attorneys familiar with such agreements confirming the language was consistent across the conference. The Big Ten had developed a template that its member schools were deploying to onboard athletes into the new revenue-sharing system.
The document is formally framed as an intellectual property transaction: at its core, the MOU is a licensing agreement in which the school purchases a license to use the athlete's NIL and the associated right to sublicense the athlete's NIL to third parties. The breadth of what is licensed is sweeping. The main NIL concession covers an athlete's "name, nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, caricature, likeness, image, picture, portrait, quotes, statements, writings, identifiable biographical information, other identifiable features, and any other indicia of personal identity"--including jersey number and social media handles. Those rights can be sublicensed to the Big Ten, NCAA, or any other third party, including agents and multi-media rights holders, and continue after an athlete is no longer at the school.
Framing this as a licensing arrangement has a certain institutional logic. Schools are walking a tightrope: they need enforceable IP rights and performance obligations, while simultaneously trying to avoid any characterization of the deal as an employment relationship. The MOU aggressively attempts to extinguish the prospect of an athlete arguing the deal reflects an employment agreement, with one clause bluntly coined "No Employment," stating the MOU "does not create a fiduciary relationship" and that the athlete "waives," "forever discharges," and agrees "not to sue" the school, NCAA, or conference on the basis of employee status.
Sports attorney Darren Heitner, the country's leading NIL practitioner, identified the central contradiction in this approach. As Heitner observed publicly, Wisconsin was simultaneously treating its NIL agreement as an employment contract in practice while concurrently seeking to establish that the agreement did not create a fiduciary relationship between the parties. ESPN's reporting on similar agreements across multiple conferences found the same tension. Multiple contracts from Big 12 schools prohibit the athlete from taking a redshirt year "without the consent of the coaching staff" or from sitting out any game "including postseason competition" when cleared to participate by medical and coaching staff--making it clear, as Heitner told ESPN, that athletes are being paid to play or could suffer financial consequences for failure to play.
The sublicensing problem: Conflicts with independent NIL deals
One of the most consequential--and underappreciated--issues embedded in the Big Ten template is the sublicensing provision. Under the MOU, the school holds the right to sublicense the athlete's NIL to "any and all third parties." Athletes are expressly permitted to continue entering their own independent NIL deals, but those arrangements must comply with the revenue-sharing MOU.
This creates a direct tension with an athlete's independent commercial activity. An endorsement deal with an athletic apparel brand could collide head-on with a school's sublicense to a competing conference apparel sponsor--without the athlete having any meaningful say in how that conflict is resolved and without receiving additional compensation when their NIL is being commercially exploited through the institutional sublicense.
The athlete accepts they do not gain a right to royalties or additional payments in the event of a sublicense. This is an extraordinary commercial concession. Irrevocable, sublicensable licenses in intellectual property law carry well-understood implications: when an athlete signs away sublicensable rights on an irrevocable basis, they effectively cede meaningful control over the most personal form of intellectual property--their own identity--to an institutional licensee who can then put those rights into play across a web of third-party commercial relationships the athlete never directly approved.
What a licensing agreement should not look like: The restrictive covenant problem
The deeper legal problem with these agreements is that they are not really licensing deals in any functional sense. They are employment-style contracts wearing licensing agreement's clothes--and the clothing does not quite fit.
The tell is in the "representations, warranties, and covenants" section. The Big Ten MOU establishes a set of representations, warranties, and covenants that includes the seemingly contradictory promise that the athlete "will not make any similar commitment to enroll at and/or compete in athletics for another college or university." Read plainly, that is a non-compete clause. It restricts the athlete's ability to use their labor--and implicitly their NIL--at a competing institution.
The financial consequences of violating these provisions further reveal their true nature. The MOU includes language saying schools will be reimbursed for some revenue already paid should an athlete transfer to a different school--or even enter the transfer portal.
Real-world litigation has now put these provisions to the test. The University of Georgia, through its athletic association, sued former football player Damon Wilson II, seeking $390,000 in liquidated damages after he transferred to Missouri following the 2024 season. Duke University sought to enforce its reported $7.5 million, two-year agreement with quarterback Darian Mensah to prevent him from playing for any other school in 2026, with the matter ultimately resolved through settlement after a court declined to issue a temporary restraining order.
The Georgia case squarely presents the question of whether the $390,000 figure represents a legitimate, good-faith estimate of the collective's anticipated losses--or whether it crosses the line into an unenforceable penalty.
Liquidated damages vs. penalty clauses: Why the distinction matters
Under well-established contract law principles, liquidated damages clauses are enforceable only when two conditions are met: (1) actual damages from a breach were difficult to ascertain at the time of contracting, and (2) the stipulated amount represents a reasonable pre-estimate of likely harm. When a liquidated damages clause fails either prong--particularly when the stated amount is disproportionate to any plausible actual loss--courts will strike it as an unenforceable penalty clause.
A judicial decision upholding a school's position could rapidly accelerate the adoption of buyout provisions across NIL contracts and fundamentally reshape the architecture of athlete compensation and mobility. At the same time, if a court concludes that the amount is disproportionate, punitive, or untethered to any measurable loss, the clause could be struck down as an impermissible penalty--a ruling that could have an immediate effect on NIL and revenue share agreements across the country.
The argument that these clauses are punitive is not frivolous. Consider what happens when a quarterback announces a transfer days after signing a multi-million-dollar deal. The "damage" the school suffered is difficult to quantify. Its commercial sublicense arrangements almost certainly remain intact. Any argument that it suffered the full liquidated sum in actual, measurable harm over a matter of days is difficult to sustain. What the school is really trying to protect is roster stability--a legitimate interest, to be sure, but one that sounds in employment law and labor economics, not IP licensing.
Applying the restrictive covenant framework
Our firm has deep experience advising clients in restrictive covenant matters across a range of industries--including non-compete agreements, non-solicitation provisions, and related covenants. The analytical framework courts apply to those agreements maps directly onto the NIL revenue-sharing context, and the implications for schools relying on conference-wide templates are significant.
Courts evaluating restrictive covenants ask three fundamental questions:
First, is there a legitimate business interest justifying the restriction?
Institutions will argue that their investment in recruiting, facilities, coaching, and the development of an athlete's commercial NIL profile constitutes a protectable interest. That argument has surface appeal, but courts will scrutinize whether what is really being protected is closer to a raw interest in controlling labor--which has historically not been sufficient to support a restrictive covenant.
Second, is the restriction reasonable in scope?
Restrictive covenants must be narrowly tailored across three dimensions: the type of restricted activity, geographic scope, and duration. The Big Ten template's prohibition on committing to compete "for another college or university" is extraordinarily broad. It does not restrict specific commercial activity--it restricts an athlete's choice of educational institution and athletic participation. There is no meaningful geographic limitation (it covers the entire national college athletics marketplace), and duration spans the length of a multi-year agreement. These are not the hallmarks of a carefully tailored restrictive covenant.
Third, is enforcement reasonable relative to the burden on the restricted party?
Courts balance the burden imposed on the restricted party against the benefit to the party seeking enforcement. The burden on college athletes is substantial: these are young people, often 18 to 22 years old, facing potentially six-figure liquidated damages obligations, loss of competitive opportunities, and constraints on educational choices. The power imbalance between an institution with full-time legal counsel drafting the template and a recruit being handed the agreement during the recruiting process is significant--and courts in many jurisdictions consider whether a covenant was presented as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Additionally, many state legislatures have moved in recent years to limit the enforceability of non-compete agreements, and an agreement drafted to a conference-wide template standard is unlikely to reflect the specific statutory requirements of every state in which a school's athletes may reside.
The employment question lurking beneath the surface
All of these issues connect back to a threshold question the NIL revenue-sharing structure has deliberately tried to avoid: are college athletes employees?
That question remains actively litigated in Johnson v. NCAA, pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The provisions examined here--with performance requirements, participation mandates, and coaching-staff-consent clauses--provide substantial fodder for the argument that athletes are functionally employees. If a court eventually reaches that conclusion, the "No Employment" waiver clauses will almost certainly be unenforceable as attempts to contract around a legal status determined by objective facts, not the parties' recitals. As Heitner told ESPN, judges would be unlikely to uphold "scare tactics" that compel athletes to sign away their right to be recognized as employees.
The contracts themselves attempt to hedge this risk by including provisions stipulating that if an employment relationship is ever found, the revenue-sharing payments would count as satisfaction of any employment obligations. As one commentator observed, that approach amounts to "talking out of both sides of your mouth."
What athletes and their representatives should be doing
The practical takeaway is that athletes signing revenue-sharing agreements--particularly under conference-wide templates--need experienced legal counsel before putting pen to paper. Several areas warrant close attention in any review:
* The scope of the NIL license deserves careful scrutiny, including its irrevocability and the breadth of sublicensing rights. Athletes with existing or anticipated endorsement relationships should identify potential conflicts before signing.
* Transfer and portal restrictions should be assessed against NCAA bylaws, applicable state law, and general enforceability principles. Heitner has argued that allowing schools to use NIL contracts to circumvent NCAA bylaws could undermine the entire transfer portal system--a position that courts may ultimately credit.
* Liquidated damages clauses should be measured against the reasonable pre-estimate standard. Where the amounts are disproportionate to any plausible actual harm, athletes have colorable arguments that those provisions are unenforceable penalties.
* "No Employment" waivers should be reviewed in light of ongoing employment status litigation. Waivers obtained through standard form agreements, without individualized negotiation, may receive heightened scrutiny if employment status is ever litigated directly.
Conclusion
The House settlement opened a new chapter in college sports. But the fine print of that chapter may prove as consequential as its headline. Framing an agreement as a "licensing" arrangement does not transform its operative provisions. When those provisions restrict an athlete's mobility, impose disproportionate financial penalties for departure, grant sweeping irrevocable rights over a young person's personal identity, and simultaneously claim not to create an employment relationship, the label and the substance diverge sharply.
Courts applying well-established principles of contract law, restrictive covenant analysis, and employment law will ultimately work through that divergence. The Georgia and Mensah cases are only the beginning. Athletes and their representatives who understand what these agreements actually say--and have qualified legal counsel at the table--will be far better positioned when that reckoning arrives.
McDonald Hopkins represents clients across the full spectrum of employment and restrictive covenant law, as well as in sports-related transactions and disputes. For questions about NIL agreements, restrictive covenant enforceability, or related matters, please contact attorney Mitchell Capp . As always, McDonald Hopkins continues to monitor these developments closely.
* * *
Mitchell Capp
Associate
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/the-hidden-legal-risks-in-college-athletes-nil-contracts
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Another Friday Night Surprise - Cal/OSHA Proposes State Analog to Worker Walkaround Rule
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 18 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 17, 2026, by shareholders Alka Ramchandani-Raj and Krystal N. Weaver, senior counsels Peter Vassalo and Felicia K. Watson and counsel David Dixon:
* * *
Another Friday Night Surprise: Cal/OSHA Proposes State Analog to Worker Walkaround Rule
Consistent with its tradition of dropping surprise regulatory proposals near the end of the day before a holiday weekend, Cal/OSHA published a formal proposal on Friday the 13th, 2026, to promulgate a California version of federal OSHA's so-called "worker walkaround
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 18 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 17, 2026, by shareholders Alka Ramchandani-Raj and Krystal N. Weaver, senior counsels Peter Vassalo and Felicia K. Watson and counsel David Dixon:
* * *
Another Friday Night Surprise: Cal/OSHA Proposes State Analog to Worker Walkaround Rule
Consistent with its tradition of dropping surprise regulatory proposals near the end of the day before a holiday weekend, Cal/OSHA published a formal proposal on Friday the 13th, 2026, to promulgate a California version of federal OSHA's so-called "worker walkaroundrule." That rule allows non-employee third parties to serve as an employee representative during an OSHA workplace inspection provided that third party is reasonably necessary to conduct an effective and thorough inspection. California employers should take note of this development and monitor it closely. There is a public hearing scheduled for April 1, 2026, whereby interested individuals will have the opportunity to present statements or arguments on the rule.
The Procedural Posture and Timing of the Proposed Rule Raise Eyebrows and Concerns
The proposal is framed as a so-called "Horcher amendment." Such proposals involve rulemaking that allows Cal/OSHA to ensure it complies with its state plan approval from federal OSHA by maintaining standards that are "at least as effective" as federal standards. Such proposals may become effective under fast-track procedural requirements rather than through the full panoply of requirements generally applicable to Cal/OSHA rulemaking under California law, so long as the proposal is "substantially the same as the federal standard."/1
The timing of this particular Horcher proposal is intriguing (at least) given that the analogous federal regulation--29 C.F.R. Sec. 1903.8--was controversial when adopted under the previous federal administration, and in view of the expressed priorities of the current federal administration generally to pursue regulatory reduction in virtually all areas, including OSHA. Many stakeholders have urged the current administration to withdraw the federal regulation, which is currently the subject of a legal challenge in federal court./2
We summarized the history of federal OSHA's Worker Walkaround Representative Policy leading to the promulgation of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1903.8 and subsequent amendments here. That was nearly two years ago, in April 2024. The timing of Cal/OSHA's proposal being dropped in February 2026, suggests Cal/OSHA perceives a time pressure to rapidly utilize the fast-track procedures available for Horcher amendments in view of potential changes to the federal rule, and in the absence of pressure from the current administration to comply with the requirement to maintain state rules that are "at least as effective" as federal rules.
Substantive Differences from Federal Rule Raise Further Concerns
The substance of the Cal/OSHA proposal is similar to the federal worker walkaround rule in many respects, but it is by no means identical. These differences introduce an additional layer of complexity with respect to the asserted legal basis for using the expedited Horcher amendment process. For example, the Cal/OSHA proposal provides that the chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or their representative, shall be "in charge of inspections" and is authorized to "limit the scope and extent of the employer and the employee's representatives' engagement with each other and with any employees involved in the inspection to ensure that the inspection is fair, effective, and limited to the appropriate subject matter."/3 It further states that Cal/OSHA "is authorized to deny the right of accompaniment under this section to any person whose conduct interferes with a fair and orderly inspection." In contrast, the federal walkaround rule does not grant OSHA comparable authority--particularly the ability to deny an employer representative the right to accompany the inspector during a walkaround. The Cal/OSHA proposal also more broadly authorizes inspectors to interview "a reasonable number of employees" working in safety- or health related areas that may contain proprietary equipment, information, or trade secrets, when those employee authorized representatives are not authorized by the employer to enter those areas.
From Friday the 13th to April Fool's Day: At Least Someone Has a Sense of Humor
The publication of the proposal on February 13, 2026--the night before Valentine's Day and the Friday before the President's Day Holiday--creates a required notice and comment period that ends on April Fool's Day. Whether such timing may merely be a matter of coincidence or proof that someone has a strange sense of humor remains unknown. What is certain, however, is that Cal/OSHA's new proposal has prompted the immediate interest of California's employment law community.
Littler will continue to monitor this important development. Employers should pay attention to these developments and contact their employment counsel to consider opportunities to participate during the notice and comment period, as well as be prepared for potential compliance, should the proposal complete the regulatory rulemaking process initiated on February 13, 2026.
* * *
1/ Cal. Labor Code Sec. 142.3 (a)(3).
2/ Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al., No. 6:24-cv-00271 (W.D. Tex. 2024).
3/ Proposed Sec. 331.8(c).
* * *
Authors
Alka Ramchandani-Raj
Shareholder
Walnut Creek
* * *
Krystal N. Weaver
Shareholder
San Diego
* * *
Peter Vassalo
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
David A. Dixon
Littler onDemand Counsel
* * *
Felicia K. Watson
Senior Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/another-friday-night-surprise-calosha-proposes-state-analog-worker-walkaround
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Law Firms Call for BNP Paribas' Removal From UN Global Compact Over Complicity in Human Rights Violations
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news on Feb. 17, 2026:
* * *
Law Firms Call for BNP Paribas' Removal From UN Global Compact Over Complicity in Human Rights Violations
Hausfeld, Hecht Partners, and DiCello Levitt Submit Petition Urging Review of BNP Paribas' Operations in Sudan
*
New York, NY -- Hausfeld, Hecht Partners, and DiCello Levitt today announced the submission of a petition to the UN Global Compact calling for an immediate review to determine whether the conduct of BNP Paribas, S.A. ("BNPP") in support of human rights violations in Sudan, between
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 -- Hausfeld, a law firm, issued the following news on Feb. 17, 2026:
* * *
Law Firms Call for BNP Paribas' Removal From UN Global Compact Over Complicity in Human Rights Violations
Hausfeld, Hecht Partners, and DiCello Levitt Submit Petition Urging Review of BNP Paribas' Operations in Sudan
*
New York, NY -- Hausfeld, Hecht Partners, and DiCello Levitt today announced the submission of a petition to the UN Global Compact calling for an immediate review to determine whether the conduct of BNP Paribas, S.A. ("BNPP") in support of human rights violations in Sudan, between1997 and 2011, constitutes a breach of the initiative's integrity policies.
The petition requests the Global Compact to take any steps that it considers necessary to resolve BNPP's noncompliance, up to and including delisting the bank from the Compact.
The petition reaffirms that BNPP has admitted to, and been found liable for, egregious human rights abuses connected to its facilitation of transactions for the Government of Sudan, and that the Bank continued its Sudan-related business long after it became aware of widespread atrocities.
The petition also notes that BNPP continues to justify its conduct despite its earlier admissions of wrongdoing. The firms contend that BNPP's continued membership harms the reputation, integrity, and mission of the UN Global Compact.
BNPP joined the Global Compact, in which more than 25,000 firms now participate, in 2003, committing to support and respect internationally proclaimed human rights and to avoid complicity in human rights abuses. Nevertheless, for more than a decade, BNPP facilitated billions of U.S. dollar transactions for the Sudanese regime under Omar al-Bashir, despite extensive public reporting of mass violence and action by the UN Security Council in response to atrocities in Darfur.
The petition asserts that BNPP's conduct and continued justifications--together with its admissions and findings of liability--cannot be reconciled with its obligations under the Global Compact and warrants decisive action.
The petition requests that the Chair of the Global Compact Board require BNPP to submit written comments addressing these allegations and, absent a satisfactory response, take further steps up to and including referral to the full Board for delisting.
Read the full petition to the UN Global Compact here (https://www.hausfeld.com/media/3jpf04xr/global-compact-letter-re-bnp-paribas-allegations.pdf).
* * *
About the UN Global Compact
The ambition of the UN Global Compact is to accelerate and scale the global collective impact of business by upholding the Ten Principles and delivering the SDGs through accountable companies and ecosystems that enable change. With more than 25,000 participating companies, 5 Regional Hubs, 66 Country Networks covering 85 countries and 9 Country Managers establishing Networks in 16 other countries, the UN Global Compact is the world's largest corporate sustainability initiative -- one Global Compact uniting business for a better world.
The UN Global Compact's First 2 Principles
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights.
Principle 2: Businesses should make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
* * *
About Hausfeld
Hausfeld is a global litigation firm known for shaping the law, advancing legal practice, and pursuing bold, high-stakes claims others won't. Our experienced litigators and arbitrators have a proven track record across human rights, antitrust, commercial and financial disputes, environmental law, product liability, and technology-related issues. With 11 offices across the US, UK, and Europe, we consistently secure landmark settlements and precedent-setting decisions against some of the world's most powerful opponents. Socially minded and committed to access to justice, we champion strong corporate governance and serve both individuals and businesses.
Recognized as one of the Financial Times' most innovative law firms since 2013, Hausfeld has been honored for pioneering litigation funding and groundbreaking work in access to justice. Most recently, Hausfeld was the only plaintiffs' firm named among FT North America's Most Innovative Law Firms: Overall, and founder Michael Hausfeld was recognized in 2025 in FT's 20 Years of Innovation report for transforming legal practice through class actions and litigation funding. For more information about Hausfeld, including recent trial victories and landmark settlements, please visit www.hausfeld.com.
* * *
About Hecht Partners
Hecht Partners LLP is a leading litigation boutique specializing in impact, intellectual property rights, and transnational arbitration and litigation. Our clients include some of the most innovative and emerging companies and individuals in the entertainment, digital media, and tech industries. We pride ourselves on our entrepreneurial spirit and lean, efficient operations based in next-generation technologies that have yet to be adopted by the vast majority of the legal industry.
Hecht Partners and its lawyers have been recognized by Chambers, Billboard, Crain's, Super Lawyers, and the IAM Strategy 300. The firm's attorneys are Martindale-Hubbell Peer Reviewed and Client Reviewed, with a 100% client recommendation.
* * *
About DiCello Levitt
At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, civil and human rights, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, and personal injury litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases--whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise--for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations--and our capital--on the line for our clients.
DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/news/law-firms-call-for-bnp-paribas-removal-from-un-global-compact-over-complicity-in-human-rights-violations
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Greenberg Traurig's Elizabeth E. Georgiopoulos Named an 'Excellence in the Law' Honoree
MIAMI, Florida, Feb. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig's Elizabeth E. Georgiopoulos Named an 'Excellence in the Law' Honoree
*
BOSTON - Feb. 18, 2026 - Elizabeth E. Georgiopoulos, a Litigation attorney in global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP 's Boston office, was named a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2026 "Excellence in the Law" honoree in the "Up & Coming Lawyer" category. This award recognizes Massachusetts attorneys who have been practicing for 10 years or less, but who have already distinguished themselves
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, Feb. 18 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig's Elizabeth E. Georgiopoulos Named an 'Excellence in the Law' Honoree
*
BOSTON - Feb. 18, 2026 - Elizabeth E. Georgiopoulos, a Litigation attorney in global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP 's Boston office, was named a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 2026 "Excellence in the Law" honoree in the "Up & Coming Lawyer" category. This award recognizes Massachusetts attorneys who have been practicing for 10 years or less, but who have already distinguished themselvesin the legal community.
"Liz is a standout member of our litigation team, recognized for her technical strength, forward-looking approach, and dedication to client service. We congratulate Liz on this well-deserved honor," Boston office co-Managing Shareholders David J. Dykeman and Terence P. McCourt said in a joint statement.
Georgiopoulos has a broad range of experience litigating high-stakes matters across state and federal courts as well as in domestic and international arbitration forums. In addition, she regularly serves as outside eDiscovery counsel for clients in cases involving intricate data issues, ensuring clients remain compliant while maintaining a strong litigation posture. Beyond her litigation practice, Georgiopoulos advises clients across industries on cutting-edge information governance issues, including record retention policies, data privacy and cybersecurity compliance, and the ethical deployment of artificial intelligence in the workplace. She has drafted information governance frameworks for organizations ranging from startups to Fortune 500 companies. Georgiopoulos also has focused experience in HIPAA compliance and has a strong understanding in electronic medical records systems and related data analytics.
Every year, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly hosts the Excellence in the Law Awards to honor excellence throughout the legal community in the commonwealth for pro bono, firm administration, alternative dispute resolution, marketing, and paralegal work, and to recognize "Up & Coming Lawyers." Georgiopoulos will be honored at the annual Excellence in the Law reception March 24 at the Venezia Restaurant. The full list of honorees is featured here.
***
Original text here: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2026/02/press-releases/greenberg-traurigs-elizabeth-e-georgiopoulos-named-an-excellence-in-the-law-honoree
