Featured Stories
Nutter Represents Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Piper Sandler, and Brean Capital in Columbia Financial's $1.7 Billion Subscription and Firm Commitment Offering
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 29 -- Nutter, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Nutter Represents Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Piper Sandler, and Brean Capital in Columbia Financial's $1.7 Billion Subscription and Firm Commitment Offering
Nutter served as legal counsel to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (KBW), A Stifel Company, as agent and lead-left bookrunner, Piper Sandler & Co., as co-book running manager, and Brean Capital LLC, as co-manager, in connection with the $1.7 billion subscription and firm commitment offering of Columbia Financial, Inc. (Nasdaq Global Select Market: CLBK).
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 29 -- Nutter, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Nutter Represents Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Piper Sandler, and Brean Capital in Columbia Financial's $1.7 Billion Subscription and Firm Commitment Offering
Nutter served as legal counsel to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. (KBW), A Stifel Company, as agent and lead-left bookrunner, Piper Sandler & Co., as co-book running manager, and Brean Capital LLC, as co-manager, in connection with the $1.7 billion subscription and firm commitment offering of Columbia Financial, Inc. (Nasdaq Global Select Market: CLBK).
The offering was completed on July 20, 2026 simultaneously with Columbia's second-step conversion and its merger with Northfield Bancorp, Inc. The Nutter team was led by Michael Krebs and Kate Henry, and included Jinal Sharma, Alexis Yamin, Jack Lowy, and Dan Hartman. Read more about the transaction.
Columbia is a Maryland corporation and the stock holding company for Columbia Bank, a federally chartered savings bank headquartered in Fair Lawn, New Jersey.
Columbia Bank operates over 100 full-service banking offices and offers traditional financial services to consumers and businesses in its market area.
As of July 28, 2026, Columbia had a market capitalization of approximately $2.95 billion.
* * *
About Nutter
Nutter is a full-service law firm delivering sophisticated legal counsel to industry-leading companies, entrepreneurs, institutions, foundations, and families across the United States and globally. With offices in Boston, New York, San Francisco, Honolulu, and Orinda, and practices spanning business and finance, intellectual property, litigation, real estate and land use, labor and employment, tax, and trusts and estates, Nutter pairs deep expertise with a client-focused approach. Learn more at nutter.com or connect with us on LinkedIn.
Nutter's Banking and Financial Services attorneys serve as corporate and regulatory counsel to banks, savings institutions, and other financial institutions and address a wide range of banking clients' needs, including new bank formations, mergers and acquisitions, holding company formations, conversions, interstate expansion, the introduction of new products and services, including securities, insurance and trust services, and electronic banking.
Nutter's Corporate Department represents domestic and international corporations, publicly traded and privately-held companies, private equity firms, nonprofit institutions, and family-owned businesses in a wide variety of domestic and cross-border transactions. The firm's attorneys advise on significant transactions in every major industry sector, including technology, life sciences, banking, professional services, real estate, energy, medical devices, health care, and manufacturing. Nutter's corporate practice handles the full range of M&A and private equity transactions, including representing buyers and sellers in auctions processes, mergers, asset sales, stock purchases, leveraged buyouts, roll-ups, joint ventures, PIPEs, going private transactions, tender offers, and proxy contests.
* * *
URL: Keefe, Bruyette & Woods
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nutter.com/trending-newsroom-news-nutter-represents-kbw-piper-sandler-brean-capital
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: End of Registered Letterbox Delivery in Germany? No Prima Facie Evidence of Actual Receipt
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 29 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 28, 2026, by senior associate Camille Anders:
* * *
The End of Registered Letterbox Delivery in Germany? No Prima Facie Evidence of Actual Receipt
In practice, registered letterbox delivery had long been regarded as a convenient and comparatively cost-effective means of serving important correspondence--particularly notices of termination--in a legally secure manner. The Hamburg Higher Labor Court rejected this view in its judgment of July 14, 2025 (Case No. 4 SLa 26/24). The Federal Labor Court
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 29 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 28, 2026, by senior associate Camille Anders:
* * *
The End of Registered Letterbox Delivery in Germany? No Prima Facie Evidence of Actual Receipt
In practice, registered letterbox delivery had long been regarded as a convenient and comparatively cost-effective means of serving important correspondence--particularly notices of termination--in a legally secure manner. The Hamburg Higher Labor Court rejected this view in its judgment of July 14, 2025 (Case No. 4 SLa 26/24). The Federal Labor Courtdismissed the appeal against that judgment by decision of May 7, 2026 (Case No. 2 AZR 184/25). Although the reasons for the decision have not yet been published, there are strong indications that the Federal Labor Court has endorsed the Hamburg Higher Labor Court's approach and no longer regards registered letterbox delivery as a legally secure method of service.
Facts of the Case
In the case at hand, the Hamburg Higher Labor Court had to decide on the validity of a termination for illness-related reasons. The decisive issue was whether the employer had properly fulfilled its obligation to carry out company integration management (betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement, bEM) before issuing the notice of termination. The employer asserted that it had sent the employee an invitation to participate in bEM by registered letterbox delivery; the employee, however, disputed receipt. To prove receipt, the employer submitted the posting receipt, a reproduction of the delivery receipt, and the tracking number to the court, arguing that prima facie evidence supported receipt of the invitation.
No Typical Course of Events in Registered Letterbox Delivery
The Hamburg Higher Labor Court--now confirmed by the Federal Labor Court--rejected the application of prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence requires a typical course of events. It applies in cases where a specific set of facts has been established which, according to general experience, indicates a particular cause or a particular sequence of events as decisive for the occurrence of a specific outcome.
According to the court, however, this requirement is not met in the case of registered letterbox delivery. The decisive factor is the now digitized delivery process. Unlike the former so-called "peel-off label" procedure, delivery personnel today scan the registration number of the registered item, sign on the input field of the scanner, and thereby electronically confirm the scanning process. The actual delivery is therefore documented before the item is physically placed in the mailbox. In addition, the digital proof of delivery contains no specific information regarding the address or time of delivery. As a result, there is no individualized documentation of the actual deposit into the mailbox.
Although, under Deutsche Post's requirements, delivery personnel must verify before depositing the item that the recipient's name appears on the relevant mailbox, the court held that, due to the digitized procedure, the likelihood of proper delivery depends materially on the diligence of the individual delivery person and on the specific circumstances at the delivery location--for example, where several mailboxes are located next to one another or where distractions occur during delivery. Against this background, the required typicality of the course of events is lacking.
Impact on the Validity of the Termination
In the specific case, the termination therefore failed for lack of proportionality. Because the employer was unable to prove receipt of the bEM invitation, an increased burden of substantiation applied to the employer. The employer would have had to set out in detail that even the implementation of bEM could not have prevented the termination. In the case at hand, the employer failed to satisfy these requirements. The termination was therefore invalid.
Practical Recommendations for Employers
Registered letterbox delivery can no longer be regarded as a legally secure method of service. In cases where personal handover is not possible, employers should in future use a reliable courier service when serving "important" declarations, such as notices of termination or bEM invitation letters, in order to avoid jeopardizing the effectiveness of a termination due to issues of service.
* * *
Authors
Camille Anders
Senior Associate
Frankfurt am Main
cscheidel@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/end-registered-letterbox-delivery-germany-no-prima-facie-evidence-actual-receipt
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Leading Restructuring Lawyer Nicholas Dunstone Joins Jones Day in Sydney
CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 29 -- Jones Day, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Leading restructuring lawyer Nicholas Dunstone joins Jones Day in Sydney
Nicholas Dunstone, a leading pan-APAC restructuring lawyer, has joined Jones Day as a partner in its Business Restructuring & Reorganization Practice. He is based in the Firm's Sydney Office.
With more than 25 years of experience advising on complex cross-border restructuring and insolvency matters across the Asia-Pacific region and globally, Mr. Dunstone is a seasoned restructuring practitioner whose career spans leading international
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 29 -- Jones Day, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Leading restructuring lawyer Nicholas Dunstone joins Jones Day in Sydney
Nicholas Dunstone, a leading pan-APAC restructuring lawyer, has joined Jones Day as a partner in its Business Restructuring & Reorganization Practice. He is based in the Firm's Sydney Office.
With more than 25 years of experience advising on complex cross-border restructuring and insolvency matters across the Asia-Pacific region and globally, Mr. Dunstone is a seasoned restructuring practitioner whose career spans leading internationallaw firms and a prominent distressed-debt investment fund. His notable recent representations include advising bondholders owed $4.2 billion in one of Europe's largest restructurings totaling $25 billion in debt; representing an Asian based oil and gas engineering company in a multi-jurisdictional restructuring that involved a multi-billion dollar arbitration claim and a complex UK Restructuring Plan; and advising the bondholder steering committee in a successful and highly contested groundbreaking UK restructuring plan paving a way for its sale.
"Nick is an exceptional addition to our Business Restructuring & Reorganization Practice and to Jones Day as a whole," said Heather Lennox, who leads Jones Day's Business Restructuring & Reorganization Practice. "His deep experience representing creditors, distressed investors and debtors across multiple jurisdictions gives him the ability to see restructurings from every angle. Nick's track record of leading complex cross-border matters in Europe, Asia and Australia--combined with his investment-side perspective gained from building ARCM's restructuring platform--makes him uniquely positioned to deliver innovative solutions to our clients on their most challenging matters."
At Jones Day, Mr. Dunstone will join an international team of more than 100 experienced restructuring lawyers in financial centers worldwide who resolve complex restructuring issues and problems in jurisdictions throughout the world. He will work alongside his colleagues to advise debtors, creditors and other parties involved in business restructurings, out-of-court workouts and other transactions with financially distressed entities. Jones Day's Business Restructuring & Reorganization Practice provides clients with a full range of restructuring capabilities, including dedicated distress-related resources from other Firm practices such as litigation, tax, finance, benefits and M&A; extensive experience on all sides of restructuring matters enabling lawyers to see the entire picture and offer valuable perspectives; and global knowledge about restructurings in all major money centers, including Europe, Australia and Asia.
"Nick built one of the leading restructuring practices in Australia early in his career and went on to develop an extensive network across Asia-Pacific and global financial centers, which makes him a tremendous asset to our clients in Australia, Asia and across the globe," said John Cooper, Partner-in-Charge of Jones Day's Sydney Office. "His arrival will strengthen our ability to serve clients on complex cross-border restructuring matters that connect Sydney to Singapore, Hong Kong, London and beyond."
Added Chris Lovrien, Partner-in-Charge of Jones Day's Australia Region, "When we began our strategic growth push in Australia in mid-2024, one of our priorities was to build a world-class practice representing sophisticated financial institutions, investors, and corporates in cross-border finance, private credit, distressed finance and work outs. Nick's experience, accomplishments and reputation will further enhance Jones Day's ability to serve our clients in their most complex restructuring and financial matters. His arrival also underscores the Firm's continued investment in world-class legal talent in the Australian market. He is the fifth lateral partner to join us here since the start of the year, and the 13th to join us since we began our strategic growth plan."
Mr. Dunstone holds Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts (Jurisprudence) degrees from the University of Adelaide and graduate certificates in Applied Finance from FINSIA and Advanced Insolvency from USQ. He is admitted as a Solicitor in England & Wales and as a Barrister & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of South Australia and NSW. Mr. Dunstone is also the Founder and Chair of the ILA and Light Cultural Foundation, which won the 2021 Creative Partnership National Award for Emerging Philanthropists, and has served on the boards of the Pembroke Foundation and TMA Australia (NSW). He has previously held board positions in a range of companies whilst at ARCM including corporate groups running Bulk and Chemical Shipping businesses and a large multinational audio technology company.
"Throughout my career, I have seen that the most complex restructuring matters demand a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach that draws on expertise in litigation, tax, finance, M&A and beyond. Jones Day's one-firm culture and the mutual commitment of its partners to work as a unified team means I can deliver to clients the full resources of a global firm operating on five continents," said Mr. Dunstone. "I look forward to contributing to this collaborative partnership to provide integrated and client-focused solutions."
* * *
Jones Day is a global law firm with 2,500 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by: a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.jonesday.com/en/news/2026/07/leading-restructuring-lawyer-nicholas-dunstone-joins-jones-day-in-sydney
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Tech Employers' 5-Step Workplace Safety Guide for Developing and Operating Data Centers
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 28, 2026:
* * *
Tech Employers' 5-Step Workplace Safety Guide for Developing and Operating Data Centers
The rapid growth of data center development across the country presents workplace safety challenges that are very different from those found in a traditional office environment. The existence of high-voltage electrical systems, backup generators, sophisticated cooling equipment, confined spaces, and ongoing maintenance activities bring a host of safety obligations that many technology employers have
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 28, 2026:
* * *
Tech Employers' 5-Step Workplace Safety Guide for Developing and Operating Data Centers
The rapid growth of data center development across the country presents workplace safety challenges that are very different from those found in a traditional office environment. The existence of high-voltage electrical systems, backup generators, sophisticated cooling equipment, confined spaces, and ongoing maintenance activities bring a host of safety obligations that many technology employers havenot previously encountered. The good news is that companies that address these issues early are often in a much stronger position to protect their employees, avoid disruptions, and respond effectively if OSHA ever comes knocking. Below are five practical considerations for organizations developing, constructing, or operating data centers.
* KEY POINT: These issues deserve attention at the leadership level. OSHA applies the same enforcement standards to data center owners and operators that it applies to manufacturers and construction companies. A serious injury, fatality, or catastrophic event will almost certainly trigger an inspection, and incidents involving high-profile facilities frequently receive heightened scrutiny.
1. Begin with a Site-Specific Hazard Assessment
Every effective safety program begins with understanding the hazards unique to the workplace. That is particularly true in data centers, where electrical, thermal, mechanical, and atmospheric hazards often exist within the same facility. Generic corporate safety programs rarely capture those risks.
Your assessment should identify the hazards associated with each area of the facility, evaluate the likelihood and severity of employee exposure, and form the basis for engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment (PPE). OSHA's PPE standard also requires employers to certify this assessment in writing.
* Complete the assessment before operations begin and revisit it whenever equipment, layouts, or processes change.
* Use the assessment to determine which written OSHA programs are actually necessary instead of adopting boilerplate policies.
* Conduct periodic audits to identify gaps before OSHA does.
2. Build Written Programs Before You Energize the Facility
Once you identify potential hazards, you should develop written safety programs that reflect how the facility actually operates. Depending on your operation, data centers may require lockout/tagout procedures, permit-required confined space programs, emergency action and fire prevention plans, hearing conservation programs, and other OSHA-required policies.
One of the most common mistakes we see during OSHA inspections is a beautifully written safety manual that bears little resemblance to what employees actually do. Regulators quickly identify those disconnects.
* Tailor written programs to actual operations rather than relying on generic templates.
* Train employees before they perform the work and retrain them when processes or equipment change.
* Document all training. If you cannot demonstrate that training occurred, OSHA will often assume it did not take place.
3. Don't Overlook the General Duty Clause
Not every hazard in a modern data center is addressed by a specific OSHA standard. But that does not mean OSHA lacks authority to cite an employer. Under the General Duty Clause, employers must protect employees from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
Heat exposure has become one of the most visible examples. Employees maintaining rooftop cooling equipment, generators, and exterior electrical systems may face significant heat-related hazards even though no federal heat standard currently exists. Several state-plan states also impose requirements that exceed federal OSHA's rules.
* Address significant hazards even when no specific OSHA standard applies.
* Develop heat illness prevention procedures for outdoor maintenance work, including water, rest, shade, and acclimatization.
* Monitor state-specific OSHA requirements for facilities operating in multiple jurisdictions.
4. Manage Construction-Phase Risk Carefully
The construction phase presents its own set of OSHA obligations. Beyond complying with the construction standards, companies should remember OSHA's multi-employer citation policy. Technology companies developing data centers are often surprised to learn they may face OSHA liability even when a general contractor manages day-to-day construction activities. Depending on the circumstances, the agency may cite the company that created the hazard, controlled the worksite, corrected the hazard, or exposed employees to it.
* Clearly allocate safety responsibilities in construction contracts while recognizing contracts alone will not eliminate OSHA exposure.
* Evaluate contractors' safety performance before awarding work.
* Be intentional about the level of safety oversight your organization will exercise during construction.
5. Treat Temporary and Contract Workers Like Your Own Employees
Most data center projects rely heavily on temporary workers and specialty contractors. OSHA generally expects the host employer to provide site-specific hazard training because the host controls the workplace. You should not assume staffing agencies have addressed those obligations.
* Clearly identify which organization is responsible for each aspect of employee training.
* Verify required certifications before work begins.
* Maintain complete training and qualification records so the facility remains inspection-ready.
Conclusion
If you have any questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this insight, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Catastrophe Management Practice Group or Tech Industry Team for guidance. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information on workplace safety issues.
* * *
Related People
Phillip C. Bauknight
Partner
908.516.1059
pbauknight@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Brett P. Owens
Partner
813.769.7512
bowens@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/workplace-safety-guide-for-developing-and-operating-data-centers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: DOL Clarifies Commuter and Remote Worker Travel Pay in New Opinion Letters
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 28, 2026:
* * *
DOL Clarifies Commuter and Remote Worker Travel Pay in New Opinion Letters
Do you need to pay your employees for travel time spent to wrap up the workday from home? Should employees who spend their commute answering work calls and messages be compensated for that time? Both questions were recently clarified in two US Department of Labor opinion letters interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) issued on July 22. It's important to keep in mind that these letters aren't binding.
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 28, 2026:
* * *
DOL Clarifies Commuter and Remote Worker Travel Pay in New Opinion Letters
Do you need to pay your employees for travel time spent to wrap up the workday from home? Should employees who spend their commute answering work calls and messages be compensated for that time? Both questions were recently clarified in two US Department of Labor opinion letters interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) issued on July 22. It's important to keep in mind that these letters aren't binding.They respond to specific real-world scenarios submitted by employers, workers, and others. More than that, they offer guidance about how to comply with the law, and employers can use them as persuasive authority when defending against DOL claims. This Insight covers what you need to know about these two new opinion letters on commuter and remote worker travel pay and how they could impact your business.
First: A Word of Caution
Some state and local laws provide broader protections than the FLSA and would require compensation for travel time or work done while commuting in transit. Be aware of your obligations based on your jurisdiction or union contracts.
Travel To and From Home During the Workday
Question presented: Whether mid-day travel between an employee's home and work office is worktime that must be paid under the FLSA, when the employee works at both locations and the mid-day travel is offered as an alternative to unpaid commuter travel that would otherwise occur before or after the employee's workday.
DOL's response: Mid-day travel that otherwise qualifies as "normal" or "ordinary" commuter travel is not considered hours worked under the FLSA.
Under the FLSA, mid day travel between an employee's home and their regular place of work is generally not compensable, even if the employee leaves the office during the day, goes home, and then returns to the office later that same day. The DOL explains that this should be treated as ordinary home-to-office commuting, which the Portal to Portal Act excludes from hours worked, rather than as travel between job sites or as part of the employee's principal work activities.
Caveat: This opinion letter is fact-specific and only addresses the federal FLSA. The analysis could also change if the "office" is not the employee's regular place of work, if the travel is to a special temporary assignment, or if travel itself is a principal activity of the job (such as travel between client sites).
Calls on Commute
Question presented: Does the FLSA require payment for time that a field service engineer spends receiving pages and making calls to clients and other engineers to schedule appointments, while they are driving from home to their first client appointment?
Case details: The DOL's opinion is based on a field service engineer who:
* Has no regular office and performs work at client locations (like hospitals).
* Receives service requests by page between 7 am and 8 am.
* Must call clients (and sometimes other engineers) to schedule appointments, often spending most of that hour on calls.
* Drives an employer provided vehicle from home directly to the first client site, sometimes before the paid shift starts.
DOL's response: Whether the engineer should be compensated for those activities depends on when they occur and what type of communication they receive. A key part of the analysis is considering whether the employee's activity is merely "incidental" or is "integral to their principal activities."
Receiving Pages: Not Compensable
Time spent receiving pages while commuting in a company-provided car is not considered compensable hours worked. Such work is "incidental" to the use of the work vehicle for commuting and "not integral to an employee's principal activities," the DOL explained. Under the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act, employers aren't required to pay employees for time spent on activities while they travel into work that aren't part of an employee's "principal" job. Courts have consistently treated receiving assignments or checking schedules as "incidental" to the commute, the DOL said.
Calling Clients (and Scheduling Other Engineers): Compensable
Time spent calling clients to schedule appointments and scheduling other field service engineers, on the other hand, is compensable hours worked. The DOL explained that because the calls are "integral and indispensable" to the employee's principal activity of installing and servicing medical equipment at client sites, and that communicating with clients to schedule appointments is necessary to perform the services requested by them, the time should be paid.
Drive Time to First Appointment: Depends
If employees perform compensable work before or during the commute, it can trigger the "continuous workday" doctrine, which establishes that "once the workday starts, all activity is ordinarily compensable until the workday ends." But a key to the analysis is that the workday only begins once an employee starts their principal job duties. The agency breaks the concept down into two scenarios:
Scenario 1 - Calls Completed at Home, Then Drive Starts at 8 am.
* Employee spends approximately 50 minutes between 7 and 8 am calling clients at home, then drives to the first site starting at 8 am.
Call: The drive from home to the first client is compensable. Once the employee performs principal activities (client calls), the continuous workday has begun. The subsequent drive from their home office to the first client site isn't part of their "ordinary" commute, because it occurs during the workday and is dictated by the employer's scheduling needs.
Scenario 2 - Calls Made While Driving, Before Paid Shift
* Employee leaves home before 8 am (at 6 am) and makes client calls while driving between 7 am and 8 am.
Call: Drive time before the first call (6 -7 am) is unpaid ordinary commuting. The workday starts when the first compensable call begins. All travel time from the beginning of the first phone call until arrival at the first site is compensable.
Caveat: Not all pre shift activity is equal. You may not have to pay staff while they passively receive assignments, but the legal lines get murky when staff are actively scheduling or coordinating work. Performing principal job duties before or during the commute can start the workday, converting otherwise unpaid commute time into compensable travel.
Conclusion
If you have any questions about these opinion letters, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any attorney in our Wage and Hour Practice Group for assistance. Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor this area and provide updates as appropriate. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information.
* * *
Related People
Kathleen McLeod Caminiti
Partner and Co-Chair, Wage and Hour Practice Group
908.516.1062
kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/dol-clarifies-commuter-and-remote-worker-travel-pay-in-new-opinion-letters
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Are You Audit Ready? What CalPrivacy's Groundbreaking Gig Economy Audit Means for Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 28, 2026:
* * *
Are You Audit Ready? What CalPrivacy's Groundbreaking Gig Economy Audit Means for Employers
California's main privacy watchdog recently announced its very first compliance audit, and while the sector-wide review will focus on gig economy platforms, the implications extend to all employers across the state and offer an early indication of the agency's enforcement priorities. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) audit, announced on July 21, will examine whether rideshare,
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 28, 2026:
* * *
Are You Audit Ready? What CalPrivacy's Groundbreaking Gig Economy Audit Means for Employers
California's main privacy watchdog recently announced its very first compliance audit, and while the sector-wide review will focus on gig economy platforms, the implications extend to all employers across the state and offer an early indication of the agency's enforcement priorities. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) audit, announced on July 21, will examine whether rideshare,delivery, and task-based platforms are complying with the California Consumer Privacy Act's (CCPA) requirements governing the rights of California residents and workers to access and control their personal information. What do you need to know about this landmark audit, and what should your business do as a result?
What the Audit Will Examine
The audit will assess whether gig economy platforms have implemented effective processes to enable California consumers and workers to exercise their CCPA rights, including the ability to understand what personal information is collected, how it is used, and with whom it is shared.
In particular, the audit is expected to assess whether the targeted businesses have effective processes to receive, verify, and respond to access requests from their workforce within the CCPA's 45-day statutory deadline. This includes the ability to provide complete and accurate disclosures of personal information collected, used, and shared. The audit will also assess whether platforms give workers meaningful transparency into the personal information used in algorithmic or automated decisions that affect them, including decisions related to dispatch assignments, performance ratings, earnings, suspension, or deactivation.
In its announcement, CalPrivacy emphasized that this is the first in a planned series of sectoral audits, signaling that similar reviews across additional industries are likely.
Why Employers Should Pay Attention
Although the audit targets gig economy platforms, the issues it raises are relevant to every employer subject to the CCPA. California remains the only state with a comprehensive privacy law that extends consumer style privacy rights to employees, job applicants, and independent contractors. As a result, employers should ensure their privacy compliance programs adequately address workforce data and procedures for responding to requests from employees, applicants, and independent contractors.
In particular, employers should evaluate whether their privacy governance and data management practices support timely and complete responses to workforce privacy requests. Workforce information is often maintained across multiple internal systems and third-party vendors, requiring coordination among legal, privacy, human resources, information technology, and other business functions to identify, collect, and produce responsive data.
As part of that review, employers should confirm that they:
* Include workforce systems and third-party vendors in data inventories. Do you know where all data about your workforce is collected and retained? Have you mapped out your data assets to be able to find all data you have about an individual, or will you have to build this workflow on the fly after receiving your first CCPA request?
* Maintain documented procedures for receiving, processing, and responding to access requests from employees, job applicants, and independent contractors within the CCPA's 45-day response. Do you have a standard operating procedure or manual outlining your consumer request workflow? Have you tested your consumer request workstream to ensure that it works properly and nothing falls through the cracks? What is your process for verifying consumer requests that the law allows you to verify?
* Clearly assign responsibility for coordinating workforce privacy requests across legal, privacy, human resources, information technology, and other relevant business functions. Who owns the process? If an employee submits a CCPA request through your toll-free number or a form on your website, where does that request get routed and who keeps track of it?
* Provide CCPA-compliant privacy notices to employees, job applicants, and independent contractors, and keep them current as workforce data practices evolve. Have you updated your employee privacy policy and your separate job applicant privacy policy in the last 12 months? Do you even have a privacy policy for job applicants? Where and how do you present a CCPA notice at collection to job applicants and employees?
These are only some of the questions you should be able to answer to be audit ready. Each of the above topics will involve potentially dozens of questions. This is not an exercise you would want to be doing for the first time after receiving an audit letter from CalPrivacy.
Conclusion
If you have questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Privacy and Cyber Team or any attorney in our California offices. Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments in this area, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Usama Kahf, CIPP/US
Partner
949.798.2118
ukahf@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Stephanie Alvarez Salgado
Associate
213.232.6845
ssalgado@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/what-calprivacys-groundbreaking-gig-economy-audit-means-for-employers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
American Industrial Partners Completes Acquisition of Avanos Medical for $1.2 Billion
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 29 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
American Industrial Partners Completes Acquisition of Avanos Medical for $1.2 Billion
Ropes & Gray represented American Industrial Partners in connection with obtaining financing for its completed acquisition of Avanos Medical, Inc., a leading medical technology company, for approximately $1.272 billion. The transaction was announced on April 14 and completed on July 27.
Under the terms of the merger agreement, Avanos stockholders will receive $25 per share in cash for each share of common stock they
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, July 29 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
American Industrial Partners Completes Acquisition of Avanos Medical for $1.2 Billion
Ropes & Gray represented American Industrial Partners in connection with obtaining financing for its completed acquisition of Avanos Medical, Inc., a leading medical technology company, for approximately $1.272 billion. The transaction was announced on April 14 and completed on July 27.
Under the terms of the merger agreement, Avanos stockholders will receive $25 per share in cash for each share of common stock theyown.
With the completion of the transaction, Avanos common stock will cease trading on the New York Stock Exchange and Avanos will become a private company.
American Industrial Partners is an operationally oriented industrials investor with approximately $17.8 billion in assets under management.
The team included finance partners Dan Coyne, Jeff Lang, and Stefanie Birkmann.
* * *
URL: American Industrial Partners
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/07/american-industrial-partners-completes-acquisition-of-avanos-medical
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
