Featured Stories
Seventy-Five Holland & Knight Florida Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers
MIAMI, Florida, June 27 -- Holland and Knight, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Seventy-Five Holland & Knight Florida Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers has named 38 attorneys in Holland & Knight's Florida offices "Super Lawyers" and 37 "Rising Stars" for 2026. Additionally, several of the firm's attorneys were ranked among the "Top 100," "Top 50," "Top 10" and "Top 5."
Published annually by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers is a rating service that annually identifies outstanding lawyers in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., from more than 70 practice areas
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, June 27 -- Holland and Knight, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Seventy-Five Holland & Knight Florida Attorneys Recognized by Super Lawyers
Super Lawyers has named 38 attorneys in Holland & Knight's Florida offices "Super Lawyers" and 37 "Rising Stars" for 2026. Additionally, several of the firm's attorneys were ranked among the "Top 100," "Top 50," "Top 10" and "Top 5."
Published annually by Thomson Reuters, Super Lawyers is a rating service that annually identifies outstanding lawyers in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., from more than 70 practice areaswho have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
The "Top 100," "Top 50" and "Top 10" lists are comprised of attorneys who received the highest points during Florida Super Lawyers' nomination, research and blue-ribbon review process.
The following lawyers were named in their respective practice areas this year:
Fort Lauderdale
Super Lawyers
Brian H. Koch (Business Litigation)
* * *
Rising Stars
Julie Blackmore (Mergers & Acquisitions)
Suzanne Busser (Business Litigation)
Alexander Dudley (Business Litigation)
* * *
Jacksonville
Super Lawyers
Jason E. Havens (Nonprofit Organizations)
Kelly L. Hellmuth (Nonprofit Organizations)
Frank Morreale (Business Litigation)
Laura B. Renstrom (Civil Litigation: Defense)
* * *
Rising Stars
Matt Borello (Civil Litigation: Defense)
Michael Decembrino (Business Litigation)
Lindsey Grubbs (Real Estate)
T.J. McElhinney (Business Litigation)
Emily McWey (Business Litigation)
* * *
Miami
Super Lawyers
Christopher N. Bellows (Appellate)
Christopher N. Boyett (Estate Planning & Probate)
Brian A. Briz (Business Litigation)
Kelly-Ann G. Cartwright (Employment & Labor)
Jose A. Casal (Business Litigation)
Maria T. Currier (Health Care)
Jesus E. Cuza (Business Litigation)
Adolfo E. Jimenez (International)
Tiffani G. Lee (Business Litigation)
Kevin E. Packman (Tax)
Cristina Papanikos (Estate & Trust Litigation)
Scott D. Ponce (Class Action & Mass Torts)
Miriam Soler Ramos (State, Local & Municipal)
Lee P. Teichner (Products Liability)
* * *
Rising Stars
Sydney Alexander (General Litigation)
Shawn Amuial (Real Estate)
Alejandro J. Arias (Land Use/Zoning)
Annelise Del Rivero (Business Litigation)
Johnny P. ElHachem (Gaming)
Evan Friedland (Mergers & Acquisitions)
Luis Garcia (Consumer Law)
Amanda Naldjieff (Land Use/Zoning)
Eli Rodrigues (Tax)
Alessandria San Roman (Land Use/Zoning)
Albert Sueiras (Business Litigation)
Benjamin J. Tyler (Business Litigation)
Brandon White (Consumer Law)
* * *
Orlando
Super Lawyers
Glenn A. Adams (Tax)
David E. Cannella (Business Litigation)
Suzanne E. Gilbert (Business Litigation) */Orlando Top 50/*
Judith M. Mercier (Business Litigation)
Ben W. Subin (Construction Litigation) */Orlando Top 50/*
* * *
Rising Stars
Kyla O'Brien Baker (Real Estate)
Garrison Cohen (Business Litigation)
Jordan J. Horowitz (Real Estate)
Daniel J. Kavanaugh (Civil Litigation: Defense)
Kristin Royal (Business Litigation)
Tom Stephenson (Health Care)
* * *
Tallahassee
Super Lawyers
Kevin Cox (Business Litigation)
Shannon B. Hartsfield (Health Care)
Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr. (Environmental)
Karen D. Walker (Government Contracts)
* * *
Tampa
Super Lawyers
Jason H. Baruch (Business Litigation) */Top 100/* */Tampa Top 50/*
Stacy D. Blank (Appellate)
Noel R. Boeke (Bankruptcy: Business)
Brandon Faulkner (Business Litigation)
Shane A. Hart (Estate Planning & Probate)
Bradford D. Kimbro (Alternative Dispute Resolution) */Top 100/* */Tampa Top 50/*
Dominic Kouffman (Business Litigation)
Paul A. McDermott (Business Litigation)
Joseph A. Varner III (Business Litigation) */Top 10/* */Top 5 Business Litigation/* */Tampa Top 50/*
* * *
Rising Stars
Joseph Altieri (Mergers & Acquisitions)
Jarod A. Brazel (Estate & Trust Litigation)
Anne Kelley Colbert (Business Litigation)
Patrick J. Duffey (Estate Planning & Probate)
Brian S. Goldenberg (Business Litigation)
Katharine Griffiths (Closely Held Business)
Jessica Kramer (Civil Litigation: Defense)
Paul Punzone (Business Litigation)
Kendall Wilson (Mergers & Acquisitions)
* * *
West Palm Beach
Super Lawyers
William N. Shepherd (Criminal Defense: White Collar)
* * *
Rising Stars
Henry A. Moreno (Alternative Dispute Resolution)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hklaw.com/en/news/pressreleases/2026/06/seventy-five-holland-knight-fl-attorneys-recognized-by-super-lawyers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: DOE-DOJ Interagency Agreement - Meaningful Shift in Civil Rights Enforcement for Educational Institutions
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by associate Alexis Phipps Boyd and counsel Zahra Jivani Fenelon:
* * *
The New DOE-DOJ Interagency Agreement: A Meaningful Shift in Civil Rights Enforcement for Educational Institutions
At a Glance
* New DOE-DOJ agreement marks a structural shift in how federal civil rights enforcement in education may be carried out.
* The substantive law remains the same, but the investigative process may now involve earlier DOJ participation, more formal investigative methods, and a more coordinated
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, June 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by associate Alexis Phipps Boyd and counsel Zahra Jivani Fenelon:
* * *
The New DOE-DOJ Interagency Agreement: A Meaningful Shift in Civil Rights Enforcement for Educational Institutions
At a Glance
* New DOE-DOJ agreement marks a structural shift in how federal civil rights enforcement in education may be carried out.
* The substantive law remains the same, but the investigative process may now involve earlier DOJ participation, more formal investigative methods, and a more coordinatedenforcement model.
-
On June 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) announced a new interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that changes how federal civil rights complaints and compliance reviews of educational institutions may be evaluated, investigated, and resolved. Although the agreement does not change the substantive laws governing federally funded institutions, it does signal an important shift in how enforcement may unfold in practice.
Historically, DOE's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) was generally viewed as the primary administrative body handling civil rights enforcement in education, often through a compliance-focused process centered on technical assistance, mediation, and voluntary resolution through consent agreements. Under the new partnership agreement, DOE retains leadership and management of its offices, but DOJ's Civil Rights Division will now be used to evaluate, investigate, and resolve civil rights complaints that had previously been handled solely by DOE's OCR. In practical terms, that means the day-to-day handling of complaints under federal civil rights laws such as Title IX and Title VI may now involve DOJ's investigative infrastructure and procedures.
That shift matters because DOJ brings a different institutional focus. As a litigation agency, DOJ uses investigative protocols such as formal data requests and witness interviews designed to build a comprehensive factual record, while OCR has traditionally been associated with administrative document gathering and collaborative policy correction. Further, DOJ has its own priorities, such as recent investigations into antisemitism and issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and admissions, which will likely emerge in its enforcement of civil rights at federally-funded educational institutions. The agreement therefore suggests a more formal and potentially more rigorous enforcement environment, even though the underlying civil rights laws remain unchanged.
A More Integrated Enforcement Model
The stated goal of the partnership is to reduce bureaucratic redundancies and improve the efficiency of federal oversight. But for regulated institutions, the operational shift to DOJ may be significant. Resolution may continue to occur through voluntary means, yet with DOJ involved in the evaluation and resolution process, institutions may face a more rigorous approach to how complaints are developed and closed.
At the same time, DOE will continue to provide policy guidance and technical assistance, while DOJ's role is directed toward strengthening the investigative and enforcement elements of the process. That combination may create a more integrated federal response in which administrative oversight and enforcement strategy are more closely aligned.
Further, this partnership will likely reflect the Trump administration's de-prioritization on enforcing civil rights laws, at least to the extent they include disparate-impact liability. On April 23, 2025, Trump issued an executive order instructing that federal agencies cease using the disparate impact theory of liability under federal civil rights laws and directed the attorney general to initiate appropriate action to repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI. More recently, on June 9, 2026, DOJ issued an opinion to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finding that the Commission's guidelines on disparate impact liability under Title VII are unconstitutional. Considering DOJ's directive and opinion regarding civil rights enforcement, educational institutions should expect to see DOJ's position on the disparate impact theory of liability extend into the educational realm.
Implications for Educational Institutions
For K-12 schools, colleges, universities, and school districts, the message is not that compliance expectations have changed, but that institutions should be prepared for a different style of federal engagement. OCR complaints should be approached with the understanding that investigations may involve more robust factual development and a more formal legal process than in the past.
That makes internal preparedness especially important. Institutions should treat this development as a prompt to refine compliance systems and ensure that internal processes are effectively "audit-ready" at all times. Clear documentation, consistent policy application, and prompt internal escalation will be increasingly important to ensure that institutions can respond to complaints efficiently and credibly.
Practical Steps to Take Now
First, institutions should strengthen internal documentation practices. Internal investigation files--whether related to student complaints, disability issues, employee concerns, or Title IX matters--should be comprehensive, objective, and clearly organized. Strong records that clearly memorialize why actions were taken remain one of the best tools for responding to lengthy or invasive investigations.
Second, institutions should audit policy alignment. Key policies on discrimination, DEI, student privacy, and accommodations should be reviewed regularly against current federal guidance and internal practice. Policies that are clearly articulated and consistently applied are less likely to create compliance gaps or draw avoidable scrutiny.
Third, institutions should refine reporting and escalation protocols. If a complaint arises, legal counsel should be engaged early so that the institution is prepared to respond to investigative inquiries in a professional, coordinated, and efficient way, regardless of which agency is taking the lead operationally.
Fourth, institutions should maintain open and professional communication during any inquiry. Even with DOJ playing a larger operational role, DOE continues to retain leadership over OCR, and the stated goal remains the resolution of issues through productive dialogue where possible. A responsive and professional posture remains important.
Bottom Line
The DOE-DOJ interagency agreement marks a structural shift in how federal civil rights enforcement in education may be carried out. The substantive law remains the same, but the investigative process may now involve earlier DOJ participation, more formal investigative methods, and a more coordinated enforcement model. For institutions, the practical response is straightforward: strengthen internal procedures, keep documentation in order, and approach compliance with a higher level of readiness and discipline.
* * *
Authors
Alexis Phipps Boyd
Associate
Houston
* * *
Zahra Jivani Fenelon
Of Counsel
Houston
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/new-doe-doj-interagency-agreement-meaningful-shift-civil-rights-enforcement
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Lawdragon Names 14 Jackson Walker Partners Among Leading Energy Lawyers of 2026
AUSTIN, Texas, June 27 -- Jackson Walker, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lawdragon Names 14 Jackson Walker Partners Among Leading Energy Lawyers of 2026
Jackson Walker is pleased to announce the selection of the following 14 partners to Lawdragon's fifth annual guide to the nation's leading energy lawyers:
* Amy Baird - Energy Litigation
* Jennifer Bencken - Energy & Natural Resources
* Linda Donohoe - Energy Project Development
* Leonard Dougal - Environmental Law, esp. Water
* Joe Flack - Energy Finance
* Meghan Griffiths - Energy & Electricity
* Peter Hosey - Energy,
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, June 27 -- Jackson Walker, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Lawdragon Names 14 Jackson Walker Partners Among Leading Energy Lawyers of 2026
Jackson Walker is pleased to announce the selection of the following 14 partners to Lawdragon's fifth annual guide to the nation's leading energy lawyers:
* Amy Baird - Energy Litigation
* Jennifer Bencken - Energy & Natural Resources
* Linda Donohoe - Energy Project Development
* Leonard Dougal - Environmental Law, esp. Water
* Joe Flack - Energy Finance
* Meghan Griffiths - Energy & Electricity
* Peter Hosey - Energy,Environment & Natural Resources
* Richard Howell- Energy Litigation
* Jesse S. Lotay - Energy & Natural Resources
* Danny Nappier - Energy & Natural Resources Litigation
* Mike Nasi - Environment & Energy
* Mike Pearson - Energy Law
* Kirk Rasmussen - Energy & Natural Resources
* Jordan Smith - Energy Finance
Launched in 2005, Lawdragon is a legal media company that features news, editorial features, and a variety of guides to the nation's top legal professionals who lead in a particular practice area or industry and who have handled significant matters within the past year. Selection to this list of the top energy attorneys in the U.S. is limited to those who have been in practice for at least 10 years and is based on the publication's individual research, submissions from firms and companies, and vetting with experienced lawyers in their respective areas.
To see the full list, visit Lawdragon's announcement "The 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Energy Lawyers." (https://www.lawdragon.com/guides/2026-06-26-the-2026-lawdragon-500-global-leaders-in-energy)
* * *
About Our Energy Practice
Jackson Walker has been the counsel of choice on complex matters involving the energy and natural resources industry for over a century. Our Energy attorneys have the skills and experience to provide high levels of service to our energy clients in a broad range of diverse specialties, including acquisitions and dispositions, administrative and regulatory, commodities and derivatives, electricity, finance, intellectual property, litigation, tax, workouts and reorganizations, and many other practice areas. We have represented clients before the United States Supreme Court and other federal and state courts, the EPA, TCEQ, the Texas Railroad Commission, and the Texas Legislature, among others. To explore our related experience, visit the Energy practice page.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.jw.com/news/lawdragon-500-energy-2026/
[Category: BiLaw/Legal]
Hooper, Lundy and Bookman Issues Commentary: Proposed Rule Implementing Medicaid Financing Limitations Under Section 71116
LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by founding partner Lloyd A. Bookman, partner Katrina A. Pagonis and associate Erin R. Sclar:
* * *
Proposed Rule Implementing Medicaid Financing Limitations Under Section 71116
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") proposed the most significant changes to Medicaid financing in several years, which, if finalized, could substantially reduce supplemental payments made to safety-net providers and other providers that depend on Medicaid reimbursement. On May
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, June 27 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on June 26, 2026, by founding partner Lloyd A. Bookman, partner Katrina A. Pagonis and associate Erin R. Sclar:
* * *
Proposed Rule Implementing Medicaid Financing Limitations Under Section 71116
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") proposed the most significant changes to Medicaid financing in several years, which, if finalized, could substantially reduce supplemental payments made to safety-net providers and other providers that depend on Medicaid reimbursement. On May22, 2026, CMS published its proposed rule on Medicaid Managed Care State Directed Payments ("SDP") and Medicaid Fee for Service ("FFS") Targeted Medicaid Practitioner Payments ("Proposed Rule"). The Proposed Rule, if finalized, would restrict the use of SDPs and these targeted payments. Public comments on the Proposed Rule close on July 21, 2026.
Background
The Proposed Rule would implement section 71116 of H.R.1 (Pub. L. 119-21), the budget reconciliation bill that President Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025 (formerly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and referred to by CMS as the Working Families Tax Cuts legislation). Section 71116 limits the total payment rate for each SDP for four services: (1) inpatient hospital services, (2) outpatient hospital services, (3) nursing facility services, and (4) qualified practitioner services at academic medical centers. However, as discussed below, CMS proposes additional SDP limits beyond those set forth in section 71116 as well as limits on targeted Medicaid FFS payments. CMS states that these additional limits are intended to align the rulemaking with the June 6, 2025 Presidential Memorandum entitled Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Medicaid.
CMS frames its overarching goal in the Proposed Rule as addressing its concerns that states are utilizing Medicaid financing mechanisms like SDPs and targeted FFS payments in ways that could obscure fraud, waste, and abuse and threaten Medicaid's overall financial solvency. CMS particularly highlighted its concern with providers--instead of states--funding the non-federal share of Medicaid payments through provider taxes and intergovernmental transfers ("IGTs"). This framing, however, is in tension with the wide use of these Medicaid financing mechanisms, which allow states to maintain the stability of their Medicaid programs--one of the largest categories of general fund spending in state budgets--despite fluctuations in state general funds. Moreover, the Proposed Rule does not identify any evidence of fraudulent activities that are enabled by these financing mechanisms.
SDPs
SDPs allow states to direct specific payments to providers through Medicaid managed care plans to implement initiatives designed to improve access and quality of care for Medicaid beneficiaries. Since 2024, the total payment rate for each SDP has generally been limited to 100 percent of the average commercial rate.
Payment Limits on SDPs
The Proposed Rule would implement the cap on the total payment rate for each SDP at 100 percent of the "specified total published Medicare payment rate" in states that expanded Medicaid and 110 percent of this rate in non-expansion states and establishes a deadline of the first rating period on or after January 1, 2029. Where no Medicare rate is available, states are directed to use the Medicaid state plan base rate.
In the Proposed Rule, CMS would extend the payment limit to all services covered by SDPs and all SDPs that are not otherwise grandfathered--not just SDPs for the four services specified in section 71116 and not just SDPs that require prior written approval from CMS. The Proposed Rule also would extend the payment limit to SDPs in U.S. territories in addition to all states and D.C. The Proposed Rule's application of the payment limit to services beyond the four specified in section 71116 means that some services, like home and community based services, will be capped at the Medicaid rate, effectively wiping out any enhanced payment for these services through SDPs.
Importantly, the specified total published Medicare payment rate would be calculated at a service or discharge specific level, as opposed to an aggregate level using an upper payment limit-like approach. So, for example, inpatient discharges would be calculated based on the Medicare diagnostic related group rate including, but not limited to, payment adjustments such as the area wage index and quality adjustments--however, the Proposed Rule is silent as to others like disproportionate share hospital payments.
CMS further proposed that providers reimbursed on a cost-based methodology, like critical access hospitals, certain cancer hospitals, and freestanding children's hospitals, submit their most recent and complete Medicare cost report to serve as the basis for the applicable payment limit. CMS noted that it considered alternative methodologies for providers reimbursed on a cost-basis, including to apply the State plan approved rate or the published Medicare payment rate. CMS declined to propose either of those options because they are lower than cost-based payments, but CMS specifically requested comments on this issue.
Grandfathering of Certain SDPs
Section 71116 also established a grandfathering period to phase down the total amount of certain SDPs over time, beginning with the first rating period on or after January 1, 2028. Grandfathered SDPs are those that exceed the payment limit, and meet these three criteria:
1. The SDP requires written prior approval and is for inpatient hospital services, outpatient hospital services, nursing facility services, or qualified practitioner services at an academic medical center.
2. The SDP is for a rating period that includes any business days between October 11, 2024, through July 3, 2025, or between July 5, 2025, and March 27, 2026. These periods are 180 business days before or after the date section 71116 was enacted on July 4, 2025.
3. The state submitted a completed preprint for the SDP to CMS before July 4, 2025. The preprint must include an eligible rating period and documented total dollar amount. CMS also describes certain "statuses" that could qualify, including where written prior approval was made (or a good faith effort to receive approval was made) for SDPs other than for rural hospitals before May 1, 2025, and for rural hospital SDPs before July 4, 2025.
For grandfathered SDPs, the total payment for each SDP would be initially limited to the grandfathered total dollar amount, and this limit would decrease by 10 percentage points each year until the limit reaches either 100 or 110 percent of the specified total published Medicare payment rate, as applicable. The Proposed Rule does not specify how the 10-percentage point reduction would interact with the proposal to apply the specified total Medicare payment rate limit on a service-by-service basis, raising questions about how calculations would be made in practice. Under this proposal, phase down time will vary for SDPs depending on how far above the limit the SDP started.
CMS specifically flagged that its proposed temporary grandfathering framework would allow states to transition away from uniform increase SDPs, noting its concern that states typically fund these types of SDPs with IGTs or provider taxes.
Targeted Practitioner/Provider Payment Limits
The Proposed Rule would also cap the total Medicaid FFS payment rate (including base and supplemental payments) for practitioners and providers receiving targeted payments at the same caps established for SDPs--100 percent of Medicare rates in Medicaid expansion states and 110 percent of Medicare rates in non-expansion states, where a reasonable Medicare-equivalent payment rate exists. Payments are considered targeted when they are directed to a subset of providers otherwise furnishing the same service. For example, a targeted payment would include an add-on payment available to public, but not private, providers of ground emergency medical transportation services. Under the Proposed Rule, the cap would be applied as a provider-specific limit, as opposed to an aggregate upper payment limit. The Proposed Rule would require compliance with the caps by the start of the first State fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 2029.
Impact
If finalized, the Proposed Rule would overall reduce Medicaid payments to a broad range of health care providers that rely on this funding, amplified by other Medicaid reductions in section 71116 and expected in upcoming CMS rulemaking on provider taxes. CMS predicts that the Proposed Rule would cut Medicaid spending by about $775 billion over 10 years--a figure that is over five times larger than the savings estimated by the Congressional Budget Office based on the as-enacted language in section 71116. CMS acknowledged that hospitals would bear the brunt of these reductions, and also recognized that nursing facilities, physicians, academic medical centers, and emergency medical transportation providers would be subject to reimbursement reductions. Impacts could be seen more broadly, including at health systems and counties that rely on Medicaid supplemental payments to support their operations.
Moreover, CMS specifically highlighted its position that payments exceeding the limits imposed would be overpayments subject to the 60-day report and return requirements under section 1128J(d) of the Social Security Act.
For more information or assistance on these issues, please contact Katrina Pagonis, Lloyd Bookman, Paul Garcia, Kelly Carroll, Mark Reagan, Claire Ernst, Erin Sclar, or your regular Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, P.C. contact.
* * *
Professionals
Erin R. Sclar
Associate
San Francisco
415.875.8512
esclar@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Katrina A. Pagonis
Partner
San Francisco
Washington, D.C.
415.875.8515
kpagonis@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Lloyd A. Bookman
Founding Partner
Los Angeles
310.551.8185
lbookman@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Original text here: https://hooperlundy.com/proposed-rule-implementing-medicaid-financing-limitations-under-section-71116/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Maryland's New Immigration-Related Consumer Privacy Provisions - Key Takeaway and Action Steps for Covered Businesses
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 27 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 26, 2026:
* * *
Maryland's New Immigration-Related Consumer Privacy Provisions: Key Takeaway and Action Steps for Covered Businesses
A new Maryland law adds immigration-related consumer privacy protections that kick in on July 1, and covered businesses must prepare to comply. The changes update the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA - which just took effect on October 1), to further restrict personal data sales and disclosures to governmental units that are involved in immigration enforcement.
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, June 27 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on June 26, 2026:
* * *
Maryland's New Immigration-Related Consumer Privacy Provisions: Key Takeaway and Action Steps for Covered Businesses
A new Maryland law adds immigration-related consumer privacy protections that kick in on July 1, and covered businesses must prepare to comply. The changes update the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA - which just took effect on October 1), to further restrict personal data sales and disclosures to governmental units that are involved in immigration enforcement.What do you need to know about these new requirements and what steps you should take to prepare?
What Happened?
A Maryland bill (HB 711), which amends MODPA, became law on May 31 without the governor's signature.
Who Must Comply With MODPA?
HB 711 makes no change to who is covered. MODPA continues to apply to businesses that control or process personal data of at least 35,000 Maryland residents, or 10,000 residents if 20% of gross revenue comes from selling personal data.
What Does HB 711 Change?
Starting July 1, any covered business that qualifies as a "controller" - a person that, alone or jointly with others, determines the purpose and means of processing personal data - will be prohibited from knowingly selling the personal data of a consumer to a federal, State, or local governmental unit that, within the six months that immediately precede the sale of the personal data, has engaged in or supported civil immigration enforcement through the provision of personnel or material resources.
However, if your business receives a valid warrant issued by a federal or State court that particularly describes the personal data to be accessed, then you may cooperate with the request for disclosure. This is the only exception to the new prohibition.
What About Requests from Governmental Units That Do Not Support Civil Immigration Enforcement?
Businesses that receive disclosure requests - by subpoena or summons - from federal, State, or local governmental units may comply with those disclosure requests, so long as that federal, State, or local governmental unit has not engaged in or supported civil immigration enforcement within the six months that precede the disclosure requests.
Similarly, businesses that receive disclosure requests from law enforcement agencies may cooperate with those requests so long as that law enforcement agency has not engaged in or supported civil immigration enforcement within the six months that precede the disclosure requests.
What Should Businesses Do to Prepare?
Businesses looking to comply with HB 711 should consider taking the following steps:
* Identify the stakeholders responsible for responding to requests for disclosure of personal data, including any such individuals in your legal, privacy, sales, or law-enforcement-response teams. Train those individuals on the changes to the MODPA, including providing direction on how to verify a valid warrant.
* Inventory whether you sell, license, disclose, or otherwise provide consumer personal data to:
*
* federal agencies;
* Maryland State agencies;
* local governments;
* law-enforcement agencies;
* data brokers serving government customers; or
* contractors or vendors that resell to government entities.
* Before selling or disclosing consumer personal data to a government unit, consider implementing a diligence process that asks:
* Who is the requesting or purchasing entity?
* What is the stated purpose of the data use?
* Will the data be used for immigration enforcement?
* Has the entity engaged in or supported civil immigration enforcement in the prior six months?
* Is there a valid warrant?
* Is the request mandatory or voluntary?
* Does the request pertain solely to immigration enforcement?
* Update internal procedures for:
*
* subpoenas;
* summonses;
* civil investigative demands;
* regulatory inquiries;
* law-enforcement requests;
* informal agency requests; and
* emergency disclosure requests.
* Create a warrant review protocol to determine that a court has issued a valid warrant by verifying:
* the warrant was issued by a federal court or Maryland court;
* it is valid on its face;
* it particularly describes the personal data sought;
* the requested data falls within the warrant's scope;
* the warrant has not expired; and
* the production is limited to what the warrant authorizes.
* Consider adding or revising contractual provisions that address or restrict the use of personal data for immigration enforcement.
* Work with data privacy counsel to ensure that your organization will be able to comply with the law.
If your business receives disclosure requests from governmental units, you may want to consider taking these steps sooner rather than later. As a reminder, MODPA is enforced by the state's Division of Consumer Protection under the Attorney General, and violations are treated as unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices subject to penalties under Maryland's Consumer Protection Act. MODPA provides a 60-day cure period to controllers and processors upon receipt of a notice of a violation.
Conclusion
Businesses should prepare by tightening controls around sensitive data, government data sales, public-record-derived data, and law-enforcement requests. The most important operational change is to build a documented process for identifying when a request, sale, or disclosure may support immigration enforcement and whether a valid warrant or other exception applies, and to ensure that those responsible for responding to any requests for personal data are aware of the changes to the MODPA.
For further information, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney on our Consumer Privacy Team, or in our Privacy and Cyber Practice Group. Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor consumer privacy law developments and will provide updates as warranted, so make sure that you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Sameen (Sam) Abdullah
Of Counsel
214.220.8306
sabdullah@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Risa B. Boerner, CIPP/US, CIPM
Partner
610.230.2132
rboerner@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/marylands-new-immigration-related-consumer-privacy-provisions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dinsmore Represents 3CDC in Financing Milestone for Cincinnati Convention Headquarters Hotel
CINCINNATI, Ohio, June 27 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Represents 3CDC in Financing Milestone for Cincinnati Convention Headquarters Hotel
Dinsmore has represented Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) in connection with the financing of the new $540 million Marriott convention hotel in downtown Cincinnati, a major milestone in one of the region's most significant economic development projects.
"Dinsmore is dedicated to supporting transformative projects that create lasting economic opportunity for our communities," said
... Show Full Article
CINCINNATI, Ohio, June 27 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Represents 3CDC in Financing Milestone for Cincinnati Convention Headquarters Hotel
Dinsmore has represented Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) in connection with the financing of the new $540 million Marriott convention hotel in downtown Cincinnati, a major milestone in one of the region's most significant economic development projects.
"Dinsmore is dedicated to supporting transformative projects that create lasting economic opportunity for our communities," saidJohn Merchant, who led the firm's representation of 3CDC.
Atlanta-based Portman Holdings closed on financing for the 700-room hotel on June 23, clearing the way for construction to begin. The hotel is expected to strengthen Cincinnati's convention and tourism economy while serving as a catalyst for continued investment in the city's urban core.
Dinsmore attorneys worked cooperatively with 3CDC, the City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority throughout the transaction, advance a project years in the making. 3CDC has coordinated development of the hotel, which will complement the recently transformed convention center district and further position downtown Cincinnati as a premier destination for meetings and events.
The hotel is expected to open in late 2028 or early 2029 following approximately 30 months of construction.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dinsmore.com/news/dinsmore-represents-3cdc-in-financing-milestone-for-cincinnati-convention-headquarters-hotel/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Advises CSOB and UniCredit on the Financing of Aurelia's Acquisition of the Trimaran and City Element Office Buildings
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises CSOB and UniCredit on the financing of Aurelia's acquisition of the Trimaran and City Element office buildings
Prague--Global law firm Dentons has advised CSOB and UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia on the financing of Aurelia, a Czech real estate fund, in connection with its acquisition of the companies owning the Trimaran and City Element office buildings in Prague's Pankrac business district.
The transaction is one of the most significant real estate acquisitions on the Czech market this
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 27 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises CSOB and UniCredit on the financing of Aurelia's acquisition of the Trimaran and City Element office buildings
Prague--Global law firm Dentons has advised CSOB and UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia on the financing of Aurelia, a Czech real estate fund, in connection with its acquisition of the companies owning the Trimaran and City Element office buildings in Prague's Pankrac business district.
The transaction is one of the most significant real estate acquisitions on the Czech market thisyear. The two modern office buildings offer more than 28,000 sq m of leasable space. Both properties feature high sustainability standards, LEED Platinum certification, and are fully leased to a strong and stable tenant base.
Dentons advised the syndicate of financing banks on all legal aspects of the acquisition financing transaction.
Partner Ondrej Barton led the Dentons team, supported by Martin Fiala (Senior Associate) and Tomas Husicka (Associate). Partner Monika Kajankova and Michal Mazacek (Associate) advised on the due diligence.
"We are pleased to have been involved in this strategic acquisition and to have supported our long-standing clients in structuring and implementing the financing. The transaction reflects the continued appetite of banks to finance high-quality commercial real estate assets and underscores the attractiveness of prime office properties in the Czech market," said Ondrej Barton, Partner at Dentons.
With the acquisition of the Trimaran and City Element office buildings, Aurelia has significantly expanded its portfolio of prime office properties and nearly doubled the value of its assets under management.
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2026/june/dentons-advises-csob-and-unicredit-on-the-financing-of-aurelia-acquisition
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
