Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Three Littler Attorneys Elected as College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Fellows
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Three Littler Attorneys Elected as College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Fellows
(November 9, 2026) - Jason M. Branciforte (Washington, D.C.), A. John Harper III (Houston) and Theodora R. Lee (Dallas, Walnut Creek), shareholders at Littler, the world's largest employment and labor law practice representing management, have been selected as fellows of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (the College), joining the organization's distinguished 2026 class. The trio was formally inducted at the College's ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Three Littler Attorneys Elected as College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Fellows (November 9, 2026) - Jason M. Branciforte (Washington, D.C.), A. John Harper III (Houston) and Theodora R. Lee (Dallas, Walnut Creek), shareholders at Littler, the world's largest employment and labor law practice representing management, have been selected as fellows of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (the College), joining the organization's distinguished 2026 class. The trio was formally inducted at the College's30th Anniversary Gala and Fellows Induction Dinner in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, November 7, during the American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Conference. The milestone celebration commemorated three decades of the College's commitment to achievement, advancement and excellence in labor and employment law, while honoring distinguished leaders whose contributions have strengthened the profession.
The College is a nonprofit professional association of more than 1,000 leading practitioners in labor and employment law. Founded to promote achievement, advancement and excellence in the field, the College is dedicated to fostering professionalism, civility and the highest standards of legal practice. Through its distinguished fellowship, the organization serves as a trusted resource for guidance, knowledge and thought leadership, while advancing the quality of labor and employment legal services and supporting positive developments in the profession and the workplace.
Branciforte has more than 35 years of experience advising and representing employers on a wide range of labor and employment law matters. He provides strategic counsel to companies nationwide, with a particular focus on government contractors and issues involving the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act. Branciforte regularly represents clients before state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labor, and has extensive experience in labor relations, collective bargaining, union campaigns, arbitrations and workplace compliance matters. Branciforte earned his J.D. from Cornell University Law School and his A.B. from Georgetown University.
Harper represents employers in all aspects of labor relations and employment law. His practice includes collective bargaining, grievance and arbitration proceedings, labor agreement interpretation, union organizing campaigns and strategic labor relations counseling. Harper also advises clients on the labor and employment aspects of corporate transactions and bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, he defends employers against discrimination, retaliation and other employment-related claims, while providing guidance on compliance with federal, state and local workplace laws. Harper earned his J.D., cum laude, from Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law and his B.A., cum laude, from Washington and Lee University.
Lee has extensive experience advising and representing employers in complex labor and employment matters. She regularly litigates class actions, discrimination and harassment claims, wage and hour disputes, wrongful termination cases, and proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. As an accomplished trial lawyer, mediator and arbitrator, Lee has successfully defended employers in state and federal courts throughout California and Texas and has helped resolve numerous matters through arbitration and mediation. She also counsels employers on workplace compliance, litigation avoidance, employment policies and a broad range of labor and employment law issues. Lee earned her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and her B.A. from Spelman College.
* * *
About Littler
With more than 2,000 labor and employment attorneys in offices around the world, Littler provides workplace solutions that are local, everywhere. Our global team and proprietary technology foster a culture that celebrates original thinking, delivering groundbreaking innovation that prepares employers for what's happening today, and what's likely to happen tomorrow.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/press/press-release/three-littler-attorneys-elected-college-labor-employment-lawyers-fellows
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Three Littler Attorneys Elected as College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Fellows
(November 9, 2026) - Jason M. Branciforte (Washington, D.C.), A. John Harper III (Houston) and Theodora R. Lee (Dallas, Walnut Creek), shareholders at Littler, the world's largest employment and labor law practice representing management, have been selected as fellows of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (the College), joining the organization's distinguished 2026 class. The trio was formally inducted at the College's ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Three Littler Attorneys Elected as College of Labor & Employment Lawyers Fellows (November 9, 2026) - Jason M. Branciforte (Washington, D.C.), A. John Harper III (Houston) and Theodora R. Lee (Dallas, Walnut Creek), shareholders at Littler, the world's largest employment and labor law practice representing management, have been selected as fellows of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers (the College), joining the organization's distinguished 2026 class. The trio was formally inducted at the College's30th Anniversary Gala and Fellows Induction Dinner in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, November 7, during the American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Conference. The milestone celebration commemorated three decades of the College's commitment to achievement, advancement and excellence in labor and employment law, while honoring distinguished leaders whose contributions have strengthened the profession.
The College is a nonprofit professional association of more than 1,000 leading practitioners in labor and employment law. Founded to promote achievement, advancement and excellence in the field, the College is dedicated to fostering professionalism, civility and the highest standards of legal practice. Through its distinguished fellowship, the organization serves as a trusted resource for guidance, knowledge and thought leadership, while advancing the quality of labor and employment legal services and supporting positive developments in the profession and the workplace.
Branciforte has more than 35 years of experience advising and representing employers on a wide range of labor and employment law matters. He provides strategic counsel to companies nationwide, with a particular focus on government contractors and issues involving the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act. Branciforte regularly represents clients before state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. Department of Labor, and has extensive experience in labor relations, collective bargaining, union campaigns, arbitrations and workplace compliance matters. Branciforte earned his J.D. from Cornell University Law School and his A.B. from Georgetown University.
Harper represents employers in all aspects of labor relations and employment law. His practice includes collective bargaining, grievance and arbitration proceedings, labor agreement interpretation, union organizing campaigns and strategic labor relations counseling. Harper also advises clients on the labor and employment aspects of corporate transactions and bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, he defends employers against discrimination, retaliation and other employment-related claims, while providing guidance on compliance with federal, state and local workplace laws. Harper earned his J.D., cum laude, from Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law and his B.A., cum laude, from Washington and Lee University.
Lee has extensive experience advising and representing employers in complex labor and employment matters. She regularly litigates class actions, discrimination and harassment claims, wage and hour disputes, wrongful termination cases, and proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. As an accomplished trial lawyer, mediator and arbitrator, Lee has successfully defended employers in state and federal courts throughout California and Texas and has helped resolve numerous matters through arbitration and mediation. She also counsels employers on workplace compliance, litigation avoidance, employment policies and a broad range of labor and employment law issues. Lee earned her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law and her B.A. from Spelman College.
* * *
About Littler
With more than 2,000 labor and employment attorneys in offices around the world, Littler provides workplace solutions that are local, everywhere. Our global team and proprietary technology foster a culture that celebrates original thinking, delivering groundbreaking innovation that prepares employers for what's happening today, and what's likely to happen tomorrow.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/press/press-release/three-littler-attorneys-elected-college-labor-employment-lawyers-fellows
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: UK Supreme Court Provides Clarification on Test for Discrimination of Part-Time Workers
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
UK Supreme Court Provides Clarification on Test for Discrimination of Part-Time Workers
Part-time workers need only show their status was an effective cause of less favourable treatment, not the sole cause in test for discrimination.
By Rory Patterson
November 9, 2026
In Augustine v Data Cars Limited, the UK Supreme Court has provided a significant clarification of the test for less favourable treatment under the part-time worker regulations, confirming that a worker need only show their part-time ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * UK Supreme Court Provides Clarification on Test for Discrimination of Part-Time Workers Part-time workers need only show their status was an effective cause of less favourable treatment, not the sole cause in test for discrimination. By Rory Patterson November 9, 2026 In Augustine v Data Cars Limited, the UK Supreme Court has provided a significant clarification of the test for less favourable treatment under the part-time worker regulations, confirming that a worker need only show their part-timestatus was an effective cause of the treatment, not the sole cause.
The case is of particular note for companies with flexible working arrangements, and highlights some of the risks associated with applying blanket policies equally to part-time and full-time workers.
* * *
Legislative Background
Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 ('2000 Regulations') gives a part-time worker the right not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker. However, this right applies:
"only if -
(a) The treatment is on the ground that the worker is a part-time worker, and
(b) The treatment is not justified on objective grounds."
1. The Supreme Court's judgment grappled with the question of what the legislation means by "on the ground" in subsection (a), in particular whether it requires that:
2. The individual's part-time status must be the sole cause of their less favourable treatment, or
The individual's part-time status must be the effective cause of their less favourable treatment
The Facts
The Claimant was a taxi driver (Mr. Augustine) who worked for Data Cars Limited (the Respondent). He worked fewer hours per week than full-time drivers but was charged the same flat fee of pound sterling148 to access the Respondent's booking platform to reach potential customers. Mr. Augustine claimed that the application of the fixed fee was less favourable treatment of him as a part-time driver because it meant that he paid a higher fee per hour worked than a full-time driver and took home lower hourly pay as a result.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim for discrimination as a result of his part-time worker status. It held that the reason the company charged a fee to the booking system was that it was necessary to enable the Respondent to earn revenue (not because he worked fewer hours than some of his colleagues). Even if there was less favourable treatment, it held the claim should fail because treatment was not on the sole ground of his part-time status.
On appeal through the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal, both courts found in the Respondent's favour on the basis that they understood they were bound by previous case law in Scotland which had held that Regulation 5 of the 2000 Regulations only applies where the sole ground for the less favourable treatment was that the worker was part-time. They agreed with the Employment Tribunal's finding that Mr Augustine's part-time status was not the sole ground for the treatment complained of and so his appeal failed.
However, the matter was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court for consideration of what the causation test required.
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the same standard should be used as that set out in cases of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, i.e. that if their part-time status was the effective cause of the treatment, that would meet the test. Their part-time status need not be the sole cause of the treatment for the worker to have the protection under the legislation. They considered that this interpretation was consistent with the language of the 2000 Regulations and their protective purpose. To hold otherwise, they said, would risk uncertainty and unreasonable outcomes given the standard approach applied in other discrimination cases.
Impacts for Employers
This decision may make it more difficult for employers to rely on there being additional, non-part time related causes for less favourable treatment to defeat a claim. In this sense, there is a lower threshold for claims and liability may arise in a wider range of circumstances where there are mixed motives for particular treatment.
It is worth noting, however, that other reasons for particular treatment outside an individual's part-time status may still be relevant to the second question of whether the employer's treatment is justified on objective grounds, and to the value of compensation awarded.
Practically, employers should be considering the following when managing arrangements that may impact part-time workers:
* Exercise caution when making decisions that may disadvantage part-time workers: For example, decisions relating to bonuses, overtime opportunities, training, promotion, shift allocation and flexible working arrangements. Even where there are multiple reasons for a decision, a claim may arise if a part-time worker considers they were treated less favourably and their part-time status was a material factor.
* Improve decision-making records: Managers should document the rationale behind decisions affecting employees and be able to demonstrate that any differential treatment is based on legitimate business reasons, rather than working patterns. Business rationales relating to operational, financial or technical reasons will be relevant to the question of objective justification and so contemporaneous evidence of decision-making will be key.
* Review workplace benefits and policies to ensure they are pro-rated where appropriate: Employers should be cautious about providing benefits, bonuses, and other contractual entitlements on a flat basis for employees, where such rules bite harder on part-time workers. Where a benefit can reasonably be provided on a pro-rated basis, this should be considered to mitigate the risk of claims.
* * *
Authors
Rory Patterson
Associate
London
rpatterson@littler.co.uk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-supreme-court-provides-clarification-test-discrimination-part-time-workers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
UK Supreme Court Provides Clarification on Test for Discrimination of Part-Time Workers
Part-time workers need only show their status was an effective cause of less favourable treatment, not the sole cause in test for discrimination.
By Rory Patterson
November 9, 2026
In Augustine v Data Cars Limited, the UK Supreme Court has provided a significant clarification of the test for less favourable treatment under the part-time worker regulations, confirming that a worker need only show their part-time ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * UK Supreme Court Provides Clarification on Test for Discrimination of Part-Time Workers Part-time workers need only show their status was an effective cause of less favourable treatment, not the sole cause in test for discrimination. By Rory Patterson November 9, 2026 In Augustine v Data Cars Limited, the UK Supreme Court has provided a significant clarification of the test for less favourable treatment under the part-time worker regulations, confirming that a worker need only show their part-timestatus was an effective cause of the treatment, not the sole cause.
The case is of particular note for companies with flexible working arrangements, and highlights some of the risks associated with applying blanket policies equally to part-time and full-time workers.
* * *
Legislative Background
Regulation 5 of the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 ('2000 Regulations') gives a part-time worker the right not to be treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker. However, this right applies:
"only if -
(a) The treatment is on the ground that the worker is a part-time worker, and
(b) The treatment is not justified on objective grounds."
1. The Supreme Court's judgment grappled with the question of what the legislation means by "on the ground" in subsection (a), in particular whether it requires that:
2. The individual's part-time status must be the sole cause of their less favourable treatment, or
The individual's part-time status must be the effective cause of their less favourable treatment
The Facts
The Claimant was a taxi driver (Mr. Augustine) who worked for Data Cars Limited (the Respondent). He worked fewer hours per week than full-time drivers but was charged the same flat fee of pound sterling148 to access the Respondent's booking platform to reach potential customers. Mr. Augustine claimed that the application of the fixed fee was less favourable treatment of him as a part-time driver because it meant that he paid a higher fee per hour worked than a full-time driver and took home lower hourly pay as a result.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim for discrimination as a result of his part-time worker status. It held that the reason the company charged a fee to the booking system was that it was necessary to enable the Respondent to earn revenue (not because he worked fewer hours than some of his colleagues). Even if there was less favourable treatment, it held the claim should fail because treatment was not on the sole ground of his part-time status.
On appeal through the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal, both courts found in the Respondent's favour on the basis that they understood they were bound by previous case law in Scotland which had held that Regulation 5 of the 2000 Regulations only applies where the sole ground for the less favourable treatment was that the worker was part-time. They agreed with the Employment Tribunal's finding that Mr Augustine's part-time status was not the sole ground for the treatment complained of and so his appeal failed.
However, the matter was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court for consideration of what the causation test required.
The Decision
The Supreme Court held that the same standard should be used as that set out in cases of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, i.e. that if their part-time status was the effective cause of the treatment, that would meet the test. Their part-time status need not be the sole cause of the treatment for the worker to have the protection under the legislation. They considered that this interpretation was consistent with the language of the 2000 Regulations and their protective purpose. To hold otherwise, they said, would risk uncertainty and unreasonable outcomes given the standard approach applied in other discrimination cases.
Impacts for Employers
This decision may make it more difficult for employers to rely on there being additional, non-part time related causes for less favourable treatment to defeat a claim. In this sense, there is a lower threshold for claims and liability may arise in a wider range of circumstances where there are mixed motives for particular treatment.
It is worth noting, however, that other reasons for particular treatment outside an individual's part-time status may still be relevant to the second question of whether the employer's treatment is justified on objective grounds, and to the value of compensation awarded.
Practically, employers should be considering the following when managing arrangements that may impact part-time workers:
* Exercise caution when making decisions that may disadvantage part-time workers: For example, decisions relating to bonuses, overtime opportunities, training, promotion, shift allocation and flexible working arrangements. Even where there are multiple reasons for a decision, a claim may arise if a part-time worker considers they were treated less favourably and their part-time status was a material factor.
* Improve decision-making records: Managers should document the rationale behind decisions affecting employees and be able to demonstrate that any differential treatment is based on legitimate business reasons, rather than working patterns. Business rationales relating to operational, financial or technical reasons will be relevant to the question of objective justification and so contemporaneous evidence of decision-making will be key.
* Review workplace benefits and policies to ensure they are pro-rated where appropriate: Employers should be cautious about providing benefits, bonuses, and other contractual entitlements on a flat basis for employees, where such rules bite harder on part-time workers. Where a benefit can reasonably be provided on a pro-rated basis, this should be considered to mitigate the risk of claims.
* * *
Authors
Rory Patterson
Associate
London
rpatterson@littler.co.uk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/uk-supreme-court-provides-clarification-test-discrimination-part-time-workers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: Considerations When Using AI to Draft and Review Employee Handbooks and Policies
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Considerations When Using AI to Draft and Review Employee Handbooks and Policies
By Greg Tumolo, Jill Lowell, Christina Cordoza, Goldie Davidoff, and Abby Giarrusso
November 9, 2026
At a Glance
* AI can help employers draft and update workplace policies, but it should remain a supporting tool rather than a substitute for experienced employment counsel.
* Legal review is especially important where employers face multiple jurisdictions, complex workforce arrangements, industry-specific requirements, ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Considerations When Using AI to Draft and Review Employee Handbooks and Policies By Greg Tumolo, Jill Lowell, Christina Cordoza, Goldie Davidoff, and Abby Giarrusso November 9, 2026 At a Glance * AI can help employers draft and update workplace policies, but it should remain a supporting tool rather than a substitute for experienced employment counsel. * Legal review is especially important where employers face multiple jurisdictions, complex workforce arrangements, industry-specific requirements,union considerations, or heightened litigation exposure.
-
Artificial intelligence has rapidly transformed the way employers approach workplace compliance. A growing number of vendors offer AI-powered handbook and policy platforms that promise automatic updates, multi-jurisdictional compliance, and real-time policy revisions. At the same time, many human resources professionals are turning to general purpose (i.e., non-enterprise) AI tools to draft new policies, revise existing handbook provisions, and answer workplace compliance questions.
But employers should be cautious about viewing AI as a substitute for attorney drafting and review. Employee handbooks and workplace policies are among the most legally significant documents that an employer maintains. A seemingly minor change in wording can affect employee relations, legal compliance, and the employer's ability to defend employment decisions in litigation. These concerns become even more acute for employers that operate in multiple jurisdictions, maintain complex leave programs, have unionized workforces, or face industry-specific legal requirements.
The following are some of the hidden risks in documents drafted or reviewed by AI:
1. Automated Legal Interpretation Carries Risk
AI-powered handbook platforms necessarily rely on automated systems to interpret new statutes, regulations, agency guidance, and court decisions. While some vendors devote substantial resources to legal monitoring, any compliance platform is only as reliable as its interpretation of the law.
If a legal requirement is misunderstood, applied too broadly, or implemented incorrectly, that error may be incorporated into multiple policies simultaneously. Because employment laws often contain exceptions, limitations, phase-in periods, employer-size thresholds, and industry-specific rules, automated systems may struggle to account for these nuances.
For example, a legal update affecting only a subset of employers or employees may be translated into policy language that appears broadly applicable to all employers or all employees. Similarly, a jurisdiction-specific requirement may inadvertently be generalized across an entire employee handbook. For example, AI may interpret a legal requirement as applicable to all private employers when, in fact, the requirement applies more narrowly.
The result may be policies that are technically inaccurate, internally inconsistent, or impose unnecessary compliance burdens and expense on employers.
2. Potential for Inaccurate or Premature Legal Conclusions
Employment law evolves rapidly. Proposed legislation is introduced and abandoned. Administrative guidance changes (often with little to no fanfare). Agency interpretations are challenged in court. Judicial decisions are stayed on appeal.
AI systems do not always distinguish clearly between enacted law, proposed legislation, pending regulations, agency guidance, and legal predictions. As a result, employers may receive recommendations for policy updates based on legal developments that have not yet become effective, may never become effective, or whose future remains uncertain.
This risk is particularly pronounced when employers rely on general-purpose AI tools to answer compliance questions. These tools may confidently present legal conclusions without identifying the procedural status of the underlying authority or the unresolved legal issues surrounding it. When pressed, many of these AI tools will confess that their original conclusion was mistaken and will apologize to the user.
Before implementing handbook and policy revisions, employers should confirm with human legal counsel that changes are based on enacted, effective and relevant legal requirements rather than anticipated legal developments that may never come to pass.
3. Lack of Informed Judgment
One of the most significant limitations of AI-generated policy drafting and review is that compliance and risk management are not always the same thing.
Legal counsel typically evaluate handbook and policy language through multiple lenses. In addition to analyzing statutes and regulations, they consider litigation trends, changing administrative agency positions, recent settlements, judicial interpretations, and practical enforcement realities.
As a result, attorneys often recommend policy language designed not merely to satisfy minimum legal requirements, but also to reduce the likelihood of future disputes.
AI systems lack this broader judgment. They tend to focus on what the law expressly requires rather than how policy language may be interpreted by plaintiffs' counsel, judges, juries, arbitrators, investigators, or government agencies. There is little to no consideration of the client's risk tolerance. Consequently, a policy may appear legally compliant while still creating avoidable litigation exposure.
A handbook platform may be able to identify a statutory requirement. It typically cannot replicate the practical insights and perspective that employment counsel have gained through years of advising employers, litigating claims, evaluating judicial trends, negotiating settlements, and responding to agency enforcement activity.
4. Limited Customization for Employer-Specific Risk Tolerance
There is rarely a single legally correct way to draft an employee handbook policy.
The appropriate language often depends on the employer's industry, workforce composition, operational needs, prior claims history, workplace culture, management philosophy, labor relations considerations, and overall tolerance for risk.
For example, two employers may face identical legal obligations but choose dramatically different approaches to attendance management, leave administration, workplace investigations, remote work, employee communications, or disciplinary procedures.
Most AI platforms are designed to generate language that is broadly applicable across numerous employers. Consequently, they may not adequately account for employer-specific circumstances or strategic objectives. What may be appropriate for a small employer operating in a single state may be inappropriate for a large multi-state employer facing a complex patchwork of legal obligations.
5. Generic AI Drafting Often Produces Generic Policies
Unlike dedicated compliance platforms, general purpose AI tools generally do not have access to an employer's specific legal obligations, geographic footprint, workforce characteristics, collective bargaining relationships, operational practices and procedures, or strategic business objectives. As a result, the policies they generate are often generic, overly simplified, or missing important qualifications.
Moreover, the quality of AI-generated handbook language is heavily dependent on the quality of the user's prompt. If a user instructs the system to create a "simple," "streamlined," or "easy-to-read" handbook or policy, the resulting document may omit important legal caveats, procedural safeguards, or risk-management language.
Even sophisticated prompts cannot eliminate all risk. Users often do not know what information is legally significant to include in a prompt and, therefore, may fail to provide critical context to the AI that would materially affect the output.
6. Inconsistency Across Longer Handbook Drafting Projects
Another challenge associated with general purpose AI tools is maintaining consistency across lengthy handbook drafting projects.
AI-generated content often begins with detailed, comprehensive policies but becomes progressively shorter or less nuanced as additional policies are drafted. The result can be a handbook that lacks consistency in style, depth, and legal sophistication.
Employers may end up with robust and carefully worded policies in one section of the handbook, while later sections omit important details, definitions, exceptions, or disclaimers. These inconsistencies may not be apparent until the handbook is reviewed as a whole.
Because employment policies often interact with one another, inconsistencies between provisions can create confusion for managers, employees, and even courts evaluating the handbook in litigation.
7. AI Cannot Reliably Identify What Is Missing
One of the most frequently overlooked limitations of AI-generated handbook and policy drafting is its inability to reliably identify issues that have not been specifically presented to it.
An annual handbook review is not simply an exercise in revising a client's existing language. It often requires issue spotting to identify missing policies, recognizing employer-specific obligations, identifying inconsistencies across policies, and understanding how multiple legal requirements intersect. A client may request review of a leave policy only to discover related concerns involving attendance practices, handling of leave and accommodation situations, or non-compliance with wage and hour requirements.
AI systems generally respond to the information they are given. They are far less effective at identifying unseen risks, contextual issues, or compliance gaps that have not been expressly raised or that exist outside the employer's handbook.
The Bottom Line
Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly valuable tool for employers and human resources professionals. At the same time, employers and human resources professionals should be thoughtful in their approach and not treat AI-generated policies as a final work product. Employee handbooks represent a significant source of legal risk, and errors in policy language may have consequences that extend well beyond technical compliance.
While AI tools are becoming increasingly powerful, they simply cannot replace the informed legal judgment and acumen that experienced employment counsel bring to the handbook drafting or review process. For employers facing multi-state compliance obligations, complex workforce issues, industry-specific requirements, union considerations, or heightened litigation exposure, involvement of a human attorney remains a prudent component of effective employment law risk management.
* * *
Authors
Gregory Tumolo
Shareholder
Providence
gtumolo@littler.com
* * *
Jill Marie Lowell
Shareholder
Rochester
jlowell@littler.com
* * *
Christina G. Cordoza
Shareholder
Walnut Creek
ccordoza@littler.com
* * *
Goldie Davidoff
Shareholder
Seattle
gdavidoff@littler.com
* * *
Abigail L. Giarrusso
Of Counsel
Rochester
agiarrusso@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/considerations-when-using-ai-draft-and-review-employee-handbooks-and-policies
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Considerations When Using AI to Draft and Review Employee Handbooks and Policies
By Greg Tumolo, Jill Lowell, Christina Cordoza, Goldie Davidoff, and Abby Giarrusso
November 9, 2026
At a Glance
* AI can help employers draft and update workplace policies, but it should remain a supporting tool rather than a substitute for experienced employment counsel.
* Legal review is especially important where employers face multiple jurisdictions, complex workforce arrangements, industry-specific requirements, ... Show Full Article SAN FRANCISCO, California, Nov. 10 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Considerations When Using AI to Draft and Review Employee Handbooks and Policies By Greg Tumolo, Jill Lowell, Christina Cordoza, Goldie Davidoff, and Abby Giarrusso November 9, 2026 At a Glance * AI can help employers draft and update workplace policies, but it should remain a supporting tool rather than a substitute for experienced employment counsel. * Legal review is especially important where employers face multiple jurisdictions, complex workforce arrangements, industry-specific requirements,union considerations, or heightened litigation exposure.
-
Artificial intelligence has rapidly transformed the way employers approach workplace compliance. A growing number of vendors offer AI-powered handbook and policy platforms that promise automatic updates, multi-jurisdictional compliance, and real-time policy revisions. At the same time, many human resources professionals are turning to general purpose (i.e., non-enterprise) AI tools to draft new policies, revise existing handbook provisions, and answer workplace compliance questions.
But employers should be cautious about viewing AI as a substitute for attorney drafting and review. Employee handbooks and workplace policies are among the most legally significant documents that an employer maintains. A seemingly minor change in wording can affect employee relations, legal compliance, and the employer's ability to defend employment decisions in litigation. These concerns become even more acute for employers that operate in multiple jurisdictions, maintain complex leave programs, have unionized workforces, or face industry-specific legal requirements.
The following are some of the hidden risks in documents drafted or reviewed by AI:
1. Automated Legal Interpretation Carries Risk
AI-powered handbook platforms necessarily rely on automated systems to interpret new statutes, regulations, agency guidance, and court decisions. While some vendors devote substantial resources to legal monitoring, any compliance platform is only as reliable as its interpretation of the law.
If a legal requirement is misunderstood, applied too broadly, or implemented incorrectly, that error may be incorporated into multiple policies simultaneously. Because employment laws often contain exceptions, limitations, phase-in periods, employer-size thresholds, and industry-specific rules, automated systems may struggle to account for these nuances.
For example, a legal update affecting only a subset of employers or employees may be translated into policy language that appears broadly applicable to all employers or all employees. Similarly, a jurisdiction-specific requirement may inadvertently be generalized across an entire employee handbook. For example, AI may interpret a legal requirement as applicable to all private employers when, in fact, the requirement applies more narrowly.
The result may be policies that are technically inaccurate, internally inconsistent, or impose unnecessary compliance burdens and expense on employers.
2. Potential for Inaccurate or Premature Legal Conclusions
Employment law evolves rapidly. Proposed legislation is introduced and abandoned. Administrative guidance changes (often with little to no fanfare). Agency interpretations are challenged in court. Judicial decisions are stayed on appeal.
AI systems do not always distinguish clearly between enacted law, proposed legislation, pending regulations, agency guidance, and legal predictions. As a result, employers may receive recommendations for policy updates based on legal developments that have not yet become effective, may never become effective, or whose future remains uncertain.
This risk is particularly pronounced when employers rely on general-purpose AI tools to answer compliance questions. These tools may confidently present legal conclusions without identifying the procedural status of the underlying authority or the unresolved legal issues surrounding it. When pressed, many of these AI tools will confess that their original conclusion was mistaken and will apologize to the user.
Before implementing handbook and policy revisions, employers should confirm with human legal counsel that changes are based on enacted, effective and relevant legal requirements rather than anticipated legal developments that may never come to pass.
3. Lack of Informed Judgment
One of the most significant limitations of AI-generated policy drafting and review is that compliance and risk management are not always the same thing.
Legal counsel typically evaluate handbook and policy language through multiple lenses. In addition to analyzing statutes and regulations, they consider litigation trends, changing administrative agency positions, recent settlements, judicial interpretations, and practical enforcement realities.
As a result, attorneys often recommend policy language designed not merely to satisfy minimum legal requirements, but also to reduce the likelihood of future disputes.
AI systems lack this broader judgment. They tend to focus on what the law expressly requires rather than how policy language may be interpreted by plaintiffs' counsel, judges, juries, arbitrators, investigators, or government agencies. There is little to no consideration of the client's risk tolerance. Consequently, a policy may appear legally compliant while still creating avoidable litigation exposure.
A handbook platform may be able to identify a statutory requirement. It typically cannot replicate the practical insights and perspective that employment counsel have gained through years of advising employers, litigating claims, evaluating judicial trends, negotiating settlements, and responding to agency enforcement activity.
4. Limited Customization for Employer-Specific Risk Tolerance
There is rarely a single legally correct way to draft an employee handbook policy.
The appropriate language often depends on the employer's industry, workforce composition, operational needs, prior claims history, workplace culture, management philosophy, labor relations considerations, and overall tolerance for risk.
For example, two employers may face identical legal obligations but choose dramatically different approaches to attendance management, leave administration, workplace investigations, remote work, employee communications, or disciplinary procedures.
Most AI platforms are designed to generate language that is broadly applicable across numerous employers. Consequently, they may not adequately account for employer-specific circumstances or strategic objectives. What may be appropriate for a small employer operating in a single state may be inappropriate for a large multi-state employer facing a complex patchwork of legal obligations.
5. Generic AI Drafting Often Produces Generic Policies
Unlike dedicated compliance platforms, general purpose AI tools generally do not have access to an employer's specific legal obligations, geographic footprint, workforce characteristics, collective bargaining relationships, operational practices and procedures, or strategic business objectives. As a result, the policies they generate are often generic, overly simplified, or missing important qualifications.
Moreover, the quality of AI-generated handbook language is heavily dependent on the quality of the user's prompt. If a user instructs the system to create a "simple," "streamlined," or "easy-to-read" handbook or policy, the resulting document may omit important legal caveats, procedural safeguards, or risk-management language.
Even sophisticated prompts cannot eliminate all risk. Users often do not know what information is legally significant to include in a prompt and, therefore, may fail to provide critical context to the AI that would materially affect the output.
6. Inconsistency Across Longer Handbook Drafting Projects
Another challenge associated with general purpose AI tools is maintaining consistency across lengthy handbook drafting projects.
AI-generated content often begins with detailed, comprehensive policies but becomes progressively shorter or less nuanced as additional policies are drafted. The result can be a handbook that lacks consistency in style, depth, and legal sophistication.
Employers may end up with robust and carefully worded policies in one section of the handbook, while later sections omit important details, definitions, exceptions, or disclaimers. These inconsistencies may not be apparent until the handbook is reviewed as a whole.
Because employment policies often interact with one another, inconsistencies between provisions can create confusion for managers, employees, and even courts evaluating the handbook in litigation.
7. AI Cannot Reliably Identify What Is Missing
One of the most frequently overlooked limitations of AI-generated handbook and policy drafting is its inability to reliably identify issues that have not been specifically presented to it.
An annual handbook review is not simply an exercise in revising a client's existing language. It often requires issue spotting to identify missing policies, recognizing employer-specific obligations, identifying inconsistencies across policies, and understanding how multiple legal requirements intersect. A client may request review of a leave policy only to discover related concerns involving attendance practices, handling of leave and accommodation situations, or non-compliance with wage and hour requirements.
AI systems generally respond to the information they are given. They are far less effective at identifying unseen risks, contextual issues, or compliance gaps that have not been expressly raised or that exist outside the employer's handbook.
The Bottom Line
Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly valuable tool for employers and human resources professionals. At the same time, employers and human resources professionals should be thoughtful in their approach and not treat AI-generated policies as a final work product. Employee handbooks represent a significant source of legal risk, and errors in policy language may have consequences that extend well beyond technical compliance.
While AI tools are becoming increasingly powerful, they simply cannot replace the informed legal judgment and acumen that experienced employment counsel bring to the handbook drafting or review process. For employers facing multi-state compliance obligations, complex workforce issues, industry-specific requirements, union considerations, or heightened litigation exposure, involvement of a human attorney remains a prudent component of effective employment law risk management.
* * *
Authors
Gregory Tumolo
Shareholder
Providence
gtumolo@littler.com
* * *
Jill Marie Lowell
Shareholder
Rochester
jlowell@littler.com
* * *
Christina G. Cordoza
Shareholder
Walnut Creek
ccordoza@littler.com
* * *
Goldie Davidoff
Shareholder
Seattle
gdavidoff@littler.com
* * *
Abigail L. Giarrusso
Of Counsel
Rochester
agiarrusso@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/considerations-when-using-ai-draft-and-review-employee-handbooks-and-policies
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Advises Meiban Group on the Acquisition of Planet Innovation
NEW YORK, Nov. 10 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises Meiban Group on the acquisition of Planet Innovation
9 Nov 2026
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has advised Meiban Group (Meiban) on its acquisition of Planet Innovation by way of scheme of arrangement.
Meiban is a global contract development and manufacturing organisation offering a comprehensive range of product development and advanced manufacturing capabilities. Meiban has global operations throughout Asia, the United States, Europe and ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 10 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises Meiban Group on the acquisition of Planet Innovation 9 Nov 2026 Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has advised Meiban Group (Meiban) on its acquisition of Planet Innovation by way of scheme of arrangement. Meiban is a global contract development and manufacturing organisation offering a comprehensive range of product development and advanced manufacturing capabilities. Meiban has global operations throughout Asia, the United States, Europe andAustralia with facilities across Singapore and Malaysia, specialising in high-volume, precision manufacturing for the medtech sector.
Founded in Melbourne, Planet Innovation is a medtech product development company, partnering with medtech companies globally to design, develop and manufacture regulated medical devices in its facilities in Australia and the United States.
The transaction follows a strategic alliance announced by the companies in 2025, where Meiban acquired an initial ~19.9% stake in Planet Innovation. The transaction will enable the two parties to combine their complementary businesses into an integrated contract development and manufacturing organisation serving the global medtech sector.
The HSF Kramer team was led by partner Jason Jordan and senior associate Damien Devnarain, with support from solicitors Sandra Nguyen and Rosalind Wei.
Jason said, "It was a pleasure to work with the Meiban team on this transaction, supporting its entry into the Australian market and its broader vision to improve lives through the products both organisations help bring to market."
This transaction is another example of HSF Kramer's market-leading work in M&A. Other recent examples include advising:
* FleetPartners on its proposed acquisition by SG Fleet for $1.13 billion
* Reliance Worldwide Corporation on its $3.6 billion proposed acquisition by Brookfield
* Ramsay Health Care on its proposal to separate from Ramsay Generale de Sante by in specie distribution under a scheme of arrangement
* Black Kite Partners on the successful completion of its acquisition of 13SICK, DoctorDoctor, 24-7Medcare and Australian Surgical Assisting
* Energy Fuels on its proposed scrip for scrip acquisition of Australian Strategic Materials by scheme of arrangement
* Maas Group Holdings on its proposed sale of its Construction Materials business to Heidelberg Materials for $1.7 billion
* Equity Trustees on its response to control proposals by TPG and BGH
* GIC on the acquisition in consortium with Brookfield of National Storage REIT
* BlueScope Steel on its response to the unsolicited offer from SGH Limited and Steel Dynamics to acquire BlueScope Steel
* EQT on its acquisition of Orikan
* Ampol on its $1.165 billion acquisition of EG Australia
* * *
URL: Meiban Group
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-11/hsf-kramer-advises-meiban-group-acquisition-planet-innovation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises Meiban Group on the acquisition of Planet Innovation
9 Nov 2026
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has advised Meiban Group (Meiban) on its acquisition of Planet Innovation by way of scheme of arrangement.
Meiban is a global contract development and manufacturing organisation offering a comprehensive range of product development and advanced manufacturing capabilities. Meiban has global operations throughout Asia, the United States, Europe and ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Nov. 10 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises Meiban Group on the acquisition of Planet Innovation 9 Nov 2026 Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (HSF Kramer) has advised Meiban Group (Meiban) on its acquisition of Planet Innovation by way of scheme of arrangement. Meiban is a global contract development and manufacturing organisation offering a comprehensive range of product development and advanced manufacturing capabilities. Meiban has global operations throughout Asia, the United States, Europe andAustralia with facilities across Singapore and Malaysia, specialising in high-volume, precision manufacturing for the medtech sector.
Founded in Melbourne, Planet Innovation is a medtech product development company, partnering with medtech companies globally to design, develop and manufacture regulated medical devices in its facilities in Australia and the United States.
The transaction follows a strategic alliance announced by the companies in 2025, where Meiban acquired an initial ~19.9% stake in Planet Innovation. The transaction will enable the two parties to combine their complementary businesses into an integrated contract development and manufacturing organisation serving the global medtech sector.
The HSF Kramer team was led by partner Jason Jordan and senior associate Damien Devnarain, with support from solicitors Sandra Nguyen and Rosalind Wei.
Jason said, "It was a pleasure to work with the Meiban team on this transaction, supporting its entry into the Australian market and its broader vision to improve lives through the products both organisations help bring to market."
This transaction is another example of HSF Kramer's market-leading work in M&A. Other recent examples include advising:
* FleetPartners on its proposed acquisition by SG Fleet for $1.13 billion
* Reliance Worldwide Corporation on its $3.6 billion proposed acquisition by Brookfield
* Ramsay Health Care on its proposal to separate from Ramsay Generale de Sante by in specie distribution under a scheme of arrangement
* Black Kite Partners on the successful completion of its acquisition of 13SICK, DoctorDoctor, 24-7Medcare and Australian Surgical Assisting
* Energy Fuels on its proposed scrip for scrip acquisition of Australian Strategic Materials by scheme of arrangement
* Maas Group Holdings on its proposed sale of its Construction Materials business to Heidelberg Materials for $1.7 billion
* Equity Trustees on its response to control proposals by TPG and BGH
* GIC on the acquisition in consortium with Brookfield of National Storage REIT
* BlueScope Steel on its response to the unsolicited offer from SGH Limited and Steel Dynamics to acquire BlueScope Steel
* EQT on its acquisition of Orikan
* Ampol on its $1.165 billion acquisition of EG Australia
* * *
URL: Meiban Group
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-11/hsf-kramer-advises-meiban-group-acquisition-planet-innovation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Global Restructuring Review Recognizes Squire Patton Boggs in GRR 100 2026
TYSONS, Virginia, Nov. 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Global Restructuring Review Recognizes Squire Patton Boggs in GRR 100 2026
9 November 2026
Global Restructuring Review (GRR), the only news and analysis service focused on cross-border restructuring and insolvency law, has once again recognized Squire Patton Boggs among the world's leading law firms for restructuring and insolvency matters in its prestigious GRR 100.
In its profile, GRR recognized Squire Patton Boggs for "managing complex, multi-jurisdictional restructurings ... Show Full Article TYSONS, Virginia, Nov. 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, posted the following news: * * * Global Restructuring Review Recognizes Squire Patton Boggs in GRR 100 2026 9 November 2026 Global Restructuring Review (GRR), the only news and analysis service focused on cross-border restructuring and insolvency law, has once again recognized Squire Patton Boggs among the world's leading law firms for restructuring and insolvency matters in its prestigious GRR 100. In its profile, GRR recognized Squire Patton Boggs for "managing complex, multi-jurisdictional restructuringsand contentious insolvency matters" and highlighted the firm's global platform, noting that its restructuring lawyers are "based across 11 offices in the US, UK and France, while the wider practice handles mandates across Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and Latin America."
New senior hires into the practice were also highlighted, including New York partners Katherine Catanese and Oksana Lashko and UK partner Deborah Brown.
The publication also highlighted a number of significant matters handled by the firm during the research period, including:
* Representing Deutsche Bank in negotiating amendments to transaction documents and managing the required consent process. When issuer Kleopatra subsequently entered Chapter 11, the firm negotiated protections for the bank, including in connection with bankruptcy financing.
* Representing the joint liquidators of the Touradji Funds, Cayman Islands-based hedge funds, in Chapter 15 proceedings in New York to recover US assets, including US$60 million held by a bank. The firm also assists in challenging indemnification claims exceeding US$100 million by fund manager Paul Touradji in related Cayman proceedings.
* Advising BDO's administrators of Tailormade Logistics UK, an ecommerce and logistics operator providing transport services, on the administration, including debtor claims and its cross-border distribution network.
* Defending City Squared Property and its directors against claims assigned by Guide Education's liquidator to Manolete Partners.
The GRR 100 is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative benchmarks of excellence in the global restructuring and insolvency market. Selection is based on extensive independent research assessing firms' expertise, the complexity of their matters, the quality and depth of their teams, and their performance in major cross-border engagements.
Squire Patton Boggs maintains one of the largest global restructuring and insolvency practices in the legal industry, with more than 130 lawyers across 36 offices in 15 countries collaborating on domestic and cross-border matters. Over the past decade, the team has represented parties in insolvency proceedings spanning more than two dozen countries worldwide.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/news/global-restructuring-review-recognizes-squire-patton-boggs-in-grr-100-2026/
* * *
Global Restructuring Review Recognizes Squire Patton Boggs in GRR 100 2026
9 November 2026
Global Restructuring Review (GRR), the only news and analysis service focused on cross-border restructuring and insolvency law, has once again recognized Squire Patton Boggs among the world's leading law firms for restructuring and insolvency matters in its prestigious GRR 100.
In its profile, GRR recognized Squire Patton Boggs for "managing complex, multi-jurisdictional restructurings ... Show Full Article TYSONS, Virginia, Nov. 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Squire Patton Boggs, a law firm, posted the following news: * * * Global Restructuring Review Recognizes Squire Patton Boggs in GRR 100 2026 9 November 2026 Global Restructuring Review (GRR), the only news and analysis service focused on cross-border restructuring and insolvency law, has once again recognized Squire Patton Boggs among the world's leading law firms for restructuring and insolvency matters in its prestigious GRR 100. In its profile, GRR recognized Squire Patton Boggs for "managing complex, multi-jurisdictional restructuringsand contentious insolvency matters" and highlighted the firm's global platform, noting that its restructuring lawyers are "based across 11 offices in the US, UK and France, while the wider practice handles mandates across Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and Latin America."
New senior hires into the practice were also highlighted, including New York partners Katherine Catanese and Oksana Lashko and UK partner Deborah Brown.
The publication also highlighted a number of significant matters handled by the firm during the research period, including:
* Representing Deutsche Bank in negotiating amendments to transaction documents and managing the required consent process. When issuer Kleopatra subsequently entered Chapter 11, the firm negotiated protections for the bank, including in connection with bankruptcy financing.
* Representing the joint liquidators of the Touradji Funds, Cayman Islands-based hedge funds, in Chapter 15 proceedings in New York to recover US assets, including US$60 million held by a bank. The firm also assists in challenging indemnification claims exceeding US$100 million by fund manager Paul Touradji in related Cayman proceedings.
* Advising BDO's administrators of Tailormade Logistics UK, an ecommerce and logistics operator providing transport services, on the administration, including debtor claims and its cross-border distribution network.
* Defending City Squared Property and its directors against claims assigned by Guide Education's liquidator to Manolete Partners.
The GRR 100 is widely regarded as one of the most authoritative benchmarks of excellence in the global restructuring and insolvency market. Selection is based on extensive independent research assessing firms' expertise, the complexity of their matters, the quality and depth of their teams, and their performance in major cross-border engagements.
Squire Patton Boggs maintains one of the largest global restructuring and insolvency practices in the legal industry, with more than 130 lawyers across 36 offices in 15 countries collaborating on domestic and cross-border matters. Over the past decade, the team has represented parties in insolvency proceedings spanning more than two dozen countries worldwide.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/news/global-restructuring-review-recognizes-squire-patton-boggs-in-grr-100-2026/
Clark Hill: October 2026 Outbound Immigration and Global Mobility Recap | APAC
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Nov. 10 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
October 2026 Outbound Immigration and Global Mobility Recap | APAC
November 9, 2026
Author
Lisa Atkins
Also Authored by Melvin Ng and Riduan Fattah
Clark Hill's Outbound Immigration & Global Mobility practice guides corporate clients and individuals through complex global immigration challenges worldwide. We pride ourselves on creative, compliant, and people-centered solutions - looking at global mobility from a holistic perspective in an ever-changing immigration environment. Our team assists with ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Nov. 10 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * October 2026 Outbound Immigration and Global Mobility Recap | APAC November 9, 2026 Author Lisa Atkins Also Authored by Melvin Ng and Riduan Fattah Clark Hill's Outbound Immigration & Global Mobility practice guides corporate clients and individuals through complex global immigration challenges worldwide. We pride ourselves on creative, compliant, and people-centered solutions - looking at global mobility from a holistic perspective in an ever-changing immigration environment. Our team assists withshort-term assignments, long-term relocations, consular processing, document procurement, document legalizations/apostilles, and business visas in 100+ countries worldwide.
Below is an overview of the major updates from October 2026 in the Asia-Pacific region.
APAC:
Australia:
Changes to Training (subclass 407) Visa Application Criteria
Under the new provisions, which come into effect on November 12, 2026, an application for a Training (subclass 407) visa cannot be made while the applicant is in Australia. Additionally, a 407 visa cannot be granted while the applicant is in Australia. Some cohorts may be exempted from the new provisions by legislative instrument, but these are yet to be identified.
The impact of these amendments is that prospective applicants living and working in Australia will be required to depart Australia and lodge their 407-visa application whilst overseas or consider other potential visa options.
These amendments build upon changes introduced on March 11, 2026, to prevent prospective applicants from lodging their 407 visas until the associated Temporary Activities Sponsorship and 407 nomination applications had been approved first.
Previously, an application for a 407 visa could be made if the associated sponsorship and nomination applications had been lodged but were still being processed by the Department of Home Affairs.
Changes to the 407 visa also support the Government's objective of reducing Net Overseas Migration to targeted levels and preventing misuse of the 407 visa to prolong an individual's stay in Australia.
India:
New Salary Threshold for Employment Visa Eligibility
With immediate effect, the minimum annual salary threshold for Employment Visa eligibility has increased from INR 1,625,000 to INR 2,400,000. The revision applies to new Employment Visa applications and renewals filed in India. Employers should therefore review compensation for upcoming Employment Visa applications and renewals to ensure they meet the new criteria.
It is expected that the Ministry of Home Affairs will publish an official notification soon, including further eligibility information.
Japan:
Stricter Requirements for Permanent Residence Applicants
The Japanese government has approved a proposal for stricter requirements for permanent residence (PR) applicants, as part of broader efforts to strengthen the integrity of the immigration system. The changes will apply to PR applications submitted on or after April 1, 2027.
Under the proposed requirements, applicants are expected to demonstrate an annual income above the average for a Japanese household and projected pension benefits equivalent to 30 years of enrollment in the employees' pension scheme. Applicants whose projected pension benefits fall short may satisfy the requirement by demonstrating sufficient savings or other assets.
The revised guidelines also place greater emphasis on an applicant's Japanese language ability and understanding of Japanese laws and social rules when assessing whether granting permanent residence is in Japan's best interests.
Malaysia:
Additional Requirements for Employers Applying for Work Passes
The Sabah State Government has introduced several additional requirements for employers applying for Work Passes (WP) in the region.
* Sabah Work Pass Online System (SWPOS): The Sabah State Government has introduced a new online platform developed in collaboration with Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) to facilitate the submission and processing of Sabah WP applications. The platform supports the online submission and approval of WP applications for all non-Sabahans (i.e. expatriates and non-Sabahan Malaysians) working in the oil, gas, and energy sector in Sabah. The platform is expected to support the processing of applications within 14 working days.
* Integrated Non-Resident Employment Management System (eNORES) Registration Confirmation Letter: Effective September 1, 2026, employers must provide the eNORES Registration Confirmation Letter to the Malaysian Immigration Department (MID) in Sabah for new and renewal WP applications and during the WP endorsement process. This letter can be obtained within two to three working days once the WP applicant's details have been registered on the eNORES online portal.
* Revised salary requirement: Sabah authorities confirmed during the most recent Sabah Oil & Gas Industry Talent Alignment Forum (SOGITAF) event that the revised expatriate salary framework that is already applicable in Peninsular Malaysia for Employment Pass (EP) applications, is also applicable to Sabah expatriate WP applications lodged on or after June 1, 2026. The revised salary only applies to expatriates in Sabah (non-Sabahan Malaysians are not impacted) for both new and renewal applications.
New Zealand:
Updated Guidance Regarding Location Requirements for Accredited Employer Work Visa Holders
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has published updated guidance clarifying the location requirements for workers holding an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV). When submitting a job check application, employers must specify the location or region where the role will be based. If a role regularly requires work across multiple locations, each location must be included in the job check, and employers must provide evidence that the position was advertised in those locations. Where multiple positions are included in the same job check, the location details must be identical for each position.
AEWV holders may travel or temporarily work outside their approved location for up to six weeks (30 working days) within any 12-month period without the employer completing a new job check. Occasional travel does not need to be listed where the employee remains based at the approved location. However, if the employee will work outside the approved location for more than 30 working days in a 12-month period, the employer must complete a new job check, and the employee must obtain an approved Job Change before commencing work at the new location.
When assessing compliance, INZ may review the employees' work locations during the 12 months preceding the date of the compliance check. Employers should therefore monitor temporary assignments carefully and ensure that all regular or longer-term work locations are accurately reflected in the relevant job check and visa conditions.
India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement Comes into Force
On October 20, 2026, the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement went into force, introducing the following new visa categories to support New Zealand's economic and workforce needs:
Effective immediately, two new Temporary Employment Entry (TEE) visa categories allow eligible Indian nationals in highly skilled occupations and a limited number of professions considered iconic to India to work in New Zealand. The categories permit up to 5,000 TEE visa holders in the country at any one time, with most places allocated to occupations on New Zealand's Green List. Applicants must hold a qualifying job offer from an accredited employer and meet applicable qualification, English language, health, character, and identity requirements.
From November 16, 2026, Indian graduates who hold New Zealand PhDs will become eligible for post-study work visas of up to four years, increased from three years. Eligible students of all nationalities can currently work up to 25 hours per week while studying; the agreement commits New Zealand to maintaining at least 20 hours of weekly in-study work rights for Indian students if policy settings change.
New Zealand will also introduce a working holiday scheme for Indian nationals age 18 to 30 within two years of the agreement entering into force. The scheme will offer up to 1,000 places annually and allow stays of up to 12 months.
Expanded List of Permitted Activities for Business and Specialist Service Workers
The New Zealand government has expanded the list of permissible activities for business visitors and specialist services workers entering the country for business purposes and specific, time-bound work.
Effective October 20, 2026, New Zealand has expanded the activities permitted for business visitors and extended Specific Purpose Work Visa eligibility to include Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals. Employers and foreign nationals should assess whether their proposed activities fall within the expanded settings and ensure they meet all applicable visa requirements.
What changes:
Business Visitor Visa (BVV):
The government has expanded visa rules to cover additional business visitor activities allowed under the BVV, including the following:
* Attending informal training relevant to a business in which the individual is involved. The training must be limited to observation and theoretical instruction and must not lead to a formal qualification.
* Conducting business transactions for a business in New Zealand, provided the individual holds a management or financial services role.
* Attending or participating in a tourism convention as a tour or travel agent, tour guide or tour operator.
Entering under a BVV is a less time-consuming application process than entering under a work visa in New Zealand, so those whose activities qualify for a BVV benefit from fewer administrative burdens for entry. Employers and foreign nationals should assess whether their proposed activities fall within the expanded list and ensure they meet all applicable visa requirements.
Specific Purpose Work Visa eligibility:
The government has expanded visa pathways for specialist services workers under the Specific Purpose Work Visa to include Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals. Although the previous policy did not explicitly set out Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals as separate categories for Specific Purpose Work Visa applications, such applications were possible in practice. The new policy formalizes and clarifies the requirements, including detailed criteria relating to qualifications, relevant work experience, New Zealand service contracts, skill level, labor market test evidence, and other required supporting documentation
Vietnam:
Decree 393/2026/ND-CP Goes into Effect
Vietnam's new Decree 393 marks a further step towards attracting the foreign expertise needed to support the country's development. It introduces additional pathways for skilled professionals, simplifies certain administrative requirements, and strengthens employer accountability.
Decree 393/2026/ND-CP was issued on October 20, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 5, 2026, replacing Decree 219/2025/ND-CP from that date.
Decree 393 reflects a more targeted approach to attracting foreign talent: broader recognition of expertise, specific support for strategic sectors. and fewer administrative requirements in selected procedures.
From an immigration practitioner's perspective, the overall direction is largely one of liberalization and talent attraction, balanced by more structured compliance requirements.
Vietnam is increasingly aligning its work-permit policies with its ambitions in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, digital transformation, and strategic technologies.
Greater Recognition of Skills and Professional Experience:
The conventional expert pathway, based on a university qualification and at least two years of relevant experience, remains a central route for foreign professionals. However, Decree 393 adds alternatives that place greater value on specialized skills, innovation potential, and proven professional expertise. These changes reflect a broader talent-attraction strategy, supporting strategic industries, research, education and Vietnam's development as a knowledge-based economy. For the executive-director category covering someone who directly manages a field of activity, the decree specifies two years of relevant experience. However, eligibility still depends on evidence of genuine managerial authority. An English-language job title alone is not sufficient.
Opportunities for Strategic Technology Talent:
The decree introduces specific incentives and work-permit exemption pathways for certain strategic-technology professionals and qualifying family members. These provisions do not create a blanket exemption for everyone working in technology; eligibility depends on the relevant category and its requirements.
Qualifying family members of strategic-technology professionals who hold an exemption certificate should not assume that their family status alone authorizes them to begin working in Vietnam. Their sponsoring entity must submit a separate application for a work-permit exemption certificate.
This represents a significant departure from the current framework, making Vietnam more attractive to strategic-technology talent by facilitating employment opportunities for qualifying family members.
Intra-Company Transfers Need Closer Attention:
The intra-company transfer framework is defined by managers, executive directors, and experts. Technical workers are no longer included as a separate category within that definition.
This distinction matters when planning international assignments. A technical worker with three years of relevant experience may meet the requirements for the technical-worker category itself but does not make them eligible for a work permit application under intra-company transfer scheme.
To qualify through the new experience-based expert pathway and be eligible for ICT scheme, they would need to meet their higher experience requirement. Employers should therefore review the proposed classification rather than assume that an existing assignment structure will remain suitable.
Changes to Medical Documentation and Extensions:
For work-permit applications, the decree provides for health certificates issued by competent medical institutions in Vietnam or overseas. It no longer includes the express mutual-recognition condition found in the earlier government explanation of Decree 219 for the health check certificate issued overseas.
For ordinary work permit renewal, a new health certificate is not listed in the required dossier. This reduces one administrative step for the relevant extension procedures.
The maximum initial duration of work permits, and exemption certificates generally remains two years. An exception applies to qualifying intra-company transfer exemption certificates within the relevant WTO service sectors, which may be issued for up to three years.
More Precise Recruitment and Job Descriptions:
Employers must continue to pay attention to the Vietnamese recruitment-announcement requirement for applicable work-permit categories. The decree includes an exception for the specified general director or director already named on the business registration document.
Applications also require more precise occupational descriptions, using five-digit occupation codes rather than the three-digit codes used under Decree 219.
For employers, this reinforces the importance of consistency between recruitment information, the proposed role, and the work-permit application.
Employer Responsibility Goes Beyond Obtaining a Permit:
Decree 393 expressly requires foreign employment to meet the employer's own direct needs and prohibits foreign labor subleasing.
This deserves particular attention where arrangements involve:
* Employer-of-record services, which we previously highlighted with greater detail
* Payroll-only sponsorship
* Foreign employees placed under a client's management
* Service contracts that, in substance, supply personnel
This does not mean that every outsourced service is prohibited. A service provider delivering its own contracted service is different from a company supplying workers to another business. The actual supervision, employment relationship, and contractual structure must be assessed.
Periodic Foreign-Worker Reporting Returns:
Decree 393 reintroduces an express periodic reporting obligation for employers of foreign workers, following its omission from Decree 219. Under the earlier Decree 152 framework, reports were due before 5 July and 5 January. The new decree sets different deadlines: before 5 June and before 5 December each year.
Employers must also maintain paper or electronic records and report when requested by the competent local authority or when there are changes in their use of foreign workers.
An exception applies where the relevant information can be retrieved from the foreign-worker database. Employers should confirm how this exception operates in practice rather than assume that a previous permit application removes the need to report.
The change combines a return to periodic employer reporting with the possibility of reducing duplicate submissions through connected government databases.
For further information on any of the updates in this bulletin, reach out to one of the members of our Outbound Immigration & Global Mobility team.
To view October's updates for the EMEA (https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/october-2026-outbound-immigration-and-global-mobility-recap-emea) and Americas (https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/october-2026-outbound-immigration-and-global-mobility-recap-americas/) regions, click the respective region.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/october-2026-outbound-immigration-and-global-mobility-recap-apac/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
October 2026 Outbound Immigration and Global Mobility Recap | APAC
November 9, 2026
Author
Lisa Atkins
Also Authored by Melvin Ng and Riduan Fattah
Clark Hill's Outbound Immigration & Global Mobility practice guides corporate clients and individuals through complex global immigration challenges worldwide. We pride ourselves on creative, compliant, and people-centered solutions - looking at global mobility from a holistic perspective in an ever-changing immigration environment. Our team assists with ... Show Full Article BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Nov. 10 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * October 2026 Outbound Immigration and Global Mobility Recap | APAC November 9, 2026 Author Lisa Atkins Also Authored by Melvin Ng and Riduan Fattah Clark Hill's Outbound Immigration & Global Mobility practice guides corporate clients and individuals through complex global immigration challenges worldwide. We pride ourselves on creative, compliant, and people-centered solutions - looking at global mobility from a holistic perspective in an ever-changing immigration environment. Our team assists withshort-term assignments, long-term relocations, consular processing, document procurement, document legalizations/apostilles, and business visas in 100+ countries worldwide.
Below is an overview of the major updates from October 2026 in the Asia-Pacific region.
APAC:
Australia:
Changes to Training (subclass 407) Visa Application Criteria
Under the new provisions, which come into effect on November 12, 2026, an application for a Training (subclass 407) visa cannot be made while the applicant is in Australia. Additionally, a 407 visa cannot be granted while the applicant is in Australia. Some cohorts may be exempted from the new provisions by legislative instrument, but these are yet to be identified.
The impact of these amendments is that prospective applicants living and working in Australia will be required to depart Australia and lodge their 407-visa application whilst overseas or consider other potential visa options.
These amendments build upon changes introduced on March 11, 2026, to prevent prospective applicants from lodging their 407 visas until the associated Temporary Activities Sponsorship and 407 nomination applications had been approved first.
Previously, an application for a 407 visa could be made if the associated sponsorship and nomination applications had been lodged but were still being processed by the Department of Home Affairs.
Changes to the 407 visa also support the Government's objective of reducing Net Overseas Migration to targeted levels and preventing misuse of the 407 visa to prolong an individual's stay in Australia.
India:
New Salary Threshold for Employment Visa Eligibility
With immediate effect, the minimum annual salary threshold for Employment Visa eligibility has increased from INR 1,625,000 to INR 2,400,000. The revision applies to new Employment Visa applications and renewals filed in India. Employers should therefore review compensation for upcoming Employment Visa applications and renewals to ensure they meet the new criteria.
It is expected that the Ministry of Home Affairs will publish an official notification soon, including further eligibility information.
Japan:
Stricter Requirements for Permanent Residence Applicants
The Japanese government has approved a proposal for stricter requirements for permanent residence (PR) applicants, as part of broader efforts to strengthen the integrity of the immigration system. The changes will apply to PR applications submitted on or after April 1, 2027.
Under the proposed requirements, applicants are expected to demonstrate an annual income above the average for a Japanese household and projected pension benefits equivalent to 30 years of enrollment in the employees' pension scheme. Applicants whose projected pension benefits fall short may satisfy the requirement by demonstrating sufficient savings or other assets.
The revised guidelines also place greater emphasis on an applicant's Japanese language ability and understanding of Japanese laws and social rules when assessing whether granting permanent residence is in Japan's best interests.
Malaysia:
Additional Requirements for Employers Applying for Work Passes
The Sabah State Government has introduced several additional requirements for employers applying for Work Passes (WP) in the region.
* Sabah Work Pass Online System (SWPOS): The Sabah State Government has introduced a new online platform developed in collaboration with Petroliam Nasional Berhad (PETRONAS) to facilitate the submission and processing of Sabah WP applications. The platform supports the online submission and approval of WP applications for all non-Sabahans (i.e. expatriates and non-Sabahan Malaysians) working in the oil, gas, and energy sector in Sabah. The platform is expected to support the processing of applications within 14 working days.
* Integrated Non-Resident Employment Management System (eNORES) Registration Confirmation Letter: Effective September 1, 2026, employers must provide the eNORES Registration Confirmation Letter to the Malaysian Immigration Department (MID) in Sabah for new and renewal WP applications and during the WP endorsement process. This letter can be obtained within two to three working days once the WP applicant's details have been registered on the eNORES online portal.
* Revised salary requirement: Sabah authorities confirmed during the most recent Sabah Oil & Gas Industry Talent Alignment Forum (SOGITAF) event that the revised expatriate salary framework that is already applicable in Peninsular Malaysia for Employment Pass (EP) applications, is also applicable to Sabah expatriate WP applications lodged on or after June 1, 2026. The revised salary only applies to expatriates in Sabah (non-Sabahan Malaysians are not impacted) for both new and renewal applications.
New Zealand:
Updated Guidance Regarding Location Requirements for Accredited Employer Work Visa Holders
Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has published updated guidance clarifying the location requirements for workers holding an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV). When submitting a job check application, employers must specify the location or region where the role will be based. If a role regularly requires work across multiple locations, each location must be included in the job check, and employers must provide evidence that the position was advertised in those locations. Where multiple positions are included in the same job check, the location details must be identical for each position.
AEWV holders may travel or temporarily work outside their approved location for up to six weeks (30 working days) within any 12-month period without the employer completing a new job check. Occasional travel does not need to be listed where the employee remains based at the approved location. However, if the employee will work outside the approved location for more than 30 working days in a 12-month period, the employer must complete a new job check, and the employee must obtain an approved Job Change before commencing work at the new location.
When assessing compliance, INZ may review the employees' work locations during the 12 months preceding the date of the compliance check. Employers should therefore monitor temporary assignments carefully and ensure that all regular or longer-term work locations are accurately reflected in the relevant job check and visa conditions.
India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement Comes into Force
On October 20, 2026, the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement went into force, introducing the following new visa categories to support New Zealand's economic and workforce needs:
Effective immediately, two new Temporary Employment Entry (TEE) visa categories allow eligible Indian nationals in highly skilled occupations and a limited number of professions considered iconic to India to work in New Zealand. The categories permit up to 5,000 TEE visa holders in the country at any one time, with most places allocated to occupations on New Zealand's Green List. Applicants must hold a qualifying job offer from an accredited employer and meet applicable qualification, English language, health, character, and identity requirements.
From November 16, 2026, Indian graduates who hold New Zealand PhDs will become eligible for post-study work visas of up to four years, increased from three years. Eligible students of all nationalities can currently work up to 25 hours per week while studying; the agreement commits New Zealand to maintaining at least 20 hours of weekly in-study work rights for Indian students if policy settings change.
New Zealand will also introduce a working holiday scheme for Indian nationals age 18 to 30 within two years of the agreement entering into force. The scheme will offer up to 1,000 places annually and allow stays of up to 12 months.
Expanded List of Permitted Activities for Business and Specialist Service Workers
The New Zealand government has expanded the list of permissible activities for business visitors and specialist services workers entering the country for business purposes and specific, time-bound work.
Effective October 20, 2026, New Zealand has expanded the activities permitted for business visitors and extended Specific Purpose Work Visa eligibility to include Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals. Employers and foreign nationals should assess whether their proposed activities fall within the expanded settings and ensure they meet all applicable visa requirements.
What changes:
Business Visitor Visa (BVV):
The government has expanded visa rules to cover additional business visitor activities allowed under the BVV, including the following:
* Attending informal training relevant to a business in which the individual is involved. The training must be limited to observation and theoretical instruction and must not lead to a formal qualification.
* Conducting business transactions for a business in New Zealand, provided the individual holds a management or financial services role.
* Attending or participating in a tourism convention as a tour or travel agent, tour guide or tour operator.
Entering under a BVV is a less time-consuming application process than entering under a work visa in New Zealand, so those whose activities qualify for a BVV benefit from fewer administrative burdens for entry. Employers and foreign nationals should assess whether their proposed activities fall within the expanded list and ensure they meet all applicable visa requirements.
Specific Purpose Work Visa eligibility:
The government has expanded visa pathways for specialist services workers under the Specific Purpose Work Visa to include Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals. Although the previous policy did not explicitly set out Contractual Service Suppliers and Independent Professionals as separate categories for Specific Purpose Work Visa applications, such applications were possible in practice. The new policy formalizes and clarifies the requirements, including detailed criteria relating to qualifications, relevant work experience, New Zealand service contracts, skill level, labor market test evidence, and other required supporting documentation
Vietnam:
Decree 393/2026/ND-CP Goes into Effect
Vietnam's new Decree 393 marks a further step towards attracting the foreign expertise needed to support the country's development. It introduces additional pathways for skilled professionals, simplifies certain administrative requirements, and strengthens employer accountability.
Decree 393/2026/ND-CP was issued on October 20, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 5, 2026, replacing Decree 219/2025/ND-CP from that date.
Decree 393 reflects a more targeted approach to attracting foreign talent: broader recognition of expertise, specific support for strategic sectors. and fewer administrative requirements in selected procedures.
From an immigration practitioner's perspective, the overall direction is largely one of liberalization and talent attraction, balanced by more structured compliance requirements.
Vietnam is increasingly aligning its work-permit policies with its ambitions in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, digital transformation, and strategic technologies.
Greater Recognition of Skills and Professional Experience:
The conventional expert pathway, based on a university qualification and at least two years of relevant experience, remains a central route for foreign professionals. However, Decree 393 adds alternatives that place greater value on specialized skills, innovation potential, and proven professional expertise. These changes reflect a broader talent-attraction strategy, supporting strategic industries, research, education and Vietnam's development as a knowledge-based economy. For the executive-director category covering someone who directly manages a field of activity, the decree specifies two years of relevant experience. However, eligibility still depends on evidence of genuine managerial authority. An English-language job title alone is not sufficient.
Opportunities for Strategic Technology Talent:
The decree introduces specific incentives and work-permit exemption pathways for certain strategic-technology professionals and qualifying family members. These provisions do not create a blanket exemption for everyone working in technology; eligibility depends on the relevant category and its requirements.
Qualifying family members of strategic-technology professionals who hold an exemption certificate should not assume that their family status alone authorizes them to begin working in Vietnam. Their sponsoring entity must submit a separate application for a work-permit exemption certificate.
This represents a significant departure from the current framework, making Vietnam more attractive to strategic-technology talent by facilitating employment opportunities for qualifying family members.
Intra-Company Transfers Need Closer Attention:
The intra-company transfer framework is defined by managers, executive directors, and experts. Technical workers are no longer included as a separate category within that definition.
This distinction matters when planning international assignments. A technical worker with three years of relevant experience may meet the requirements for the technical-worker category itself but does not make them eligible for a work permit application under intra-company transfer scheme.
To qualify through the new experience-based expert pathway and be eligible for ICT scheme, they would need to meet their higher experience requirement. Employers should therefore review the proposed classification rather than assume that an existing assignment structure will remain suitable.
Changes to Medical Documentation and Extensions:
For work-permit applications, the decree provides for health certificates issued by competent medical institutions in Vietnam or overseas. It no longer includes the express mutual-recognition condition found in the earlier government explanation of Decree 219 for the health check certificate issued overseas.
For ordinary work permit renewal, a new health certificate is not listed in the required dossier. This reduces one administrative step for the relevant extension procedures.
The maximum initial duration of work permits, and exemption certificates generally remains two years. An exception applies to qualifying intra-company transfer exemption certificates within the relevant WTO service sectors, which may be issued for up to three years.
More Precise Recruitment and Job Descriptions:
Employers must continue to pay attention to the Vietnamese recruitment-announcement requirement for applicable work-permit categories. The decree includes an exception for the specified general director or director already named on the business registration document.
Applications also require more precise occupational descriptions, using five-digit occupation codes rather than the three-digit codes used under Decree 219.
For employers, this reinforces the importance of consistency between recruitment information, the proposed role, and the work-permit application.
Employer Responsibility Goes Beyond Obtaining a Permit:
Decree 393 expressly requires foreign employment to meet the employer's own direct needs and prohibits foreign labor subleasing.
This deserves particular attention where arrangements involve:
* Employer-of-record services, which we previously highlighted with greater detail
* Payroll-only sponsorship
* Foreign employees placed under a client's management
* Service contracts that, in substance, supply personnel
This does not mean that every outsourced service is prohibited. A service provider delivering its own contracted service is different from a company supplying workers to another business. The actual supervision, employment relationship, and contractual structure must be assessed.
Periodic Foreign-Worker Reporting Returns:
Decree 393 reintroduces an express periodic reporting obligation for employers of foreign workers, following its omission from Decree 219. Under the earlier Decree 152 framework, reports were due before 5 July and 5 January. The new decree sets different deadlines: before 5 June and before 5 December each year.
Employers must also maintain paper or electronic records and report when requested by the competent local authority or when there are changes in their use of foreign workers.
An exception applies where the relevant information can be retrieved from the foreign-worker database. Employers should confirm how this exception operates in practice rather than assume that a previous permit application removes the need to report.
The change combines a return to periodic employer reporting with the possibility of reducing duplicate submissions through connected government databases.
For further information on any of the updates in this bulletin, reach out to one of the members of our Outbound Immigration & Global Mobility team.
To view October's updates for the EMEA (https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/october-2026-outbound-immigration-and-global-mobility-recap-emea) and Americas (https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/october-2026-outbound-immigration-and-global-mobility-recap-americas/) regions, click the respective region.
* * *
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.clarkhill.com/news-events/news/october-2026-outbound-immigration-and-global-mobility-recap-apac/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ashurst Perkins Coie acts as sanctions counsel on Denglin Technology's Hong Kong IPO
SEATTLE, Washington, Nov. 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ashurst Perkins Coie, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Ashurst Perkins Coie acts as sanctions counsel on Denglin Technology's Hong Kong IPO
*
Global law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie represented Suzhou Denglin Technology Co., Ltd. (SEHK: 9917) in the successful completion of the listing of its H shares on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Ashurst Perkins Coie acted as Denglin Technology's international sanctions, export controls and tariffs legal advisor, providing analysis of the impact of international sanctions, ... Show Full Article SEATTLE, Washington, Nov. 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ashurst Perkins Coie, a law firm, posted the following news: * * * Ashurst Perkins Coie acts as sanctions counsel on Denglin Technology's Hong Kong IPO * Global law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie represented Suzhou Denglin Technology Co., Ltd. (SEHK: 9917) in the successful completion of the listing of its H shares on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Ashurst Perkins Coie acted as Denglin Technology's international sanctions, export controls and tariffs legal advisor, providing analysis of the impact of international sanctions,export controls, tariffs and the U.S. Outbound Investment Rule on its business and related products and services.
Denglin Technology is a general-purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU) provider that develops and sells GPGPU products to meet the AI computing needs of China's diverse industries. Anchored in its proprietary GPU+ (Minsky(tm)) architecture, which integrates GPGPU cores, AI acceleration units and a high-bandwidth on-chip memory subsystem into a single chip through on-chip heterogeneous design, the company focuses on enterprise AI as its core target market, while also expanding into the public cloud market and emerging fields such as robotics.
Drawing on its deep understanding of the technology sector and the geopolitical landscape, Ashurst Perkins Coie continues to support numerous Chinese companies seeking overseas listings, helping them effectively identify and address potential compliance risks. This successful collaboration with Denglin Technology once again demonstrates Ashurst Perkins Coie's capability to deliver sanctions and other legal advice on complex matters across multiple jurisdictions.
The team was led by partner Alexander Dmitrenko, with support from Vicki Tang and Songshen Shen.
***
Original text here: https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/who-we-are/our-news-work-market-recognition/ashurst-perkins-coie-acts-as-sanctions-counsel-on-denglin-technology-hong-kong-ipo/
* * *
Ashurst Perkins Coie acts as sanctions counsel on Denglin Technology's Hong Kong IPO
*
Global law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie represented Suzhou Denglin Technology Co., Ltd. (SEHK: 9917) in the successful completion of the listing of its H shares on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Ashurst Perkins Coie acted as Denglin Technology's international sanctions, export controls and tariffs legal advisor, providing analysis of the impact of international sanctions, ... Show Full Article SEATTLE, Washington, Nov. 10 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ashurst Perkins Coie, a law firm, posted the following news: * * * Ashurst Perkins Coie acts as sanctions counsel on Denglin Technology's Hong Kong IPO * Global law firm Ashurst Perkins Coie represented Suzhou Denglin Technology Co., Ltd. (SEHK: 9917) in the successful completion of the listing of its H shares on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Ashurst Perkins Coie acted as Denglin Technology's international sanctions, export controls and tariffs legal advisor, providing analysis of the impact of international sanctions,export controls, tariffs and the U.S. Outbound Investment Rule on its business and related products and services.
Denglin Technology is a general-purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU) provider that develops and sells GPGPU products to meet the AI computing needs of China's diverse industries. Anchored in its proprietary GPU+ (Minsky(tm)) architecture, which integrates GPGPU cores, AI acceleration units and a high-bandwidth on-chip memory subsystem into a single chip through on-chip heterogeneous design, the company focuses on enterprise AI as its core target market, while also expanding into the public cloud market and emerging fields such as robotics.
Drawing on its deep understanding of the technology sector and the geopolitical landscape, Ashurst Perkins Coie continues to support numerous Chinese companies seeking overseas listings, helping them effectively identify and address potential compliance risks. This successful collaboration with Denglin Technology once again demonstrates Ashurst Perkins Coie's capability to deliver sanctions and other legal advice on complex matters across multiple jurisdictions.
The team was led by partner Alexander Dmitrenko, with support from Vicki Tang and Songshen Shen.
***
Original text here: https://www.ashurstperkinscoie.com/en/who-we-are/our-news-work-market-recognition/ashurst-perkins-coie-acts-as-sanctions-counsel-on-denglin-technology-hong-kong-ipo/