Featured Stories
Jason Schwartz to speak at NYU's Advanced International Taxation Conference
NEW YORK, July 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Jason Schwartz to speak at NYU's Advanced International Taxation Conference
*
Cahill partner Jason Schwartz will speak on the panel, "Inbound Debt Investing," at the Advanced International Taxation Conference, hosted by the NYU School of Professional Studies Division of Programs in Business.
Jason will examine key considerations for foreign investment in U.S. debt, including U.S. trade or business issues, applicable safe harbors for certain investing and trading activities,
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, July 24 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Jason Schwartz to speak at NYU's Advanced International Taxation Conference
*
Cahill partner Jason Schwartz will speak on the panel, "Inbound Debt Investing," at the Advanced International Taxation Conference, hosted by the NYU School of Professional Studies Division of Programs in Business.
Jason will examine key considerations for foreign investment in U.S. debt, including U.S. trade or business issues, applicable safe harbors for certain investing and trading activities,"season and sell" strategies, and the role of income tax treaties, including "bring your own treaty" funds.
To learn more and register, click here.
***
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/events/2026-07-24-jason-schwartz-to-speak-at-nyu-advanced-international-taxation-conference
McGuireWoods Boosts Financing Practice With Houston Partner Michelle Williamson
RICHMOND, Virginia, July 22 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Boosts Financing Practice With Houston Partner Michelle Williamson
Expanding its capabilities for financing transactions in energy and infrastructure, McGuireWoods has added accomplished finance attorney Michelle Williamson as a partner in its Houston office.
Williamson's practice focuses on representing sponsors, private and public borrowers, financial institutions and other investors in a variety of financing transactions, with a focus on energy and infrastructure. Williamson's practice
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, July 22 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Boosts Financing Practice With Houston Partner Michelle Williamson
Expanding its capabilities for financing transactions in energy and infrastructure, McGuireWoods has added accomplished finance attorney Michelle Williamson as a partner in its Houston office.
Williamson's practice focuses on representing sponsors, private and public borrowers, financial institutions and other investors in a variety of financing transactions, with a focus on energy and infrastructure. Williamson's practicecovers acquisition financings, investment-grade lending, cash flow-based lending, asset-based lending (including reserve-based lending and securitizations for oil and gas transactions), mezzanine financings, private credit, and subordinated debt financings. She joins McGuireWoods after nearly a decade in Kirkland & Ellis' Houston office, where she was a partner.
"I am very excited to be joining the collegial team at McGuireWoods," said Williamson. "I look forward to collaborating with my new partners and colleagues to help our clients achieve their business goals and objectives."
Williamson's arrival further expands the firm's energy and infrastructure team in Houston. Last month the office welcomed deal lawyer David Aaronson, who represents domestic and international exploration and production (E&P) operators, middle-market private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies, energy services and infrastructure developers, and financial institutions. Mundo de la Fuente, who advises energy, infrastructure and data center developers, joined in January.
"Michelle's experience financing transactions in energy, infrastructure and other industries will complement a host of corporate areas in Houston and around the country," said Gerald V. Thomas II, deputy managing partner of the firm's corporate practice.
"We are delighted that Michelle is joining our team," said Kevin McGinnis, who chairs the firm's Debt Finance Department. "She is known for mastering the details of her clients' businesses, which is a key to earning critical trust needed in complex debt transactions."
"Michelle's acumen in financing and energy will bring tremendous value for our clients," said Tyler VanHoutan, managing partner of the firm's Houston office.
McGuireWoods' Energy M&A and Finance Practice Group -- ranked nationally by Chambers USA, the Legal 500 United States and Best Law Firms -- combines focused industry knowledge, regulatory fluency and practical, business-driven solutions to ensure clients complete strategic transactions, secure financing and advance critical projects across the country.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/7/mcguirewoods-boosts-financing-practice-with-houston-partner-michelle-williamson/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: When the Employer Makes the Plaintiff's Case - DOJ's Rare USERRA Action Against a Private Employer
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 22 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 21, 2026, by shareholder Bradford J. Kelley:
* * *
When the Employer Makes the Plaintiff's Case: DOJ's Rare USERRA Action Against a Private Employer
Sometimes the strongest evidence of employment discrimination comes from the employer's own pen. In Opara v. UV Memory Care, LLC, the Department of Justice sued a private assisted-living facility for violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the federal law that protects employment and reemployment rights of
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, July 22 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 21, 2026, by shareholder Bradford J. Kelley:
* * *
When the Employer Makes the Plaintiff's Case: DOJ's Rare USERRA Action Against a Private Employer
Sometimes the strongest evidence of employment discrimination comes from the employer's own pen. In Opara v. UV Memory Care, LLC, the Department of Justice sued a private assisted-living facility for violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the federal law that protects employment and reemployment rights ofservice member employees and prohibits discrimination based on military service. The lawsuit arose after the employer repeatedly documented--first in a demotion letter, then in a submission to the Texas Workforce Commission--that the employee's National Guard obligations were the reason she was removed from her supervisory job. The case settled through a consent decree filed the same day as the complaint, but it is worth employers' attention for what it reveals about DOJ's enforcement posture. The government rarely litigates USERRA claims against private employers, but will do so when an employer has effectively built the case against itself through its own contemporaneous admissions.
Factual Background
The plaintiff served as a Health Care Specialist in the Texas Army National Guard while working as a Night Shift Supervisor and Medication Aide for the defendant, an assisted-living facility serving residents with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Employed since June 2023, she supervised six employees, regularly volunteered for additional shifts, and received an Outstanding Employee Award the month before her termination. Throughout her employment, the facility consistently approved her periodic military leave for monthly drills and other National Guard obligations.
The disputed termination occurred after the plaintiff attended a three-week Basic Leader Course in 2024. She provided the employer with verbal notice roughly seven weeks before the training began and followed up with a written leave request about six weeks later, and the company approved her leave. Yet midway through the training, an employer business development representative emailed plaintiff demanding documentation "on the appropriate letterhead from the Texas Military Department" and warning that her absence "could affect your full-time status with [the facility] if I do not receive it." The plaintiff complied, submitting a letter from her sergeant--the third notice she had given her employer regarding that same period of leave.
About a month after she returned from leave, the company handed the plaintiff a letter titled "Reason for Change in Position from Medication Aide to Compassion Giver." The rationale for the change was spelled out: "[w]ith Maria's schedule with the National Guard, she cannot consistently provide this need on a 3 on/3 off schedule." Further, the letter stated that if this had "been revealed at the time of hire, she would not have been offered a Supervisory position." The demotion carried a $2-per-hour pay cut and stripped her of supervisory duties. When the plaintiff refused to accept it, the facility's healthcare directors gave her an ultimatum--sign the demotion paperwork or leave--and terminated her when she again refused.
Responding to the plaintiff's application for unemployment benefits, the company underscored its rationale, telling the Texas Workforce Commission that the plaintiff's monthlong absence meant she "was not a good fit for the position she was hired to fill," repeating that had it known of her Guard membership at hiring, "she would not have been offered a supervisory job."
The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service (DOL VETS) in August 2024. DOL VETS found in November 2024 that the company had violated USERRA and had refused to voluntarily comply with the law. Plaintiff then requested referral to the Attorney General, and on June 18, 2026, DOJ's Civil Rights Division filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging unlawful demotion and unlawful termination in violation of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4311. The parties filed a consent decree the same day.
How USERRA Enforcement Works
USERRA's enforcement structure differs from most federal employment discrimination statutes. DOL VETS is the primary investigative agency. A service member who believes an employer has violated USERRA may file a complaint with DOL VETS, which investigates and attempts to reach an informal resolution. If those efforts fail and the employer is private, the service member may request that DOL VETS refer the matter to the Attorney General, who then independently decides whether to represent the individual and sue in federal district court under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4323.
Significantly, USERRA imposes no administrative exhaustion requirement, making it one of the few federal employment statutes that gives a service member an immediate private right of action. In other words, a plaintiff can bypass DOL VETS and DOJ altogether and go straight to court.
What Makes This Case Different?
The significance of Opara lies less in its legal theory than in its evidence. Most USERRA cases look like ordinary employment discrimination litigation: plaintiffs build their case on circumstantial evidence, including comparator employees, suspicious timing, shifting explanations, and indirect proof of pretext. Proving this case did not require any of that. DOJ had contemporaneous, written admissions from the employer itself, repeated twice, in two different forums, in nearly identical language.
Under USERRA's burden-shifting framework, a plaintiff need show only that military service was "a motivating factor" in the challenged decision; the burden then shifts to the employer to prove it would have taken the same action regardless./1 That framework is designed for cases where motive must be inferred. Here, UVMC eliminated the need for inference. Its own letter did the plaintiff's work of establishing an illegal motivating factor, and its own submission to a state agency foreclosed any later claim that the letter was misinterpreted or taken out of context.
That evidentiary posture also explains why DOJ took the case. The Attorney General has discretion whether to litigate a referred USERRA matter, and DOJ exercises its authority to litigate referred USERRA matters selectively. While relatively few referred USERRA complaints against private employers result in DOJ litigation, Opara illustrates that the Department will pursue cases presenting strong evidence of discrimination. When DOJ does step in for an individual claimant, it is a reasonable signal that the liability facts are overwhelming.
The Consent Decree Imposed More Than a Monetary Settlement
Although the monetary payment of $15,000 was modest, the defendant had to agree to take extensive remedial actions. The company agreed to revise its USERRA anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation, and military leave policies; to designate a trained USERRA Officer; to implement formal complaint and investigation procedures; to establish written appeal procedures; to incorporate USERRA compliance into manager performance evaluations; to provide annual interactive training for employees and volunteers; to distribute revised policies to employees and applicants; to post the Department of Labor's USERRA notice; and to submit to nearly two years of DOJ compliance monitoring and recordkeeping obligations. DOJ retained approval authority over both the revised policies and the training materials. For many employers, those operational commitments would involve far greater costs than the settlement payment itself.
Practical Lessons for Employers
Several practical lessons emerge from Opara. First, the facility's demotion letter did not require a plaintiff's lawyer to connect the dots. The company doomed its own case by specifying military service as the reason for the adverse action. This converted what might have been a defensible scheduling decision into a documented USERRA violation.
Second, unemployment filings are discoverable evidence. The company's response to the Texas Workforce Commission repeated the same rationale as the demotion letter, closing off any argument that the letter was an aberration. Responses to state workforce agencies require the same scrutiny as position statements submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or DOL.
Third, a compliant-looking policy is not a defense if practice departs from it. Here, the facility had a written Military Leave of Absence Policy acknowledging its USERRA reinstatement and benefits obligations. That policy did not prevent the violation, and DOJ required that it be fully rewritten, along with approximately two years of oversight to confirm the rewrite actually changes how managers behave.
Fourth, USERRA exposure is not limited to large employers or government contractors. The company here was a single assisted-living facility. The statute applies broadly to virtually all private employers, and a DOL VETS complaint can escalate into DOJ litigation regardless of employer size.
Finally, federal oversight can become the most significant consequence of a USERRA violation. While the settlement payment in Opara was relatively modest, the employer accepted years of compliance obligations, reporting requirements, policy revisions, annual training, and continuing federal court jurisdiction--consequences that persist long after the settlement has been paid.
Conclusion
Opara v. UV Memory Care ultimately was not a difficult USERRA case. Its importance lies in demonstrating how quickly a routine personnel decision can become a federal enforcement action when an employer expressly attributes that decision to an employee's military obligations. DOJ may litigate referred USERRA cases against private employers infrequently, but this case illustrates that it will do so when the evidence clearly establishes that military service was a motivating factor.
For employers, the lesson is straightforward: compliance with USERRA requires more than approving military leave. It requires ensuring that military service does not become part of the rationale for employment decisions.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ 38 U.S.C. Sec. 4311(c)(1).
* * *
Authors
Bradford J. Kelley
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
bkelley@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/when-employer-makes-plaintiffs-case-dojs-rare-userra-action-against-private
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Tennessee's New Anti-Bullying Law Just Took Effect - What Your School Needs to Know Before the 2026-27 School Year
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 22 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 21, 2026:
* * *
Tennessee's New Anti-Bullying Law Just Took Effect: What Your School Needs to Know Before the 2026-27 School Year
A new Tennessee law that took effect July 1 now makes it a crime for any school employee to engage in conduct deemed bullying or cyberbullying toward students, marking a notable shift from the state's prior focus on student-on-student misconduct. While many schools already maintain policies prohibiting inappropriate employee conduct toward students, schools should be aware
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 22 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 21, 2026:
* * *
Tennessee's New Anti-Bullying Law Just Took Effect: What Your School Needs to Know Before the 2026-27 School Year
A new Tennessee law that took effect July 1 now makes it a crime for any school employee to engage in conduct deemed bullying or cyberbullying toward students, marking a notable shift from the state's prior focus on student-on-student misconduct. While many schools already maintain policies prohibiting inappropriate employee conduct toward students, schools should be awareof this new legal risk and the additional obligations for both public and private institutions alike. This Insight covers the steps schools should take to ensure compliance in the upcoming school year.
What Does the New Law Change?
Prior to SB 1774, Tennessee's anti-bullying laws were largely designed to address bullying and cyberbullying among students. The new legislation amends Tennessee's criminal code to define bullying as an act "committed by a school employee or student that substantially interferes" with the "educational benefits, opportunities, or performance" of a student.
* If the bullying takes place on school grounds or at any school-sponsored activity, it must either cause physical harm to the student or damage the student's property to be covered by the new law.
* If the act takes place elsewhere, it must have the effect of "creating a substantial disruption to the education environment or learning process" of the student.
The new law defines a "school employee" as any employee of any K-12 public or private school. The legislation signals Tennessee lawmakers' expectations that all K-12 schools - both public and private - maintain clear behavioral expectations for employees and respond promptly to allegations of harassment, intimidation, bullying, or cyberbullying involving students.
A violation of this subsection could be a Class A misdemeanor under state law, which is the most serious level of misdemeanor. Such misdemeanors are punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail, or a fine not to exceed $2,500, or both.
Potential Challenges for Schools
Although the law's objective is straightforward, schools should keep watch on its interpretation and application. Moreover, you should pay attention to this development regardless of where your school is located, as Tennessee's law follows a pattern similar to other states (like Virginia) that are now addressing bullying in such a broad manner.
Unlike traditional workplace investigations involving employee-to-employee interactions, complaints involving students often require schools to navigate overlapping considerations, including student privacy rights, parental involvement, and mandatory reporting obligations. Schools now need to also assess whether employee conduct could be characterized as bullying under the statute.
Schools should also anticipate that complaints involving employee conduct may rise in the quickly approaching school year. Consequently, you should evaluate whether your existing reporting, investigation, and documentation practices are sufficient to address allegations promptly and consistently. You should also ensure that you address any potential bullying allegations through clear and consistent policies and procedures.
What Should Tennessee Schools Do Now?
With the upcoming school year quickly approaching, you should consider taking the following steps to ensure compliance with the new law and bolster their anti-bullying programs:
* Review employee and student policies alike to ensure misconduct regarding bullying and cyberbullying is expressly addressed;
* Evaluate all complaint reporting and investigation procedures and update them where necessary; and
* Train administrators on handling allegations involving employee misconduct toward students.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments related to Tennessee's anti-bullying laws and provide updates as additional guidance becomes available. If you have questions about revising school policies or conducting training for administrators and staff, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Tennessee offices or the firm's Education Practice Group.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/tennessees-new-anti-bullying-law-just-took-effect
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: 9th Circuit Says FMCSA Preempts California Meal and Rest Break Rules for CMV Drivers - Key Takeaways for Passenger Carriers
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 22 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 21, 2026:
* * *
9th Circuit Says FMCSA Preempts California Meal and Rest Break Rules for CMV Drivers: Key Takeaways for Passenger Carriers
Motor carriers operating in California received a significant victory after a federal appeals court in California upheld the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) 2020 determination that California's meal and rest break (MRB) requirements are preempted for certain drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The recent decision confirms that covered
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, July 22 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on July 21, 2026:
* * *
9th Circuit Says FMCSA Preempts California Meal and Rest Break Rules for CMV Drivers: Key Takeaways for Passenger Carriers
Motor carriers operating in California received a significant victory after a federal appeals court in California upheld the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) 2020 determination that California's meal and rest break (MRB) requirements are preempted for certain drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The recent decision confirms that coveredcarriers may rely on the federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations, not California's MRB rules, to govern driver breaks and fatigue management. This Insight explains what happened, what it means for motor carriers, and steps you should consider taking now.
Quick Background on the FMCSA and HOS Regulations
The FMCSA is an agency within the federal Department of Transportation that establishes and enforces minimum safety standards for CMVs, including the HOS regulations, which limit driving time for CMV drivers and require certain rest periods. The FMCSA also is authorized to block states from enforcing state-level CMV safety laws that the agency determines are preempted by federal law based on certain criteria.
The Clash Between the Federal HOS Rules and California's MRB Rules
California's MRB rules generally require employers to comply with rest break rules for commercial truck drivers that are stricter than the HOS rules. This conflict of laws has led to a long battle over whether California's MRB rules are preempted by the HOS rules. Here's a snapshot:
* The FMCSA determined in 2018 that California's MRB requirements are preempted as applied to property-carrying CMV drivers who are subject to the federal HOS rules, such as drivers who transport consumer products across state lines. This was a significant development and provided much-welcomed clarity for motor carriers operating in California.
* Unsurprisingly, the Teamsters union challenged the FMCSA's 2018 determination in federal court. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2021 that the FMCSA permissibly determined that California's MRB rules were within its preemption authority and upheld the FMCSA's 2018 determination.
* In the meantime, the FMCSA determined in 2020 that the HOS rules also preempted California's MRB requirements as to passenger-carrying CMV drivers who are subject to the federal HOS rules - leading to the dispute in People of California v. FMCSA.
The Latest: The 9th Circuit's Decision in People of California v. FMCSA
The 9th Circuit issued a decision on June 4 upholding the FMCSA's 2020 preemption determination regarding California's MRB rules as to passenger-carrying CMV drivers who are subject to the federal HOS rules. The appeals court rejected California's argument that its MRB rules are labor standards rather than CMV safety regulations, and therefore, fall outside FMCSA's preemption authority. The court said that:
* the state's MRB rules are sufficiently connected to driver fatigue and safety to fall within FMCSA's authority over commercial motor vehicle safety; and
* the administrative record supported the FMCSA's finding that applying California's rules to passenger-carrying CMV drivers who are subject to the HOS rules would impose a significant operational burden on motor carriers.
As a result, the FMCSA's 2020 determination remains in effect, and California may not enforce its MRB requirements as to passenger-carrying CMV drivers who are subject to federal hours-of-service rules.
What This Means for Passenger-Carrying Motor Carriers
If you have operations in California, the 9th Circuit's decision in People of California v. FMCSA is a major win. Passenger-carrying motor carriers with CMV drivers subject to the federal HOS rules can rely upon the FMCSA's determination to defend against claims and lawsuits alleging violations of California's MRB rules, so long as this remains the position of the FMCSA. This development also may reduce the operational burdens and costs of trying to comply with both sets of rules, especially given that California's MRB rules impose separate mid-shift break requirements that operate outside that federal framework and could require carriers to alter routes, schedules, staffing, and dispatch practices.
However, you should not treat the decision as a free pass on safety or wage-and-hour compliance. Federal obligations still apply for passenger-carrying CMV drivers, including hours-of-service limits, fatigue rules, and restrictions on coercing drivers to violate safety regulations. In general, passenger-carrying CMV drivers may not drive more than 10 hours after eight consecutive hours off duty or remain on duty for more than 15 hours. (To learn more about the HOS rules for property- and passenger-carrying drivers, check out this FMCSA summary chart.)
4 Steps You Should Consider Taking Now
* Confirm which drivers are covered by the federal HOS rules versus California's MRB rules.
* Continue complying with federal safety obligations.
* Review other California wage-and-hour obligations that may still apply.
* Update policies and training programs as needed.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments in this area, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, any attorney in any of our California offices, any attorney on our Transportation and Supply Chain Industry Team, or any attorney in our Wage and Hour Practice Group.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/9th-circuit-says-fmcsa-preempts-california-meal-and-rest-break-rules-for-cmv-drivers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Advises Lenders on the Euros48.5 Million IFC Financing for the Second Phase of Aukera's Gura Ialomitei BESS Project in Romania
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises lenders on the Euros48.5 million IFC financing for the second phase of Aukera's Gura Ialomitei BESS project in Romania
Bucharest--Global law firm Dentons has advised the Lenders, International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group, and Kommunalkredit Austria AG, on the Euros48.5 million financing provided by IFC for the second phase of Aukera's Gura Ialomitei battery energy storage system (BESS) project in Romania. The package comprises Euros40 million of capex financing
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 22 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons advises lenders on the Euros48.5 million IFC financing for the second phase of Aukera's Gura Ialomitei BESS project in Romania
Bucharest--Global law firm Dentons has advised the Lenders, International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank Group, and Kommunalkredit Austria AG, on the Euros48.5 million financing provided by IFC for the second phase of Aukera's Gura Ialomitei battery energy storage system (BESS) project in Romania. The package comprises Euros40 million of capex financingand an additional Euros8.5 million tranche related to VAT.
The financing will support construction of the remaining 100 MW / 200 MWh of capacity, completing Aukera's flagship 250 MW / 500 MWh Gura Ialomitei project - expected to become Romania's largest operational battery storage facility and one of the largest in Central and Eastern Europe.
The second phase is expected to enter commercial operation by early 2027.
The first phase, with a capacity of 150 MW / 300 MWh, was financed through a Euros60 million facility provided by Kommunalkredit Austria AG in November 2025 and reached commercial operation in June 2026.
Acting as lead lender legal counsel, Dentons' Banking and Finance team in Bucharest managed and coordinated all English, Romanian and Belgian law aspects of the transaction from structuring to completion.
Bucharest-based Banking and Finance partner Simona Marin led the legal team, assisted by senior associate Catalina Raca, associates Alin Serea and Maria Brinza and paralegal Iulia Alexandrescu (all Banking and Finance), partner Claudiu Munteanu-Jipescu, counsel Angelica Pintilie and associates Alin Dimache and Carolina Mitea (all Energy), as well as partner Bogdan Papandopol, counsel Luiza Onofrei and associate Diana Anghel (all Real Estate). Banking and Finance partner Tom Geudens and associate Brandon Cheliotis from Dentons' Brussels office provided Belgian law advice on the due diligence and financing aspects of the transaction.
Simona Marin commented: "The financing of both phases of the Gura Ialomitei project by two leading international financial institutions confirms the growing interest of lenders in battery energy storage projects in Romania, as well as the increasing maturity of this market. We are proud to have advised IFC and Kommunalkredit on this landmark project, which will add critical storage capacity to the energy system and further advance Romania's energy transition."
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
URL: Lenders
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2026/july/dentons-advises-lenders-on-ifc-financing-for-the-second-phase-of-aukera
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Baker Donelson's Robert H. Wall Elected to North Carolina Bar Association Board of Governors
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, July 22 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson's Robert H. Wall Elected to North Carolina Bar Association Board of Governors
Baker Donelson shareholder Robert H. Wall has been elected to serve a three-year term on the North Carolina Bar Association's (NCBA) Board of Governors. The election took place during the Annual Meeting Business Meeting.
The NCBA Board of Governors oversees the governance and strategic direction of the state's largest voluntary legal organization, helping guide initiatives that support the legal profession,
... Show Full Article
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, July 22 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson's Robert H. Wall Elected to North Carolina Bar Association Board of Governors
Baker Donelson shareholder Robert H. Wall has been elected to serve a three-year term on the North Carolina Bar Association's (NCBA) Board of Governors. The election took place during the Annual Meeting Business Meeting.
The NCBA Board of Governors oversees the governance and strategic direction of the state's largest voluntary legal organization, helping guide initiatives that support the legal profession,promote the administration of justice, and serve the citizens of North Carolina.
Mr. Wall focuses his practice on complex federal and state tax matters, including tax-exempt organizations, tax controversy, transactions, and estate and business succession planning. He represents businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and individuals in matters involving the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), state departments of revenue, business structuring, and estate planning. In addition to his legal practice, he serves as an adjunct professor at Wake Forest University School of Law and is a frequent speaker on taxation and corporate governance.
"It is an honor to be elected to serve on the North Carolina Bar Association's Board of Governors," Mr. Wall said. "The NCBA plays an important role in advancing the legal profession and supporting attorneys across our state. I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the Association's mission and to work alongside fellow leaders dedicated to serving our profession and the public."
Mr. Wall has long been active in the legal and local communities. He previously served as chair of the NCBA Tax Law Section and is a member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Society and the Forsyth County Bar Association. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America(R) for Tax Law and Trusts and Estates (since 2024), and he is recognized among Business North Carolina's Legal Elite for Tax and Estate Planning Law (since 2023).
Mr. Wall earned an LL.M. in Taxation from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, his J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law, and his bachelor's degree from Wake Forest University.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/baker-donelsons-robert-h-wall-elected-to-north-carolina-bar-association-board-of-governors
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
