Featured Stories
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Advises Joint Sponsors of Kinwong Electronic on Its Hong Kong IPO
NEW YORK, Sept. 29 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises joint sponsors of Kinwong Electronic on its Hong Kong IPO
29 Sep 2026
Global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised CITIC Securities (Hong Kong) Limited, Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited and Guolian Securities International Capital Market Co., Limited as joint sponsors and underwriters on the listing of Shenzhen Kinwong Electronic Co., Ltd. (03228.HK, 603228.SS) on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Kinwong Electronic is
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Sept. 29 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises joint sponsors of Kinwong Electronic on its Hong Kong IPO
29 Sep 2026
Global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised CITIC Securities (Hong Kong) Limited, Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited and Guolian Securities International Capital Market Co., Limited as joint sponsors and underwriters on the listing of Shenzhen Kinwong Electronic Co., Ltd. (03228.HK, 603228.SS) on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Kinwong Electronic isa globally recognised printed circuit board (PCB) manufacturer. It is the world's largest automotive electronics PCB provider and ranks eleventh among all PCB providers worldwide.
"Hong Kong continues to provide an important platform for established industry leaders seeking access to international capital markets," said Hong Kong partner Matt Emsley. "Kinwong Electronic's listing reflects the market's continued role in supporting high-quality companies with resilient businesses and long-term growth potential."
Kinwong Electronic's PCB products provide connectivity infrastructure for global customers in the automotive, telecommunication and data infrastructure, smart devices, industrial control and other sectors.
The company has more recently expanded its markets to include advanced technology fields such as AI computing, next-generation communication, AIoT, drones and robotics.
"We congratulate Kinwong Electronic on its successful listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange," said Beijing partner Stanley Xie. "This is an important milestone for the company, and we are pleased to have supported Kinwong Electronic with our cross-border capital markets experience and understanding of technology and advanced manufacturing businesses."
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has a strong track record advising on cross border China capital markets transactions, including Hong Kong listings of A share listed companies such as S.F. Holding Co., Ltd. (06936.HK, 002352.SZ), Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (01276.HK, 600276.SS), Shanghai Longcheer Technology Co., Ltd. (09611.HK, 603341.SS), Eastroc Beverage (Group) Co., Ltd. (09980.HK, 605499.SS), Mabwell (Shanghai) Bioscience Co., Ltd. (02493.HK, 688062.SS), Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (02475.HK, 002475.SZ) and Nexchip Semiconductor Corporation (02249.HK, 688249.SS). These transactions, including those for Shanghai Longcheer Technology Co., Ltd., Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. and Nexchip Semiconductor Corporation, further demonstrate the team's experience in cross-border capital markets transactions for companies in sectors related to advanced manufacturing.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised on 13 Hong Kong IPOs that have listed over the past 12 months, with an aggregate value of HK$52 billion.
Partners Matt Emsley, Stanley Xie and Jin Kong/* led a cross-office team advising the client, assisted by Maisie Ko, Sean Ji, Karen Chan, Mia Zheng, Hao Lin, Ariel Liu, Allen Wang, Renee Fung and Sophie Liang. Tian Ye, Derrick Zhao and Nicole Chan also provided assistance.
Legal manager Marine Jin led the Herbert Smith Freehills Kewei Joint Operation's Digital Legal Delivery team in providing efficient support for verification and other document-intensive processes during the listing, assisted by Xiaojing Ye, Lan Lang, Lu Zhang and Cunting Lin.
*/ Due to regulatory requirements in Hong Kong, Jin Kong's official title is Senior Registered Foreign Lawyer.
* * *
URL: CITIC Securities
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-09/hsfkramer-advises-joint-sponsors-of-kinwong-electronic-on-its-hong-kong-ipo
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: California Law Adds Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirement for Employers - What to Know + 4 Steps to Take Now
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
New California Law Adds Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirement for Employers: What to Know + 4 Steps to Take Now
Sep 28, 2026
Many California employers will need to expand their sexual harassment prevention training to include an anti-hate speech component by 2028. A new law adds a broad component to California's already detailed harassment-prevention training obligations, and employers should begin reviewing their training programs now so they can update content and vendor arrangements well before
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 29 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
New California Law Adds Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirement for Employers: What to Know + 4 Steps to Take Now
Sep 28, 2026
Many California employers will need to expand their sexual harassment prevention training to include an anti-hate speech component by 2028. A new law adds a broad component to California's already detailed harassment-prevention training obligations, and employers should begin reviewing their training programs now so they can update content and vendor arrangements well beforethe effective date. This Insight covers everything employers need to know and provides four steps you should consider taking now.
What Happened?
California employers with five or more employees are already subject to sexual harassment prevention training obligations, and Governor Newsom just signed a bill (AB 1803) that will require that training to also cover anti-hate speech, beginning January 1, 2028.
What Are the New Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirements?
Covered employers will be required to provide supervisors and employees with practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that "vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people" based on certain protected characteristics, including because of a person's race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status.
The law does not require a wholly separate training program and does not increase the required duration of training. Moreover, AB 1803 specifies that if an employer's training includes information about prohibited harassment and the prevention of abusive conduct based on protected characteristics, it will satisfy the new "hate speech" training requirement. Therefore, for many employers, their existing compliant sexual harassment prevention training may already be sufficient.
What Employers Should Do Now?
California employers should consider taking the following steps before the January 1, 2028, effective date:
* Review Existing Training Content. Assess your current sexual harassment prevention training to determine whether it addresses prohibited harassment, abusive conduct, and workplace speech based on protected characteristics. For many employers, this will already be the case. If it does not, you will need to update your training content by January 1, 2028.
* Coordinate With Training Providers. Ask internal training personnel and outside vendors and counsel whether they can incorporate practical content addressing the recognition, reporting, and confrontation of hate speech in the workplace. Work with counsel to help ensure compliance.
* Evaluate Reporting and Response Practices. Confirm that employees understand how to report concerns and that the company's reporting channels and investigation practices are prepared to address complaints involving potentially hateful or abusive speech.
* Monitor Guidance. Watch for agency guidance that may clarify the scope of the new training requirement and how it may be integrated into existing harassment-prevention programs. The best way to stay up to speed is to subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight System.
* * *
Related People
Benjamin M. Ebbink
Partner
bebbink@fisherphillips.com
916/210-0400
* * *
Montana Massone
Associate
mmassone@fisherphillips.com
916/252-2903
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/new-california-law-adds-anti-hate-speech-training-requirement-for-employers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Issues Insight: European Innovation Act - How the Law Could Change IP Investment in the EU
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Sept. 29 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
September 28, 2026
The European Innovation Act: How the Law Could Change IP Investment in the EU
US companies with EU operations, IP portfolios, or interest in public R&D procurement should monitor further developments.
At a Glance
* On 9 September 2026, the European Commission published its formal legislative proposal for the European Innovation Act. Unlike an EU directive, the proposed regulation would be directly applicable in all EU Member States without the need for national
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Sept. 29 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
September 28, 2026
The European Innovation Act: How the Law Could Change IP Investment in the EU
US companies with EU operations, IP portfolios, or interest in public R&D procurement should monitor further developments.
At a Glance
* On 9 September 2026, the European Commission published its formal legislative proposal for the European Innovation Act. Unlike an EU directive, the proposed regulation would be directly applicable in all EU Member States without the need for nationaltransposition legislation. The Act represents a key initiative under the EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy.
* The Act has two principal objectives: (i) facilitating IP-backed financing within the EU by introducing a harmonised framework for the valuation and monetisation of intellectual property, including through the creation of a new Competence Centre for IP-backed finance within the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); and (ii) streamlining joint public procurement between Member States for research and development.
* If adopted, the Act would particularly benefit IP-rich companies, R&D-intensive businesses, life sciences and deep-tech firms, public-sector technology vendors, IP licensors, and venture-backed scaleups operating or looking to invest in Europe.
* The proposal includes EU preference rules for R&D procurement that would put at an advantage companies with a significant European presence.
-
Background
The Commission's strategic agenda for 2024-2029 prioritises creating the conditions for the development, commercialisation, and scaling of innovation across the EU, with a goal of establishing a single market for startups and innovation by 2028. The proposed Act is intended as a foundational step toward that objective.
Traditionally, financial institutions in the EU have focused on tangible assets and conventional accounting metrics when making lending decisions. As a result, IP-rich companies struggle to secure financing. The Commission estimates that this has created a financing gap of up to EUR 18 billion per year for asset-light, innovative firms. The Commission estimates that this has created a financing gap of up to EUR 18 billion per year for asset-light, innovative firms. The absence of a harmonised legal framework for IP valuation, coupled with regulatory disparities between Member States, creates barriers to cross-border investment. This funding gap is especially acute in the transition from research to commercialisation. The Commission also highlights that the EU currently spends only 0.6% of total public procurement on R&D, compared with 3.5% in the United States and 5% in South Korea.
A Common EU Framework for IP Valuation
The Act would establish a single EU-wide framework for IP valuation, introducing common methodologies and standards, including a voluntary Union certification scheme for IP valuators administered by the EUIPO, to allow financial institutions to assess the value of intangible assets with greater consistency and confidence. It would also create a digital marketplace to connect IP holders with potential buyers, licensees, and investors, facilitating the monetisation of intellectual property across borders. The IP valuation framework and digital marketplace would be voluntary, and the EUIPO would be prohibited from charging fees for basic access to the valuation framework, the matchmaking platform, and the helpdesk. The Commission estimates that these measures would generate approximately Euros35 million in cost savings and unlock an additional Euros10.2 billion per year in IP-backed venture capital and debt financing. Critics of the proposals point to the fact that IP valuation in respect of patent-heavy portfolios requires specialist knowledge which sits outside the EUIPO's institutional competence (which is limited to trademarks and designs, since patents are administered by an entirely separate (non-EU) body, the European Patent Office).
The proposal would also establish a Competence Centre within the EUIPO, tasked with developing skills programmes in IP-backed finance, building an evidence database on IP-collateralised transactions across the EU, supporting the development of new financial instruments backed by IP, and coordinating a Union-level helpdesk. For US companies with EU operations or IP portfolios, this framework could provide new avenues for leveraging European IP assets to access financing.
A Simplified Route for Research and Development Procurement
The Act would establish a common procedure for joint cross-border R&D procurement, enabling Member States to pool resources and coordinate purchasing of innovative solutions. This includes provisions for pre-commercial procurement which would allow public buyers to partner with innovators at an earlier stage.
Under pre-commercial procurement, IP ownership would remain with the contractor by default, enabling companies to commercialise their R&D results to wider markets. This approach differs from typical US federal procurement practice under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), where the government generally retains broader rights in inventions and data developed under government contracts. The aim is to improve legal certainty, reduce administrative complexity, and help new technologies reach the public-sector market faster. The Commission projects that these measures could deliver approximately Euros1 billion in savings for public buyers and generate an additional Euros25.92 billion in annual profits for companies.
The proposal includes some EU preference rules for R&D procurement access. Public buyers would generally be required to open participation only to EU-based operators with a significant R&D presence in Europe. The proposal does provide limited exceptions: where restricting access would result in insufficient bidders or disproportionate costs, public buyers may open procurement to operators from countries with broader trade agreements. Defence procurement is excluded from the mandatory scope of the R&D procurement rules.
Implications
* IP-backed lending and investment in Europe could be significantly simplified under the proposed framework, providing new avenues for companies to leverage their intangible assets.
* For the first time, IP valuation methodologies and R&D public procurement procedures would be codified under a common EU-wide framework, reducing the current fragmentation between Member States.
* Joint public procurement between Member States in R&D could become more frequent, potentially increasing cross-border investment and fostering innovation across the region.
Next Steps
* The proposal will now proceed through the ordinary legislative procedure. The European Parliament and the Council will each consider it, and the final text may differ materially from the current proposal.
* US companies with EU operations, EU-registered IP portfolios, or ambitions to participate in EU public R&D procurement should monitor further developments.
* Separately, the Commission has published alongside the Act a proposal for a Council Recommendation on regulatory sandboxes, which would provide a standardised framework across the EU for testing innovative products and services in a controlled regulatory environment.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Huw Beverley-Smith
Partner
London
huw.beverley-smith@faegredrinker.com
+44 (0) 20 7450 4551
* * *
Louise Bridoux
Trainee Solicitor
London
louise.bridoux@faegredrinker.com
+44 (0) 20 7450 4511
* * *
Charlotte H N Perowne
Associate
London
charlotte.perowne@faegredrinker.com
+44 (0) 20 7450 4532
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/9/the-european-innovation-act-how-the-law-could-change-ip-investment-in-the-eu
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Sept. 29 -- Dorsey and Whitney, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000
September 28, 2026
Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World's Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm's Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings.
The following Dorsey attorneys were
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Sept. 29 -- Dorsey and Whitney, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000
September 28, 2026
Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World's Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm's Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings.
The following Dorsey attorneys wererecognized in the inaugural guide:
* Lindsey Sadler
* Gregory Tamkin
* Charlene Krogh
* Evan Everist
* Jeffrey Cadwell
* Fara Sunderji
* Bruce Ewing
* Catherine Parrish Lake
* J. Michael Keyes
The Copyright 1000 is the first dedicated ranking focused solely on the world's leading copyright practitioners. The guide identifies leading copyright firms and practitioners across key jurisdictions worldwide.
Dorsey's intellectual property attorneys advise clients on a wide range of copyright matters, including protection, enforcement, licensing, litigation, transactions, and issues involving emerging technologies and digital content.
The inaugural Copyright 1000 rankings are published by IAM and WTR.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/news/press-releases/2026/09/iam-wtr-copyright-1000
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Clark Hill: Pennsylvania Court Clarifies Contractors' Recovery of CASPA Damages
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Sept. 29 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update:
* * *
Pennsylvania Superior Court Clarifies Contractors' Entitlement to Recovery of CASPA Damages Based on Partial Performance of Construction Contracts
September 28, 2026
Authors
Danny P. Cerrone, Jr., Andrew P. Giel
In a recent decision, Tedesco Excavating & Paving, Inc. v. FWH Development, LLC, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a contractor who performs some, but not all, of its contractual obligations may still be entitled to recover damages under Pennsylvania's Contractor and Subcontractor
... Show Full Article
BIRMINGHAM, Michigan, Sept. 29 -- Clark Hill, a law firm, issued the following legal update:
* * *
Pennsylvania Superior Court Clarifies Contractors' Entitlement to Recovery of CASPA Damages Based on Partial Performance of Construction Contracts
September 28, 2026
Authors
Danny P. Cerrone, Jr., Andrew P. Giel
In a recent decision, Tedesco Excavating & Paving, Inc. v. FWH Development, LLC, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a contractor who performs some, but not all, of its contractual obligations may still be entitled to recover damages under Pennsylvania's Contractor and SubcontractorPayment Act ("CASPA") including overhead, lost profits, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
In this case, the owner hired a contractor to perform certain roadwork in connection with a residential and commercial development. The contract provided that the owner could terminate the contract without cause upon seven days' written. The contract also provided that, if the owner terminated the contract without cause, the contractor was entitled to payment "for completed and acceptable work executed in accordance with the contract...including fair and reasonable sums for overhead and profit on such work." The contract did not permit the contractor to recover "anticipated profits or revenues or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination."
Following execution of the contract, the contractor promptly executed a subcontract with an electrical subcontractor, procured and stored traffic light poles, prepared and submitted detailed engineering shop drawings for the traffic light poles, and secured insurance in connection with the project. The contractor and its electrical subcontractor also attended a mandatory pre-construction meeting with PennDOT and the owner. At the pre-construction meeting, the owner informed the contractor that the owner lacked adequate funding for the project. However, the owner did not suspend the project.
Despite the contractor and the owner remaining in communication, the project did not commence for several years. At the owner's request, the contractor provided two escalation proposals for cost increases. The contractor became aware, and the owner confirmed, that the owner awarded the contract for the remaining roadwork to one of the contractor's competitors. The owner believed that the contractor's escalation proposals were excessive and stated that the owner would "no longer use [the contractor] to complete the work for the project."
The contractor sued the owner for breach of contract, seeking both overhead and profit. The contractor also submitted a pay application for "final payment," which included overhead and profit. The owner did not respond to the pay application but subsequently provided written notice of termination without cause.
At trial, the jury awarded overhead and lost profits to the contractor, and the trial court added interest, attorneys' fees, and legal costs to the verdict. The owner appealed, asking the Superior Court to decide whether a contractor that has been paid for all work performed under the contract is entitled to recover overhead, profit, interest and attorneys' fees under CASPA.
On appeal, the Superior Court discussed how CASPA "is a comprehensive statute enacted...to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors," with CASPA's purpose being "to protect contractors and subcontractors and to encourage fair dealing among parties to a construction contract." The Court noted that the Pennsylvania legislature did not include requirements within CASPA that a contractor or subcontractor perform physical work or complete a construction project to be entitled to payment. Rather, the Court determined that the Pennsylvania legislature provided that "performance by a contractor or a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of a contract shall entitle them to payment" and that performance most likely meant "accomplishment of some but not all of one's contractual obligations."
The Court found that the contractor accomplished some, but not all, of its contractual obligations by (1) meeting and contracting with subcontractors, (2) submitting documents and shop drawings, (3) buying insurance, (4) meeting with PennDOT, and (5) keeping a gap open in its schedule for the project. The Court further stated that, regardless of whether the term "performance" within CASPA requires full performance under a contract, the owner's anticipatory repudiation of the contract terminated the contractor's contractual obligations. The Court found that, when the owner materially breached the contract by hiring the contractor's competitor to do the work, whatever work the contractor had previously performed under the contract instantly became "full performance" because the contractor had no further contractual obligations to the owner.
Relatedly, the Court observed that it would be unfair to allow an owner to bar a contractor from seeking interest and attorneys' fees on expected profits by preventing the contractor from completing the very final portion of the contractor's work on the project. Otherwise, the Court opined, there would be nothing to "discourage unscrupulous owners...from anticipatorily repudiating construction contracts and subsequently litigating the contractor...to death."
The Court found that the contractor's recovery of ordinary interest, penalty interest, and attorneys' fees under CASPA were "particularly appropriate" to offset the losses that the owner caused the contractor from both the project and other potential projects that the contractor could not schedule while it waited on the owner to greenlight the project. Ultimately, the Court ruled that CASPA applied to the situation at issue because (1) the owner anticipatorily repudiated the contract, (2) the contractor demanded final payment for its lost overhead and profits, and (3) the owner refused to pay the sum demanded. Accordingly, the Court found that the contractor was entitled to recover damages pursuant to CASPA, including overhead, lost profits, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.
If you have any questions regarding recoverable damages as part of a construction dispute, either as an owner, contractor, or subcontractor, or any other questions regarding a construction dispute, consult your attorney or anyone in Clark Hill's Construction Practice Group.
* * *
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(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. 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/pennsylvania-superior-court-clarifies-contractors-entitlement-to-recovery-of-caspa-damages-based-on-partial-performance-of-construction-contracts/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Alston & Bird Once Again Earns 'Powerhouse' Ranking in BTI Consulting Group's 2027 Litigation Outlook
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 29 -- Alston and Bird, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
September 28, 2026
Alston & Bird Once Again Earns 'Powerhouse' Ranking in BTI Consulting Group's 2027 Litigation Outlook
Alston & Bird has again been recognized in eight practice categories within BTI Consulting Group's 2027 Litigation Outlook and ranked among the BTI Awesome Opponents: The Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation. This annual report is based exclusively on in-depth surveys and interviews with leading legal decision-makers.
Alston & Bird was named a "Powerhouse" in Commercial Litigation
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 29 -- Alston and Bird, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
September 28, 2026
Alston & Bird Once Again Earns 'Powerhouse' Ranking in BTI Consulting Group's 2027 Litigation Outlook
Alston & Bird has again been recognized in eight practice categories within BTI Consulting Group's 2027 Litigation Outlook and ranked among the BTI Awesome Opponents: The Most Feared Law Firms in Litigation. This annual report is based exclusively on in-depth surveys and interviews with leading legal decision-makers.
Alston & Bird was named a "Powerhouse" in Commercial Litigationand Complex Commercial Litigation, placing the firm in the top 3% and top 4% of all firms, respectively. Alston & Bird was also recognized in the following categories:
* Class Action Litigation - Distinguished
* Complex Employment Litigation - Leader
* Employment Litigation - Leader
* IP Litigation - Leader
* Product Liability Litigation - Distinguished
* Securities & Finance Litigation - Leader
* * *
Original text here: https://www.alston.com/en/insights/news/2026/09/bti-litigation-outlook-2027
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Akin Advises Millrose Properties in $1 Billion Senior Notes Offering
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Advises Millrose Properties in $1 Billion Senior Notes Offering
September 28, 2026
(New York) - Akin advised Millrose Properties, Inc., the homesite option platform for residential homebuilders, in the pricing of its private offering of $1 billion aggregate principal amount of senior notes. The offering consists of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.500% senior notes due 2029 and $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.750% senior notes due 2031.
The offering is expected to close on
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Advises Millrose Properties in $1 Billion Senior Notes Offering
September 28, 2026
(New York) - Akin advised Millrose Properties, Inc., the homesite option platform for residential homebuilders, in the pricing of its private offering of $1 billion aggregate principal amount of senior notes. The offering consists of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.500% senior notes due 2029 and $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.750% senior notes due 2031.
The offering is expected to close onOctober 6, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions.
Proceeds from the offering, along with funds available under Millrose's delayed draw term loan facility, are expected to support general corporate purposes, including homesite acquisitions tied to the pending Dream Finders Homes, Inc. and Beazer Homes, Inc. entity transaction and the repayment of revolving credit facility borrowings.
The Akin team was led by corporate practice co-head Zachary Wittenberg; and included capital markets partner John Clayton and finance partners Alan Laves and Matthew Bivona; capital markets senior counsel Alex Reuss; finance senior counsel Lech Wilkiewicz and associates Mickayla Carey, Kathryn Faulk, Brady Pedneau and Katherine Wisniewski; and corporate associates Zoe Hawkins, Analynn Balunda, Samuel Keltner, Rhylee Azevedo.
For more on the transaction, click here.
* * *
Akin is a leading international law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers in offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
* * *
URL: Millrose Properties
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/press-releases/akin-advises-millrose-properties-in-dollar1-billion-senior-notes-offering
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
