Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Littler: Policy Week in Review - February 6, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Policy Week in Review - February 6, 2026
Congressional and Administrative News
At a Glance
The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal, state, and local matters.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
DOL Announces Minimum Wage Rate Change for Federal Contractors
The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued a notice setting a new minimum wage rate of $13.65 per hour for workers performing
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Policy Week in Review - February 6, 2026
Congressional and Administrative News
At a Glance
The Policy Week in Review, prepared by Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), sets forth WPI's updates on federal, state, and local matters.
By Shannon Meade, Jim Paretti, Alex MacDonald, and Maury Baskin
DOL Announces Minimum Wage Rate Change for Federal Contractors
The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued a notice setting a new minimum wage rate of $13.65 per hour for workers performingwork on or in connection with federal contracts entered into between January 1, 2015 and January 29, 2022 that were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022. The minimum wage for tipped employees performing work in connection with those covered contracts increases to $9.55 per hour. The rate changes will go in effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. Read Littler's analysis here.
DHS and DOL Release Supplemental H-2B Visas for 2026
The Departments of Homeland Security and Labor published a temporary rule authorizing up to, but not more than, an additional 64,716 H-2B visas for Fiscal Year 2026 to be distributed in three allocations. The supplemental visas will be available only to those American businesses that "are suffering or will suffer impending irreparable harm, i.e., those facing permanent and sever financial loss, as attested by the employer."
Bipartisan Joint Employer Bill Gains Support
The congressional Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of Republican and Democratic members of Congress seeking solutions to key issues facing the country, endorsed the American Franchise Act, which aims to protect the franchise business model by amending the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify that a franchisor may be considered a joint employer of the employees of a franchisee only if the franchisor possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment. The bipartisan bill is sponsored by Representatives Kevin Hern (R-OK) and Don Davis (D-NC) and currently has 77 cosponsors.
* * *
Authors
Shannon Meade
Executive Director, Workplace Policy Institute
Washington, D.C.
* * *
James A. Paretti
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Alexander T. MacDonald
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Maury Baskin
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/policy-week-review-february-6-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: DOL Notice Indicates Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Does Not Apply to Contracts Entered Into or Renewed After Jan. 29, 2022
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by shareholder David J. Goldstein:
* * *
DOL Notice Indicates Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Does Not Apply to Contracts Entered Into or Renewed After January 29, 2022
In 2014 President Obama issued Executive Order 13658, creating a minimum wage for work performed on or in connection with certain federal contracts that is higher than the minimum wage applicable to employers subject to just the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2021 President Biden issued Executive Order 14026, establishing
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by shareholder David J. Goldstein:
* * *
DOL Notice Indicates Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Does Not Apply to Contracts Entered Into or Renewed After January 29, 2022
In 2014 President Obama issued Executive Order 13658, creating a minimum wage for work performed on or in connection with certain federal contracts that is higher than the minimum wage applicable to employers subject to just the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2021 President Biden issued Executive Order 14026, establishingan even higher minimum wage applicable to certain government contracts entered into on or after January 30, 2022 and providing that Executive Order 13658 "is superseded, as of January 30, 2022, to the extent it is inconsistent with this order."
On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14236, revoking President Biden's Executive Order 14026 without addressing the continuing viability of President Obama's Executive Order 13658. Following this executive action, there has been uncertainty as to whether the minimum wage previously established pursuant to EO 13658 would once again apply or whether the higher federal minimum wage applicable to federal contracts has been abolished entirely. Since neither Biden's Executive Order 14026 nor Trump's Executive Order 14236 revoked Executive Order 13658, there is an argument that Executive Order 13658 applies to covered government contracts entered into on or after March 14, 2025.
Employers have been waiting for the U.S. Department of Labor to offer guidance on this issue, which has now been provided, albeit obliquely, in a Notice that is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on February 9.
In this Notice, the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division announces an increase in the minimum wage payable to workers performing work on or in connection with contracts covered by Executive Order 13658 to $13.65 per hour and an increase in the required minimum cash wage that generally must be paid to tipped employees performing work on or in connection with covered contracts to $9.55 per hour. These increases will become effective 90 days after the date on which the Notice is published in the Federal Register.
Far more significant than the announcement of this annual adjustment to the federal contractor minimum wage, however, is the Department of Labor's statement that: "At this time, Executive Order 13658 remains in effect and generally applies to contracts . . . awarded between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022."
The Department of Labor is thus expressing its position that Executive Order 13658 does not apply to contracts awarded, renewed, or extended after January 29, 2022. Unfortunately, the Notice does not provide any rationale for this conclusion. While the Department's conclusion is reasonable, it is not the only possible conclusion given President Trump's failure to either revoke Executive Order 13658 or otherwise explicitly address its continuing applicability.
Because work covered by Executive Order 13658 is very often also covered by either the Service Contract Act or Davis Bacon Act, which establish prevailing wages that are typically higher than the minimum wage established by Executive Order 13658, the continuing viability of Executive Order 13658 will be of limited importance for many federal contractors.
Nevertheless, there may be instances in which an employer will wish to pay workers less than the federal contractor minimum wage for work that would be within the scope of Executive Order 13658, if this executive order applies to contracts awarded, renewed, or extended after January 29, 2022. If the Department of Labor has erred in concluding that Executive Order 13658 does not apply to contracts awarded, renewed, or extended after January 29, 2022, employers could be liable for failing to pay the higher wage./1 Formal rulemaking by the Department of Labor to address this continuing uncertainty would be welcome. Any remaining ambiguity could also be resolved by an executive order revoking Executive Order 13658. Barring such further clarification, federal contractors should consult with their legal counsel regarding compliance with federal contractor prevailing wage and minimum wage requirements.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ See, e.g., David Goldstein, Jim Paretti, Jason Branciforte, and Carroll Wright, President Trump Decreases Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors, Littler ASAP (Mar. 19, 2025).
* * *
Authors
David J. Goldstein
Shareholder
Minneapolis
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/dol-notice-indicates-federal-contractor-minimum-wage-does-not-apply-contracts
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: California High Court Limits Use of Formatting and "Fine Print" Arguments to Defeat Arbitration
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by shareholder Laura E. Devane, shareholder Robert F. Friedman and associate Carolyn Hudson:
* * *
California High Court Limits Use of Formatting and "Fine Print" Arguments to Defeat Arbitration
The California Supreme Court (the "Court") has confirmed that an arbitration agreement's formatting--standing alone--does not render its terms substantively unconscionable, even where the text is difficult to read./1 The Court rejected efforts to "double count" formatting flaws as both procedural
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 7 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 6, 2026, by shareholder Laura E. Devane, shareholder Robert F. Friedman and associate Carolyn Hudson:
* * *
California High Court Limits Use of Formatting and "Fine Print" Arguments to Defeat Arbitration
The California Supreme Court (the "Court") has confirmed that an arbitration agreement's formatting--standing alone--does not render its terms substantively unconscionable, even where the text is difficult to read./1 The Court rejected efforts to "double count" formatting flaws as both proceduraland substantive defects. The Court also reiterated that extreme procedural deficiencies may warrant closer review of an agreement's terms, and remanded the case in question for further proceedings based on issues unique to the record before it.
Background
In Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc., an applicant, during the hiring process, signed an arbitration agreement. The agreement appeared in dense, small font text and was presented as part of a standard employment packet. After the employee's later termination, she filed suit, and the employer moved to compel arbitration.
The trial court denied the motion, finding significant procedural unconscionability and some degree of substantive unconscionability. The Court of Appeal reversed and directed arbitration. The Court granted review to resolve disagreement in the lower courts over how flawed formatting impacts an unconscionability analysis.
The California Supreme Court's Decision
1. Formatting Defects Are Procedural--Not Substantive
The Court squarely held that font size, density, or legibility do not, by themselves, make arbitration terms substantively unconscionable. Substantive unconscionability turns on whether contract terms are unfairly one sided or unduly harsh, while procedural unconscionability considers the print or presentation of those terms. The Court also noted that a contract's multiple procedural deficiencies do not render the contract substantively deficient.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court clarified that references in prior cases to "fine print terms" address hidden, unfair provisions, not merely small or blurry type. To that extent, the Court curtailed attempts to use formatting issues as an independent basis to invalidate arbitration agreements.
Takeaway: Arguments that arbitration agreements fail because of "tiny print" alone remain insufficient to establish substantive unconscionability.
2. Procedural Issues May Heighten--But Do Not Replace--Substantive Inquiry
While rejecting the trial court's reliance on illegibility as substantive unconscionability, the Court emphasized established doctrine: where procedural unconscionability is high, courts may apply closer scrutiny to the agreement's substance.
The Court acknowledged the Court of Appeal prematurely ended its analysis upon finding no substantive unconscionability, without meaningfully considering procedural unconscionability or applying the required sliding scale framework. The Court further emphasized that arbitration agreements must be evaluated under the same principles as any other contract, neither favored nor disfavored.
3. Related Agreements Must Be Read Carefully
The employee pointed to separate confidentiality agreements executed after the arbitration agreement, arguing they preserved the employer's ability to pursue certain claims in court.
Without resolving that issue definitively, the Court concluded the agreements--read together--raised interpretive questions that should not have been resolved automatically in favor of arbitration. Given the posture of the case, the Court determined the trial court should reconsider whether the agreements, as drafted, created an impermissible lack of mutuality.
4. Remand for Further Proceedings
Because the trial court never reached the employee's separate argument that she did not assent to the arbitration agreement, the Court held the Court of Appeal erred in directing arbitration outright. The Court remanded the case to allow the trial court to address unresolved issues under the proper legal framework.
Key Takeaways for Employers
While fact specific, the decision delivers several employer relevant clarifications for arbitration agreements in general:
* Formatting alone does not invalidate arbitration agreements on substantive unconscionability grounds.
* California courts remain focused on the fairness of the terms themselves, not typography.
* Procedural concerns may increase scrutiny but do not substitute for a showing of unfair substance.
* Arbitration agreements should be reviewed alongside related employment documents to ensure consistent dispute resolution provisions.
* Employers should not assume courts will rely on generalized "policy favoring arbitration" to resolve ambiguities.
Bottom Line
The California Supreme Court meaningfully limited the use of formatting based challenges to arbitration agreements, reinforcing that substantive unconscionability requires substantively unfair terms. Although the Court remanded for further proceedings tied to the specific record, its core holding strengthens employers' ability to defend arbitration agreements against expansive unconscionability theories--particularly those grounded in formatting or "fine print" arguments.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ A contract is substantively unconscionable when its terms unfairly benefit or harm one side and a contract is procedurally unconscionable when there was unfairness in the process of forming the contract, often due to an imbalance in bargaining power.
* * *
Authors
Devane_Laura
Laura E. Devane
Shareholder
Fresno
* * *
Robert F. Friedman
Shareholder
Dallas
* * *
Carolyn Hudson
Associate
Fresno
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/california-high-court-limits-use-formatting-and-fine-print-arguments-defeat
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Ohio's E-Verify Law for Nonresidential Construction Contractors Takes Effect Soon
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 6 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026, senior counsel Bruce Buchanan and senior counsel George Michael Thompson:
* * *
Ohio's E-Verify Law for Nonresidential Construction Contractors Takes Effect Soon
Starting March 19, 2026, Ohio's E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act will require any "nonresidential" construction company contracting in the state of Ohio to use E-Verify, and impose penalties for violations.
The main provision of the Act requires any "nonresidential construction contractor, subcontractor, or labor broker to verify
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 6 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026, senior counsel Bruce Buchanan and senior counsel George Michael Thompson:
* * *
Ohio's E-Verify Law for Nonresidential Construction Contractors Takes Effect Soon
Starting March 19, 2026, Ohio's E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act will require any "nonresidential" construction company contracting in the state of Ohio to use E-Verify, and impose penalties for violations.
The main provision of the Act requires any "nonresidential construction contractor, subcontractor, or labor broker to verifythe employment eligibility of each employee hired to perform work on a nonresidential construction project through the E-Verify program." A nonresidential construction project is defined as "the construction or renovation of any building, highway, bridge, utility, or related infrastructure." This includes installation work on an industrial building as it would likely be viewed as an "improvement" or "renovation" on a nonresidential project. It does not include industrialized units, manufactured homes, residential buildings, mobile homes, or buildings or structures that are incidental to the use of land on which the building or structure is located for agricultural purposes.
The statute seemingly applies to non-residential construction projects within the state of Ohio only. If an Ohio nonresidential construction contractor performs work outside the state, the statute should not apply.
The Ohio E-Verify law enforcement process starts with an investigation by the attorney general. The investigation can be initiated by formal complaint on a form prescribed by the attorney general. The attorney general must "investigate any violation alleged in the complaint form when the attorney general determines the complaint contains sufficient facts to reasonably conclude that the violation may have occurred." Additionally, the attorney general may investigate anonymous complaints to the extent they include sufficient facts to reasonably conclude a violation has occurred. If the attorney general determines that "reasonable evidence exists" that a violation occurred, the attorney general will issue a notice of violation. The company has 10 calendar days from receipt of the notice of violation to make a request to the attorney general for an adjudicatory hearing conducted by the director of commerce or their designee. Failure to make such requests within 10 calendar days results in a final, enforceable order.
A contractor's failure to create an E-Verify case or its continuing employment after the attorney general issues a notice to the contractor that it must "provide satisfactory proof" that the employee is "authorized to be employed" can result in a civil action brought by the attorney general. These penalties are between $250 and $25,000, and/or an order rendering the contractor, subcontractor, or labor broker ineligible "to bid for or participate in any future state contract for a period of up to two years."
If the nonresidential construction contractor has projects both inside Ohio and in a neighboring state, like Kentucky, the contractor is only required to enroll in E-Verify for all Ohio worksite locations since Kentucky does not have a mandatory E-Verify law. However, if a contractor has projects in both Ohio and Pennsylvania, the contractor may need to enroll in E-Verify for both states as Pennsylvania has a mandatory E-Verify law for "public work" construction projects.
Employers may utilize E-Verify for new hires only, unless they are a federal contractor with an applicable FAR E-Verify clause in the contract with the federal agency; in that case the contractor can opt to E-Verify all employees. However, this Ohio law appears to be in conflict with federal law. It states a nonresidential construction contractor, subcontractor, or labor broker is not required to comply with the E-Verify component of the statute if both of the following apply:
(1) The nonresidential construction contractor, subcontractor, or labor broker has previously verified an employee's employment eligibility using E-Verify; and (2) The employer is not required to verify or reverify the employee's eligibility to work under section 101(a)(1) of the federal "Immigration Reform and Control Act."
Here, the Ohio statute seems to instruct employers to run existing employees through E-Verify if they must be reverified, such as when an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) expires. Under federal E-Verify law, an employer may not run an employee through E-Verify after initially doing so, even when there must be a reverification of an EAD. Ohio nonresidential contractors should consult with their immigration counsel about how to approach this potential conflict.
In addition, Ohio law does not render contractors liable for the compliance of their subcontractors. However, contractors should collaborate with their subcontractors to ensure they are aware of the new requirement. Contractors may want to include language in any subcontractor agreements discussing the requirements to comply with the Ohio E-Verify law.
This Ohio E-Verify law is a growing trend in the Midwest industrial states, as Michigan recently enacted its own E-Verify law applying to those companies that contract with numerous Michigan departments and agencies. Previously, the state of Indiana passed a similar law, and Pennsylvania has an E-Verify law covering contractors and subcontractors performing "public works."
* * *
Authors
Bruce Buchanan
Senior Counsel
Nashville
* * *
George Michael Thompson
Special Counsel
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/ohios-e-verify-law-nonresidential-construction-contractors-takes-effect-soon
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: Conclusion of the FY26 Appropriations Process Kicks Off the FY27 Process in Election-Shorted Year
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Feb. 6 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026, by Senior Director Joshua L. Andrews, manager Matt Abdifar, principal Megan S. Herber and principal Nicholas P. Manetto:
* * *
Conclusion of the FY26 Appropriations Process Kicks Off the FY27 Process in Election-Shorted Year
As an appropriations bill gains consensus, it becomes harder to influence. Early engagement is important.
At a Glance
* Organizations interested in engaging in the annual appropriations process should be considering their priorities for the first
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Feb. 6 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 5, 2026, by Senior Director Joshua L. Andrews, manager Matt Abdifar, principal Megan S. Herber and principal Nicholas P. Manetto:
* * *
Conclusion of the FY26 Appropriations Process Kicks Off the FY27 Process in Election-Shorted Year
As an appropriations bill gains consensus, it becomes harder to influence. Early engagement is important.
At a Glance
* Organizations interested in engaging in the annual appropriations process should be considering their priorities for the firststages of congressional engagement.
* Early engagement with congressional champions is important to ensure requestors do not miss vital deadlines or information requirements.
* For organizations looking to submit requests, it is important to make sure they are well thought out and have justification and support from other offices or organizations that speak to the House or Senate member's office that you are soliciting.
*
As the US Congress works to complete its Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations process, Appropriations Committee staffers and personal office staffers in both the House and Senate will have an eye on the Fiscal Year 2027 process, which is about to get underway. Organizations interested in engaging in the annual appropriations process should be considering their priorities for the first stages of congressional engagement, particularly given the expectedly shorter congressional calendar due to the upcoming midterm elections.
Overview of the Appropriations Process
Typically, presidents release their budget and policy priorities in early February, which helps set the stage in terms of top funding levels and priorities for the various executive branch agencies. While the president's budget helps initiate the process, it is Congress that ultimately determines funding levels.
As part of the appropriations process, Congress will generally work to pass a budget resolution that establishes a blueprint for House and Senate appropriators to work through the individual appropriations bills. This doesn't always happen, particularly when control of Congress is divided between the parties. In 2025, congressional Republicans used a budget resolution to drive forward the "One Big, Beautiful" reconciliation bill. While some in the House majority would like to see an OBB reconciliation 2.0 bill emerge this year, there currently is not agreement on that.
When done, a budget resolution should help facilitate the appropriations process by providing funding levels to inform the drafting of individual spending bills. Absent this guidance, the process is more challenging. The 12 bills are the same in the House and the Senate and together fund all discretionary federal agency programs. The 12 bills by subcommittee nickname are: Ag/FDA, CJS, Defense, Energy & Water, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior & Environment, Labor-HHS, Leg Branch, MilCon-VA, SFOPS, and T-HUD.
As those big-picture items are being addressed, the offices of individual members of Congress will also begin opening individual portals in their offices soliciting requests for funding priorities. These include requests for programmatic funding -- for ongoing programs authorized by the federal government -- and report language, as well as congressionally directed spending (CDS) requests, also known as community projects or earmarks. Report language accompanies appropriations bills and helps instructs agencies on congressional intent for their spending.
For CDS, the House and Senate have different rules for how requests will be considered; therefore it's important to consider how those rules impact potential requests. Similarly, individual offices have different procedures and timing to consider such requests; and early engagement with congressional champions is important to ensure requestors do not miss vital deadlines or information requirements.
Once an individual office has received and vetted those appropriations requests, they will transmit them to the respective appropriations subcommittee charged with producing the first draft of their individual bill. Those bills are then marked up by their respective subcommittees, where amendments can be considered. Once approved at the subcommittee level, a full committee markup is held, which gives another opportunity to amend or otherwise affect a bill. Once approved by the Appropriations Committee, bills are moved to the House or Senate floor for broad adoption. Markups typically begin in late spring and conclude before August recess. Thus, non-appropriator member submission deadlines are usually early to late spring in advance of the markups.
It is important to note that as the process moves along, it becomes harder to influence these appropriations bills as they continue to gain consensus. For organizations looking to submit requests, it is important to make sure they are well thought out and have justification and support from other offices or organizations that speak to the member's office that you are soliciting.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors.
* * *
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
Joshua L. Andrews
Senior Director
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 589 2819
joshua.andrews@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Matt Abdifar
Manager - Federal Policy & Consulting
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5314
matt.abdifar@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Megan S. Herber
Principal - Faegre Drinker Consulting
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 312 7452
megan.herber@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Nicholas P. Manetto
Principal - Faegre Drinker Consulting
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 312 7499
nicholas.manetto@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/2/conclusion-of-the-fy26-appropriations-process-kicks-off-the-fy27-process-in-election-shorted-year
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Dentons Lee Joins ECCK HDCV Committee as Associate
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons Lee joins ECCK HDCV Committee as Associate
Dentons Lee has been appointed as the Associate of the Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles (HDCV) Committee of the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea (ECCK) for 2026.
As Associate, Dentons Lee will support the Committee's activities and contribute to constructive discussions on key trade and regulatory matters impacting the HDCV sector in Korea, in close collaboration with ECCK members and relevant stakeholders.
Dentons Lee will continue to provide practical, business-focused
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 -- Dentons, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Dentons Lee joins ECCK HDCV Committee as Associate
Dentons Lee has been appointed as the Associate of the Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles (HDCV) Committee of the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea (ECCK) for 2026.
As Associate, Dentons Lee will support the Committee's activities and contribute to constructive discussions on key trade and regulatory matters impacting the HDCV sector in Korea, in close collaboration with ECCK members and relevant stakeholders.
Dentons Lee will continue to provide practical, business-focusedlegal support to clients navigating regulatory change and cross-border issues in the mobility and commercial vehicle industries.
* * *
About Dentons
Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dentonslee.com/en/about-dentons-lee/news/2026/february/dentons-lee-joins-ecck-hdcv-committee-as-associate
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Bracewell's Charles Mills Contributes to the Newly Updated Derivatives Regulation, Second Edition
HOUSTON, Texas, Feb. 6 -- Bracewell, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Bracewell's Charles Mills Contributes to the Newly Updated Derivatives Regulation, Second Edition
WASHINGTON, DC - Charles R. Mills, a partner in Bracewell's Washington, DC office, is a co-author of Derivatives Regulation, Second Edition, the leading treatise on US derivatives law published by Wolters Kluwer.
Mills brings more than three decades of experience across derivatives, commodities and securities markets to this comprehensive update. Drawing on his extensive work before the Commodity Futures Trading
... Show Full Article
HOUSTON, Texas, Feb. 6 -- Bracewell, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Bracewell's Charles Mills Contributes to the Newly Updated Derivatives Regulation, Second Edition
WASHINGTON, DC - Charles R. Mills, a partner in Bracewell's Washington, DC office, is a co-author of Derivatives Regulation, Second Edition, the leading treatise on US derivatives law published by Wolters Kluwer.
Mills brings more than three decades of experience across derivatives, commodities and securities markets to this comprehensive update. Drawing on his extensive work before the Commodity Futures TradingCommission (CFTC), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal courts, Mills provides invaluable insight into the regulatory framework governing today's derivatives landscape.
A former chair of the American Bar Association's Derivatives and Futures Law Committee and longtime contributor to the New York City Bar's Committee on Futures and Derivatives Regulation, Mills has played a central role in shaping legal thought and industry best practices. He has tried more than 60 cases and arbitrations to successful outcomes, served on the Futures Industry Association's Law and Compliance Division Executive Committee, and taught derivatives and securities law for 21 years as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
Derivatives Regulation, Second Edition offers a fully refreshed analysis of the Commodity Exchange Act, the structure and function of US derivatives markets and the far reaching regulatory reforms introduced under the Dodd-Frank Act. With expanded coverage, restructured chapters and contributions from leading practitioners and academics, this edition delivers the most authoritative and practical treatment of modern derivatives regulation.
Mills' deep understanding of trading markets, regulatory enforcement and compliance systems significantly enriches this new edition, making it an essential reference for attorneys, regulators, market participants and academic institutions.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bracewell.com/news-events/bracewells-charles-mills-contributes-to-the-newly-updated-derivatives-regulation-second-edition/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
