Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Vorys Jumps 34 Spots to No. 126 in 2026 AmLaw 200 Rankings
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 8 -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Vorys Jumps 34 Spots to No. 126 in 2026 AmLaw 200 Rankings
Vorys made a historic leap in the 2026 AmLaw 200 rankings, advancing 34 places to No. 126. According to American Lawyer, Vorys recorded the largest jump of any firm this year and achieved the second largest percentage increase in gross revenue among all AmLaw 200 firms.
Vorys experienced unprecedented growth in 2025, which is a reflection of the firm's strategic investments in both its core legal services and its rapidly expanding
... Show Full Article
COLUMBUS, Ohio, May 8 -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Vorys Jumps 34 Spots to No. 126 in 2026 AmLaw 200 Rankings
Vorys made a historic leap in the 2026 AmLaw 200 rankings, advancing 34 places to No. 126. According to American Lawyer, Vorys recorded the largest jump of any firm this year and achieved the second largest percentage increase in gross revenue among all AmLaw 200 firms.
Vorys experienced unprecedented growth in 2025, which is a reflection of the firm's strategic investments in both its core legal services and its rapidly expandingportfolio of ancillary businesses. The firm also secured a major contingency recovery in a landmark antitrust case, representing 18 national retailers in a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the U.S. antitrust laws by Visa and Mastercard.
"Our growth is a testament to the strength of our legal practices and the success of our ancillary businesses, which are helping our clients solve complex problems while generating meaningful new revenue streams," said Vorys Managing Partner Michael Martz. "We're also making significant investments in artificial intelligence and legal technology. We are becoming leaders in the exploration and adoption of AI tools that will help us better serve our clients with more efficient, effective, and innovative legal services. This combination of diversification and innovation positions us well for sustained growth."
In the past three years, Vorys has launched four ancillary businesses that complement its legal services and create new value for clients. These businesses delivered strong performance in 2025, with combined growth that contributed significantly to the firm's overall success.
The firm's AI investments include ongoing collaboration with Stanford Law School's Legal Innovation through Frontier Technology Lab (liftlab), where Vorys serves as a founding advisor dedicated to advancing AI within the practice of law. In 2026, the firm developed and launched AIV Labor, a first-of-its-kind, agentic generative AI product specifically designed to quickly and effectively address attorneys' and HR professionals' questions regarding federal, state and local employment laws.
* * *
About Vorys: Vorys was established in 1909 and currently has nearly 375 attorneys in 10 offices in Ohio, Washington, D.C., Texas, Pennsylvania, California, London and Berlin.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.vorys.com/news-vorys-jumps-34-spots-to-no-126-in-2026-amlaw-200-rankings
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McDonald Hopkins: Managing AI Risks - Policies, Privacy and Practical Safeguards Your Organization Needs to Know
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 8 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Managing AI risks: Policies, privacy and practical safeguards your organization needs to know
By Karen Bridges, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM
In McDonald Hopkins' April webinar, "Managing AI Risk: Policies, Privacy, and Practical Safeguards," attorney Karen Bridges discussed how organizations can adopt AI while managing legal, operational, and reputational risk. As AI use accelerates, governance is lagging, leaving companies exposed to evolving regulations and the application of legacy laws to new technologies.
The
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 8 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Managing AI risks: Policies, privacy and practical safeguards your organization needs to know
By Karen Bridges, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM
In McDonald Hopkins' April webinar, "Managing AI Risk: Policies, Privacy, and Practical Safeguards," attorney Karen Bridges discussed how organizations can adopt AI while managing legal, operational, and reputational risk. As AI use accelerates, governance is lagging, leaving companies exposed to evolving regulations and the application of legacy laws to new technologies.
Thecore message: organizations need a practical AI governance framework that aligns use cases with risk, implements clear controls, and evolves alongside regulatory change.
Governance is lagging behind adoption
Many organizations are deploying AI tools without fully understanding how they work, what data they use, or how outputs are generated. At a minimum, companies should be able to identify what each system does, what data it relies on, who it impacts, and how it is monitored. Without this baseline, risks range from regulatory scrutiny to data exposure and reputational harm.
Everyday tools, elevated risk
AI transcription and meeting tools present immediate exposure. Recording and processing sensitive conversations through third parties can compromise privilege, trigger compliance obligations, and create data transfer risks.
To mitigate this, organizations should classify meetings by sensitivity, limit or disable recording in high-risk contexts, require consent, and negotiate clear vendor terms around data use, retention, and security. Even default features like auto-sharing transcripts can unintentionally expose confidential information.
Building a practical framework
Effective governance starts with disciplined intake: define the business purpose, assess risk, and map data flows. AI use cases should be tiered by impact, with stricter controls applied to high-stakes decisions in areas like HR, finance, and healthcare.
Organizations should also establish clear rules around data usage, model training, and vendor accountability, supported by strong contractual protections.
Accountability, oversight, and control
Companies must be prepared to explain how their AI systems function, including data inputs, testing processes, and safeguards against bias. Human oversight remains critical, particularly for high-impact decisions.
Key controls include:
* Role-based employee training
* Maintaining an internal AI inventory
* Monitoring for performance issues and anomalies
* Approval workflows and defined shutdown mechanisms
Vendor and data risk
Because many AI tools rely on third parties, vendor risk management is essential. Organizations should prioritize privacy-protective configurations, validate security standards, define IP rights, and establish clear incident response protocols.
Shadow AI and misuse
Unauthorized use of public AI tools, or shadow AI, is a growing concern. Employees may input sensitive data into unapproved platforms, creating compliance and security risks.
Organizations should monitor usage, restrict high-risk tools, provide approved alternatives, and train employees on acceptable use.
Accuracy and trust
AI outputs can be persuasive but inaccurate. To maintain quality and credibility, organizations should treat outputs as drafts, require human review, and enforce verification standards. Responsibility for accuracy ultimately remains with the user.
Emerging threats: deepfakes and impersonation
AI-driven impersonation is increasing, enabling fraud through realistic voice and media manipulation. Safeguards such as out-of-band verification, authentication protocols, and incident response planning are critical.
Conclusion
AI can drive meaningful value, but only when managed with the same discipline as cybersecurity and data privacy. Organizations that implement practical governance, maintain transparency, and keep humans in the loop will be better positioned to innovate while minimizing risk. If you have questions about your organization's AI use or policy, contact attorney Karen Bridges.
* * *
Karen Bridges, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM
Counsel
kbridges@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/managing-ai-risks-policies-privacy-and-practical-safeguards
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Jeremy Paner Analyzes Realities for International Companies Exploring Business in Venezuela
NEW YORK, May 8 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jeremy Paner Analyzes Realities for International Companies Exploring Business in Venezuela
Highlights
* OFAC has issued a series of general licenses allowing established U.S. entities to transact, to some extent, with Venezuela's state-owned oil and gas company.
* According to Paner, companies could face deeply entrenched corruption and questionable legal guarantees in Venezuela.
*
Jeremy Paner discussed the realities for international companies exploring business opportunities in Venezuela with Law.com
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 8 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jeremy Paner Analyzes Realities for International Companies Exploring Business in Venezuela
Highlights
* OFAC has issued a series of general licenses allowing established U.S. entities to transact, to some extent, with Venezuela's state-owned oil and gas company.
* According to Paner, companies could face deeply entrenched corruption and questionable legal guarantees in Venezuela.
*
Jeremy Paner discussed the realities for international companies exploring business opportunities in Venezuela with Law.comInternational.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has issued a series of general licenses allowing established U.S. entities to transact with state-owned oil and gas company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).
However, according to Paner, international companies should proceed with caution before pursuing opportunities in the South American country.
"There is interest, but the reality of doing business in Venezuela hits hard pretty quickly," Paner said.
Paner noted that these realities include deeply entrenched corruption and questionable legal guarantees, and while some transactions with PDVSA are possible, the Venezuelan government itself remains a sanctioned entity.
"Wherever there's business, there's the government of Venezuela," Paner said. "A broker will step in and say you need to go through me to get to the government, pay a fee."
Read the article (https://www.law.com/international-edition/2026/05/06/proceed-with-caution-lawyers-advise-international-companies-exploring-business-in-venezuela-/?slreturn=20260507125346).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/jeremy-paner-analyzes-realities-for-international-companies-exploring-business-in-venezuela
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hooper, Lundy and Bookman Issues Commentary: FSMB Sharpens Regulator Focus on Corporate Influence and Oversight of Clinical Decision Making - What Physicians, MSOs, and Investors Need to Know
LOS ANGELES, California, May 8 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by partner Eric M. Fish:
* * *
FSMB Sharpens Regulator Focus on Corporate Influence and Oversight of Clinical Decision Making: What Physicians, MSOs, and Investors Need to Know
On May 2, 2026, the Federation of State Medical Boards ("FSMB") approved the Report and Recommendations of the Workgroup on the Oversight of Clinical Decision Making ("The FSMB Report"). The FSMB Report is the product of a two-year examination of third-party influence over physicians' clinical judgment,
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, May 8 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by partner Eric M. Fish:
* * *
FSMB Sharpens Regulator Focus on Corporate Influence and Oversight of Clinical Decision Making: What Physicians, MSOs, and Investors Need to Know
On May 2, 2026, the Federation of State Medical Boards ("FSMB") approved the Report and Recommendations of the Workgroup on the Oversight of Clinical Decision Making ("The FSMB Report"). The FSMB Report is the product of a two-year examination of third-party influence over physicians' clinical judgment,with a particular focus on corporatization, restrictive employment arrangements, and utilization review as outcome determinative forces in patient care. Its release comes amid increased efforts by legislatures, attorneys general, and state medical boards to address corporate influence in medicine.
At its core, the FSMB Report reaffirms that a physician's ethical and professional responsibilities to act in a manner that supports patient welfare is the guiding principle for all practice settings, regardless of the physician's employment status or other contractual arrangements. Physicians must avoid corporate and financial structures that compromise their loyalty to patients, while also being transparent with information about how institutional or payor policies may limit a patient's treatment options. The FSMB Report notes that accountability for ensuring the primacy of patient welfare extends to "organizations and entities that structure practice arrangements, impose productivity expectations, implement utilization management programs, or otherwise influence clinical care." Medical boards are urged to modify their oversight approaches to ensure that third-party entities do not undermine physicians' ability to meet their professional obligations.
Importantly, the FSMB Report recognizes that private investment and third-party participation in clinical care can support practice growth and improve operational efficiency, factors that are often overlooked as important systemic factors related to the broader effort to increase access to care. By acknowledging these realities, the FSMB Report may temper efforts to expand conduct-based or structurally-based prohibitions on PC/MSO arrangements that have recently been enacted in California and Oregon. The FSMB Report offers defensible guardrails for structuring PC/MSO relationships and provides both regulators and market participants a reference point for allocating control and financial interests in a manner that reduces corporate practice risk, safeguards clinical judgment, and supports patient centered care.
Key Recommendations of the Report
Medical boards are encouraged to exercise greater oversight to address growing concerns with corporatization of health care and the associated public mistrust with medicine in general. Highlights and key recommendations of the policy include:
Call for Greater Enforcement of Corporate Practice of Medicine
Medical boards in jurisdictions with corporate practice of medicine statutes are urged to coordinate with state legislatures, attorneys general, insurance regulators, and other relevant state agencies to strengthen enforcement against improper corporate control of clinical decisions. The FSMB Report suggests that enforcement actions should be directed at "the entities and individuals responsible for structuring and enforcing such arrangements, rather than placing sole or disproportionate responsibility on employed physicians functioning within constrained practice settings." Medical boards are also urged to consider whether registration requirements for management services organizations (MSOs) would assist in greater oversight.
Meaningful Ownership Defined and Must Be Demonstrable
Physician owners of PCs must be able to demonstrate meaningful participation in delivery of care. Straw ownership, a central focus of recent legislation and enforcement actions, is defined as nominal ownership by a physician with effective control over treatment, referrals, prescribing, and care coordination residing in a non-physician or corporate entity. The North Carolina Medical Board has cautioned licensees that a management agreement that results in the bulk of the practice's revenue going to the non-licensee is evidence of straw ownership.The FSMB Report provides a framework to assess meaningful ownership that includes factors such as:
1. The PC Owner is licensed in the state where practice operates;
2. The PC Owner is actively engaged in making clinical decisions or otherwise substantively involved in practice management and operations; and
3. The PC Owner has ultimate authority over key practice decisions including the development and implementation of clinical policies, hiring and firing of staff, payor contracting and financial distributions.
Impermissible Third-Party Influence and Interference
The FSMB Report calls for greater articulation of what constitutes improper third-party influence over clinical decisions. Examples of improper interference include retaliatory actions against physicians for acting in patients' best interests, mandating discharge before medically appropriate, or prohibiting referrals. Establishing patient volume or time limits that prevent physicians from providing adequate care is specifically identified in the FSMB Report as evidence of improper interference.
Duty to Report and Investigate Claims of Improper Interference
Contractual provisions, explicit or implied, that prevent physicians from reporting undue influence of third parties on clinical matters--including patient safety concerns and quality of care issues-- are framed as contrary to professional obligations and public policy. Physicians are directed to scrutinize nondisclosure agreements, non-competes, and non-disparagement clauses before signing. To support greater enforcement of violations, medical boards are encouraged to establish reporting and investigation mechanisms to carry out their statutory duties to address patient safety issues.
Licensure Requirements for Practice Ownership and Utilization Review
The FSMB Report urges medical boards to consider whether all physicians that are owners of a medical practice should be required to hold a license in that state. Although states such as California, Illinois, and New York have strict requirements in place, this guideline addresses accountability gaps noted in states with weaker corporate practice of medicine regulations and would permit greater legal authority for regulators in states where no formal corporate practice of medicine law exists to address ethical and professional violations.
Similarly, medical boards are urged to consider whether an out-of-state physician performing utilization reviews for patients should hold a license to practice in the state where the patient is located. The FSMB Report calls for state legislation to require that determinations of medical necessity be made by a physician licensed in the state where the patient is located who practices within the same or similar specialty. However, the FSMB Report acknowledges that broader reforms to address issues involving payors and utilization review will require joint effort with state insurance regulators.
Industry Implications
Policies and reports from the FSMB function as model guidance and states are not bound to adopt the policy recommendations, either in part or in whole. State medical boards located in jurisdictions with strong enforcement of the corporate practice of medicine doctrine are expected to be early adopters of many of the recommendations contained in the FSMB Report as part of efforts to further supplement existing law. The FSMB Report may also influence the ongoing debate regarding corporate practice issues in states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington--all of which have seen recent legislative efforts to reaffirm physician autonomy and mitigate corporate influence.
The FSMB Report also arrives amid a rapidly developing litigation environment shaped by recent legislative changes. In Oregon, the law passed in 2025 restricting use of the PC/MSO model faces its first judicial test in Stapleton et al. v. PeaceHealth et al., a case which will answer whether common elements of PC/MSO models used throughout the country satisfies statutory ownership and management requirements under Oregon law. In late March, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement with a correctional health care provider after finding it illegally practiced medicine through its effective control over medical decisions at a county correctional facility. Recent activity by the California Attorney General is drawing attention as a signal of the intention of that office to more aggressively police corporate influence over the delivery of medicine through the PC/MSO model. Indeed, the amicus brief filed by the Attorney General in Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC condemns the use of a share transfer restriction agreement between an MSO and a PC, opining that a contractual right that allows MSOs to require physicians to sell their shares in a PC at any time effectively gives a MSO unilateral control over a PC. Together, these developments underscore the increasing legal risk surrounding legacy structures and the likelihood of more active enforcement and private litigation in this area.
Health care investors and operators should work closely with experienced legal counsel to review corporate governance structure and operational documents used in PC/MSO arrangements, with attention ensuring sufficient physician involvement and authority over clinical policies and staff decisions. But as noted, the FSMB Report stops short of adopting the strict enforcement positions found in Oregon and California. Incorporating elements of the FSMB Report may be helpful evidence of a compliant structure should a practice or business relationship become subject to enforcement actions in the future. The FSMB Report also offers principles derived from a consensus of state medical regulators that may prove helpful to advocate against future legislative proposals and enforcement actions that threaten to destabilize existing practice models and thwart further investment that supports greater access to care.
Health systems, large group practices, and payors should closely examine whether productivity-based compensation models, restrictive covenants in physician contracts, and internal reporting requirements create risk by diverting attention from patient safety or otherwise impairing independent clinical judgment. These protocols were highlighted by the FSMB Report as additional avenues of corporate influence that detract from physician independence. In light of increasing calls for in-state licensure for physicians engaged in utilization review, these groups should also consider proactively securing licensure for physicians engaged in utilization review through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact's expedited process. With over 40 jurisdictions as members, use of this pathway can reduce regulatory exposure and help avoid future operational disruptions resulting from changes in licensure requirements.
For more information or assistance on these issues, please contact Eric Fish, Karl Schmitz, Charles Oppenheim, Robert Miller, Michael Shimada, Andrea Frey, Stephen Phillips or your regular Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, P.C. contact.
* * *
Professional
Eric M. Fish
Partner
Washington, D.C.
202.905.2163
efish@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Original text here: https://hooperlundy.com/fsmb-sharpens-regulator-focus-on-corporate-influence-and-oversight-of-clinical-decision-making-what-physicians-msos-and-investors-need-to-know/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Greenberg Traurig Colorado Adds Environmental & Product Liability Litigator Matt Douglas
MIAMI, Florida, May 8 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Colorado Adds Environmental & Product Liability Litigator Matt Douglas
DENVER - Matthew J. Douglas joins global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP as a shareholder in the Denver office.
Douglas' broad trial experience informs a nationally recognized practice focused on environmental, toxic tort, and product liability litigation, with particular depth in the energy, manufacturing, and pharmaceutical industries. He joins Greenberg Traurig from Arnold & Porter,
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, May 8 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Colorado Adds Environmental & Product Liability Litigator Matt Douglas
DENVER - Matthew J. Douglas joins global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP as a shareholder in the Denver office.
Douglas' broad trial experience informs a nationally recognized practice focused on environmental, toxic tort, and product liability litigation, with particular depth in the energy, manufacturing, and pharmaceutical industries. He joins Greenberg Traurig from Arnold & Porter,where he spent 27 years developing a robust complex litigation practice.
"Matt started his legal career trying a wide variety of civil and criminal matters while at a small firm in Fort Collins, then spent nearly three decades handling high-stakes litigation across the country for some of the biggest companies in the world. That foundation in the courtroom plus the ability to navigate extraordinarily difficult, science-driven cases is a rare combination, and it strengthens our bench in a meaningful way," said Greenberg Traurig CEO Brian L. Duffy, who is also based in Denver.
Douglas' environmental practice spans the lifecycle of contaminated site and accidental release disputes, from initial response and investigations through enforcement actions, contribution claims, and class action defense. He handles CERCLA litigation and remediation, toxic tort claims, PFAS water contamination cases, Natural Resource Damages claims, and Clean Water Act enforcement matters. On the product liability side, he has served as trial and national counsel in large-scale pharmaceutical mass tort litigation and has successfully defeated class certification in consumer fraud matters.
"Denver is a market where energy, environmental, and commercial litigation intersect in ways that matter enormously to our clients, and Matt is the kind of lawyer who can operate with authority across all of those areas," said Naomi G. Beer, co-managing shareholder of the firm's Denver office. "He has handled landmark matters across multiple trials, earning the respect of clients and adversaries alike."
Over the course of his career, Douglas has tried dozens of cases as first-chair trial counsel across Colorado and numerous other jurisdictions. His matters have included some of the highest-profile litigation of the past two decades, among them the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill, in which he served as counsel to BP on natural resource damages matters and its internal investigation of the spill. He also has represented household-name companies in complex PFAS class action and personal injury litigation. He has represented major pharmaceutical companies as national counsel in multidistrict litigation and defended nationwide mass tort litigation involving multiple trials.
"Greenberg Traurig is giving me room to run for serious, consequential cases for important companies. The firm has deep, established practices in energy and environmental law plus a unique Trial Practice Group. The platform here lets me bring everything I have built over my career to bear for clients who need it, and I am genuinely excited about what comes next," Douglas said.
Greenberg Traurig's Denver office expanded its Environmental Practice further recently with the return of Gregory R. Tan as of counsel. Over the last year, the Denver office also has added Lauren Hammond, a former senior Clean Air Act attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Craig V. Richardson, the former chief legal officer for Union Pacific.
***
Original text here: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2026/05/press-releases/greenberg-traurig-colorado-adds-environmental-and-product-liability-litigator-matt-douglas
Dinsmore Named BTI Associate Satisfaction A Lister
CINCINNATI, Ohio, May 8 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Named BTI Associate Satisfaction A Lister
Associates enjoy working at Dinsmore, according to a new survey by BTI Consulting Group. The Firm earned a place on BTI's Associate Satisfaction A Listers 2026 list, reflecting the overwhelmingly positive feedback from associates across the Firm's national footprint.
Associates surveyed by BTI identified Dinsmore as a Leader in the activities that drive associate job satisfaction. Women associates ranked the Firm as Distinguished in those same
... Show Full Article
CINCINNATI, Ohio, May 8 -- Dinsmore and Shohl, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Dinsmore Named BTI Associate Satisfaction A Lister
Associates enjoy working at Dinsmore, according to a new survey by BTI Consulting Group. The Firm earned a place on BTI's Associate Satisfaction A Listers 2026 list, reflecting the overwhelmingly positive feedback from associates across the Firm's national footprint.
Associates surveyed by BTI identified Dinsmore as a Leader in the activities that drive associate job satisfaction. Women associates ranked the Firm as Distinguished in those sameareas, an important distinction as BTI found women associates report job satisfaction levels that are 17% lower than their male counterparts across the legal industry.
Each year, Dinsmore invites first through third year associates to participate in its Leadership Academy, where they learn valuable leadership and business development skills for successful careers.
The 10-month program includes sessions on a variety of topics including billing time and working with legal assistants, personal branding and wealth management.
BTI Consulting Group's Associate Satisfaction A Listers recognizes firms that outperform peers based on direct associate feedback across factors tied to retention, engagement and long term career satisfaction.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.dinsmore.com/news/dinsmore-named-bti-associate-satisfaction-a-lister/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Davis Polk matters recognized as Latin Lawyer's 2026 Deals of the Year
NEW YORK, May 8 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Davis Polk and Wardwell, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Davis Polk matters recognized as Latin Lawyer's 2026 Deals of the Year
Two Davis Polk matters were named as Latin Lawyer 's 2026 Deals of the Year. The awards recognize complex deals done throughout the region, taking into consideration the value, timeframe, legal creativity, political and regulatory sensitivity, and number of jurisdictions to which the deal relates.
Davis Polk was honored for its role on the below matters:
* Deal of the Year: Capital Markets - Esentia $550 million
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 8 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Davis Polk and Wardwell, a law firm, posted the following news:
* * *
Davis Polk matters recognized as Latin Lawyer's 2026 Deals of the Year
Two Davis Polk matters were named as Latin Lawyer 's 2026 Deals of the Year. The awards recognize complex deals done throughout the region, taking into consideration the value, timeframe, legal creativity, political and regulatory sensitivity, and number of jurisdictions to which the deal relates.
Davis Polk was honored for its role on the below matters:
* Deal of the Year: Capital Markets - Esentia $550 millionIPO
* Deal of the Year: Private Equity - Prosus $1.7 billion acquisition of Despegar.com
The awards were presented on May 7, 2026, in Sao Paulo.
***
Original text here: https://www.davispolk.com/recognition/davis-polk-matters-recognized-latin-lawyer-s-2026-deals-year
