Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Littler Issues Commentary: NLRB Reinstates 2020 Joint Employer Standard - Return to Direct Control
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 27, 2026, by shareholder Alexander T. MacDonald and associate Dinora Orozco:
* * *
NLRB Reinstates 2020 Joint Employer Standard: A Return to Direct Control
On February 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board formally reinstated its 2020 joint-employer standard. This action officially withdraws a Biden-era 2023 rule and restores a narrower framework for determining when two businesses share legal responsibility for the same group of workers. By returning to the 2020 standard, the Board is aiming
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 28 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 27, 2026, by shareholder Alexander T. MacDonald and associate Dinora Orozco:
* * *
NLRB Reinstates 2020 Joint Employer Standard: A Return to Direct Control
On February 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board formally reinstated its 2020 joint-employer standard. This action officially withdraws a Biden-era 2023 rule and restores a narrower framework for determining when two businesses share legal responsibility for the same group of workers. By returning to the 2020 standard, the Board is aimingto settle period of legal uncertainty that has loomed over the business community for years.
Closing the Regulatory Gap
The Board's action traces back to a legal defeat. In 2020, the Board adopted a rule setting out its joint-employment standard. Among other things, that standard found joint employment only when two businesses exercised direct and substantial control over the same worker. The Board retreated from that position in 2023, adopting a new rule that allowed joint employment based only on "indirect" or "reserved" control. But in March 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas struck down the 2023 rule. The court ruled that the 2023 rule was "arbitrary and capricious" because the word "employee" under the National Labor Relations Act is defined by the common law, and the 2023 rule's expansive standard contradicted long-standing common-law standards.
That ruling created a technical "regulatory gap." The Biden-era rule was vacated, but the official Code of Federal Regulations had not yet been updated to reflect the return of the previous standard. This left the Board without a formal, codified rule on the books. By formally codifying the 2020 standard, the NLRB has now officially closed that gap.
The Return of "Direct and Immediate Control"
The rule's most immediate effect is to restore the "direct and immediate control" standard. Under this standard, a company is deemed a joint employer only if it exercises "substantial direct and immediate control" over the essential terms and conditions of another company's employees. To meet this threshold, an entity must actually possess and exercise such control over one or more essential employment terms to a degree that it meaningfully affects the employment relationship.
This standard is a higher bar than the 2023 rule's "reserved control" test. The standard focuses on concrete, actual control over functions such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and wages. Critically, merely retaining the ability to influence these decisions, without actually doing so, generally does not create a joint-employer relationship. Similarly, indirect influence, brand standards, or general operational expectations are no longer enough to trigger shared bargaining obligations. For employers, the change allows them to rely more comfortably on the terms of their service contracts. They are less likely to be considered the employer of another company's workers simply because they set basic standards for the project.
A Mirror of the Broader Political Shift
This move comes at a time of shifting employment standards. On the same day, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a rule that adopts a more focused test for classifying workers under the FLSA. For the business community, both rules signal a shift from open standards to bright-line rules. They may also signal a period of greater stability.
Strategic Risk Management for the Business Community
The Board's action may also help companies utilizing staffing agencies, subcontractors, or franchise models, allowing them to enforce brand standards and safety requirements. These companies will operate under a brighter-line standard, and so may find it easier to navigate joint-employment risks.
That said, some risks remain. Joint-employer liability remains a fact-intensive inquiry. Businesses must ensure onsite managers do not cross the line from setting project goals to "directing the work" of third-party providers through direct supervision or task assignment. Under this results-oriented framework, the focus must remain on what needs to be done rather than how the vendor's employees perform it. Furthermore, because the direct control rule makes it harder to pull parent companies into bargaining, businesses should anticipate a tactical pivot by unions toward aggressive, site-specific organizing or alternative pressure tactics, such as legislative lobbying and corporate campaigns, that bypass the NLRB's doctrine entirely.
Looking Ahead: Growth and Flexibility
If nothing else, the Board's action provides more certainty. That certainty could, in the long term, encourage growth in affected industries, such as the franchise and outsourced-services sectors. Businesses that paused expansion in response to the expected impact of the 2023 rule may now be more comfortable pursuing long-term partnerships.
However, prudent employers will not view this as a permanent resolution. To protect their business, employers should audit service agreements and train onsite managers on the "direct control" boundary. While the NLRB has provided much-needed breathing room, maintaining operational flexibility remains essential in this unpredictable legal environment.
* * *
Alexander T. MacDonald
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Dinora Orozco
Associate
Chicago
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/nlrb-reinstates-2020-joint-employer-standard-return-direct-control
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Paul Hastings Acts as Counsel on ESG Advisory Work for TPG's The Rise Funds in Their Majority Investment in Trustwell
LOS ANGELES, California, Feb. 27 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Paul Hastings, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Paul Hastings Acts as Counsel on ESG Advisory Work for TPG's The Rise Funds in Their Majority Investment in Trustwell
*
Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP acted as counsel on ESG advisory work for TPG's The Rise Funds in their majority investment in Trustwell, a leading provider of SaaS-based regulatory, compliance ~~,~~ and traceability solutions for the food industry.
ESG & Sustainable Finance chair Ruth Knox led the Paul Hastings team, which also included associates Joanna Broadwith,
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Feb. 27 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Paul Hastings, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Paul Hastings Acts as Counsel on ESG Advisory Work for TPG's The Rise Funds in Their Majority Investment in Trustwell
*
Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP acted as counsel on ESG advisory work for TPG's The Rise Funds in their majority investment in Trustwell, a leading provider of SaaS-based regulatory, compliance ~~,~~ and traceability solutions for the food industry.
ESG & Sustainable Finance chair Ruth Knox led the Paul Hastings team, which also included associates Joanna Broadwith,Anna Janas and Davis Woodruff.
About Paul Hastings
With widely recognized elite teams across 17 core practices, Paul Hastings is a premier law firm with a culture of excellence focused on providing intellectual capital and superior execution globally to the world's leading investment banks, asset managers and corporations.
***
Original text here: https://www.paulhastings.com/news/paul-hastings-acts-as-counsel-on-esg-advisory-work-for-tpgs-the-rise-funds-in-their-majority-investment-in-trustwell
Littler Issues Commentary: AI Transcription and Note-Taking Technologies - Seven Points for Employers to Consider
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 26, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento and Bradford J. Kelley:
* * *
AI Transcription and Note-Taking Technologies: Seven Points for Employers to Consider
At a Glance
* AI note-taking tools can boost productivity and engagement by letting employees focus on meetings while automatically generating summaries, action items, and searchable records to support follow-up and knowledge management.
* However, these tools introduce significant legal and operational risks, including potential violations
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 26, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento and Bradford J. Kelley:
* * *
AI Transcription and Note-Taking Technologies: Seven Points for Employers to Consider
At a Glance
* AI note-taking tools can boost productivity and engagement by letting employees focus on meetings while automatically generating summaries, action items, and searchable records to support follow-up and knowledge management.
* However, these tools introduce significant legal and operational risks, including potential violationsof privacy and wiretap laws, exposure of confidential or privileged information, employment discrimination concerns, compliance challenges under new AI regulations, and increased discovery costs from detailed transcripts.
* Employers are advised to thoroughly vet AI note-taking tools, configure them to help minimize risks (e.g., limit use by jurisdiction, disable high-risk features, set up consent notices, and enforce strict data controls), and establish clear policies on their use, consent, security, access, disclosure, employee accountability, and the role of AI-generated records in HR or business decisions.
*
Whether employers like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) note-taking technologies have entered the workplace. In a 2025 survey of 1,000 professionals, one in five respondents stated they frequently used AI to draft notes during meetings./1 AI technologies not only transcribe meetings but can also provide outlined notes, attribute comments to individual speakers, draft summaries, and assign to-do steps to participants. In addition, agentic versions of AI note-taking technologies can pull information from other sources to assist meeting participants in accomplishing their to-do steps.
For employers, these technologies offer substantial benefits. Freed from the distractions of taking notes, employees can be more present, engaged, and responsive during meetings. Afterward, AI note-takers can streamline the preparation of summaries, action items, and follow-up communications, which increases efficiency and reduces administrative burden. At the same time, however, these technologies introduce legal and operational risks. They may implicate federal and state privacy laws, expose confidential and privileged information, create disparate impacts affecting individuals in protected categories, generate inaccurate or misleading records, and produce voluminous documents that make the discovery process even more expensive for employers. Given these risks, it is unsurprising that litigation has emerged in this space. Most notably, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, 5:25-cv-6911 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 15, 2025), is a consolidated putative class action alleging that Otter AI unlawfully records private conversations through its widely used AI transcription tool and, without notice to or consent by participants, uses the resulting transcripts to train its technology.
Notwithstanding the risks, many employers may not have much choice, in practice, about whether to adopt AI note-takers. In many workplaces, employees already use them, making outright bans ineffective and difficult to enforce. As a result, the most reasonable option may be to provide vetted AI note-takers that the organization selects, configures, and controls. Below, we discuss seven key considerations for employers seeking to take advantage of AI note-taking technologies while mitigating legal and operational exposure.
1. Consent for recording
Wiretap laws present the greatest risk for U.S. employers when using AI note-taking technologies. The Wiretap Act at the federal level and laws in every state prohibit "intercepting" electronic, wire, or oral communications without consent. Although there is little case law so far on whether note-taking and summarization tools require consent under wiretap laws, given courts' broad interpretations of "interception" in wiretap cases, it seems possible that courts will find that at least some of these technologies require consent. Moreover, wiretap laws are high-risk. The Wiretap Act permits plaintiffs to recover the greater of $10,000 or $100 per day of violation, in statutory damages./2 Some state laws, like California's, also allow recovery of statutory damages./3
In most states, consent is established if one participant in the conversation initiates the recording technology. The federal wiretap law and the majority of state wiretap laws require the consent of only one party to permit interception of a conversation. However, about a dozen states require the consent of all parties./4 Even in the states that require the consent of only one party, the consenting party must be a participant, which means that an outsider cannot record the conversation without the consent of at least one participant.
Employers should evaluate the technology in light of wiretap laws and, if needed, implement a belt and suspenders approach to obtaining consent. This might include configuring the technology to obtain consent automatically, training employees to notify participants before recording, and having employees sign consent forms.
2. Biometrics
AI note-takers, especially technologies that attribute comments to each speaker, may collect biometric data. By measuring the individual features of a meeting participant's voice to recognize that voice throughout the conversation, these technologies may generate and store biometric information, as defined by the state law at issue. In the employment context, Colorado, Illinois, and Texas require consent prior to collecting biometric information and impose restrictions on the retention and disclosure of that information. In addition, California, Colorado, and Illinois require companies that handle biometric data to post notices about their collection of this data. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is particularly high risk. Plaintiffs can recover up to $5,000 in statutory damages for violating BIPA's consent, biometric policy, or other requirements./5 Over all, about a third of states require safeguards for biometric data and almost half require data breach notifications to affected individuals if a company's data is breached. If technology gathers biometric data, the company should weigh risks versus benefits in considering whether to turn off that functionality or comply with any applicable biometrics laws.
3. Accuracy
Although AI note-takers may be more accurate than the average employee struggling to take notes while participating in the discussion, they can be flawed. The tool may misunderstand industry-specific terms and acronyms, struggle with accents, and miss high- or low-pitched voices. Companies should vet these tools for accuracy, especially in the context of their own workplaces. In addition, just as employees should review their own notes before relying on them to make business decisions, an employee who uses an AI note-taker should review the records created by that tool and correct them if necessary before using the records as a basis for such decisions. Employers should emphasize the general principle that AI is simply a workplace tool: employees are always ultimately responsible for their own work, regardless of whether they use AI note-takers to assist them.
4. Discrimination, Disparate Impact, and AI-Specific Laws
The use of AI note-taking, transcription, or summarization tools in connection with employment decisions presents distinct discrimination and disparate-impact risks. If employers rely on AI-generated transcripts or summaries to evaluate performance, assess candidate interviews, or inform disciplinary decisions, any systemic inaccuracies--such as consistent misunderstandings of individuals with accents, speech impediments, or other protected characteristics--could disproportionately disadvantage certain groups.
Employers also should consider reasonable accommodation obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state laws, as the use of AI note-takers may require certain modifications for individuals with disabilities. For example, speech-recognition tools may inaccurately transcribe certain speech patterns or communication styles associated with a disability. In other instances, an employee may object to the recording or transcription of meetings due to a disability-related concern, requiring the employer to evaluate alternative arrangements. At the same time, however, in some circumstances providing access to note-taking or transcription technology may itself constitute a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability. As with other workplace technologies, employers should be prepared to engage in the interactive process where appropriate.
Integrating these tools into hiring or personnel decision-making may also trigger emerging AI-specific regulation, including notice, audit, and bias assessment requirements in jurisdictions such as New York City, Illinois, and California. While applicability of these laws will depend on how the technology is deployed, employers should recognize that what begins as a productivity tool can become subject to current or emerging regulations. Careful evaluation of use cases, documentation practices, and compliance obligations is essential when incorporating AI note-takers into employment decision-making processes.
5. Attorney-Client Privilege
The use of AI note-taking tools in meetings involving legal counsel raises significant concerns about possible waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges. If an AI assistant records or transcribes privileged communications and transmits them to a third-party vendor, courts may scrutinize whether the disclosure constitutes a waiver, particularly if the vendor's data practices are unclear or the tool is not subject to confidentiality safeguards. Even where privilege is ultimately preserved, the creation of verbatim transcripts may expand the volume of discoverable material and increase the risk of inadvertent disclosure. Employers should evaluate whether AI note-takers are appropriate for privileged meetings, ensure that vendors contractually commit to strict confidentiality and data segregation, and consider disabling recording features or limiting use altogether during discussions involving legal advice.
6. Retention and Purging
Consider that the average hour-long meeting produces about 16 single-spaced pages of transcripts. Multiply this by hundreds or even thousands of meetings per week, and the volume of records that AI note-takers might generate becomes staggering. Retaining these records indefinitely could create extremely burdensome discovery obligations in the event of litigation. Also, in jurisdictions that provide a right of access to personal data or broadly defined personnel files, sorting through this unstructured data would be time-consuming and expensive.
Accordingly, employers should consider imposing a short retention period for these records. In some cases, the technology can be configured to delete them automatically when the retention period expires. Employees might still have the option to save certain AI note-taking records longer in accordance with the storage rules and retention schedule for related records. For many companies, setting a rule to delete the records after a short retention period may be the best default solution.
7. Confidentiality and Data Security
Note-taking technologies may capture a broad range of confidential business information, from discussions about employee discipline to customer information to trade secrets. Employers should assess how to manage this potential trove of confidential records. One strategy is to prohibit the use of AI note-takers in certain classes of meetings. These might include, for example, attorney-client privileged meetings, conversations among senior executives, and discussions about protected health information in employee health plans.
Many other meetings, of course, could also involve information that the company wishes to keep confidential, if only because participants discuss confidential topics incidentally or the meeting changes course. To reduce the risk of unauthorized access to such information, companies should consider carefully how to apply default rules to storage of, and access to, these notes.
Relatedly, it can be important for companies to vet the AI note-taking product for data security and for the control the vendor offers the company over the data collected and generated by the product. Key considerations are: data security measures; which party "owns" the records; what happens to the data at the end of the engagement; the extent to which the employer can configure notices, access restrictions, and deletion; and whether the vendor is permitted to use the data to train AI.
Takeaways
In light of the considerations described above, employers should consider these steps when adopting AI note-takers:
* Vetting the AI note-taking vendor for data security and the configuration options available to control both the technology and the data captured by the technology;
* Configuring the AI note-taker to reduce risks, which may include limiting the use of the AI note-taker in certain jurisdictions, turning off features such as voice recognition, setting pop-ups for notices, implementing data security measures, and setting storage and access controls; and
* Implementing policies regarding when and where AI note-takers are permitted, consent, security, access, disclosure, employees' responsibility for their work product, and use of AI note-taking records for HR and business decisions.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Ricardo Rodriguez, AI Note Taking at Work: Benefits and Drawbacks, Software Finder (Oct. 6, 2025), https://softwarefinder.com/resources/ai-note-taking-tools.
2/ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520(c)(2).
3/ Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 637.2.
4/ The number of states that require consent of all parties differs depending on whether the device intercepts a wire or electronic communication or an in-person communication.
5/ 740 ILCS 14/20.
* * *
Authors
Zoe M. Argento
Shareholder
Denver
* * *
Bradford J. Kelley
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/ai-transcription-and-note-taking-technologies-seven-points-employers-consider
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
In Law360 Q&A, Managing Partner Andrew Detherage Highlights Firm's Organic Growth Strategy
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Feb. 27 -- Barnes and Thornburg, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
In Law360 Q&A, Managing Partner Andrew Detherage Highlights Firm's Organic Growth Strategy
In a Q&A interview with Law360 Pulse, Barnes & Thornburg Managing Partner Andrew J. Detherage discussed the firm's master plan of expanding strategically through steady, organic growth and lateral hiring rather than law firm combinations.
The Feb. 23 article was published shortly after the firm added a 35-lawyer team to its Government Services and Finance Department in multiple locations around
... Show Full Article
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Feb. 27 -- Barnes and Thornburg, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
In Law360 Q&A, Managing Partner Andrew Detherage Highlights Firm's Organic Growth Strategy
In a Q&A interview with Law360 Pulse, Barnes & Thornburg Managing Partner Andrew J. Detherage discussed the firm's master plan of expanding strategically through steady, organic growth and lateral hiring rather than law firm combinations.
The Feb. 23 article was published shortly after the firm added a 35-lawyer team to its Government Services and Finance Department in multiple locations aroundthe country, including three new offices in Baltimore, Denver and Phoenix.
Since Detherage joined in 1989, Barnes & Thornburg has grown from an Indiana firm to a national powerhouse with over 850 lawyers in 26 offices across the United States -- all without undergoing a major combination.
"We're very lawyer-focused in our leadership, and so we always felt like that was the key to success, and it's borne out," Detherage said. "We measure our lateral success rate on if people stay more than five years, and we're at 90%. And we believe that's because we are recruiting strategically.
"From the very beginning, our view was, math is not a strategy when it comes to growth. It's not a question of what headcount and gross revenue can we get. It's how we can build, get better and serve our clients better. We really believe the environment we have allows our firm to be successful, and we didn't think we could maintain that by doing mergers."
Read the full Q&A here (https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/barnesthornec91-btlawb18a-prod2e0c-5bea/media/files/barnes_thornburg_head_on_firms_nonmerger_growth_motto.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://btlaw.com/en/insights/news/2026/in-law360-qa-andrew-detherage-highlights-firm-organic-growth-strategy
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ice Miller Posts Record Revenue and Double-Digit Profit Gains in 2025, Underscoring Strong Market Position and Strategic Execution
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Feb. 27 -- Ice Miller, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Ice Miller Posts Record Revenue and Double-Digit Profit Gains in 2025, Underscoring Strong Market Position and Strategic Execution
Ice Miller is celebrating a landmark year, announcing record-breaking 2025 financial results and the strongest performance in the firm's history. Revenue climbed to $303.4 million, surpassing the $300 million mark for the first time and reflecting 7% year-over-year growth. While profits per equity partner rose 10% to approximately $1.15 million, one of the firm's most
... Show Full Article
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Feb. 27 -- Ice Miller, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Ice Miller Posts Record Revenue and Double-Digit Profit Gains in 2025, Underscoring Strong Market Position and Strategic Execution
Ice Miller is celebrating a landmark year, announcing record-breaking 2025 financial results and the strongest performance in the firm's history. Revenue climbed to $303.4 million, surpassing the $300 million mark for the first time and reflecting 7% year-over-year growth. While profits per equity partner rose 10% to approximately $1.15 million, one of the firm's mostsignificant profit gains in the past decade. "Our 2025 results clearly demonstrate that Ice Miller is operating from a position of strength," said Michael Millikan, outgoing chief managing partner. "We continued to grow revenue, increased profitability at an even faster pace, and executed on the strategic initiatives that matter most. This firm is exceptionally well positioned for future growth, and I could not be more confident in the leadership now carrying it forward."
Strong demand across the firm, especially in transactional practices amid heightened M&A activity and complex deals, combined with disciplined expense management, strategic lateral hires, and continued investments in technology and attorney development, fueled this impressive financial performance and further strengthened Ice Miller's position among leading national law firms. Incoming chief managing partner Joshua Christie highlighted the firm's heightened competitiveness and forward momentum saying, "Crossing the $300 million revenue threshold is an important milestone, but it's the underlying trends that matter even more -- sustained client demand, growing market share in high value practices, and the payoff of long term investments in our people and platform. We've settled into 2026 with focused ambition and a clear roadmap for continued growth."
Read more (https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2026/02/25/ice-miller-cracks-300m-mark-with-2025-revenue-boosts-pep-10/) about the firm's 2025 financial performance in The American Lawyer.
Joshua Christie also spoke with Law360 Pulse about Ice Miller's 2025 financial performance and the factors behind it, along with its goals for the rest of 2026. Click here to read the full article (https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/2446366?). Login may be required.
* * *
About Ice Miller
Ice Miller is a full-service law firm dedicated to helping our clients stay ahead in a changing world. With more than 350 legal professionals across the nation, we advise clients on all aspects of the complex legal issues impacting businesses each day. We serve private equity and venture capital funds, large private and emerging growth companies, FORTUNE 500 corporations, municipal entities, family offices, and nonprofits. To learn more, visit us at icemiller.com.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.icemiller.com/news/ice-miller-posts-record-revenue-and-double-digit-profit-gains-in-2025-underscoring-strong-market-position-and-strategic-execution
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Greenberg Traurig's Emily Ladd-Kravitz Presents at PLI's Private Placements and Hybrid Securities Offerings Event
MIAMI, Florida, Feb. 27 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig's Emily Ladd-Kravitz Presents at PLI's Private Placements and Hybrid Securities Offerings Event
*
BOSTON - Feb. 27, 2026 - Emily Ladd-Kravitz, co-chair of the Venture Capital & Emerging Technology Group of global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP and a shareholder in the firm's Boston office, will present at the Practising Law Institute (PLI)'s 2026 Private Placements and Hybrid Securities Offerings event March 5. Ladd-Kravitz will present the session,
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, Feb. 27 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig's Emily Ladd-Kravitz Presents at PLI's Private Placements and Hybrid Securities Offerings Event
*
BOSTON - Feb. 27, 2026 - Emily Ladd-Kravitz, co-chair of the Venture Capital & Emerging Technology Group of global law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP and a shareholder in the firm's Boston office, will present at the Practising Law Institute (PLI)'s 2026 Private Placements and Hybrid Securities Offerings event March 5. Ladd-Kravitz will present the session,"Undertaking a Late-Stage (or Pre-IPO) Private Placement," which will address how to:
* Analyze the late-stage private placement market
* Conduct diligence and prepare offering disclosures
* Understand documentation issues, typical terms, and frequent negotiating issues
* Distinguish placements to strategic investors
* Distinguish placements involving secondary shares
* Recognize information asymmetries and proximity to IPOs, and SEC concerns
Ladd-Kravitz focuses her legal practice on complex corporate transactions and representation of institutional investors across a variety of industries and private companies in all stages of their life cycles. She represents venture capital funds, private equity firms, other institutional investors, and companies in connection with a wide variety of corporate and transactional matters, including venture capital financings, mergers and acquisitions, minority investments, and corporate governance matters. Ladd-Kravitz also advises startup and growth-stage companies in all industries, including technology, edtech, medical device, clean energy, sustainable solutions, and life sciences.
***
Original text here: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2026/02/press-releases/greenberg-traurigs-emily-ladd-kravitz-presents-at-plis-private-placements-and-hybrid-securities-offerings-event
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions on Truck Bed Covers From China
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Feb. 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 26, 2026, by counsel Richard P. Ferrin, associate Morgan Alexis Howard and partners Carrie Bethea Connolly and Daniel R. Wilson:
* * *
New Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions on Truck Bed Covers from China
Petitioner Alleges Dumping Margins from 150.74% to 274.47%
At a Glance
* RealTruck, Inc., filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions on truck bed covers from China.
* An investigation related to this petition could result in increased prices and/or
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Feb. 28 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 26, 2026, by counsel Richard P. Ferrin, associate Morgan Alexis Howard and partners Carrie Bethea Connolly and Daniel R. Wilson:
* * *
New Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Petitions on Truck Bed Covers from China
Petitioner Alleges Dumping Margins from 150.74% to 274.47%
At a Glance
* RealTruck, Inc., filed antidumping and countervailing duty petitions on truck bed covers from China.
* An investigation related to this petition could result in increased prices and/ordecreased supply of truck bed covers.
* The US Department of Commerce is expected to begin investigation on March 17, 2026.
*
On February 25, 2026, antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) petitions were filed on truck bed covers from China. The petition was filed by RealTruck, Inc.
The US's AD law imposes special tariffs to counteract imports that are sold in the United States at less than "normal value." The US's CVD law imposes special tariffs to counteract imports that are sold in the United States with the benefit of foreign government subsidies. For AD/CVD duties to be imposed, the US government must determine not only that dumping and/or subsidization is occurring, but also that there is "material injury" (or threat thereof) by reason of the dumped imports. Importers are liable for any potential AD/CVD duties imposed. In addition, these investigations could impact purchasers by increasing prices and/or decreasing supply of truck bed covers.
Scope
Please note that this section was not written by our authors but is taken verbatim from the petition.
The scope of the petitions covers truck bed covers ("TBCs"), which are protective shields made of aluminum, fiberglass, carbon fiber, plastic, and/or water-resistant fabric that are sized to span the open-top area of a pickup truck. When fully assembled, truck bed covers have a width between 45 and 75 inches (actual) and a length between 55 and 100 inches (actual), and can be used to secure the cargo area of a pickup truck and/or repel water.
TBCs typically encompass four general configurations -- i.e., folding,12 roll-up,13 one-piece,14 and retractable. The scope of the petitions includes not only the cover material, but also any hardware for the mounting or storage of the cover (e.g., rails, latches, straps, clasps, clamps, nuts, bolts, washers, screws, hitch pins, weather strips/seals/gaskets) or other parts (e.g., locks, struts, drain tubes, canisters, motors), provided that such items accompany the cover at the time of importation or are otherwise invoiced together with the cover.
Excluded from the scope are truck caps (also known as camper shells, toppers, or canopies), which are enclosures that can be mounted on truck bed rails to extend the height of a truck bed by at least 12 inches (actual), thus creating a fully-enclosed, lockable storage area for cargo.
Also excluded from the scope of the petitions are any products already covered by the scope of any extant antidumping and/or countervailing duty orders, including Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30650 (May 26, 2011), and Aluminum Extrusions from the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30653 (May 26, 2011).
The products subject to the petitions are currently classifiable under subheading 8708.29.5160 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the petitions is dispositive.
Estimated Dumping Margins
The petitioners allege dumping margins ranging from 150.74% to 274.47%.
The petitioners also allege subsidies with respect to subject imports, although the petitions do not quantify the alleged net subsidy margins.
Estimated Schedule of Investigations
The following is an estimated schedule of investigations by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and the US International Trade Commission (ITC):
February 25, 2026
Petition is filed.
March 17, 2026
DOC initiates investigation.
March 18, 2026
ITC staff conference (estimated).
April 13, 2026
Deadline for ITC preliminary injury determination.
May 21, 2026
Deadline for DOC preliminary CVD determination, if deadline is NOT postponed.
July 27, 2026
Deadline for DOC preliminary CVD determination, if deadline is fully postponed.
August 4, 2026
Deadline for DOC preliminary AD determination, if deadline is NOT postponed.
September 23, 2026
Deadline for DOC preliminary AD determination, if deadline is fully postponed.
February 5, 2027
Deadline for DOC final AD/CVD determinations, if all deadlines are fully postponed.
March 22, 2027
Deadline for ITC final injury determinations, if all DOC deadlines are fully postponed.
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
Richard P. Ferrin
Counsel
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5803
richard.ferrin@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Carrie Bethea Connolly
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5330
carrie.connolly@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Daniel R. Wilson
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5211
daniel.wilson@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Morgan Alexis Howard
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5305
morgan.howard@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/2/new-antidumping-duty-and-countervailing-duty-petitions-on-truck-bed-covers-from-china
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
