Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Samantha Lauri and Kenneth Page Author Article Dissecting Potential Impact of Mamdani Estate Tax Proposals in the New York Law Journal
NEW YORK, May 16 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Samantha Lauri and Kenneth Page Author Article Dissecting Potential Impact of Mamdani Estate Tax Proposals in the New York Law Journal
Highlights
* The article breaks down potential impacts of new estate tax proposals by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Governor Kathy Hochul.
* The authors explore how these proposals could expand estate tax exposure for both residents and nonresidents and highlight the importance of proactive estate planning.
*
Samantha Lauri and Kenneth Page authored
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 16 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Samantha Lauri and Kenneth Page Author Article Dissecting Potential Impact of Mamdani Estate Tax Proposals in the New York Law Journal
Highlights
* The article breaks down potential impacts of new estate tax proposals by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Governor Kathy Hochul.
* The authors explore how these proposals could expand estate tax exposure for both residents and nonresidents and highlight the importance of proactive estate planning.
*
Samantha Lauri and Kenneth Page authoredan article for the New York Law Journal on the potential impacts of new estate tax proposals by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Governor Kathy Hochul.
The proposals are aimed at addressing New York City's budget gap and include a significantly reduced estate tax exemption, increased rates and new elements affecting nonresident property owners.
The article explores how these proposals could expand estate tax exposure for both residents and nonresidents, create liquidity challenges for estates, and influence property ownership and planning decisions.
"New York estate tax is generally due within nine months of a decedent's death," the authors write. "If the recent proposals were enacted, more estates could face liquidity challenges, potentially requiring the sale of assets on an expedited basis in order to satisfy estate tax obligations and avoid interest and penalties."
Lauri and Page also highlight key considerations for individuals, including the importance of proactive estate planning in light of potential changes to exemption thresholds, tax rates and property-related surcharges.
"In this environment, thoughtful estate planning, undertaken well in advance, can provide flexibility, mitigate tax exposure, and help preserve family wealth across generations," the article stated. "Common techniques include lifetime gifting to remove assets and future appreciation from the taxable estate, the use of irrevocable trusts to shift wealth to future generations, and spousal planning strategies that fully utilize available estate tax exemptions."
Read the article (https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2026/05/14/potential-impact-of-proposed-changes-to-new-york-estate-and-property-taxes/?slreturn=20260515103802).
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Samantha Lauri
Associate
E: samantha.lauri@hugheshubbard.com
T: +1 (212) 837-6607
* * *
Kenneth Page
Senior Counsel
E: kenneth.page@hugheshubbard.com
T: +1 (212) 837-6440
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/samantha-lauri-and-kenneth-page-author-article-dissecting-potential-impact-of-mamdani-estate-tax-proposals-in-the-new-york-law-journal
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Nixon Peabody Partner Jenny Holmes Receives Rochester Business Journal 'Women of Excellence' Honor
ALBANY, New York, May 16 -- Nixon Peabody, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Nixon Peabody partner Jenny Holmes receives Rochester Business Journal 'Women of Excellence' honor
Rochester, NY. Nixon Peabody LLP is proud to announce that the Rochester Business Journal has selected attorney Jenny Holmes as one of the publication's 2026 "Women of Excellence" honorees.
Jenny is a Rochester-based partner in Nixon Peabody's Privacy & Technology practice, and she serves as deputy leader of the AmLaw 100 firm's Cybersecurity & Privacy team. Jenny advises clients on the ever-changing
... Show Full Article
ALBANY, New York, May 16 -- Nixon Peabody, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Nixon Peabody partner Jenny Holmes receives Rochester Business Journal 'Women of Excellence' honor
Rochester, NY. Nixon Peabody LLP is proud to announce that the Rochester Business Journal has selected attorney Jenny Holmes as one of the publication's 2026 "Women of Excellence" honorees.
Jenny is a Rochester-based partner in Nixon Peabody's Privacy & Technology practice, and she serves as deputy leader of the AmLaw 100 firm's Cybersecurity & Privacy team. Jenny advises clients on the ever-changinglegal landscape of data privacy and cybersecurity law. She develops and implements system-wide privacy and security plans and creates response plans that address the mandates of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and the NY SHIELD Act, among others. In addition to her role as deputy practice group leader, Jenny serves as an Attorney Development and Performance Partner.
Outside the office, Jenny serves on the Board of Directors for the Child Advocacy Center of Greater Rochester and is a member of the Monroe County, New York State, and American bar associations.
The Rochester Business Journal's "Women of Excellence" identifies high-achieving women for their tremendous career accomplishments. The women are selected based on their professional experience, community involvement, leadership, and sustained commitment to mentoring.
Jenny and her fellow honorees were recognized at an awards celebration on May 14, 2026, at the Rochester Riverside Convention Center. To learn more about the 2026 "Women of Excellence" honorees, click here (https://rbj.net/event/women-of-excellence/).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.nixonpeabody.com/about/media/2026/05/15/nixon-peabody-partner-jenny-holmes-receives-rochester-business-journal-women-of-excellence-honor
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: Tennessee Bans Non-Competes Based on Employee Income
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 16 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 15, 2026, by associate Julia Ross and members James Boutrous II and Timothy Lowe:
* * *
Tennessee bans non-competes based on employee income
On May 7, 2026, Tennessee's Governor signed House Bill 1034 (HB 1034) into law, prohibiting employers from requiring, requesting, or enforcing non-compete agreements with workers who earn less than $70,000 annually. The law takes effect July 1, 2026, making Tennessee one of a growing number of states that restrict the use of non-compete agreements based on salary
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 16 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 15, 2026, by associate Julia Ross and members James Boutrous II and Timothy Lowe:
* * *
Tennessee bans non-competes based on employee income
On May 7, 2026, Tennessee's Governor signed House Bill 1034 (HB 1034) into law, prohibiting employers from requiring, requesting, or enforcing non-compete agreements with workers who earn less than $70,000 annually. The law takes effect July 1, 2026, making Tennessee one of a growing number of states that restrict the use of non-compete agreements based on salarythresholds.
Who is covered under HB 1034?
The law protects workers earning less than $70,000 in annualized compensation. The statute defines "annualized compensation" as "the total compensation an employee earns from the employer, including wages, salary, commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, and other forms of remuneration, calculated on an annualized basis."
For hourly workers, annualized compensation is calculated by multiplying the worker's hourly rate by 40 (hours per week) and then multiplying that amount by 52 (weeks per year). Under this formula, employers cannot require, request, or enforce non-competition agreements with hourly workers earning approximately $33.65 per hour or less.
Agreements that remain permissible
While HB 1034 restricts non-compete agreements for workers earning less than $70,000, it does not prohibit employers from protecting their legitimate business interests through other restrictive covenants (even with workers earning less than $70,000 in annualized compensation). The law expressly permits employers to continue enforcing:
* Confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements;
* Client or customer non-solicitation agreements; and
* Employee non-solicitation agreements.
Rebuttable presumptions for non-compete duration
Effective July 1, 2026, courts will presume as reasonable the following non-compete durations:
* For former employees and independent contractors (not involving a sale of business): A restraint of two (2) years or less.
* For distributors, dealers, franchisees, lessees of real or personal property, or licensees of intellectual property (not involving a sale of business): A restraint of three (3) years or less.
* For sellers of a business or ownership interest: A restraint of five (5) years or less, or a period equal to the time during which payments are made to the seller (whichever is longer).
Consequences for non-compliance
Non-competition agreements that violate HB 1034 will be considered void and unenforceable after July 1, 2026. Employers who attempt to enforce a void and unenforceable non-compete may be subject to damages, attorneys' fees, or other penalties.
What employers should do now
With the July 1, 2026, effective date approaching, Tennessee employers should review their existing agreements, update their employment templates, and, before July 1, 2026, contact their McDonald Hopkins attorney to ensure compliance with Tennessee's new restrictions on non-compete agreements.
* * *
James Boutrous II
Member
jboutrous@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Timothy Lowe
Member
tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Julia Ross
Associate
jross@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/tennessee-bans-non-competes-based-on-employee-income
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Colorado Amends Its Artificial Intelligence Law, Substantially Reducing Obligations on Employers
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 16 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 15, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento, Philip L. Gordon and Alice H. Wang:
* * *
Colorado Amends its Artificial Intelligence Law, Substantially Reducing Obligations on Employers
At a Glance
* Colorado's amended AI law (S.B. 26-189) significantly scales back employer obligations from the prior version and delays the effective date to January 1, 2027.
* The law applies to automated decision-making that materially influences major employment decisions and requires three main actions--clear notice
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 16 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 15, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento, Philip L. Gordon and Alice H. Wang:
* * *
Colorado Amends its Artificial Intelligence Law, Substantially Reducing Obligations on Employers
At a Glance
* Colorado's amended AI law (S.B. 26-189) significantly scales back employer obligations from the prior version and delays the effective date to January 1, 2027.
* The law applies to automated decision-making that materially influences major employment decisions and requires three main actions--clear noticeto individuals, a structured adverse action and human review process, and retention of relevant records for at least three years.
* The Act limits liability based on fault between developers and employers, voids certain indemnification clauses, and is enforceable only by the Colorado attorney general (with no private lawsuits).
*
Colorado's governor has signed an amendment (S.B. 26-189) to Colorado's artificial intelligence law, substantially reducing the compliance burden on employers. The Colorado General Assembly passed the bill one day before the end of the 2026 legislative session, and the governor signed less than two months before the previously enacted law was due to go into effect, on June 30, 2026. Passage of the amendment ends a nail-biting period for employers, which did not know whether to proceed with compliance implementation for the previously enacted law. The new law (the "CO AI Act" or the "Act") is based closely on the bill proposed by the governor's AI Policy Working Group and will go into effect on January 1, 2027. This is still a relatively short period for employers to implement the Act's three requirements: pre-use notice; an adverse action process; and record retention.
When the CO AI Act applies to employers
The CO AI Act regulates the use of automated decision-making technology to "materially influence" a "consequential decision," which includes "access to, eligibility for, selection for, or compensation for" employment ("Covered ADMT")./1 This standard appears to cover both internal and external hiring, as well as decisions about eligibility for hire. However, the definition of "consequential decisions" explicitly excludes identity verification, activities related to cybersecurity and sanctions compliance, and low-stakes or routine decisions, actions and business processes, including routine scheduling, administrative routing, customer service, communication of decisions, and workflow management. The Act also does not apply to decisions about independent contractors or to applicants and employees who are not residents of Colorado. Only employers that "do business in Colorado" need comply./2
Unlike many of the new laws in this area, including Colorado's previous law, the CO AI Act is not limited to artificial intelligence, which is generally defined to include some inferential step. Rather, "automated decision-making technology" is defined to include any "technology that processes personal data and uses computation to generate output...."/3 This definition covers a broad range of computational technologies, many of which have been used by employers long before the recent explosion of artificial intelligence tools.
However, the new law explicitly carves out a wide range of clerical tools by excluding from the definition calculators, databases, spreadsheets that require human analysis, and tools used "solely to summarize, organize, translate, ... or present information for human review of administrative processing."/4 These likely include transcription and note-taking tools, often used by employers to take notes on applicant interviews. The definition also excludes natural language processing and other ChatGPT-like tools, as long as not intended to be used for consequential decisions and subject to an acceptable use policy that prohibits such use.
What the CO AI Act requires from employers
In short, the CO AI Act requires that employers (1) provide notice before using Covered ADMT, (2) implement a robust adverse action process, including notice, a right to correct, and a right to meaningful human review, and (3) retain records about the use of Covered ADMT for three years.
Prior Notice:
Prior to using Covered ADMT, the employer must provide a "clear and conspicuous" notice that the employer uses automated decision-making technology to materially influence a consequential decision, as well as how the individual may obtain additional information./5 The Act provides no further requirements for the content of this pre-use notice, albeit the Colorado attorney general's implementing regulations may do so.
By contrast, the Act provides that the "clear and conspicuous" standard requires a "prominent public notice that is reasonably accessible at points of consumer interaction."/6 A "link or post that is reasonably proximate to the interaction or transaction in which a consequential decision may occur" is one example of "clear and conspicuous" notice. An employer likely could satisfy this standard by, for example, providing the pre-use notice as part of the online job application process. For consequential decisions in the context of the employment relationship, the public posting requirement makes little sense, so employers likely will need to supplement any public posting with one that is closer in time to the decision but not public--for example, at the point where employees submit a self-evaluation in the performance evaluation process.
Adverse Action Process:
Within 30 days of making an adverse decision materially influenced by a Covered ADMT's output, the employer must provide a notice that includes:
* consequential decision and the role the Covered ADMT played in that decision;
* Instructions and a simple process to request additional information about the Covered ADMT and the inputs, including the name of the Covered ADMT, the Covered ADMT version number, if applicable, the Covered ADMT developer, and the types, categories, and sources of personal data used; and
* An explanation of the right to correct and review, as well as how to exercise these rights.
In addition, in response to the individual's request, the employer must provide:
* Instructions for requesting personal data and correcting factually incorrect or materially inaccurate personal data used in the consequential decision; and
* An opportunity for meaningful human review and reconsideration of the consequential decision.
Of these, the most burdensome requirement for employers may be the right to human review and consideration. However, this right is substantially limited by the caveat that the employer need only comply with this right "to the extent commercially reasonable."/7 The scope of this "commercially reasonable" exception will be a key issue for employers. In many cases, implementing an automated decision-making technology may not be worth the cost of implementation where the employer must also set up a parallel process for meaningful human review and reconsideration. In that case, employers may have a reasonable argument that compliance with the review right is not "commercially reasonable."
Record Retention:
The CO AI Act requires employers to retain for at least three years after making a consequential decision (and longer if required by some other state or federal law) records "reasonably necessary to demonstrate compliance" with the Act./8 The Act's examples of records to be retained include "covered ADMT version identifiers, changelogs, and documentation of material mitigation changes," as applicable./9 Other relevant records most likely would include the relevant version of the pre-use notice, a record of how the pre-use notice was communicated before the adverse decision was made, the adverse action notice provided to the individual, and any records of the decision-making process.
How the CO AI Act addresses liability and indemnification
The CO AI Act splits liability for any potential algorithmic discrimination claim between developers and deployers. The CO AI Act clarifies that both the developer and the deployer may be held liable for unlawful discrimination, but only to the extent of their relative fault--in other words, if a deployer uses a Covered ADMT in the way it was "intended, documented, marketed, advertised, configured or contracted" to be used by the developer and the results are still discriminatory, then the developer would be liable. If a deployer uses a Covered ADMT in a way that it was not "intended, documented, marketed, advertised, configured or contracted" to be used by the developer, then the developer would not be liable, but the deployer would be. The CO AI Act does not create joint and several liability, except to the extent permitted under existing law.
The CO AI Act also invalidates contractual indemnification provisions against liability for the developer's or deployer's own acts or omissions related to the use of Covered ADMT in violation of Colorado's discrimination laws. In essence, indemnification clauses that purport to shift a party's liability for unlawful algorithmic discrimination in consequential decisions onto the other are void as against public policy. This restriction does not apply if the Covered ADMT was used in an unintended manner and the developer complied with its documentation obligations.
In light of these expected changes, developers and deployers should review their existing contracts, with a critical eye towards any language that may run afoul of the new limitations on indemnification provisions.
How the CO AI Act is enforced
Crucially, the CO AI Act does not create a new private right of action. As with the previous Colorado AI law, only the Colorado attorney general can enforce this law. Violations constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices, which carry potential civil penalties of up to $20,000 for each violation./10 Before initiating an enforcement action, the attorney general must provide a 60-day notice of violation and opportunity to cure, but only if the attorney general deems a cure possible./11
Looking ahead, the Act contemplates additional regulatory development. The Colorado attorney general is required to promulgate implementing regulations by January 1, 2027, signaling that the current statutory framework is likely to evolve as enforcement priorities and practical considerations take shape.
Comparison to other AI laws and the previous Colorado AI law
The CO AI Act eliminates many of the most onerous obligations of Colorado's previous artificial intelligence law. Specifically, the CO AI Act removes the following mandates that the old law imposed on employers using AI as a substantial factor in employment decisions:
* Reporting findings of discriminatory outcomes to the Colorado attorney general;
* Conducting impact assessments;
* Implementing a risk management policy and program;
* Conducting annual reviews of AI tools;
* Posting or updating privacy policies to describe the use of AI tools;
* Providing notice when interacting with an AI system; and
* Affirmatively avoiding algorithmic discrimination (instead the CO AI Act relies on a prohibition on violating existing state and federal anti-discrimination laws).
The CO AI Act is the third comprehensive AI law applicable to employers in the United States, joining California and New York City by combining notice, rights, and anti-discrimination provisions. Other laws, such as Illinois's AI provisions in its human rights law, only require notice for the use of AI in employment decisions. In addition, a growing number of state statutes simply clarify that anti-discrimination laws apply to employers when they rely on AI tools that result in discrimination against applicants or employees.
Meanwhile, dozens of additional AI-related bills remain under active consideration in state legislatures nationwide. Given the lack of legislative action at the federal level, employers should expect more state laws and increased complexity in the area of AI.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Colorado S.B. 26-189 (2026) [hereinafter "CO AI Act"] (to be codified at Col. Rev. Stat. Sec.Sec. 6-1-1701(3), (5)).
2/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1701(7).
3/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1701(3).
4/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1701(2)(b).
5/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1704(1).
6/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1704(2).
7/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1705(1)(a)(II).
8/ Id. at Sec. 6-1-1702(4).
9/ Id.
10/ Colo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 6-1-112.
11/ CO AI Act (to be codified at Col. Rev. Stat. Sec. 6-1-1706(3)).
* * *
Authors
Zoe M. Argento
Shareholder
Denver
* * *
Philip L. Gordon
Shareholder
Denver
* * *
Alice H. Wang
Shareholder
San Francisco
Related Topics
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/colorado-amends-its-artificial-intelligence-law-substantially-reducing
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: FP Visa Bulletin for June - Final Action Chart and an Employer's Immigration Action Plan
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 16 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 15, 2026:
* * *
The FP Visa Bulletin for June: Final Action Chart and an Employer's Immigration Action Plan
Each month, federal immigration authorities publish a list of dates informing immigrant visa applicants when they should expect to be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to government officials. This Insight reviews June's release to help employers determine whether and when you should provide corresponding notifications to any of your foreign-national employees to assist with
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 16 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 15, 2026:
* * *
The FP Visa Bulletin for June: Final Action Chart and an Employer's Immigration Action Plan
Each month, federal immigration authorities publish a list of dates informing immigrant visa applicants when they should expect to be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to government officials. This Insight reviews June's release to help employers determine whether and when you should provide corresponding notifications to any of your foreign-national employees to assist withtheir efforts. You'll also find a specific action plan so you can adapt your immigration strategy given this month's information. If you want to ensure you follow compliant processes to address your critical workforce needs in a timely manner, read on.
June Dates: An Overview
The Visa Bulletin includes a list of dates informing overseas immigrant visa applicants when they should expect to be notified to assemble and submit required documentation to move forward with the consular stamping process. These dates are also used to determine eligibility for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for applicants who are already physically present in the US.
USCIS announced that it will follow the State Department's Final Action chart, published in the June Visa Bulletin, to determine whether candidates are eligible to submit an employment-based Adjustment of Status application for that month. To determine potential eligibility for filing of an employment-based Adjustment of Status application, dates that appear in this chart must be compared with an employee's immigration priority date, as shown on their earliest available I-797 Notice of Action (Receipt Notice) issued by USCIS for any EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 (I-140) Immigrant Petition filed on their behalf by a sponsoring employer.
The June 2026 Visa Bulletin introduces notable retrogression for Indian nationals, with the EB-1 Final Action Date moving back approximately 15 weeks to December 15, 2022, and the EB-2 Final Action Date retrogressing roughly 45 weeks to September 1, 2013. Indian EB-3, however, advances modestly by about four weeks to December 15, 2013.
Chinese nationals see no movement in EB-1 or EB-2, but the EB-3 Final Action Date advances approximately six weeks to August 1, 2021, and Chinese Other Workers advances about two months to April 1, 2019. All other chargeability areas remain unchanged across EB-1 (current), EB-2 (current), and EB-3 (June 1, 2024).
USCIS has confirmed it will use the Final Action Dates chart to determine eligibility for employment-based adjustment of status filings in June, meaning an application may only be filed for a candidate whose priority date is earlier than the listed cutoff date for their preference category and country of chargeability, or whose category is otherwise listed as current.
Movement in Employment-Based Preference Classes for June
Employers with foreign nationals who are currently eligible to file Adjustment of Status applications should re-evaluate filing prior to month end, particularly for Indian nationals, as there is significant retrogression in EB-1 and EB-2 India, while most other categories remain unchanged from May.
EB-1
* EB-1 remains current for All Chargeability Areas, Mexico, and Philippines
* EB-1 China remains unchanged with a priority date of April 1, 2023
* EB-1 India retrogresses four months with a priority date of December 15, 2022
EB-2
* EB-2 remains current for All Chargeability Areas, Mexico, and Philippines
* EB-2 China remains unchanged with a priority date of September 1, 2021
* EB-2 India retrogresses almost one year with a priority date of September 1, 2013
EB-3
* EB-3 All Chargeability Areas and Mexico remain unchanged with a priority date of June 1, 2024
* EB-3 China advances two months with a priority date of August 1, 2021
* EB-3 India advances one month with a priority date of December 15, 2013
* EB-3 Philippines remains unchanged with a priority date of August 1, 2023
Final Action Chart
The recently announced Final Action Chart for EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 appear in the table below. Please note this table can always change, so check here for the most accurate and updated information before acting on these dates.
Employment-based ... All Chargeability Areas Except Those Listed ... CHINA-mainland born ... INDIA ... MEXICO ... PHILIPPINES
1st ... C ... 01APR23 ... 15DEC22 ... C ... C
2nd ... C ... 01SEP21 ... 01SEP13 ... C ... C
3rd ... 01JUN24 ... 01AUG21 ... 15DEC13 ... 01JUN24 ... 01AUG23
What Should You Do? Your Action Plan
For June, USCIS is using the "Final Action" chart in accepting new applications for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residence. This means an application may be filed and processed for a candidate with an immigration priority date that is earlier than the listed cutoff date for their preference category and country of chargeability, or whose category is otherwise listed as current.
For Adjustment of Status cases that are already pending and were filed in a category that has since fallen behind in its cutoff date, USCIS will not continue adjudicating until the Final Action date has surpassed the individual immigration priority date or is otherwise deemed current. While overall processing may be delayed, a duly filed application will remain in good standing in the government's queue, and USCIS will process related requests for EAD cards and Advanced Parole.
If you have employees who have priority dates that will be (or remain) current in June, you should reach out to your FP immigration attorney to prepare and submit their Adjustment of Status Application in June.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments from immigration officials and provide similar guidance on a monthly basis. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information - including next month's FP Visa Bulletin. If you have any questions, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any attorney in our Immigration Practice Group.
Related People
* * *
Related People
Anastasia V. Zakharova
Associate
415.490.9047
azakharova@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/the-fp-visa-bulletin-for-june-2026
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: DOL Rescinds Biden-Era Overtime Rule - Cementing $35k Salary Threshold
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 16 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 15, 2026:
* * *
DOL Rescinds Biden-Era Overtime Rule: Cementing $35k Salary Threshold
The Biden-era Labor Department rule that aimed to dramatically expand overtime pay eligibility is officially wiped off the books. Yesterday, the agency issued a technical amendment to remove the rule, which had already been struck down in court, from its regulations. The defunct 2024 rule would have raised the earnings threshold under which certain salaried executive, administrative, and professional employees are owed
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 16 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 15, 2026:
* * *
DOL Rescinds Biden-Era Overtime Rule: Cementing $35k Salary Threshold
The Biden-era Labor Department rule that aimed to dramatically expand overtime pay eligibility is officially wiped off the books. Yesterday, the agency issued a technical amendment to remove the rule, which had already been struck down in court, from its regulations. The defunct 2024 rule would have raised the earnings threshold under which certain salaried executive, administrative, and professional employees are owedovertime pay to nearly $60K. Yesterday's move by the DOL, while largely procedural, affirms the $35K salary threshold that had been implemented by the first Trump administration in 2019. Here's everything you need to know about the amendment and what it means for your business.
Quick Refresher
In 2024, the Biden DOL implemented a rule would have extended overtime coverage to about 4 million additional workers by raising the salary threshold that makes workers eligible for the so-called "white-collar" exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Workers who are salaried, have certain professional, executive, or administrative job duties, and make more than a certain amount of money annually, are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Biden rule would have raised the earnings threshold to nearly $59K. After a legal challenge, a federal court vacated the rule in late 2024. (More on that decision here.)
What Did The DOL Do?
The technical amendment issued by the DOL on May 14 formally removes the Biden rule's regulatory language from the Code of Federal Regulations and restores the language establishing the $35K threshold. The agency emphasized when announcing the change that it doesn't affect "any enforcement stance currently in place."
What Does This Mean For My Business?
While this amendment doesn't make any changes to the DOL's current enforcement playbook, it does officially scrub the Biden-era rule from the agency's regulations.
* Businesses should continue to abide by the $684 per week, or $35,568 per year, level finalized in 2019.
* The highly compensated employee exemption's additional total annual compensation requirement is set at $107,432 per year.
* This also only applies to the federal DOL's enforcement of the FLSA's overtime provisions. Some states may have more expansive overtime requirements, so it's important to be familiar with what jurisdiction you're operating in.
* Consult with your FP legal counsel if you have any questions about the white collar exemptions and your company's compliance with DOL or state regulations.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments from the courts and the DOL's Wage and Hour Division, so make sure you are subscribed to our Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. For further information, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our Wage and Hour Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
J. Hagood Tighe
Partner and Co-Chair, Wage and Hour Practice Group
803.740.7655
htighe@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/dol-rescinds-biden-era-overtime-rule
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: MSO-PC Structures in the Crosshairs - California AG Takes Aim at Continuity Agreements
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 16 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 15, 2026, by partners Jamie E. Levin, Libby Baney Burstein and Steve Lokensgard:
* * *
MSO-PC Structures in the Crosshairs: California AG Takes Aim at Continuity Agreements
Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC, No. B338625 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2026)
At a Glance
* A pending California appellate case -- Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC -- is testing the limits of California's corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) doctrine as applied to MSO-PC continuity
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 16 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 15, 2026, by partners Jamie E. Levin, Libby Baney Burstein and Steve Lokensgard:
* * *
MSO-PC Structures in the Crosshairs: California AG Takes Aim at Continuity Agreements
Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC, No. B338625 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2026)
At a Glance
* A pending California appellate case -- Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC -- is testing the limits of California's corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) doctrine as applied to MSO-PC continuityagreements.
* The California Attorney General's Office filed an amicus brief arguing that certain continuity agreements may violate California's CPOM doctrine by giving MSOs indirect control over physician ownership.
* The California Medical Association filed a competing brief urging a facts-and-circumstances approach, cautioning against categorical prohibition.
* Two recent acts (SB 351 and AB 1415) signal a clear legislative trend toward tightening nonphysician control over California health care operations.
* Telehealth platforms using MSO-PC arrangements should review their continuity, management, and related agreements now considering the heightened scrutiny.
*
Background: What Is at Stake in Art Center Holdings
The pending California appellate case, Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC1, is drawing significant attention for its implications on management service organization-professional corporation (MSO-PC) relationships statewide. At issue is whether California's corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) doctrine prohibits continuity agreements -- sometimes called succession or stock transfer restriction agreements -- that give a management service organization (MSO) structural leverage over ownership transitions within a physician-owned professional corporation (PC)2.
Two recent amicus briefs -- from the California Attorney General (AG) and the California Medical Association (CMA) -- have staked out competing positions, and the appellate outcome will shape how these arrangements are documented and governed across California's health care sector.
What the Trial Court Held
The trial court ruled that a private equity-backed MSO engaged in the unlicensed practice of medicine by controlling a physician-owned PC through a continuity agreement that granted the MSO broad discretion to transfer control of the practice.
This ruling disrupts the status quo. Continuity agreements are a foundational tool for MSO-PC platforms -- used to protect investor interests, ensure operational continuity, and manage physician succession. The ruling puts common succession structures in a difficult compliance position and raises legal risk for similar arrangements across California's health care sector. This could have national implications because many organizations tailor their structural agreements to comply with California and New Jersey law for simplicity's sake, to avoid having divergent structures in place to operate a professional corporation in 50 states.
Many investor-affiliated health care platforms -- including private equity and telehealth businesses -- rely on MSO-PC structures and management agreements to comply with CPOM while preserving operational and financial continuity.
The AG's Position: Strict Interpretation of the CPOM Doctrine
The AG's amicus brief urges the California Courts of Appeal to adopt a strict interpretation of California's CPOM doctrine as applied to MSO-PC arrangements. Under the AG's theory, contractual mechanisms that allow an MSO to effectuate a physician ownership change is sufficient to raise CPOM concerns -- regardless of whether clinical decisions are directly affected or what conditions or events the agreement is intended to address.
The brief suggests that a continuity agreement that gives an MSO meaningful influence over physician succession or practice governance could be viewed as conferring impermissible indirect control over the PC.
If adopted by the appellate court, the AG's position could substantially limit the use of continuity agreements in California MSO-PC structures.
Legislative Context: SB 351 and AB 1415
The AG's brief does not exist in a vacuum. It tracks a broader legislative trend in California toward tightening nonphysician involvement in health care governance:
* Senate Bill 351 (effective January 1, 2026): Codifies California's CPOM prohibition and specifically targets investor groups -- including private equity and hedge funds -- from exercising control over defined clinical and operational functions. Covered functions include the content of patient medical records, physician hiring, and controlling PC's contractual relationships.
* Assembly Bill 1415 (effective January 1, 2026): Expands regulatory oversight by requiring private equity groups, hedge funds, MSOs, and certain newly formed entities established for health care deals to provide at least 90 days' advance notice to the Office of Health Care Affordability before closing certain material change transactions involving health care entities.
Together, these actions signal that the California legislature is not waiting for the courts to act.
The CMA's Counter-position: Facts and Circumstances Matter
The California Medical Association (CMA) filed its own amicus brief on April 15, 20263, offering an important counterweight to the AG's expansive stance.
Rather than endorsing a categorical prohibition, the CMA advocates for evaluating continuity agreements on their specific facts -- asking whether an agreement in practice vests clinical control in a nonphysician entity, rather than condemning any agreement that grants an MSO structural leverage over ownership transitions. The CMA also acknowledges the role that outside capital plays in modernizing and scaling health care delivery, and cautions against treating every continuity agreement as a per se CPOM violation.
The CMA's position provides grounds for a more nuanced ruling, but it remains uncertain which framework the court will adopt.
Telehealth-Specific Implications
Telehealth platforms operating in California should pay particular attention to these developments. Most California telehealth businesses rely on MSO-PC arrangements: the MSO provides technology infrastructure, billing, and administrative support to a physician-owned PC that employs or contracts with licensed providers. Contracts between the PC and MSO should be reviewed to ensure that the MSO may make recommendations, but the PC has final approval authority with respect to certain functions. In addition, continuity agreements are a standard tool in these structures to protect platform continuity and investor interests.
The Risk Is Specific to California
A continuity agreement that functions without issue in other states may face heightened scrutiny under the AG's theory. And telehealth platforms -- often organized to scale rapidly across states -- may not have built their California-specific governance with the AG's structural standard in mind.
Practical Guidance for Companies Operating in California
For MSOs, investors, and telehealth platforms operating in California:
1. Don't assume your existing agreements are automatically unlawful. Art Center Holdings and the AG's brief raise compliance questions -- they do not render MSO-PC arrangements per se illegal. The CMA's brief preserves room for a more tailored result.
2. The highest-risk provisions are those granting unchecked authority. Regulatory scrutiny is focused on agreements that give nonphysician entities unrestricted power to replace physician-owners or override clinical decision-making. Agreements that preserve meaningful physician independence are better positioned.
3. Audit your agreement portfolio now. Investors, MSOs, and telehealth platforms should review existing and future management, succession, and related agreements to confirm that business support does not cross into clinical control -- and that physician independence is genuinely maintained, not merely stated.
4. Document the substance, not just the form. Structural compliance is necessary but not sufficient. Operational practices, governance protocols, and decision-making records matter too.
5. Plan for the appellate timeline. A ruling that adopts the AG's categorical approach would create immediate pressure to renegotiate or restructure existing agreements. Building contingency plans now avoids a reactive scramble later.
Looking Ahead
We are actively monitoring the Art Center Holdings appeal and related legislative developments. A ruling is expected in the coming months.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors.
* * *
1. Brief of Amicus Curiae California Attorney General, Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC, No. B338625 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2026).
2. PC is generally used to mean a professional entity allowed in a given state.
3. Brief of Amicus Curiae California Medical Association in Support of No Party, Art Center. Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC, No. B338625 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026).
* * *
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
Jamie E. Levin
Partner
Chicago
+1 312 569 1263
jamie.levin@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Libby Baney Burstein
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 312 7438
libby.burstein@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Steve Lokensgard
Partner
Minneapolis
+1 612 766 8863
steve.lokensgard@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/mso-pc-structures-in-the-crosshairs-california-ag-takes-aim-at-continuity-agreements
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
