Featured Stories
Ropes & Gray Advised Bain Capital Ventures on $1.6 Billion Fund XI
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 18 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Advised Bain Capital Ventures on $1.6 Billion Fund XI
September 17, 2026
Ropes & Gray represented Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), the early-stage venture arm of Bain Capital, as fund counsel on the final closing of Bain Capital Ventures Fund XI, which exceeded its fundraising target and raised $1.6 billion in total capital.
The fund closing was announced on September 16.
With BCV's founding in 2001, Bain Capital became one of the only large alternative asset firms to launch and build
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 18 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Advised Bain Capital Ventures on $1.6 Billion Fund XI
September 17, 2026
Ropes & Gray represented Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), the early-stage venture arm of Bain Capital, as fund counsel on the final closing of Bain Capital Ventures Fund XI, which exceeded its fundraising target and raised $1.6 billion in total capital.
The fund closing was announced on September 16.
With BCV's founding in 2001, Bain Capital became one of the only large alternative asset firms to launch and buildan early-stage technology venture practice.
Fund XI will continue BCV's longstanding early-stage investment strategy and is expected to make investments across AI infrastructure, applications, physical AI, science, security and services.
The Ropes & Gray team included asset management partners Peter Laybourn, Bryan Hunkele and Catherine Skulan and associate Jonas K. Madsen, finance partner Patricia Lynch and tax partner Jim Brown.
* * *
URL: Bain Capital Ventures
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/09/ropes-gray-advised-bain-capital-ventures-on-fund-xi
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
McGuireWoods: Data Centers Decoded: Essential Intelligence for the Digital Infrastructure Boom
RICHMOND, Virginia, Sept. 18 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Data Centers Decoded: Essential Intelligence for the Digital Infrastructure Boom
September 17, 2026
McGuireWoods has launched Data Centers Decoded, a comprehensive resource to help industry leaders stay ahead of the trends, challenges and opportunities shaping the data center landscape.
As AI-driven demand pushes data center development to unprecedented levels, the pressures on power delivery, construction, capital formation and regulatory compliance are intensifying. Through insights and analysis,
... Show Full Article
RICHMOND, Virginia, Sept. 18 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Data Centers Decoded: Essential Intelligence for the Digital Infrastructure Boom
September 17, 2026
McGuireWoods has launched Data Centers Decoded, a comprehensive resource to help industry leaders stay ahead of the trends, challenges and opportunities shaping the data center landscape.
As AI-driven demand pushes data center development to unprecedented levels, the pressures on power delivery, construction, capital formation and regulatory compliance are intensifying. Through insights and analysis,webinars and a Q&A series with top minds in the industry, Data Centers Decoded delivers timely, actionable intelligence on the policy, financing and infrastructure forces at the center of these shifts.
Data Centers Decoded is backed by McGuireWoods' multidisciplinary Data Centers team, which delivers integrated, full-lifecycle guidance on transactions, permitting, regulatory strategy and energy procurement -- from site selection through project completion.
With deep cross-functional bench strength and the public affairs capabilities of McGuireWoods Consulting, the team helps clients build, finance and operate next-generation projects with confidence.
Visit Data Centers Decoded to explore insights and register for upcoming webinars, and subscribe to stay connected with the latest developments in the data center industry.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/9/data-centers-decoded-essential-intelligence-for-the-digital-infrastructure-boom/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Tip Pools and Unpaid Meal Periods - What New DOL Opinion Letters Could Mean For Retail and Hospitality Employers
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 18 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
Tip Pools and Unpaid Meal Periods: What New DOL Opinion Letters Could Mean For Retail and Hospitality Employers
Sep 17, 2026
Can a shift supervisor who also tends bar share servers' tips? Does the time employees spend walking to a designated break area shorten their unpaid lunch enough to make it compensable? The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Wage and Hour Division answered both questions in opinion letters released on September 7. These responses are specific to scenarios submitted by employers,
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 18 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
Tip Pools and Unpaid Meal Periods: What New DOL Opinion Letters Could Mean For Retail and Hospitality Employers
Sep 17, 2026
Can a shift supervisor who also tends bar share servers' tips? Does the time employees spend walking to a designated break area shorten their unpaid lunch enough to make it compensable? The Department of Labor's (DOL's) Wage and Hour Division answered both questions in opinion letters released on September 7. These responses are specific to scenarios submitted by employers,employees, and other organizations, but the answers can help you comply with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Here's what the DOL said in these two situations and what it all means for retail and hospitality employers.
A Quick Refresher on Opinion Letters
Opinion letters are formal, written guidance from DOL officials explaining how the agency would apply the law to a specific set of facts. While the letters are not binding on courts, they do serve as a powerful compliance tool and can be used as persuasive authority in defending a claim under the FLSA or to demonstrate good faith to avoid liquidated damages. We covered four letters the agency issued in late May and a pair on commuter and remote worker travel pay issued in July.
* NOTE: Don't forget that DOL guidance is limited to interpretation of the FLSA and does not impact state law in jurisdictions that have more robust wage and hour laws.
Can a Shift Supervisor Share in the Tip Pool?
* Question: Can a restaurant shift supervisor who periodically works bartending shifts and assists hosts and bussers keep a portion of other employees' tips through the restaurant's "tip out" arrangement?
* DOL Answer: No. The FLSA prohibits a supervisor who meets the "executive duties" test from keeping any portion of other employees' tips, regardless of whether the supervisor also works as a bartender or assists other employees, according to the opinion letter. But the DOL declined to address the reverse scenario, where an employee who principally bartends or serves picks up occasional managerial shifts.
Facts of the Inquiry: A server wrote to the DOL about a restaurant tip pool in which servers "tip out" a percentage of sales to bartenders, hosts, and bussers. One employee, who was described as a "shift supervisor," primarily performs management duties, such as creating schedules and deciding when employees' shifts end. That employee also works periodic bartending shifts with all the usual bartending duties, takes a tip out from the servers during those shifts, and also takes a share of the tip out for hosts and bussers when helping them out.
DOL's Call: To determine whether an employee is a "manager or supervisor" in this context, the regulations borrow the "executive duties" test from the FLSA's white-collar exemptions, even though the full executive exemption is not in play here. If the employee's responsibilities meet that definition, they can't receive any portion of other employees' tips, including through a tip out or a pool the supervisor is otherwise required to contribute to. Notably, the Wage and Hour Division said it lacked sufficient information to determine conclusively whether the employee in this scenario satisfies the executive duties criteria without any details about the employee's role in hiring, firing, or promoting workers. But it assumed the criteria were met for purposes of this letter.
Who counts as a manager or supervisor? The Department's regulations define the phrase to cover any employee whose duties match those of an exempt executive under the FLSA. The DOL looks at an employee's actual responsibilities rather than the job title to determine the answer. These duties include:
* A primary duty of managing the enterprise or a customarily recognized department or subdivision of it.
* Customarily and regularly directing the work of two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent.
* Authority to hire or fire, or make suggestions and recommendations about hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or other changes of status that are given particular weight.
The definition also covers anyone with at least a bona fide 20% equity interest in the enterprise who is actively engaged in its management.
The salary requirements don't apply here. An employee can be nonexempt and earning overtime and still qualify as a manager or supervisor who's barred from receiving other employees' tips. So, leads, shift captains, and key holders across hospitality and retail businesses can fall into this category.
A supervisor may keep tips that a customer leaves for services the supervisor directly and solely provided. When a shift supervisor tends bar, they can keep the tips customers leave for them during that period. But if their tips get consolidated with the other bartenders' tips and split across everyone working the shift, the agency said the supervisor can't take any portion. An employer can also require a supervisor who receives tips directly from customers to contribute some of those tips to a pool for eligible employees.
Risks: An employer can be liable for the tips the supervisor kept and can also lose the tip credit for any affected tipped employee whose tips were improperly given to the supervisor. If you take a tip credit, you could owe those tipped employees the full minimum wage for those hours.
* Key Employer Takeaway
Review each employee's tip eligibility against the executive duties criteria rather than their job title or overtime classification. If a supervisor works tipped shifts, ensure your system only allows supervisors to take tips for service they directly and solely provide.
Can a Lunch Break Be Unpaid Even with Required Walking Time?
* Question: Is a 60-minute unpaid lunch break a bona fide meal period even when employees spend six to 14 minutes total walking to and from an employer-designated break area?
* DOL Answer: In this case, yes. The employees are relieved from duty and the time remaining after the required walk is long enough to use the break for its purpose, so it can be unpaid, according to the opinion letter.
Facts of the Inquiry: An employee wrote to the DOL about a 60-minute unpaid meal period. Employees can't bring food to or eat in their work area, so they walk three to seven minutes each way to a designated break area and have 46 to 54 minutes for lunch. The employee argued that employees aren't fully relieved of duty until they can access their food in the break area.
DOL's Call: The FLSA generally does not require you to provide rest or meal breaks (though some state laws do). Although not strict requirements, 30 minutes or more is typically long enough for a bona fide meal period, while rest breaks of up to 20 minutes are generally compensable because they promote efficiency and primarily benefit the employer. The main issue in most meal break cases is whether the employees were relieved from their duties or required to work. The analysis also focuses on whether sufficient time remains after mandatory travel to eat a meal. Even at the maximum 14 minutes of walking in this case, the employees had about 46 minutes to eat.
The DOL also confirmed which standard applies. The Wage and Hour Division and most federal appellate courts evaluate whether a meal period should be paid under the "predominant benefit" test rather than a "complete relief from duty" standard. The agency said yet again that employees don't need "absolute freedom" from every limitation or condition during an unpaid meal break. The 9th and 11th Circuits, however, are outliers that apply the "complete relief from duty" test.
* Key Employer Takeaway
The DOL came to the same conclusion in May when it said time employees spent walking through a large facility or going through security to take a meal break off premises didn't have to be paid. You should generally focus on whether employees have sufficient time to eat when they get to the meal area. In this scenario, the break was a full hour, but the outcome could be different for a 30-minute break, depending on the circumstances. Don't forget to check your state and local wage and hour laws, too, which can be stricter than federal requirements.
* * *
Related People
Frank F. Martinez
Partner
fmartinez@fisherphillips.com
212/899-9966
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/what-new-dol-opinion-letters-could-mean-for-retail-and-hospitality-employers
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: El Salvador TPS Gets a Last-Minute Reprieve - What Should Employers Do While Waiting for the Details?
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 18 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
El Salvador TPS Gets a Last-Minute Reprieve: What Should Employers Do While Waiting for the Details?
Sep 17, 2026
Employers with Salvadoran workers relying on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) received some welcome news at the eleventh hour last week when US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the very day their designation was scheduled to expire that they will retain their protections, including work authorization. However, calling the September 9 announcement an "extension" might
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sept. 18 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following Insight:
* * *
El Salvador TPS Gets a Last-Minute Reprieve: What Should Employers Do While Waiting for the Details?
Sep 17, 2026
Employers with Salvadoran workers relying on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) received some welcome news at the eleventh hour last week when US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the very day their designation was scheduled to expire that they will retain their protections, including work authorization. However, calling the September 9 announcement an "extension" mightbe generous, as the government has not announced a new expiration date, explained how long the continuation will last, or provided updated instructions for employers completing or updating Forms I-9. In fact, the agency's El Salvador TPS page still lists September 9, 2026, as the date through which TPS was continued, even while a new alert at the top of the page says protections remain in place. Here is what employers need to know - and do - while we wait for DHS to fill in the blanks.
Quick Background
TPS provides temporary immigration protection to nationals of designated countries experiencing conditions that prevent their safe return, such as armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances. Eligible TPS beneficiaries can remain in the United States and obtain employment authorization while the designation remains in effect.
El Salvador has been designated for TPS since 2001. In January 2025, the Biden administration extended the designation for 18 months, from March 10, 2025, through September 9, 2026. Existing beneficiaries were required to re-register during a 60-day period running from January 17 through March 18, 2025.
As September 9 approached, employers and Salvadoran TPS holders had every reason to believe another announcement was coming. On September 3, federal employment verification guidance still stated that El Salvador's TPS designation and related benefits were "set to terminate on Sept. 9, 2026," and employers were instructed to use September 9 as the applicable expiration date for Form I-9 and E-Verify purposes. September 9 arrived without the expected formal announcement.
What Just Happened?
USCIS instead posted the following short notice on its TPS pages:
"An announcement on El Salvador's TPS will be made at the appropriate time. Until such announcement is made, Salvadoran individuals present in the U.S. under TPS retain protection including work authorization."
That same alert now appears on USCIS's general TPS page, its El Salvador TPS page, and I-9 Central.
Beyond the fact that Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries remain protected and retain work authorization for now, almost everything beyond that remains unclear.
* USCIS has not provided a new TPS expiration date. It has not announced a specific six-, 12-, or 18-month extension. The El Salvador country page still identifies September 9, 2026, as the date through which TPS was continued and still lists March 9, 2026, as the date through which certain EADs were automatically extended by Federal Register notice.
* The agency also has not issued updated instructions identifying a new expiration date employers should enter when completing or updating a Form I-9.
What This Means for Employers
The most important point for employers is that September 9 should not be treated as the end of employment authorization for an employee covered by the USCIS announcement. USCIS expressly says Salvadoran individuals who are present in the United States under TPS continue to have work authorization while the government prepares its next announcement.
Where things remain uncertain is when it comes to documentation. While USCIS has now said those workers remain authorized, it has not supplied a replacement date or detailed instructions explaining how employers should document the continuation on Form I-9. Immigration organizations have likewise noted the absence of updated expiration dates and I-9 guidance.
4 Things Employers Should Do Now
1. Do Not Treat September 9 as an Automatic Loss of Work Authorization
Employers should not take adverse employment action against an otherwise eligible Salvadoran TPS beneficiary solely because the previously announced September 9 expiration date has passed. USCIS now expressly states that TPS protection and work authorization remain in effect pending a further announcement.
2. Preserve the Current USCIS Guidance
Employers with affected workers should retain a dated copy of the current USCIS El Salvador TPS alert with their compliance records. The agency's webpage is likely to change again once DHS announces its next step, so retaining the guidance on which you relied could be useful in documenting decisions made during this interim period.
3. Be Careful With Form I-9 Updates
You should avoid inserting a speculative expiration date on the Form I-9 or demanding documents beyond what the employment verification rules require. If you have affected workers, you should monitor I-9 Central and USCIS guidance closely for the anticipated update.
4. Expect Another Announcement
This is plainly an interim measure. USCIS itself says another announcement will be made "at the appropriate time." Employers with Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries should therefore continue tracking developments rather than assuming the current continuation provides protection through any particular future date. The administration could provide considerably more clarity through a subsequent DHS announcement, Federal Register notice, or updated USCIS and I-9 guidance. Until then, work from what USCIS has actually said: qualifying Salvadoran TPS beneficiaries remain protected and authorized to work pending further announcement.
* * *
Related People
David S. Jones
Regional Managing Partner
djones@fisherphillips.com
901/526-0431
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/el-salvador-tps-gets-a-last-minute-reprieve
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Issues Insight: Trump V. Slaughter - Implications of the US Supreme Court's Ruling for EU-US Data Transfers and the Data Privacy Framework
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Sept. 18 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
September 17, 2026
Trump v. Slaughter: Implications of the US Supreme Court's Ruling for EU-US Data Transfers and the Data Privacy Framework
Next steps for businesses that transfer personal data between the EU/UK/Switzerland and the US
At a Glance
* International transfers of personal data under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF), which allows transfers of personal data from the EU, rely heavily on Federal Trade Commission (FTC) independence as a safeguard.
* On 29 June
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, Sept. 18 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following insight:
* * *
September 17, 2026
Trump v. Slaughter: Implications of the US Supreme Court's Ruling for EU-US Data Transfers and the Data Privacy Framework
Next steps for businesses that transfer personal data between the EU/UK/Switzerland and the US
At a Glance
* International transfers of personal data under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (DPF), which allows transfers of personal data from the EU, rely heavily on Federal Trade Commission (FTC) independence as a safeguard.
* On 29 June2026, the US Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that FTC commissioners can be removed at will by the US president, overruling 91 years of precedent and eliminating the agency's structural independence. The ruling undermines a core pillar of the DPF's "adequacy decision", creating a credible risk of future invalidation.
* The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has formally asked the European Commission (the Commission) to assess whether Trump v. Slaughter affects the continued functioning of the DPF adequacy decision.
* Thus far, neither the Commission nor the EDPB has directed organisations to stop relying on the DPF. However, organisations should begin contingency planning, including implementing Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) alongside DPF certification.
-
Background
In March 2025, President Trump removed two Democratic FTC commissioners (Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya) without citing statutory cause. Commissioner Slaughter challenged her removal, arguing that the FTC Act's "for-cause" removal protection (upheld since Humphrey's Executor in 1935) barred dismissal at will.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) disagreed, holding that statutory restrictions on the president's power to remove FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers under Article II of the US Constitution. The majority reasoned that the president must have plenary control over executive officers, and expressly overruled the 91-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent.
As a result, SCOTUS has confirmed that FTC commissioners can be removed by the president at will, meaning in effect that the FTC is no longer structurally independent of the White House.
Impact on the DPF
Since July 2023, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework has served as a key legal basis for transfers of personal data from the EU to participating US organisations. It replaced two earlier frameworks that were each struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): the Safe Harbour arrangement, which the CJEU invalidated in Schrems I (2015), and the Privacy Shield, which fell in Schrems II (2020). Thousands of US organisations have self-certified under the DPF, as it provides the most straightforward route to satisfying the General Data Protection Regulation's (GDPR) stringent requirements for international transfers of personal data to the US from the EU.
The adequacy decision underpinning the DPF relies heavily on the FTC's role as a primary enforcement authority for commercial data protection. Separately, the EU constitutional order places particular emphasis on regulatory independence in the data protection sphere: both the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Article 16(2) TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 8(3)) stipulate that compliance with data protection rules must be subject to control by an authority operating free from external direction.
As such, the ruling challenges a foundational assumption of the adequacy finding. If the FTC is no longer independent, the Commission's assessment that US law provides "essentially equivalent" protection may no longer be true.
The UK Extension to the DPF, which covers personal data transfers to the US from the UK, relies on the same underlying US commitments, meaning the ruling could have parallel implications for UK-US data transfers under the UK's own adequacy regulations. The UK government expressly acknowledged the issue in a 14 July 2026 parliamentary answer, stating that it is exploring the potential impact of Slaughter on the UK Extension to the DPF, and is working with the US government to understand its implications. The UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has not taken a Slaughter-specific position; its existing adequacy opinion identifies US legal developments and the effectiveness of US oversight and enforcement bodies as areas for monitoring.
That said, the UK Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, in force since 5 February 2026, replaced the transfer standard with a new "data protection test" asking whether protection in the receiving country is "not materially lower" than the UK GDPR standard. This shift to a more outcomes-based and risk-based assessment means that a CJEU annulment of the DPF would not automatically invalidate the UK Data Bridge, and the EU and UK are now applying different legal tests for international data transfers.
Commercial Oversight and Government Access
It is useful to distinguish between the two separate pillars on which the adequacy decision rests. The first pillar concerns commercial data handling: the substantive obligations that DPF-certified organisations must meet and the FTC's role in enforcing those obligations. It is this pillar that Slaughter directly undermines.
The second pillar addresses the constraints on US government access to personal data for national security purposes, together with the redress mechanism available to EU individuals through the US Data Protection Review Court (DPRC), which was established under Executive Order 14086. Notably, the earlier Schrems I and Schrems II rulings turned on deficiencies in these government-access safeguards, not on shortcomings in commercial enforcement.
The effect of Slaughter on the DPRC and the broader national-security redress framework is disputed and was not resolved by the judgment. Some commentators argue that Slaughter does not extend to the DPRC. The DPRC's protections are executive branch self-imposed (via executive order and DOJ regulation), not congressionally mandated, and the Slaughter majority was directed at congressional encroachment on executive removal power. SCOTUS expressly reserved the question of non-Article III adjudicators, and DPRC judges qualify as "inferior officers" protected under Morrison v. Olson (which Slaughter preserved).
Others have cautioned, however, that the DPRC lacks any statutory foundation and owes its existence entirely to an executive order that a future president could revoke or amend. Because the DPRC is housed within the DOJ rather than operating as a freestanding body, some analysts regard its claim to structural independence as resting on thinner ground than even that of the pre-Slaughter FTC.
Separately, concerns about the independence of the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) compound the uncertainty surrounding the DPF. In January 2025, the Trump administration removed the three Democratic members of the PCLOB, leaving the board without a quorum and limiting board-level oversight and reporting. The European Commission's adequacy decision expressly relied on the PCLOB's role in overseeing US intelligence agencies' compliance with Executive Order 14086, and the Commission, during its first annual review of the DPF, flagged the importance of upcoming PCLOB vacancies being filled. The resulting loss of quorum adds to the uncertainty surrounding the government-access dimension of the DPF, but does not mean that all PCLOB functions have ceased.
If the DPF were invalidated on commercial-oversight grounds alone, organisations could potentially continue transferring data under SCCs and Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), provided the government-access safeguards remain intact and Transfer Impact Assessments (TIAs) support that conclusion.
EU Institutional and Regulatory Response
The European Commission has stated that it has taken note of the ruling, is carefully analysing its implications, and continues to monitor the DPF while Executive Order 14086 remains in force. The most significant post-judgment institutional development is the EDPB's letter of 31 July 2026, which formally asked the Commission to assess whether Slaughter affects the continued functioning of the DPF adequacy decision. This was a request for institutional assessment, not operational guidance to businesses, and neither the Commission nor the EDPB has directed organisations to stop relying on the DPF.
The European Center for Digital Rights (NOYB, from "none of your business") sent a formal letter to the Commission on 30 June 2026 calling for an orderly withdrawal from the DPF and has threatened the possibility of litigation seeking annulment of the adequacy decision. No confirmed NOYB challenge specific to Slaughter has been identified as filed, as of our publication date. Max Schrems stated: "Even in the European Commission's logic, the basis for any EU-US data transfer deal is dead. We call upon the Commission to start an orderly exit from the US cloud -- which is not easy, but unfortunately unavoidable." Notably, NOYB calls for a managed transition, rather than abrupt invalidation, to minimise disruption.
At the national level, the Danish Data Protection Authority has issued a public statement urging data controllers to revisit their Transfer Impact Assessments in light of the ruling, explicitly noting that Slaughter could also affect transfers made on legal bases other than the DPF, including Standard Contractual Clauses.
Implications and Next Steps
The DPF remains valid, and there is no immediate legal compliance change. However, there is a credible prospect that the Commission may reassess the adequacy decision, whether through its own review process or in light of the CJEU's decision in the Latombe appeal, Case C-703/25 P, which remains pending before the CJEU as of our publication date. Organisations directly relying on DPF certification should prepare fallback mechanisms. Equally, those relying on the DPF indirectly (e.g., through SaaS vendors, cloud providers, or other processors that cite DPF certification) face supply-chain exposure if those providers lack contingency plans. Additionally, TIAs referencing FTC independence or the DPRC may require updating.
Businesses transferring personal data between the EU/UK/Switzerland and the US should:
1. Assess exposure. Organisations should identify which personal data transfers to the US rely on DPF certification, whether directly or through vendors and subprocessors.
2. Map fallback coverage. US clients should confirm which EU, UK, and Swiss data flows rely solely on DPF certification, and which have executable fallback mechanisms, including SCCs, the UK Addendum, the International Data Transfer Agreement, or BCRs supported by current TIAs.
3. Implement fallback mechanisms. A "belt and braces" approach (e.g., putting SCCs in place alongside DPF certification) is prudent. Data processing agreements should include cascade provisions for automatic fallback to SCCs in the event of invalidation of the DPF.
4. Engage vendors. US-based service providers should be asked to confirm their contingency plans in the event of DPF invalidation and whether they maintain executed transfer documentation and current TIAs that provide a basis for transfers beyond DPF certification.
5. Review Transfer Impact Assessments. Any TIAs referencing FTC independence, the DPRC, or the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board should be reviewed and, where necessary, updated to reflect current circumstances.
6. Consider supplementary measures. Encryption, pseudonymisation, data residency requirements, and access controls reduce reliance on legal safeguards and help demonstrate GDPR compliance.
7. Monitor developments. The regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly. Organisations should track the European Commission's ongoing assessment and any formal conclusions it reaches regarding the DPF's continued validity; guidance or coordinated positions from the EDPB and national Data Protection Authorities; the Latombe appeal, Case C-703/25 P, which remains pending before the CJEU as of the publication date; any potential Slaughter-based NOYB action; and the UK government's exploration of the potential impact on the UK Extension to the DPF.
* * *
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
Charlotte H N Perowne
Associate
London
+44 (0) 20 7450 4532
charlotte.perowne@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Huw Beverley-Smith
Partner
London
+44 (0) 20 7450 4551
huw.beverley-smith@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Peter A. Blenkinsop
Partner
Washington, D.C.
202/230-5142
peter.blenkinsop@faegredrinker.com
* * *
James Ford
Trainee Solicitor
London
+44 (0) 20 7450 4539
james.ford@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/9/trump-v-slaughter-implications-of-the-us-supreme-court-ruling-for-eu-us-data-transfers-and-the-data-privacy-framework
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Akin Advises Oaktree in $290 Million Selldown of TORM Shares
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Advises Oaktree in $290 Million Selldown of TORM Shares
September 17, 2026
(London and New York) - Akin has advised OCM Njord Holdings S.a r.l. (Oaktree), a company indirectly owned by funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and its affiliates, in the $290 million partial sell-down of its stake in TORM plc, one of the world's largest owners and operators of product tankers.
TORM is listed on Nasdaq in New York and on Nasdaq Copenhagen. Oaktree sold 9,000,000 Class A common shares through
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Advises Oaktree in $290 Million Selldown of TORM Shares
September 17, 2026
(London and New York) - Akin has advised OCM Njord Holdings S.a r.l. (Oaktree), a company indirectly owned by funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. and its affiliates, in the $290 million partial sell-down of its stake in TORM plc, one of the world's largest owners and operators of product tankers.
TORM is listed on Nasdaq in New York and on Nasdaq Copenhagen. Oaktree sold 9,000,000 Class A common shares throughan SEC-registered secondary public offering and continues to hold approximately 11% interest in TORM.
The offering also included a 30-day option granted to the underwriter to purchase up to an additional 1.35 million Class A common shares.
The Akin team was led by London corporate partner Harry Keegan and New York capital markets partner Rosa Testani.
They were joined by corporate partner Dougall Meston; capital markets senior counsel Alex Reuss; corporate counsel George O'Malley Knowles and associate Shahnur Chauhan; and capital markets associate Wanyi Zhang.
* * *
Akin is a leading international law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers in offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
* * *
URL: OCM Njord Holdings
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/press-releases/akin-advises-oaktree-in-dollar290-million-selldown-of-torm-shares
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
A&O Shearman Advises Apollo Funds on Sale of an Approximately 30% Stake in Miller Homes to Daiwa House
LONDON, England, Sept. 18 -- A&O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
A&O Shearman advises Apollo Funds on sale of an approximately 30% stake in Miller Homes to Daiwa House
A&O Shearman has advised Apollo-managed funds ("Apollo Funds") on their agreement to sell an approximately 30% minority stake in Miller Homes, the UK's largest private housebuilder, to Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd. (TSE: 1925), one of Japan's leading construction and real estate companies. Apollo Funds will remain the controlling shareholder in Miller Homes.
Established in 1934, Miller Homes is the largest
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Sept. 18 -- A&O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
A&O Shearman advises Apollo Funds on sale of an approximately 30% stake in Miller Homes to Daiwa House
A&O Shearman has advised Apollo-managed funds ("Apollo Funds") on their agreement to sell an approximately 30% minority stake in Miller Homes, the UK's largest private housebuilder, to Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd. (TSE: 1925), one of Japan's leading construction and real estate companies. Apollo Funds will remain the controlling shareholder in Miller Homes.
Established in 1934, Miller Homes is the largestprivate housebuilder in the UK, completing approximately 5,000 homes a year across England, Scotland, and Wales. Since the company's acquisition by Apollo Funds in 2022, Miller Homes has delivered significant growth and strengthened its operating model, driven by disciplined operational execution and the successful acquisition and integration of St Modwen Homes (see previous client news alert here).
The strategic investment by Daiwa House will support the continued profitable growth of Miller Homes, providing additional resources and global construction and real estate expertise as Miller Homes expands its multi-tenure model and progresses towards its target of delivering 7,000 new homes per year.
The transaction is subject to satisfaction of certain closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, and is expected to close later this year.
The A&O Shearman deal team was led by private equity partner Paul Dunbar and senior associate Adarsh Chhabria, and supported by associate Piers Edinborough. Tax advice was provided by partner James Burton, counsel Hugh Brooks, and associate Daniel Alexander.
* * *
URL: Apollo Funds
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aoshearman.com/en/news/ao-shearman-advises-apollo-funds-on-sale-of-c30-miller-homes-stake-to-daiwa-house
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
