Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
McDonald Hopkins Issues Commentary: Lifecycle of a Cyber Incident - Stages and Vendor Support
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 21 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by member Blair Dawson and associate Ryan Smith:
* * *
Lifecycle of a Cyber Incident: Stages and Vendor Support
Cyber incidents are now a core business risk, requiring organizations to respond quickly, preserve evidence, meet legal obligations, and protect operations and reputation. In McDonald Hopkins' recent webinar, "Lifecycle of a Cyber Incident: Stages and Vendor Support," Blair Dawson and Ryan Smith discussed today's most common cyber incidents and the practical steps organizations
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 21 -- McDonald Hopkins, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by member Blair Dawson and associate Ryan Smith:
* * *
Lifecycle of a Cyber Incident: Stages and Vendor Support
Cyber incidents are now a core business risk, requiring organizations to respond quickly, preserve evidence, meet legal obligations, and protect operations and reputation. In McDonald Hopkins' recent webinar, "Lifecycle of a Cyber Incident: Stages and Vendor Support," Blair Dawson and Ryan Smith discussed today's most common cyber incidents and the practical steps organizationsshould take when responding to a compromise.
Most incidents stem from business email compromise (BEC), ransomware, third-party vendor breaches, or unauthorized access. Effective response depends on rapid identification and containment, coordinated communication, and clear decision-making under privilege. Organizations that minimize disruption are those with established response teams, pre-aligned insurance and vendors, and defined escalation protocols.
Ransomware incidents present especially high legal, operational, and reputational risks. Every response decision--from negotiations to public messaging--must balance legal exposure, business continuity, and stakeholder trust. Third-party breaches also require immediate coordination with vendors regarding investigation responsibilities, notifications, and external communications.
Preparation is critical. Organizations should establish internal response teams that include IT, legal, executive leadership, communications, HR, and operations, while also engaging external breach counsel, forensic investigators, remediation specialists, and negotiators when needed. Early notification to cyber insurance carriers can also help secure approved vendors and reduce response costs.
Strong incident response also depends on disciplined execution. Teams should identify affected systems, determine whether sensitive data was accessed or exfiltrated, preserve evidence, and maintain consistent communications. Following containment, organizations should conduct lessons-learned reviews to strengthen security controls, improve vendor oversight, refine playbooks, and reduce future risk.
Ransom payment decisions should be driven by forensics, operational impact, and legal considerations. Even when payment is considered, organizations must still evaluate notification obligations and regulatory exposure. Data validation and forensic review remain essential to determining what information was affected and whether notification laws apply.
Ultimately, organizations that operationalize incident response through preparation, defined roles, and coordinated communication are better positioned to reduce disruption, control costs, meet compliance obligations, and maintain stakeholder trust during a cyber incident.
* * *
Blair Dawson, MS CyS, FIP, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM
Member
bdawson@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Ryan Smith
Associate
rcsmith@mcdonaldhopkins.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcdonaldhopkins.com/insights/news/lifecycle-of-a-cyber-incident-stages-and-vendor-support
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: EEPA Refund Claims Are Here -- Are You Ready?
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 21 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by partners Carrie Bethea Connolly, Rachel A. Beck, Kathryn E. Bettini and Daniel R. Wilson:
* * *
EEPA Refund Claims Are Here -- Are You Ready?
Importers, Suppliers, Distributors, and Retailers Should Assess Exposure to Risk
At a Glance
* Plaintiff-side advertising and pending cases reflect themes alleging: (1) unfair or deceptive business practices under state consumer protection laws, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) common law "money had and received."
* The strongest
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 21 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 20, 2026, by partners Carrie Bethea Connolly, Rachel A. Beck, Kathryn E. Bettini and Daniel R. Wilson:
* * *
EEPA Refund Claims Are Here -- Are You Ready?
Importers, Suppliers, Distributors, and Retailers Should Assess Exposure to Risk
At a Glance
* Plaintiff-side advertising and pending cases reflect themes alleging: (1) unfair or deceptive business practices under state consumer protection laws, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) common law "money had and received."
* The strongestclaims for tariff recovery arise from contracts governing the downstream sale after importation. The first step to avoid unnecessary litigation is initial risk assessment and mitigation through clear internal and external communication.
* Most US companies are some combination of manufacturer, importer, purchaser, seller, or distributor -- which means that assessment of IEEPA tariff refund liability requires a tailored approach.
* Additionally, IEEPA refund and pricing discussions can create antitrust risk if competitors exchange competitively sensitive information or coordinate responses.
*
Many companies are already facing class action litigation seeking recovery of tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Several plaintiffs' class action firms are also publicly advertising "investigations" into companies that adjusted pricing during the periods when IEEPA tariffs were imposed. While these actions do not necessarily signal imminent litigation against target companies, they are a familiar precursor to putative consumer or commercial class actions. Similarly, many downstream customers are demanding recovery of IEEPA tariffs they feel were passed along to them.
Importers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers that adjusted prices during IEEPA tariff periods should assess whether their pricing, refund, and customer-response practices could create consumer protection, contract, unjust enrichment, or antitrust exposure. Risk can arise regardless of whether the targeted company is the importer of record, particularly if plaintiffs cite shared invoices, labels, pricing, or customer communications.
Background
On February 20, 2026, the US Supreme Court determined that the IEEPA duties are unlawful.1 The US Court of International Trade (CIT) subsequently ordered that all IEEPA duties collected must be refunded.2
Although the interim orders at the CIT are currently stayed, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is actively developing and implementing the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) refund program for IEEPA duties in phases.3 CBP deployed Phase 1 on April 20, 2026; and refunds are already being paid.
The total amount of duties collected pursuant to IEEPA is approximately $166 billion, but the Phase 1 refund process covers only a limited subset of entries that have not been administratively finalized. Phase 1 does not include entries subject to reconciliation or which have been finally "liquidated," as of the date that the refund claim is filed. Accordingly, potential claims may face ripeness and damages issues, including whether a particular entry is refund-eligible, whether a refund has been received, and whether any refund corresponds to a particular downstream sale.
As seen with the first IEEPA refund-related class actions filed (even before refunds were issued), timing issues do not eliminate litigation risk. Plaintiffs may use a company's tariff-related customer statements, surcharge labels, or internal refund discussions to plead claims before refund amounts are fully known. Further, plaintiffs may choose to proceed even if a company does not plan to seek IEEPA refunds.
Emerging Plaintiff Theories
Plaintiff-side advertising and pending cases reflect themes alleging: (1) unfair or deceptive business practices under state consumer protection laws, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) common law "money had and received." Plaintiffs are likely to argue that companies imposed "tariff surcharges," misrepresented the basis for price increases, failed to disclose possible refunds, or retained revenue tied to tariff amounts now subject to refund.
Class-certification risk will likely turn on whether plaintiffs can identify common proof, such as uniform invoice language, website statements, sales scripts, form contracts, or centralized pricing directives. Companies should be mindful of records supporting individualized defenses, including contract terms, actual duties paid, refund eligibility, and the relationship between any tariff cost and the final price charged.
Risk Assessment & Mitigation through Clear Communication
The strongest claims for tariff recovery arise from contracts governing the downstream sale after importation. Whether a company remits refunds, reserves rights, denies a demand, or takes a wait-and-see approach while the issue of refunds remains live in the courts, risk assessment should start by pairing contract review with transaction-level evidence of what was paid, collected, communicated, and ultimately refunded.
Companies' approaches to tariff refunds are not one-size-fits-all. Some companies may want to issue refunds, provide future discounts, or other customer incentives; while others may wish solely to honor contract terms which may or may not involve refunds.
Regardless of the strategy taken, the first step to avoid unnecessary litigation is initial risk assessment and mitigation through clear internal and external communication. Companies should consider the following potential mitigation strategies before litigation commences:
* Review contracts; purchase orders; invoices; tariff clauses; surcharge language; price-adjustment provisions; and rebate, credit, or pass-through terms that may affect any refund entitlement. Tax language should be assessed alongside tariff language.
* Reconstruct pricing chronology including fluctuation as tied to tariff increases and decreases.
* Preserve and review communications about tariff pricing, customer notices, refund eligibility, and refund strategy, while protecting attorney-client privilege, work product, and settlement communications where applicable.
* Segment customers by contract type, sophistication, channel, jurisdiction, and communication history to evaluate individualized issues and potential class-certification defenses.
* Adopt a consistent response protocol for refund inquiries, including approved talking points, escalation procedures, litigation holds, and controls on informal statements that could be characterized as admissions.
* Inform downstream customers, particularly in the B2B context, that there remain many moving pieces with respect to potential refunds, and even with CBP's ability to claw back refunds.
Unconventional Risks -- Assignment of Claims & Antitrust
Importers may consider the risk of potential suits fully mitigated by passing on tariff refunds to their customers. Unfortunately, additional risks lie beyond the first-wave class action litigation that has already begun.
Importers who agree to pay their downstream customers, particularly in the B2B space, should consider how they might limit potential liability, particularly with respect to assignment of their purchaser's claims to downstream consumers.
Similarly, companies in the middle of the supply chain (whether purchasing inputs used to manufacture products domestically or acting as distributors) should (1) consider their potential risk with respect to customer claims if downstream prices were raised due to tariffs and (2) inquire whether suppliers are taking active steps to seek refunds.
Most US companies are some combination of manufacturer, importer, purchaser, seller, or distributor -- which means that assessment of IEEPA tariff refund liability requires a tailored approach.
Additionally, IEEPA refund and pricing discussions can create antitrust risk if competitors exchange competitively sensitive information or coordinate responses. Companies should avoid competitor discussions about whether to issue refunds, refund amounts, future prices, tariff-related surcharges, customer communications, or common credit or pass-through methodologies. Trade association activity, benchmarking, shared templates, dual-distribution relationships, buying groups, and joint logistics arrangements should be managed carefully.
Finally, importers who have sold their IEEPA refund claims to investment firms should be aware that the sale of those claims may not make them immune to claims from downstream customers. Firms purchasing such claims also should be mindful that a successful suit against the importer could require payment to plaintiffs. Parties negotiating such transactions should carefully consider whether the terms of the claims purchase agreements appropriately assign risk for any such suits.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors. Faegre Drinker's public companies and governance, customs and international trade, class action, and antitrust teams also are tracking developments for IEEPA-related class actions.
* * *
1. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 146 S. Ct. 628 (U.S. 2026).
2. Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01259, 2026 WL 679285 (Ct. Int'l Trade Mar. 5, 2026), proceeding sub nom. Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States, No. 25-00595, ECF No. 12 (Ct. Int'l Trade Apr. 7, 2026).
3. See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Duty Refunds, https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade-remedies/ieepa-duty-refunds).
* * *
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
Carrie Bethea Connolly
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5330
carrie.connolly@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Rachel A. Beck
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5109
rachel.beck@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Kathryn E. Bettini
Partner
Scottsdale
+1 202 230 5283
kathryn.bettini@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Daniel R. Wilson
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5211
daniel.wilson@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/ieepa-refund-claims-are-here-are-you-ready
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Veronica Aroutiunian Named Amongst European Legal Industry's Women Rising Stars
NEW YORK, May 20 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Debevoise and Plimpton, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Veronica Aroutiunian Named Amongst European Legal Industry's Women Rising Stars
*
Debevoise & Plimpton partner Veronica Aroutiunian has been named by Law.com International to its annual list of European women rising stars.
The annual list selects the "most exceptional up-and-coming women across Europe's top-tier legal industry"
In naming Ms. Aroutiunian to the list, the publication notes that she is "a true market-leader" who excels at "the structuring and regulation of complex
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 20 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Debevoise and Plimpton, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Veronica Aroutiunian Named Amongst European Legal Industry's Women Rising Stars
*
Debevoise & Plimpton partner Veronica Aroutiunian has been named by Law.com International to its annual list of European women rising stars.
The annual list selects the "most exceptional up-and-coming women across Europe's top-tier legal industry"
In naming Ms. Aroutiunian to the list, the publication notes that she is "a true market-leader" who excels at "the structuring and regulation of complexprivate funds."
Veronica Aroutiunian is a partner in the firm's Luxembourg office, and advises clients on the regulatory and corporate aspects of structuring, establishing, operating and marketing Luxembourg regulated and unregulated investment vehicles.
***
Original text here: https://www.debevoise.com/news/2026/05/veronica-aroutiunian-named-amongst-european
Sandifer to Moderate Panel at Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association Conference
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 20 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Taft, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Sandifer to Moderate Panel at Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association Conference
*
Taft of counsel Marcus Sandifer will moderate a panel discussion at the Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association (BESLA) 2026 Mid-Year Conference, taking place May 28-30 in Atlanta.
The conference brings together leaders across the entertainment, sports, and legal industries to discuss emerging trends shaping the evolving sports and entertainment landscape. Sandifer will moderate
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 20 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Taft, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Sandifer to Moderate Panel at Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association Conference
*
Taft of counsel Marcus Sandifer will moderate a panel discussion at the Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association (BESLA) 2026 Mid-Year Conference, taking place May 28-30 in Atlanta.
The conference brings together leaders across the entertainment, sports, and legal industries to discuss emerging trends shaping the evolving sports and entertainment landscape. Sandifer will moderatethe session, "The Business of Athlete Power: Agencies, Capital, and The New Power Structure In Sports." To learn more or to register, click here.
Sandifer advises clients in the food and beverage, marketing, hospitality, sports, media, and entertainment industries, with a focus on highly regulated sectors. He provides strategic counsel on corporate governance, operations, and transactions, and has experience drafting and negotiating a wide range of commercial agreements, including vendor services, intellectual property, sponsorship, NIL, and employment matters.
***
Original text here: https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/news/sandifer-to-moderate-panel-at-black-entertainment-and-sports-lawyers-association-conference/
Hooper, Lundy and Bookman Issues Commentary: CMS Imposes Nationwide Enrollment Moratoria for Home Health Agencies and Hospices
LOS ANGELES, California, May 20 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 19, 2026, by associate Heather M. Romero and partner David J. Vernon:
* * *
CMS Imposes Nationwide Enrollment Moratoria for Home Health Agencies and Hospices
Executive Summary
On May 13, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) simultaneously imposed six-month nationwide temporary enrollment moratoria on Home Health Agencies ("HHAs") and hospices under its authority at 42 CFR Sec. 424.570. Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcement
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, May 20 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 19, 2026, by associate Heather M. Romero and partner David J. Vernon:
* * *
CMS Imposes Nationwide Enrollment Moratoria for Home Health Agencies and Hospices
Executive Summary
On May 13, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) simultaneously imposed six-month nationwide temporary enrollment moratoria on Home Health Agencies ("HHAs") and hospices under its authority at 42 CFR Sec. 424.570. Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcementof Nationwide Temporary Moratoria on Enrollment of Home Health Agencies (HHAs), 91 Fed. Reg. 27,954 (May 15, 2026); Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs: Announcement of Nationwide Temporary Moratorium on Enrollment of Hospices, 91 Fed. Reg. 27,946 (May 15, 2026). These are the first-ever nationwide moratoria for both provider types, dramatically expanding CMS's prior moratoria, which had been limited to specific geographic areas.
Both moratoria were effective as of May 13, 2026, and will remain in force for an initial six-month period, with the possibility of six-month extensions if CMS determines they are necessary. CMS imposed these moratoria after consultation with the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG), citing a significant potential for fraud, waste, or abuse and pointing to dramatic enrollment spikes, extensive criminal prosecutions, co-located providers, and migratory fraud patterns.
For provider operators, these moratoria create immediate transactional and operational risks, particularly with respect to changes in majority ownership ("CIMOs"), application of the 36-month rule, branch or practice-location expansion, and M&A activity during the moratorium period.
Particulars of the HHA and Hospice Moratoria and CMS's Rationale for them
The HHA moratorium applies to all HHAs, HHA branches, and HHA practice locations seeking to enroll anywhere in the United States. CMS expressly includes HHA branch offices within the moratorium, treating branches as "practice locations" under 42 CFR Sec. 424.570(a)(1)(i). The hospice moratorium applies nationwide to all hospices and hospice practice locations.
CMS has extensive prior experience with HHA moratoria. CMS first imposed HHA moratoria in 2013, expanded and extended them multiple times, and allowed them to expire in January 2019. CMS now cites the Los Angeles County enrollment surge--well over 1,000 new HHAs since 2019, representing 12-15 percent of all U.S. HHAs despite the county accounting for approximately three percent of Medicare beneficiaries--as a principal justification for reinstating a moratorium on a nationwide basis.
By contrast, CMS has never before imposed a hospice-specific enrollment moratorium. CMS characterizes the hospice moratorium as a response to a recent and dramatic escalation in hospice fraud risks nationwide.
For HHAs, CMS emphasizes market oversaturation and co-location, including findings of multiple HHAs operating from a single address, sometimes in unusually large numbers, as a basis for the moratorium. CMS also documents extensive criminal prosecutions and civil settlements involving HHA owners and operators across multiple states.
For hospices, CMS highlights explosive enrollment growth in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas, as well as dense clustering of hospice locations in Los Angeles County. CMS also describes hospice-specific fraud schemes, including "churn-and-burn" schemes, inappropriate terminal certifications, enrollment of beneficiaries without their knowledge, and kickback arrangements involving physicians and medical directors. Criminal cases cited by CMS involve losses in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Program Integrity Context
HHAs have been classified as high-risk providers since CMS first established screening tiers in 2011 and remain one of only six provider types subject to the highest level of enrollment screening. HHAs are also the only Medicare provider type subject to capitalization requirements as a condition of enrollment. The 36-month rule has applied to HHAs since 2009 to prevent rapid "flipping" of newly enrolled agencies seen in the past. CMS also previously imposed a nationwide provisional period of enhanced oversight ("PPEO") on new HHAs in 2019, which expired in 2020.
Hospices historically were classified as moderate-risk providers, but CMS elevated hospices to the high-risk category beginning in 2024 due to escalating fraud concerns. CMS has expanded the 36-month rule to hospices, required enrollment or opt-out for certifying physicians, and clarified that hospice medical directors and administrators are managing employees subject to disclosure. CMS implemented a multi-state hospice PPEO beginning in 2023 and expanded it in 2025, resulting in revocation rates far exceeding historical norms.
Circumstances Where Moratoria Are Inapplicable and Other Pertinent Details
Under 42 CFR Sec. 424.570(a)(1)(iii), the moratoria do not apply to routine changes in practice location, provider contact information, or ownership changes--except for ownership changes involving HHAs or hospices that would require an initial enrollment. A non-exempt CIMO within the applicable 36-month lookback period would mean that a new purchaser could not assume assignment of the existing provider agreement and would be forced to file an initial enrollment as a new provider, which the moratoria prohibit.
Enrollment applications received by the Medicare contractor before May 13, 2026, are expressly excluded from both moratoria.
CMS's decision to impose the moratoria is not subject to judicial review, although providers may pursue limited administrative appeals solely on the question of whether the moratoria apply. Application fees will be refunded if an application is denied due to the moratoria.
With respect to Medicaid and CHIP, CMS did not impose a federal moratorium. Instead, CMS permits--and expressly encourages--states to determine whether to adopt parallel moratoria and offers consultation to states considering such action. CMS reasons that states have greater expertise with their home health providers and beneficiary populations. CMS, however, offers to consult with the states in crafting their own moratoria.
CMS concluded that the moratoria will not threaten beneficiary access to care and are committed to ongoing monitoring.
Why CMS Acted Now
CMS repeatedly emphasizes that health care fraud schemes are migratory and "viral," replicating rapidly and relocating as enforcement pressure increases. CMS cites prior experience demonstrating that geographic moratoria allowed fraudulent providers to relocate outside restricted areas. CMS points to regions such as Los Angeles County for HHAs and Ohio and Georgia for hospices as evidence that fraud can arise quickly in previously lower risk jurisdictions.
Across both notices, CMS frames the moratoria as preventive measures, concluding that halting fraud before enrollment is preferable to traditional "pay-and-chase" enforcement.
Deal and Compliance Implications for Provider Operators
The most significant operational risk created by the moratoria is their interaction with the 36-month rule. A non-exempt CIMO within the 36-month lookback period requires an HHA or hospice to initially enroll as a new provider, rather than filing a standard change-of-ownership application whereby the purchaser would accept assignment of the existing Medicare provider agreement. Because initial enrollment is prohibited during the moratorium, such transactions are effectively blocked.
Transactions may inadvertently trigger the 36-month rule through miscalculation of the lookback period, mistaken assumptions regarding exceptions, failure to identify prior ownership changes, or misunderstanding indirect ownership and control concepts under 42 CFR Sec. 424.502. Provider operators contemplating ownership changes, restructurings, or multi-provider transactions during the moratorium period should obtain regulatory counsel review before proceeding.
Conclusion
The May 13, 2026 nationwide moratoria on HHA and hospice enrollment represent an unprecedented escalation in CMS's program-integrity enforcement. By imposing simultaneous nationwide enrollment freezes, CMS has eliminated geographic workarounds and significantly constrained ownership transactions and growth strategies.
Operators should assume that CIMOs triggering the 36-month rule are effectively frozen for the duration of the moratoria, that post-May 13, 2026 enrollment applications are barred, and that state Medicaid moratoria may follow. Early regulatory analysis is essential before proceeding with any ownership change or restructuring during this period.
* * *
HLB is continuing to analyze the impact of the moratoria for our clients. For more information or assistance on these issues, please contact David Vernon, Heather Romero, Scott Kiepen, Jordan Kearney, Matthew Clark Patric Hooper, or your regular Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, P.C. contact.
* * *
Original text here: https://hooperlundy.com/cms-imposes-nationwide-enrollment-moratoria-for-home-health-agencies-and-hospices/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Greenberg Traurig Represents Taiba on SAR 2.4B/US$633.4M Joint Venture with Osool for Development of 3 Hotels in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
MIAMI, Florida, May 20 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Represents Taiba on SAR 2.4B/US$633.4M Joint Venture with Osool for Development of 3 Hotels in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
*
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - May 20, 2026 - A team from global law firm Greenberg Traurig represented Taiba Investments Co. (Taiba) on a SAR 2.4 billion/US$633.4 million joint venture agreement with Osool Integrated Real Estate Co. (Osool) for the ownership and development of three hotels in central Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
... Show Full Article
MIAMI, Florida, May 20 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Greenberg Traurig, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Greenberg Traurig Represents Taiba on SAR 2.4B/US$633.4M Joint Venture with Osool for Development of 3 Hotels in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
*
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - May 20, 2026 - A team from global law firm Greenberg Traurig represented Taiba Investments Co. (Taiba) on a SAR 2.4 billion/US$633.4 million joint venture agreement with Osool Integrated Real Estate Co. (Osool) for the ownership and development of three hotels in central Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia(the Kingdom).
As part of the deal, a jointly owned special purpose company will be created and will provide 1,500 new rooms that will be operated by local and international hotel brands.
The initiative is being launched amid strong growth in Madinah's hospitality market as the Kingdom expands tourism and religious hospitality infrastructure under Vision 2030. Official data from the Ministry of Tourism showed Madinah recorded the Kingdom's highest hotel occupancy rate during the first quarter of 2026, at around 82%, and it also ranked first among Saudi cities in hotel occupancy during 2025.
Taiba is a public joint-stock company listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange (Tadawul). Headquartered in Madinah, the company manages a portfolio of diversified investments and has become one of the largest real estate developers in Saudi Arabia, known for its commercial and hotel projects in prime positions in Central Madinah and throughout Saudi Arabia.
Osool is an integrated property management company focused on real estate investment and asset management, offering advanced and sustainable solutions that deliver long-term returns in partnership with top developers and operators.
The team from Greenberg Traurig's Dubai and Riyadh offices was led by Real Estate and Hospitality Shareholder and Co-Chair of the firm's Middle East and European Hospitality Group Elias J. Hayek, and supported by Deputy Managing Shareholder for Riyadh Marwa Al-Siyabi from Greenberg Traurig Khalid Al-Thebity, and Of Counsel Mitch Reynolds in the Singapore office.
"Greenberg Traurig provided valuable legal expertise and demonstrated a high level of professionalism throughout this transaction," said Rami Bissat, vice president, investment & business development, Taiba.
Greenberg Traurig launched in the Middle East in 2023 with offices in Riyadh and Dubai. Since then, the firm has been growing steadily in the region, adding an office in Abu Dhabi in 2025 and planting key roots in the industries and business sectors most active in the Middle East, including
real estate, infrastructure and transportation, energy and natural resources, hospitality, finance and restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, private credit, sports and entertainment -including venue, talent, entertainment, licensing, and other needs -capital markets, and arbitrations and disputes.
Greenberg Traurig's Dubai office is operated by Greenberg Traurig Limited. Greenberg Traurig's Riyadh office is operated by Greenberg Traurig through Greenberg Traurig Khalid Al-Thebity.
***
Original text here: https://www.gtlaw.com/en/news/2026/05/press-releases/greenberg-traurig-represents-taiba--on-sar-24bus6334m-joint-venture-with-osool--for-development-of-3-hotels-in-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Trump Administration Seeks to End EEO-1 Reporting - What This Means for Employers + 5 Steps While We Wait for More Info
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 20 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 19, 2026:
* * *
Trump Administration Seeks to End EEO-1 Reporting: What This Means for Employers + 5 Steps While We Wait for More Info
The EEOC just sent a game-changing proposal to the White House to end the EEO-1 reporting requirement altogether, according to a May 14 submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This news comes as employers are waiting for the annual EEO-1 reporting portal to open, and we'll now wait to see if it will open at all for this reporting year. Under
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 20 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 19, 2026:
* * *
Trump Administration Seeks to End EEO-1 Reporting: What This Means for Employers + 5 Steps While We Wait for More Info
The EEOC just sent a game-changing proposal to the White House to end the EEO-1 reporting requirement altogether, according to a May 14 submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This news comes as employers are waiting for the annual EEO-1 reporting portal to open, and we'll now wait to see if it will open at all for this reporting year. Underthe longstanding requirement, large employers must annually submit employee demographic data broken out by job category to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as by sex and race/ethnicity. The EEOC's proposal to eliminate the requirement will not be made public until it's reviewed by OIRA, but the move signals a potentially big change for covered employers. While it's unclear if or when the proposal will be finalized, and whether it will impact this year's reporting window, here's what we know so far - and five steps you should consider taking now.
What Happened?
Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with at least 50 must submit workforce data each year to the federal government during a designated reporting window. The mandatory annual report includes demographic data from the prior year about your employees broken out by job category, as well as sex and race/ethnicity.
We've been expecting the EEOC to announce the reporting window and open the portal any day now. Last year the portal opened on May 20, and employers had about a month to complete the process. But this year's process could be impacted by the agency's new direction.
The EEO-1 report is the most common reporting obligation the EEOC wants to eliminate, but the proposal also seeks to scrap reporting and information collection obligations related to:
* Forms EEO-2 through EEO-5
* Title VII of Civil Rights Act
* Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
* Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
* Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)
We expect to have more details after OIRA completes its review.
What Would This Rollback Mean for Covered Employers?
The annual EEO-1 reporting process is a time-consuming obligation for employers. Filers need to:
* Pick a payroll end date between October 1 and December 31 of the prior year as a "workforce snapshot period"
* Ensure job titles are categorized correctly and consistently
* Give employees an opportunity to self-identify their sex and race/ethnicity - and provide a statement about the voluntary nature of the inquiry
* Designate an employee as the "account holder" who will file the EEO-1 report through the EEO-1 Component 1 Online Filing System (OFS)
* File on time during a brief window
Notably, this reporting obligation also carries the potential for disclosure risks. Filers should be aware of a recent 9th Circuit decision that required disclosure of certain EEO-1 reports from federal contractors as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. This means employers that previously considered EEO-1 data confidential may need to revisit that assumption.
Eliminating EEO-1 reporting requirements would free up time and reduce exposure risks for employers, but state obligations would not change. Even if the EEO-1 is scrapped altogether, you should check for applicable state demographic and pay data reporting laws and consult with your FP counsel to ensure continuing compliance.
Should You Still Prepare for This Year's Reporting Window?
Yes. Although the EEOC is seeking to end EEO-1 reporting requirements, the proposal is in the very early stages of the process and there are a few more steps before things are finalized.
* OIRA must review the plan before a proposal can be published in the Federal Register.
* Then, the proposal will be open for public comment.
* The government will need to respond to comments and potentially revise the rule before it is finalized.
This process could take months, which means that the EEOC may still open the portal for 2025 reporting in the coming weeks or months. While the agency is not obligated to open the portal by a certain date each year, employers should be ready to comply unless and until you hear otherwise.
What Steps Should Employers Be Taking Now?
Although the future is unclear for EEO-1 reporting, you should consider taking the following five steps now to be ready in case the EEOC opens the portal for 2025 data:
1. Choose a workforce snapshot period: You should select a payroll end date between October 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025. The report must include all employees as of the pay period you choose.
2. Categorize your workforce: Ensure that job titles are categorized correctly and consistently, as each job title should only be associated with a single EEO-1 job category.
3. Let your employees choose: Be sure to give your employees an opportunity to self-identify their sex and race/ethnicity, and provide a statement about the voluntary nature of the inquiry. As with last year, if the data is collected, only binary options for reporting sex will be available on the EEO-1 reporting form.
4. Choose a point of contact: Designate an employee as the "account holder" who will file the EEO-1 report through the EEO-1 Component 1 Online Filing System (OFS). Note that there are separate instructions for new filers and for those who are changing their point of contact.
5. Track new developments: While we don't know if or when the portal will open, being prepared and tracking updates will help you stay compliant and ready to timely file your reports if needed. Be sure to subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to keep updated on the latest news.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions about your EEO-1 data or federal or state compliance, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Government Contracting, Compliance, and Reporting Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Sheila M. Abron
Partner
803.740.7676
sabron@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Jennifer B. Sandberg
Regional Managing Partner
404.240.4152
jsandberg@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/trump-administration-seeks-to-end-eeo-1-reporting
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
