Featured Stories
Littler Issues Commentary: Works Council in Germany - Same Old Questions?
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 10, 2026, by senior associate Ruben Plambeck:
* * *
New Works Council in Germany - Same Old Questions?
At a Glance
* In Germany, a works council is an elected group of employees that represents the workforce at the local/business level.
* Regular works council elections are held every four years.
* Companies in which new members have been elected will likely need to address fundamental issues of works council work, such as training, release from work duties and remuneration.
The regular works
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Aug. 11 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Aug. 10, 2026, by senior associate Ruben Plambeck:
* * *
New Works Council in Germany - Same Old Questions?
At a Glance
* In Germany, a works council is an elected group of employees that represents the workforce at the local/business level.
* Regular works council elections are held every four years.
* Companies in which new members have been elected will likely need to address fundamental issues of works council work, such as training, release from work duties and remuneration.
The regular workscouncil elections, which are held every four years in Germany, have been completed. New bodies have been constituted or are still in the process of being formed. They will include many familiar faces, but certainly also a number of "newcomers." In many establishments, the new body will continue its work seamlessly. In other cases, the new election will bring about noticeable changes.
Especially at the beginning of a term of office, clear and open communication on the employer's part is critical and lays the foundation for cooperation based on mutual trust. Employers that identify the newly elected body's concerns and pain points for the upcoming term at an early stage will, in our experience, face significantly fewer surprises in the months ahead. At the same time, it is advisable to establish processes and dates for cooperation early on and to communicate the employer's expectations of the body.
In addition to the first steps toward substantive cooperation, establishments in which new members have been elected to the works council will, over the coming weeks, likely need to address fundamental issues of works council work, such as training, release from work duties and remuneration. To help make the start easier, this article answers recurring legal questions.
Topic: Release from Work Duties
Serving on a works council is an honorary office. This often gives rise to misunderstandings -- on both the employer and the works council side. Not every member of the body spends the entire day on works council work. When determining when and how works council work is performed, it is important to distinguish between works council members who are released from work duties and those who are not.
What does it actually mean when works council members are "released from work duties"?
A release from work duties within the meaning of Section 38 of the Works Constitution Act (BetrVG) means that the works council member no longer performs their actual contractual duties, but instead devotes themself exclusively to works council work -- effectively working "full time" as a works council member (subject to the exception of partial release discussed below). By contrast, works council members who are not released from work duties continue to perform their regular contractual duties and carry out works council work when it arises.
How many works council members must the employer release from work duties?
The number of works council members to be released from work duties for purposes of works council work is determined by statute. Section 38 BetrVG provides for the following thresholds:
Number of employees in the establishment ... Number of works council members released from work duties
200 to 500 ... 1
501 to 900 ... 2
901 to 1,500 ... 3
1,501 to 2,000 ... 4
2,001 to 3,000 ... 5
3,001 to 4,000 ... 6
4,001 to 5,000 ... 7
5,001 to 6,000 ... 8
6,001 to 7,000 ... 9
7,001 to 8,000 ... 10
8,001 to 9,000 ... 11
9,001 to 10,000 ... 12
In individual cases, a higher number of releases may be necessary if required for the proper performance of the works council's duties. The decision on this, however, is not made by the works council; the employer must consent to any additional releases. If there are disagreements as to whether further releases are required, these must be resolved in labor court resolution proceedings.
Who decides which members are released from work duties?
The works council elects the members to be released from work among its own members by secret ballot. This will often be the chair of the works council, although this is not required by law.
Before electing the members to be released from work duties, the works council must consult with the employer regarding the releases. The employer may raise concerns on operational grounds against the release of specific members. However, the employer has no influence over the proposed releases or the election. If the employer considers a release to be objectively unjustifiable, it may refer the matter to the conciliation committee within two weeks after the election result has been announced. If it does not do so, its consent to the election is deemed to have been given.
Can the works council split releases?
Yes. The works council may split releases. For example, it may divide one full release into two partial releases; the works council members then "share" one release. They are released from work duties for a defined number of hours. The partial releases may not exceed the total number of full releases resulting from the statutory provision. The works council must decide on partial releases before electing the members to be released. The works council must also consult with the employer on this point. If the employer considers a partial release to be objectively unjustifiable, it may refer the matter to the conciliation committee.
May the employer voluntarily release more members from work duties on a full-time basis than required by law?
Voluntary releases exceeding the statutory thresholds are possible if they are required for the proper performance of the works council's duties. Even if an additional release may be viewed as a goodwill gesture by the employer toward the works council, caution is warranted: an unjustified release of additional works council members may constitute unlawful preferential treatment of works council members under Section 78(2) BetrVG and, in certain circumstances, may even carry criminal liability. In practice, releases above the statutory minimum are rather rare.
When do works council members who are not permanently released from work duties perform works council work? Must they inform the employer?
Works council members who are not permanently released from work duties generally perform their works council duties during working time. The amount of working time that a member may and/or must spend on works council activities cannot be determined in the abstract. The applicable standard is necessity in the individual case.
Before performing works council activities, the works council member must notify the employer of their absence, stating the anticipated duration and location of the absence -- for example, by email to the supervisor. When the works council member resumes work, they must also notify the employer. If the works council member breaches this duty to notify the employer when leaving and returning, this constitutes a breach of contractual obligations for which the employer may issue a warning.
If it is necessary for works council work to be performed outside the works council member's regular working hours, the works council member must be granted compensatory time off within one month. To enable compensatory time off, the works council member must inform the employer about the works council activities performed outside working hours and their scope. The works council member may not take compensatory time off unilaterally.
May the employer ask what exactly the works council member is doing for the works council?
When the works council member notifies the employer that they will be absent for works council work, the member is not required to state the reasons for, or the nature of, the works council work. If the employer has doubts as to whether the works council activity performed was necessary, it may subsequently request brief information from the works council member on the nature of the activity performed, sufficient at least to enable the employer to conduct a plausibility review.
Topic: Trainings
The first requests employers receive from the newly elected body often concern approval and assumption of costs for trainings for works council members. Employers frequently view this critically, as costs arise before the first substantive issues can be addressed jointly. However, well-trained works councils that understand the nature and scope of their participation rights and the relevant employment-law context can substantially ease the employer's work.
What training can the works council claim?
The works council may require the employer to release members from work duties to attend trainings if the training content is necessary for works council work. Where prior knowledge is lacking, works council members must therefore be granted training on the fundamentals of works constitution law and general employment law. If a member has already participated in such training during an ongoing term of office, however, there is no general entitlement to repeat or refresher training.
Training on specialized topics may also be necessary for the performance of works council duties. In such cases, it is generally sufficient for individual members of the body to receive the training. Whether training on a particular topic is necessary for the proper performance of works council work must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in particular by reference to the issues currently pending in the establishment.
May the employer refer the works council to online training?
The works council is obliged to burden the employer only with costs it may reasonably consider appropriate. When assessing necessity, the works council must take into account the operational circumstances and the financial burden imposed on the employer by attendance at the training, and must ensure that the purpose of the training is proportionate to the costs. Training costs are not necessary if the works council can reasonably acquire comparable knowledge in another, less costly manner. From these principles, however, the labor courts do not derive any blanket priority of online training over in-person training. It must be reviewed carefully in each individual case whether the generally less expensive online training provides comparable knowledge. The works council's margin of assessment is, however, broad.
Topic: Remuneration of Works Council Members
A much-discussed and sensitive area is the remuneration of works council members. Companies should pay close attention to this issue -- irrespective of whether the works council is composed of newly elected members or familiar faces. High-profile criminal proceedings involving preferential treatment of works council members in the area of remuneration have highlighted the particular sensitivity of this subject in recent years.
How are released works council members to be remunerated?
The statutory rules governing the remuneration of works council members are very strict. Serving on a works council is an honorary office and is performed without separate remuneration. Remuneration relates solely to the contractual work owed by the works council member. Any preferential treatment or disadvantage on account of the office is prohibited and may even be subject to criminal liability.
The works council member must continue to receive the remuneration they would have received had they not performed works council duties but instead continued to perform the contractual work owed. This is known as the loss-of-earnings principle (Lohnausfallprinzip). In addition to base remuneration, the works council member must receive all special payments, premiums and allowances to which they would be entitled absent release from work duties or time off from work.
The BetrVG further provides that the remuneration of works council members may not be set lower than that of comparable employees with typical career progression within the establishment (Section 37(4) sentence 1 BetrVG). In other words, during their term of office works council members benefit from salary increases received by comparable employees. The comparison group comprises employees who, at the time the works council member assumed office, performed work that was essentially equivalent in terms of qualifications. It is advisable to establish and document comparison groups for newly elected works council members at the very beginning of the term of office. Particularly where a works council member has served on the works council for a long period, the question regularly arises how that member's remuneration would have developed over the years. For this purpose, it must be possible to reconstruct the works council member's hypothetical career progression.
What options for action does the employer have?
The BetrVG permits employers and works councils to conclude a works agreement governing the procedure for determining comparable employees, i.e., the formation of comparison groups. The operating parties may therefore set parameters for the recurring question of comparability. If comparability is specified in a works agreement, a labor court may review that determination in the event of a dispute only for manifest error. By contrast, a works agreement may not regulate the specific amount of remuneration payable to works council members.
Topic: Future of Works Agreements and Composition of the Central Works Council and Group Works Council
What happens to the "old" works agreements concluded between the employer and the previous body?
Works agreements concluded by the previous works council with the employer remain valid and continue to apply. The same applies to resolutions of the works council that have external effect, such as consent to a contemplated dismissal. The position is different, for example, with respect to the internal rules of procedure of the previous works council. These cease to apply upon the new election.
What happens to the composition of the combine works council (Konzernbetriebsrat) and the central works council (Gesamtbetriebsrat)?
The central works council and the combine works council are standing bodies. They continue to exist beyond the election periods of the individual works councils. Employees of the establishment do not elect the members of the central and/or combine works council. This is solely the responsibility of the local works councils. Following the election, the members to be delegated to the central and/or combine works council must be newly determined. Delegation to the respective bodies is carried out by resolution of the works council. The works council may resolve that the members to be delegated are to be determined internally by election.
Topic: Return of Former Works Council Members Released from Work Duties to Their Regular Job
Almost every works council election involves changes in the body's personnel composition. Where works council members who were previously released from work duties are no longer elected to the body or no longer receive a release and therefore return to regular work, this presents challenges for both the employer and the former works council member -- particularly where the former works council member has not performed his or her actual job duties for a long period of time.
In what position must former works council members whose release from work duties ends be employed?
When a works council member's release from work duties ends -- either because they were not re-elected to the works council at all or because other members were elected for release -- the former works council member returns to their position. They must be employed in a position corresponding to the current position of an employee in their comparison group. The former member must be treated as if they had undergone the typical career progression within the establishment without the release, including any promotions or higher classifications granted to comparable colleagues. This applies only to the extent that the former works council member possesses the qualifications required for the professional advancement. Within one year after the end of the release from work duties, the former works council member must, to the extent possible within the establishment, be given the opportunity to make up typical career development within the establishment that was missed due to the release.
What if no such position is available?
The employer may refuse to assign equivalent work if compelling operational reasons prevent it. Such a compelling reason may exist, for example, if no corresponding vacant position is available. The former works council member cannot require the employer to create an equivalent position or to dismiss another employee in order to make a position available for them.
* * *
Authors
Ruben Plambeck
Senior Associate
Dusseldorf
rplambeck@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/new-works-council-germany-same-old-questions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Haynes & Boone Issues Commentary: Fifth Circuit Strikes Down OSHA's Mental Health Recordkeeping Rule
DALLAS, Texas, Aug. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Haynes and Boone, a law firm, posted the following commentary by partner Mini Kapoor and associate for northern Virginia Jonathan Keller:
* * *
Fifth Circuit Strikes Down OSHA's Mental Health Recordkeeping Rule
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated1 OSHA's mental illness recordkeeping rule, which requires employers to record employees' work-related mental illness once a qualified health care provider connects the illness to the workplace.2 The court held in a ruling on July 21, 2026, that the Occupational Safety and Health
... Show Full Article
DALLAS, Texas, Aug. 11 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Haynes and Boone, a law firm, posted the following commentary by partner Mini Kapoor and associate for northern Virginia Jonathan Keller:
* * *
Fifth Circuit Strikes Down OSHA's Mental Health Recordkeeping Rule
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated1 OSHA's mental illness recordkeeping rule, which requires employers to record employees' work-related mental illness once a qualified health care provider connects the illness to the workplace.2 The court held in a ruling on July 21, 2026, that the Occupational Safety and HealthAct does not authorize OSHA to require employers to record work-related mental illnesses on their OSHA 300 and 301 logs. Reading 29 U.S.C. SS 657(c)(2), the panel concluded that the work "illnesses" in the statute refers only to physical ailments and that OSHA exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the mental illness recordkeeping rule.
Under this significant decision, employers in the Fifth Circuit-covering Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi-are no longer required to record work-related mental health conditions such as PTSD on OSHA recordkeeping forms. The ruling also reflects the broader post-Loper Bright trend of federal courts exercising more rigorous independent judgment when reviewing agency claims of regulatory authority.
A unanimous panel framed the central question as whether "illnesses" in 29 U.S.C. SS 657(c)(2)-which directs OSHA to prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain records of "work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses"-encompasses mental illnesses. The court concluded that it does not.
Applying Loper Bright's requirement of independent judicial judgment, the court invoked the interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps"). The court reasoned that because "injuries" and "illnesses" are conjoined in the statute, the two categories should be read alike-as physical harms.
Several contextual indicators reinforced the physical-harm reading. For example, the court found contemporaneous dictionaries did not define "illness" to expressly include non-physical conditions. The court rejected OSHA's legislative history and broad statutory purpose arguments, noting that "legislative history is not law" and that the general purpose of providing safe working conditions does not override the specific language of the recordkeeping authority in SS 657(c)(2). The court vacated the citation and the mental illness recordkeeping rule.
#Key Takeaways
* No Obligation to Record Mental Illnesses in the Fifth Circuit: Employers in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are no longer required to record work-related mental health conditions on OSHA Forms 300 and 301. The court vacated 29 C.F.R. SS 1904.5(b)(2)(ix).
* Monitor for Any Appeal and Potential Rulemaking: OSHA has 45 days from entry of judgment in this case to seek panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, and 90 days from entry of judgment (or from denial of any timely rehearing petition) to petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. OSHA could also respond to this Fifth Circuit decision by rulemaking. Employers should monitor these potential developments.
* Multi-state Employers Should Weigh Recording Options: Recording obligations apply establishment by establishment, and establishments outside the Fifth Circuit remain covered by the mental illness recordkeeping rule. Excluding mental illness cases in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi could impact national DART rate for employers that also operate outside these states. Those employers should consider how the different requirements in the Fifth Circuit region versus the rest of the country impact the integrity of their recordkeeping logs-especially as, among other things, DART rates are reported to OSHA, published and used in contractor prequalification, insurance underwriting and enforcement targeting. In any case, employers should document the different recordkeeping policies now applicable in the Fifth Circuit region.
* State OSHA Plans May Differ: Employers in states with OSHA-approved state plans should review those state-specific requirements, which may independently impose mental health recordkeeping obligations unaffected by this ruling.
* Consider Continued Support for Employee Mental Health: The absence of a recording obligation does not diminish the practical value of employee mental health assistance programs, mental health resources and other supportive workplace policies. It may be prudent to continue with such support programs in the workplace.
* Broader Judicial Scrutiny of Agency Authority: The decision reflects the post-Loper Bright landscape, in which courts exercise independent judgment in policing the boundaries of administrative agency authority. Continued challenges to regulatory mandates lacking clear statutory authorization can be expected.
* Review Existing Recordkeeping Practices: Employers in the Fifth Circuit that have previously recorded mental health conditions on OSHA logs may need to revisit those policies and procedures to comply with the Fifth Circuit's decision.
1 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, No. 25-60108 (5th Cir. July 21, 2026).
2 29 C.F.R. SS 1904.5(b)(2)(ix).
***
Original text here: https://www.haynesboone.com/news/alerts/fifth-circuit-strikes-down-osha-mental-health-recordkeeping-rule
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Six Steps to Get Your Concussion Protocol Ready for the Upcoming Athletic Season
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 11 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 10, 2026:
* * *
Six Steps to Get Your Concussion Protocol Ready for the Upcoming Athletic Season
As fall sports and tryouts approach, every school, athletic program, and youth sports organization should take a hard look at its concussion protocol. From a student safety and legal liability perspective, you need to make sure your written procedure clearly spells out how coaches and trainers identify, remove, and clear students to return to play after a suspected head injury. You also need to ensure that
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Aug. 11 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on Aug. 10, 2026:
* * *
Six Steps to Get Your Concussion Protocol Ready for the Upcoming Athletic Season
As fall sports and tryouts approach, every school, athletic program, and youth sports organization should take a hard look at its concussion protocol. From a student safety and legal liability perspective, you need to make sure your written procedure clearly spells out how coaches and trainers identify, remove, and clear students to return to play after a suspected head injury. You also need to ensure thatprocess is up to date with changing laws as state legislatures across the country are actively revising concussion laws. How can you make concussion protocol compliance a priority for the 2026-2027 school year? We'll give you six steps to get there in this Insight.
Concussion Laws Keep Changing
In a nutshell, most concussion protocols require mandatory coach training, immediate removal from play when a concussion is suspected, and written medical clearance before a student can return. But these laws are not static, and with changing medical evidence on the impact of head trauma on growing brains, there have been changes to laws that school leaders and athletic administrators need to track.
While every state now has some form of youth concussion law, generally modeled on Washington's Zackery Lystedt Law, they vary widely in their legal requirements. Some have recently been updated. For example:
* Nevada's Senate Bill 80 added all students (not just athletes) and formalized academic "return to learn" protocols
* New York's amended regulations in 2023 now require independent schools to comply in addition to public schools
* A growing number, including Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oregon, now require a "return-to-learn" plan alongside the traditional return-to-play protocol. This means schools may need to provide academic accommodations, like reduced workload or extended testing time, while a student recovers. If your written policy only addresses when an athlete can play again and says nothing about when and how they resume schoolwork, it may already be out of step with where the law is heading.
Special Note About Negligence Per Se
It is critical for school and athletic leaders to know the current state of law because some instances of a coach or a school violating a specific state law on concussion or safety protocols can lead to a finding of negligence per se.
This legal doctrine allows a student or family to establish liability simply by showing that the organization violated a legal requirement designed to protect a class of persons that includes them, and that the harm could have been avoided had the law been followed. Simply put, no further evidence of reasonableness is considered if there was a violation of the law. (A note of caution, even if your state's statute does not apply to nonpublic schools or organizations, the law may be cited as evidence of "reasonableness.")
Written Policies Alone Are Not Enough
Schools, athletic associations, and sports organizations should also ensure their employees and volunteers are trained, and that the process is being followed. In 2017's Swank v. Valley Christian School, for example, the Washington Supreme Court held that Washington State's concussion law creates an implied right for an injured athlete to sue, and it identified three specific duties every school must meet beyond having a written policy in place:
* distribute annual concussion information sheets
* remove an athlete immediately when a concussion is suspected
* withhold return to play until written medical clearance is on file
Many other states also have regular training requirements, require schools or other institutions to share information with students, and liaise with a student's treating healthcare provider. In addition to risking students' health, there are real legal implications, from the organization's noncompliance with a law, which may be cited as evidence of reasonable standard of care in your state, even if your institution is not required to follow it.
Six-Step Plan
Here is your six-step plan to assist you in developing a concussion protocol that protects your student-athletes and your school.
1. Audit the written protocol against current state law. Work with your legal counsel to confirm it reflects this year's statutory requirements and any recent amendments, not last year's version.
2. Refresh coach, athletic trainer, and staff training. Most state laws require this annually, and lapsed training undercuts a school's compliance position even if no injury occurs.
3. Confirm return-to-play sign-off procedures are followed in writing, best managed through a checklist, which includes required waiting periods and documented physician clearance.
4. Check background-screening and personnel requirements for coaches, including those affiliated with independent or club sanctioning bodies where state law reaches them.
5. Benchmark your process against the NCAA's Concussion Safety Protocol Checklist, which reflects current best practices reviewed by the NCAA's Concussion Safety Advisory Group and offers a useful reference point even for non-NCAA programs.
6. Bring risk management and insurance carriers into the conversation before the season starts, not after a claim arrives.
Conclusion
For further information, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney on the firm's Sports Industry Team or Education Practice Group. Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor developments in this area, so make sure that you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox.
* * *
Related People
Jennifer B. Carroll
Partner, Co-chair K-12 Institutions
954.847.4716
jcarroll@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Brittany L. Swett
Partner
207.477.6051
bswett@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Tara A. Walker
Partner
207.477.7005
twalker@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/six-steps-to-get-your-concussion-protocol-ready-for-the-upcoming-athletic-season
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Baker Donelson's Metropark Office Moves to Permanent Location
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, Aug. 11 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson's Metropark Office Moves to Permanent Location
The national law firm Baker Donelson has moved its Metropark location into a new, permanent space. The Firm, which launched its New Jersey presence in April 2025, now occupies more than 11,200 square feet of office space in MetroTop Plaza II at 111 Wood Avenue South.
In addition to accommodating future growth for the Firm, the new office features a wellness and lactation room, as well as conference rooms named after notable New Jerseyans
... Show Full Article
MEMPHIS, Tennessee, Aug. 11 -- Baker Donelson, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Baker Donelson's Metropark Office Moves to Permanent Location
The national law firm Baker Donelson has moved its Metropark location into a new, permanent space. The Firm, which launched its New Jersey presence in April 2025, now occupies more than 11,200 square feet of office space in MetroTop Plaza II at 111 Wood Avenue South.
In addition to accommodating future growth for the Firm, the new office features a wellness and lactation room, as well as conference rooms named after notable New JerseyansThomas Edison, Whitney Houston, and Bruce Springsteen.
"This is an ideal space for us as we solidify Baker Donelson's presence in New Jersey," said Anjana D. Patel, managing shareholder of the Firm's New Jersey offices. "The building itself is in a prime location and offers great amenities for our team. Our space is a completely new buildout designed with a focus on creating a modern workplace that maximizes collaboration. We're excited for this to be our new home and look forward to welcoming additional professionals as we continue to grow here."
One of two New Jersey locations launched in 2025 as part of a substantial expansion of Baker Donelson's geographic footprint into the Northeast, the Metropark office has nearly 20 team members, including 11 attorneys. Among the Firm's Metropark lawyers are some of the nation's leading health law attorneys with a range of experience representing clients in the health care industry and related sectors, including handling major strategic transactions, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, hospital-physician alignments, major affiliations, and regulatory matters.
In November 2025, the Firm's second New Jersey location in Princeton moved into its permanent office space at 281 Witherspoon Street, where it occupies more than 11,000 square feet.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/baker-donelsons-metropark-office-moves-to-permanent-location
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Akin Attorneys Author Bloomberg Law Article on Congressional Inquiries Involving Foreign Entities
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Attorneys Author Bloomberg Law Article on Congressional Inquiries Involving Foreign Entities
Bloomberg Law has published an article titled, "Congressional Subpoenas Bring Nonlegal Risks to Foreign Entities," authored by Akin congressional investigations practice co-heads Marcus Childress and Abigail Kohlman and counsel Samantha Block.
The article examines the legal, reputational and commercial risks that foreign companies and individuals may face when responding to congressional inquiries.
The authors
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Attorneys Author Bloomberg Law Article on Congressional Inquiries Involving Foreign Entities
Bloomberg Law has published an article titled, "Congressional Subpoenas Bring Nonlegal Risks to Foreign Entities," authored by Akin congressional investigations practice co-heads Marcus Childress and Abigail Kohlman and counsel Samantha Block.
The article examines the legal, reputational and commercial risks that foreign companies and individuals may face when responding to congressional inquiries.
The authorsdiscuss the limits of Congress' ability to compel testimony and document production abroad, as well as practical considerations for multinational companies navigating congressional scrutiny, regulatory attention and broader risk management concerns.
The authors conclude that congressional inquiries should not be considered solely through a legal lens, "Congressional investigations can spill over into regulatory and litigation risk. Non US companies should treat congressional engagement as part of a broader global risk management strategy."
To read the full piece, click here (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/congressional-subpoenas-bring-nonlegal-risks-to-foreign-entities).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/media-mentions/akin-attorneys-author-bloomberg-law-article-on-congressional-inquiries-involving-foreign-entities
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Akin Advises Millrose Properties on Up to $1.25 Billion Financing for Dream Finders Homes' Acquisition of Beazer Homes
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Advises Millrose Properties on Up to $1.25 Billion Financing for Dream Finders Homes' Acquisition of Beazer Homes
(New York) - Akin advised Millrose Properties, Inc., the homesite option platform for residential homebuilders, in a commitment by its manager to provide acquisition financing of up to $1.25 billion to support Dream Finders Homes, Inc.'s publicly announced acquisition of Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
The commitment represents the third time since Millrose's founding that the company has leveraged
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 -- Akin Gump, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Akin Advises Millrose Properties on Up to $1.25 Billion Financing for Dream Finders Homes' Acquisition of Beazer Homes
(New York) - Akin advised Millrose Properties, Inc., the homesite option platform for residential homebuilders, in a commitment by its manager to provide acquisition financing of up to $1.25 billion to support Dream Finders Homes, Inc.'s publicly announced acquisition of Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
The commitment represents the third time since Millrose's founding that the company has leveragedits unique capability to provide land banking capital in support of a homebuilder acquisition.
The Akin team was led by co-leader of the firm's capital solutions team Dan Fisher and corporate practice co-head Zachary Wittenberg and included capital markets partners John Clayton and Bryan Flannery, counsel Bryson Manning and associate Wanyi Zhang; special situations & private credit partner Catherine Goodall; corporate counsel Lynn Sherwood and associate Zoe Hawkins; and tax counsel Tim Higgins.
Additional information on the transaction can be found here.
Akin is a leading international law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers and advisors in offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
* * *
URL: Millrose Properties
* * *
Original text here: https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/press-releases/akin-advises-millrose-properties-on-up-to-dollar125-billion-financing-for-dream-finders-homes-acquisition-of-beazer-homes
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
A&O Shearman Advises Arrangers on Financing for Intrum AB's SEK 7.5 Billion Equity Capital Raise and EUR525 Million Senior Secured Notes Issuance
LONDON, England, Aug. 11 -- A and O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
A&O Shearman advises arrangers on financing for Intrum AB's SEK 7.5 billion equity capital raise and EUR525 million senior secured notes issuance
A&O Shearman has advised Deutsche Bank and DNB Carnegie as underwriters and initial purchasers in connection with the SEK7.5bn equity capital raise by Intrum AB and the issuance of EUR525m of 7.00% senior secured notes due 2031 by its subsidiary Intrum Investments and Financing AB.
Intrum is Europe's leading provider of credit management services, operating
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Aug. 11 -- A and O Shearman, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
A&O Shearman advises arrangers on financing for Intrum AB's SEK 7.5 billion equity capital raise and EUR525 million senior secured notes issuance
A&O Shearman has advised Deutsche Bank and DNB Carnegie as underwriters and initial purchasers in connection with the SEK7.5bn equity capital raise by Intrum AB and the issuance of EUR525m of 7.00% senior secured notes due 2031 by its subsidiary Intrum Investments and Financing AB.
Intrum is Europe's leading provider of credit management services, operatingin 20 markets. Intrum enables sustainable payments by combining technology, empathy, and a human-centered approach. Intrum is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden and publicly listed on Nasdaq Stockholm.
Intrum's equity capital raise comprised a fully committed directed issue of shares of approximately SEK1.5bn to selected investors and a fully underwritten rights issue of approximately SEK6bn. The two legs of the equity raise were structured on an interlinked basis, with a majority of the investors participating in the directed issue also undertaking to provide guarantee commitments for the rights issue, thereby using the directed issue both to broaden institutional ownership of the company and to help secure the rights issue's full underwriting.
In addition to the offering of the new senior secured notes, the debt offering also involved a concurrent exchange offer for the issuer's EUR- and SEK-denominated 8.00% senior secured notes due 2027, with the proceeds of the new notes offering used to redeem in full any outstanding principal amount of such notes that were not tendered in the exchange offer.
Deutsche Bank and DNB Carnegie acted as joint global coordinators and joint bookrunners on the equity offering and joint global coordinators and joint physical bookrunners on the debt offering.
Jeff Hendrickson, partner at A&O Shearman, commented: "This was a complex, multi-layered transaction that required careful coordination across both the equity and debt components. We are delighted to have supported Deutsche Bank and DNB Carnegie in delivering a successful outcome for Intrum, enabling the company to strengthen its capital structure and position itself for continued growth."
The A&O Shearman team advising on the equity offering was led by partner Jeff Hendrickson in London and senior associate Katrien Wilmots alongside associate Arnaldo Mitola. The team advising on the debt offering was led by partner Brad Weyland and senior associate Eileen Burgess alongside associates Sonali Sharma and Arnaldo Mitola.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.aoshearman.com/en/news/ao-shearman-advises-arrangers-on-intrum-abs-sek-75billion-equity-raise
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
