Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Wiley Files Amicus Brief in Fourth Circuit in Article III Case
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- Wiley Rein, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Wiley Files Amicus Brief in Fourth Circuit in Article III Case
Wiley filed an amicus brief in SC NAACP v. SC Department of Juvenile Justice, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to grant a petition for rehearing en banc of a panel decision that held that the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization for South Carolina lacks standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to undertake legal action on behalf of disabled individuals. This case has significant implications for disabled
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- Wiley Rein, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Wiley Files Amicus Brief in Fourth Circuit in Article III Case
Wiley filed an amicus brief in SC NAACP v. SC Department of Juvenile Justice, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to grant a petition for rehearing en banc of a panel decision that held that the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) organization for South Carolina lacks standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to undertake legal action on behalf of disabled individuals. This case has significant implications for disabledindividuals and P&A organizations across the country.
The brief, submitted on behalf of The National Disability Rights Network, Disability Rights Maryland, Disability Rights North Carolina, Disability Law Center of Virginia, and Disability Rights West Virginia, argues that the panel's decision violates federal law, including the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, which expressly authorizes P&As to bring legal action in a representative capacity on behalf of individuals with disabilities. Additionally, the brief asserts that the panel's decision misinterprets U.S. Supreme Court precedent and notes the cost of the panel's decision for people with disabilities.
Wiley Pro Bono Partner, Theodore A. Howard, acted as counsel of record for the brief. The Wiley team also included Pro Bono Counsel Kathleen Cooperstein and associate Myron Zhang, with help and support from paralegal Kristine Lynch.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-Wiley-Files-Amicus-Brief-in-Fourth-Circuit-Article-III-Case
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Lounge: So Much FMLA, So Little Time - Preview of Littler's FMLA and ADA Master Class
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lounge: So Much FMLA, So Little Time - A Preview of Littler's FMLA and ADA Master Class
Hosts Claire Deason and Nicole LeFave are joined by Jeff Nowak to talk about how a moment of professional curiosity turned into a deep focus on the FMLA and ADA - and eventually into one of Littler's most comprehensive master classes. Jeff shares how practical storytelling, real-world scenarios, and fast-moving case law shape the way he practices and teaches in this space.
The conversation covers reasonable
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Littler Lounge: So Much FMLA, So Little Time - A Preview of Littler's FMLA and ADA Master Class
Hosts Claire Deason and Nicole LeFave are joined by Jeff Nowak to talk about how a moment of professional curiosity turned into a deep focus on the FMLA and ADA - and eventually into one of Littler's most comprehensive master classes. Jeff shares how practical storytelling, real-world scenarios, and fast-moving case law shape the way he practices and teaches in this space.
The conversation covers reasonableaccommodation, remote work, neurodiversity, mental health, performance management, and why the interactive process remains a constant through it all. Along the way, Jeff introduces a few familiar (and fictional) employees, explains how recent court decisions are influencing employer approaches, and offers a behind-the-scenes look at what goes into building a course designed to meet people wherever they are.
And if this episode leaves you wanting more, Jeff's FMLA and ADA Master Class kicks off March 3-6, 2026. Four full days of instruction, with a return session later in the year to cover the updates that will inevitably follow.
* * *
Claire B. Deason
Shareholder
Minneapolis
* * *
Nicole S. LeFave
Shareholder
Austin
* * *
Jeff Nowak
Shareholder
Chicago
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/podcast/littler-lounge-so-much-fmla-so-little-time-preview-littlers-fmla-and-ada
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: AI Transcription and Note-Taking Technologies - Seven Points for Employers to Consider
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 26, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento and Bradford J. Kelley:
* * *
AI Transcription and Note-Taking Technologies: Seven Points for Employers to Consider
At a Glance
* AI note-taking tools can boost productivity and engagement by letting employees focus on meetings while automatically generating summaries, action items, and searchable records to support follow-up and knowledge management.
* However, these tools introduce significant legal and operational risks, including potential violations
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Feb. 27 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on Feb. 26, 2026, by shareholders Zoe M. Argento and Bradford J. Kelley:
* * *
AI Transcription and Note-Taking Technologies: Seven Points for Employers to Consider
At a Glance
* AI note-taking tools can boost productivity and engagement by letting employees focus on meetings while automatically generating summaries, action items, and searchable records to support follow-up and knowledge management.
* However, these tools introduce significant legal and operational risks, including potential violationsof privacy and wiretap laws, exposure of confidential or privileged information, employment discrimination concerns, compliance challenges under new AI regulations, and increased discovery costs from detailed transcripts.
* Employers are advised to thoroughly vet AI note-taking tools, configure them to help minimize risks (e.g., limit use by jurisdiction, disable high-risk features, set up consent notices, and enforce strict data controls), and establish clear policies on their use, consent, security, access, disclosure, employee accountability, and the role of AI-generated records in HR or business decisions.
*
Whether employers like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) note-taking technologies have entered the workplace. In a 2025 survey of 1,000 professionals, one in five respondents stated they frequently used AI to draft notes during meetings./1 AI technologies not only transcribe meetings but can also provide outlined notes, attribute comments to individual speakers, draft summaries, and assign to-do steps to participants. In addition, agentic versions of AI note-taking technologies can pull information from other sources to assist meeting participants in accomplishing their to-do steps.
For employers, these technologies offer substantial benefits. Freed from the distractions of taking notes, employees can be more present, engaged, and responsive during meetings. Afterward, AI note-takers can streamline the preparation of summaries, action items, and follow-up communications, which increases efficiency and reduces administrative burden. At the same time, however, these technologies introduce legal and operational risks. They may implicate federal and state privacy laws, expose confidential and privileged information, create disparate impacts affecting individuals in protected categories, generate inaccurate or misleading records, and produce voluminous documents that make the discovery process even more expensive for employers. Given these risks, it is unsurprising that litigation has emerged in this space. Most notably, In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, 5:25-cv-6911 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 15, 2025), is a consolidated putative class action alleging that Otter AI unlawfully records private conversations through its widely used AI transcription tool and, without notice to or consent by participants, uses the resulting transcripts to train its technology.
Notwithstanding the risks, many employers may not have much choice, in practice, about whether to adopt AI note-takers. In many workplaces, employees already use them, making outright bans ineffective and difficult to enforce. As a result, the most reasonable option may be to provide vetted AI note-takers that the organization selects, configures, and controls. Below, we discuss seven key considerations for employers seeking to take advantage of AI note-taking technologies while mitigating legal and operational exposure.
1. Consent for recording
Wiretap laws present the greatest risk for U.S. employers when using AI note-taking technologies. The Wiretap Act at the federal level and laws in every state prohibit "intercepting" electronic, wire, or oral communications without consent. Although there is little case law so far on whether note-taking and summarization tools require consent under wiretap laws, given courts' broad interpretations of "interception" in wiretap cases, it seems possible that courts will find that at least some of these technologies require consent. Moreover, wiretap laws are high-risk. The Wiretap Act permits plaintiffs to recover the greater of $10,000 or $100 per day of violation, in statutory damages./2 Some state laws, like California's, also allow recovery of statutory damages./3
In most states, consent is established if one participant in the conversation initiates the recording technology. The federal wiretap law and the majority of state wiretap laws require the consent of only one party to permit interception of a conversation. However, about a dozen states require the consent of all parties./4 Even in the states that require the consent of only one party, the consenting party must be a participant, which means that an outsider cannot record the conversation without the consent of at least one participant.
Employers should evaluate the technology in light of wiretap laws and, if needed, implement a belt and suspenders approach to obtaining consent. This might include configuring the technology to obtain consent automatically, training employees to notify participants before recording, and having employees sign consent forms.
2. Biometrics
AI note-takers, especially technologies that attribute comments to each speaker, may collect biometric data. By measuring the individual features of a meeting participant's voice to recognize that voice throughout the conversation, these technologies may generate and store biometric information, as defined by the state law at issue. In the employment context, Colorado, Illinois, and Texas require consent prior to collecting biometric information and impose restrictions on the retention and disclosure of that information. In addition, California, Colorado, and Illinois require companies that handle biometric data to post notices about their collection of this data. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is particularly high risk. Plaintiffs can recover up to $5,000 in statutory damages for violating BIPA's consent, biometric policy, or other requirements./5 Over all, about a third of states require safeguards for biometric data and almost half require data breach notifications to affected individuals if a company's data is breached. If technology gathers biometric data, the company should weigh risks versus benefits in considering whether to turn off that functionality or comply with any applicable biometrics laws.
3. Accuracy
Although AI note-takers may be more accurate than the average employee struggling to take notes while participating in the discussion, they can be flawed. The tool may misunderstand industry-specific terms and acronyms, struggle with accents, and miss high- or low-pitched voices. Companies should vet these tools for accuracy, especially in the context of their own workplaces. In addition, just as employees should review their own notes before relying on them to make business decisions, an employee who uses an AI note-taker should review the records created by that tool and correct them if necessary before using the records as a basis for such decisions. Employers should emphasize the general principle that AI is simply a workplace tool: employees are always ultimately responsible for their own work, regardless of whether they use AI note-takers to assist them.
4. Discrimination, Disparate Impact, and AI-Specific Laws
The use of AI note-taking, transcription, or summarization tools in connection with employment decisions presents distinct discrimination and disparate-impact risks. If employers rely on AI-generated transcripts or summaries to evaluate performance, assess candidate interviews, or inform disciplinary decisions, any systemic inaccuracies--such as consistent misunderstandings of individuals with accents, speech impediments, or other protected characteristics--could disproportionately disadvantage certain groups.
Employers also should consider reasonable accommodation obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous state laws, as the use of AI note-takers may require certain modifications for individuals with disabilities. For example, speech-recognition tools may inaccurately transcribe certain speech patterns or communication styles associated with a disability. In other instances, an employee may object to the recording or transcription of meetings due to a disability-related concern, requiring the employer to evaluate alternative arrangements. At the same time, however, in some circumstances providing access to note-taking or transcription technology may itself constitute a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability. As with other workplace technologies, employers should be prepared to engage in the interactive process where appropriate.
Integrating these tools into hiring or personnel decision-making may also trigger emerging AI-specific regulation, including notice, audit, and bias assessment requirements in jurisdictions such as New York City, Illinois, and California. While applicability of these laws will depend on how the technology is deployed, employers should recognize that what begins as a productivity tool can become subject to current or emerging regulations. Careful evaluation of use cases, documentation practices, and compliance obligations is essential when incorporating AI note-takers into employment decision-making processes.
5. Attorney-Client Privilege
The use of AI note-taking tools in meetings involving legal counsel raises significant concerns about possible waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges. If an AI assistant records or transcribes privileged communications and transmits them to a third-party vendor, courts may scrutinize whether the disclosure constitutes a waiver, particularly if the vendor's data practices are unclear or the tool is not subject to confidentiality safeguards. Even where privilege is ultimately preserved, the creation of verbatim transcripts may expand the volume of discoverable material and increase the risk of inadvertent disclosure. Employers should evaluate whether AI note-takers are appropriate for privileged meetings, ensure that vendors contractually commit to strict confidentiality and data segregation, and consider disabling recording features or limiting use altogether during discussions involving legal advice.
6. Retention and Purging
Consider that the average hour-long meeting produces about 16 single-spaced pages of transcripts. Multiply this by hundreds or even thousands of meetings per week, and the volume of records that AI note-takers might generate becomes staggering. Retaining these records indefinitely could create extremely burdensome discovery obligations in the event of litigation. Also, in jurisdictions that provide a right of access to personal data or broadly defined personnel files, sorting through this unstructured data would be time-consuming and expensive.
Accordingly, employers should consider imposing a short retention period for these records. In some cases, the technology can be configured to delete them automatically when the retention period expires. Employees might still have the option to save certain AI note-taking records longer in accordance with the storage rules and retention schedule for related records. For many companies, setting a rule to delete the records after a short retention period may be the best default solution.
7. Confidentiality and Data Security
Note-taking technologies may capture a broad range of confidential business information, from discussions about employee discipline to customer information to trade secrets. Employers should assess how to manage this potential trove of confidential records. One strategy is to prohibit the use of AI note-takers in certain classes of meetings. These might include, for example, attorney-client privileged meetings, conversations among senior executives, and discussions about protected health information in employee health plans.
Many other meetings, of course, could also involve information that the company wishes to keep confidential, if only because participants discuss confidential topics incidentally or the meeting changes course. To reduce the risk of unauthorized access to such information, companies should consider carefully how to apply default rules to storage of, and access to, these notes.
Relatedly, it can be important for companies to vet the AI note-taking product for data security and for the control the vendor offers the company over the data collected and generated by the product. Key considerations are: data security measures; which party "owns" the records; what happens to the data at the end of the engagement; the extent to which the employer can configure notices, access restrictions, and deletion; and whether the vendor is permitted to use the data to train AI.
Takeaways
In light of the considerations described above, employers should consider these steps when adopting AI note-takers:
* Vetting the AI note-taking vendor for data security and the configuration options available to control both the technology and the data captured by the technology;
* Configuring the AI note-taker to reduce risks, which may include limiting the use of the AI note-taker in certain jurisdictions, turning off features such as voice recognition, setting pop-ups for notices, implementing data security measures, and setting storage and access controls; and
* Implementing policies regarding when and where AI note-takers are permitted, consent, security, access, disclosure, employees' responsibility for their work product, and use of AI note-taking records for HR and business decisions.
* * *
See Footnotes
1/ Ricardo Rodriguez, AI Note Taking at Work: Benefits and Drawbacks, Software Finder (Oct. 6, 2025), https://softwarefinder.com/resources/ai-note-taking-tools.
2/ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520(c)(2).
3/ Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 637.2.
4/ The number of states that require consent of all parties differs depending on whether the device intercepts a wire or electronic communication or an in-person communication.
5/ 740 ILCS 14/20.
* * *
Authors
Zoe M. Argento
Shareholder
Denver
* * *
Bradford J. Kelley
Shareholder
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/ai-transcription-and-note-taking-technologies-seven-points-employers-consider
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen Speaks at the NYC Bar Association's Annual Crypto Conference
NEW YORK, Feb. 27 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news on Feb. 26, 2026:
* * *
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen Speaks at the NYC Bar Association's Annual Crypto Conference
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen, co-chair of the CahillNXT Digital Assets and Emerging Technology practice, will speak at the New York City Bar Association's Annual Crypto Conference on March 18, 2026. The annual event brings together legal practitioners, regulators, academics, and industry leaders to discuss key developments shaping the ever-evolving digital asset landscape.
Lewis will moderate and serve as lead panelist
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Feb. 27 -- Cahill Gordon and Reindel, a law firm, issued the following news on Feb. 26, 2026:
* * *
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen Speaks at the NYC Bar Association's Annual Crypto Conference
Lewis Rinaudo Cohen, co-chair of the CahillNXT Digital Assets and Emerging Technology practice, will speak at the New York City Bar Association's Annual Crypto Conference on March 18, 2026. The annual event brings together legal practitioners, regulators, academics, and industry leaders to discuss key developments shaping the ever-evolving digital asset landscape.
Lewis will moderate and serve as lead panelistfor "DeFi, Stablecoins and the Rise of Digital Money" from 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. The panel will examine the implications of the GENIUS Act, exemptions under the Clarity Act, and guidance from the President's Crypto Taskforce, and how these developments are reshaping markets and raising critical questions around regulation, security, and systemic risk.
To learn more about this event and register, click here (https://www.nycbar.org/cle-offerings/crypto-conference/).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cahill.com/news/events/2026-03-18-lewis-rinaudo-cohen-speaks-at-the-nyc-bar-association-annual-crypto-conference
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
In Law360 Q&A, Managing Partner Andrew Detherage Highlights Firm's Organic Growth Strategy
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Feb. 27 -- Barnes and Thornburg, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
In Law360 Q&A, Managing Partner Andrew Detherage Highlights Firm's Organic Growth Strategy
In a Q&A interview with Law360 Pulse, Barnes & Thornburg Managing Partner Andrew J. Detherage discussed the firm's master plan of expanding strategically through steady, organic growth and lateral hiring rather than law firm combinations.
The Feb. 23 article was published shortly after the firm added a 35-lawyer team to its Government Services and Finance Department in multiple locations around
... Show Full Article
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Feb. 27 -- Barnes and Thornburg, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
In Law360 Q&A, Managing Partner Andrew Detherage Highlights Firm's Organic Growth Strategy
In a Q&A interview with Law360 Pulse, Barnes & Thornburg Managing Partner Andrew J. Detherage discussed the firm's master plan of expanding strategically through steady, organic growth and lateral hiring rather than law firm combinations.
The Feb. 23 article was published shortly after the firm added a 35-lawyer team to its Government Services and Finance Department in multiple locations aroundthe country, including three new offices in Baltimore, Denver and Phoenix.
Since Detherage joined in 1989, Barnes & Thornburg has grown from an Indiana firm to a national powerhouse with over 850 lawyers in 26 offices across the United States -- all without undergoing a major combination.
"We're very lawyer-focused in our leadership, and so we always felt like that was the key to success, and it's borne out," Detherage said. "We measure our lateral success rate on if people stay more than five years, and we're at 90%. And we believe that's because we are recruiting strategically.
"From the very beginning, our view was, math is not a strategy when it comes to growth. It's not a question of what headcount and gross revenue can we get. It's how we can build, get better and serve our clients better. We really believe the environment we have allows our firm to be successful, and we didn't think we could maintain that by doing mergers."
Read the full Q&A here (https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/barnesthornec91-btlawb18a-prod2e0c-5bea/media/files/barnes_thornburg_head_on_firms_nonmerger_growth_motto.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://btlaw.com/en/insights/news/2026/in-law360-qa-andrew-detherage-highlights-firm-organic-growth-strategy
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Commerce Department Issues Affirmative Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations on Hardwood and Decorative Plywood From China, Indonesia, and Vietnam
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- Wiley Rein, a law firm, issued the following news release on Feb. 26, 2026:
* * *
Commerce Department Issues Affirmative Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations on Hardwood and Decorative Plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam
On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce released its preliminary affirmative antidumping (AD) duty findings on hardwood and decorative plywood, identifying significant dumping margins by hardwood and decorative plywood producers from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Commerce calculated preliminary AD rates of 187.27% on imports
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 -- Wiley Rein, a law firm, issued the following news release on Feb. 26, 2026:
* * *
Commerce Department Issues Affirmative Preliminary Antidumping Duty Determinations on Hardwood and Decorative Plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam
On February 25, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce released its preliminary affirmative antidumping (AD) duty findings on hardwood and decorative plywood, identifying significant dumping margins by hardwood and decorative plywood producers from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Commerce calculated preliminary AD rates of 187.27% on importsfrom China, 19.98% to 84.94% on imports from Indonesia, and 196.14% on imports from Vietnam.
The Coalition for Fair Trade in Hardwood Plywood, representing a substantial majority of the American hardwood and decorative plywood industry, commends Commerce for its decision to impose these preliminary antidumping duties to remedy the unfair trade practices of China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.
"This decision by the Department of Commerce's is another critical step in leveling the playing field for American hardwood and decorative plywood manufacturers and combating the spread of unfairly traded imports," said Timothy C. Brightbill, lead counsel to the Coalition and co-chair of Wiley's International Trade Practice. "The domestic industry has been harmed for decades by dumped and subsidized hardwood and decorative plywood."
The antidumping duties are in addition to preliminary countervailing duties calculated last month by the Commerce Department, which ranged from 2.40% to 128.66% for Indonesia, 4.37% to 26.75% for Vietnam, and a country-wide rate of 81.34% for China.
As soon as Commerce's preliminary determination is published in the Federal Register, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will begin collecting preliminary duties on entries of hardwood and decorative plywood from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Commerce also found that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of hardwood and decorative plywood from China. As a result, duties will be collected on entries of hardwood and decorative plywood from China that were entered on or after 90 days before publication of the preliminary determination.
Commerce's AD investigations will continue over the coming months, as well as its parallel investigations of countervailing subsidies from China, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Commerce's final determinations for Indonesia and Vietnam are currently scheduled for mid-July 2026. Commerce's final determination for China is currently scheduled for mid-May 2026, but could be extended until July 2026.
The duties that will now be imposed are assessed on the importer of record of the covered merchandise. Duty evasion, absorption, and circumvention are illegal and closely monitored by CBP, in conjunction with the Commerce Department. Counsel for the Coalition is working closely with CBP to share evidence of duty evasion, which is leading to heightened scrutiny of imports.
The Wiley team representing the Coalition also includes International Trade partner Stephanie M. Bell, of counsel Jeffrey O. Frank, and associates Stephen A. Morrison and Jacob Garten.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-Commerce-Department-Issues-Affirmative-Preliminary-Antidumping-Duty-Determinations-on-Hardwood-and-Decorative-Plywood-from-China-Indonesia-and-Vietnam
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Brynn Rail Comments on FINRA's Proposed Streamlined OBA Reporting Rules in Hedge Fund Law Report
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Feb. 27 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Brynn Rail Comments on FINRA's Proposed Streamlined OBA Reporting Rules in Hedge Fund Law Report
In Hedge Fund Law Report, asset management partner Brynn Rail discussed FINRA's January 2026 proposal to streamline outside business activities (OBA) reporting for broker-dealers.
Brynn noted that the new rule aims to clarify and narrow reporting requirements, especially for personal real estate transactions. "That exclusion is likely to help clarify a number of the questions that
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Feb. 27 [Category: BizLaw/Legal] -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Brynn Rail Comments on FINRA's Proposed Streamlined OBA Reporting Rules in Hedge Fund Law Report
In Hedge Fund Law Report, asset management partner Brynn Rail discussed FINRA's January 2026 proposal to streamline outside business activities (OBA) reporting for broker-dealers.
Brynn noted that the new rule aims to clarify and narrow reporting requirements, especially for personal real estate transactions. "That exclusion is likely to help clarify a number of the questions thatwe get now about whether given real estate activities are OBAs," Brynn said. She advised firms to continue collecting information as usual and assess whether activities are investment-related while awaiting final approval of the rule.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/02/brynn-rail-comments-on-finras-proposed-streamlined-oba-reporting-rules-in-hedge-fund-law-report
