Featured Stories
Ropes & Gray Leads Team That Secures $60 Million Civil Rights Settlement Against New York City Over Unlawful Property Seizures
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Leads Team that Secures $60 Million Civil Rights Settlement Against New York City Over Unlawful Property Seizures
Ropes & Gray LLP has reached a $60 million class action settlement on behalf of homeowners whose properties were seized without compensation under New York City's Third Party Transfer program. Ropes & Gray served as lead pro bono counsel alongside co-counsel Valli Kane & Vagnini and White & Case. The settlement, which is subject to preliminary court approval, is believed to
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Leads Team that Secures $60 Million Civil Rights Settlement Against New York City Over Unlawful Property Seizures
Ropes & Gray LLP has reached a $60 million class action settlement on behalf of homeowners whose properties were seized without compensation under New York City's Third Party Transfer program. Ropes & Gray served as lead pro bono counsel alongside co-counsel Valli Kane & Vagnini and White & Case. The settlement, which is subject to preliminary court approval, is believed tobe one of the largest paid by the City in the past decade.
"Hundreds of New York families, overwhelmingly in communities of color, had their homes taken and their equity wiped out, all without compensation and without meaningful notice or a day in court," said Gregg Weiner, global co-chair of Ropes & Gray's litigation & enforcement practice. "This settlement begins to make them whole. It took seven years, a Second Circuit reversal, and a Supreme Court ruling to get here, and I could not be prouder of the team's persistence."
The TPT program, created in 1996, allowed New York City to seize homes from tax-delinquent owners and transfer them to developers and nonprofit organizations, without meaningful notice or compensation. Longtime homeowners lost not only their properties but generations of accumulated equity. The program had a stark and well-documented disparate impact on Black and Latino communities: approximately half of the properties in the most recent round of property seizures under the TPT Program were concentrated in neighborhoods where residents are primarily people of color.
The case was filed in 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. In 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that plaintiffs could seek the lost value of their property in excess of the taxes owed. The legal team's arguments to the Second Circuit also received support from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the Pacific Legal Foundation as amici curiae.
The case gained further momentum after the Supreme Court's unanimous 2023 decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which held that government seizure of surplus home equity is unconstitutional, a ruling that attracted cross-ideological support from the ACLU, the Cato Institute, and others. Following Tyler, the legal team moved for class certification and summary judgment before the parties reached the settlement through mediation in 2025.
The settlement resolves claims arising from the program's most recent round, which occurred in 2017 under the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Claims covering earlier rounds of the program, dating back to 1996, remain pending. Preliminary approval is expected later this year, after which class members will be notified.
The team was led by litigation & enforcement partners Gregg Weiner and Alexander Simkin, and included litigation & enforcement associates Will Piereson, Cambrey Dent, Mohammed Hassan, Chloe Aubuchon, Bradley McKnight, Briana Thomas, Matt Kaufman, and Jared Coltey.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/09/ropes-gray-leads-team-that-secures-civil-rights-settlement-against-nyc-over-unlawful-property
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ropes & Gray Honored With Four 2026 LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Honored with Four 2026 LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards
Ropes & Gray was recognized at the LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards 2026 in the following four categories at a gala ceremony in New York City on September 10, further enhancing its reputation as one of the world's preeminent global life sciences practices:
* M&A Attorney of the Year - Emily Oldshue
* Regulatory Attorney of the Year: Pricing & Reimbursement - Eve Brunts
* US Rising Star (Financial & Corporate) - Evan Tallmadge
*
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Honored with Four 2026 LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards
Ropes & Gray was recognized at the LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards 2026 in the following four categories at a gala ceremony in New York City on September 10, further enhancing its reputation as one of the world's preeminent global life sciences practices:
* M&A Attorney of the Year - Emily Oldshue
* Regulatory Attorney of the Year: Pricing & Reimbursement - Eve Brunts
* US Rising Star (Financial & Corporate) - Evan Tallmadge
*Deal of the Year - Pfizer's Acquisition of Metsera for $7 Billion
Additionally, the firm was shortlisted in 13 other categories.
The LMG Life Sciences Awards Americas celebrate the success and accomplishments of leading law firms and individuals behind the most innovative and challenging work in the life sciences industry. Legal practitioners and teams across the United States, Canada and Brazil are represented in categories covering the best in regulatory, corporate, intellectual property and litigation.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/rankings-and-awards/2026/09/ropes-gray-honored-with-four-2026-lmg-life-sciences-americas-awards
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Ropes & Gray Advised Genstar Capital in Growth Investment in Richey May
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Advised Genstar Capital in Growth Investment in Richey May
Ropes & Gray represented Genstar Capital in a strategic growth investment in Richey May, a Top 50 accounting and advisory firm. The transaction was announced on Sept. 14.
The investment will accelerate Richey May's organic growth and M&A strategy, supporting the firm's continued expansion as a national platform.
Founded over 40 years ago and headquartered in Denver, Colo., Richey May provides accounting, tax, and advisory services
... Show Full Article
BOSTON, Massachusetts, Sept. 16 -- Ropes and Gray, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Ropes & Gray Advised Genstar Capital in Growth Investment in Richey May
Ropes & Gray represented Genstar Capital in a strategic growth investment in Richey May, a Top 50 accounting and advisory firm. The transaction was announced on Sept. 14.
The investment will accelerate Richey May's organic growth and M&A strategy, supporting the firm's continued expansion as a national platform.
Founded over 40 years ago and headquartered in Denver, Colo., Richey May provides accounting, tax, and advisory servicesto clients across diverse industries and geographic markets, with offices in eight states.
Genstar Capital is a San Francisco-based private equity firm that has been actively investing in high-quality companies for over 30 years, with approximately $51 billion of assets under management. The firm targets investments in the financial services, software, healthcare, and industrials sectors.
The team included private equity partners Elizabeth Gallucci and Chau Le and associate Anna Park, employment, executive compensation & benefits partner Kyle Higley, tax partner Brandon Dunn, IP transactions partner Emily Karlberg, and finance partner Michael Lee and counsel Amy Olson.
* * *
URL: Genstar Capital
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/news-and-events/news/2026/09/ropes-gray-advised-genstar-capital-in-growth-investment-in-richey-may
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Pillsbury Advises Blue Laser Fusion on Merger and Concurrent $25 Million Private Placement
NEW YORK, Sept. 16 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pillsbury Advises Blue Laser Fusion on Merger and Concurrent $25 Million Private Placement
Pillsbury advised Blue Laser Fusion, Inc., a developer of advanced laser technology for directed-energy defense and fusion-energy applications, in connection with its merger transaction with Unite Acquisition 2 Corp., through which Blue Laser Fusion became a public reporting company, and a concurrent private placement that generated approximately $25 million in gross proceeds.
In the private placement, Blue Laser Fusion
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Sept. 16 -- Pillsbury, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Pillsbury Advises Blue Laser Fusion on Merger and Concurrent $25 Million Private Placement
Pillsbury advised Blue Laser Fusion, Inc., a developer of advanced laser technology for directed-energy defense and fusion-energy applications, in connection with its merger transaction with Unite Acquisition 2 Corp., through which Blue Laser Fusion became a public reporting company, and a concurrent private placement that generated approximately $25 million in gross proceeds.
In the private placement, Blue Laser Fusionsold 910,265 shares of common stock at $27.50 per share.
The company expects to use the net proceeds to advance its pulsed-laser technology and the conceptual design of its fusion reactor and pilot power plant, pursue a potential quotation or market listing, and support working capital and other general corporate purposes.
Click here (https://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form+8-K+Blue+Laser+Fusion%2C+Inc.+For%3A+Sep+04/27038691.html) to learn more.
The Pillsbury deal team was led by Corporate partner Allison Leopold Tilley and Capital Markets Global Practice Leader and Corporate and Securities partner Davina K. Kaile. The team also included Corporate counsel Tara Shankar, special counsel Justin Bintrim and associate Bethany Weitzman, and Executive Compensation & Benefits partner Laura McDaniels.
* * *
URL: Blue Laser Fusion, Inc.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/pillsbury-blue-laser-fusion-merger-concurrent-25m-private-placement.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: Oregon Court Rejects Per-Paycheck Penalties for Unlawful Wage Deductions
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Sept. 16 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Oregon Court Rejects Per-Paycheck Penalties for Unlawful Wage Deductions
By Christine Sargent
September 15, 2026
On September 10, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's individual and class action wage violation claims in Winn v. Blakeslee Vineyard Estate, Inc., holding that the $200 statutory damages outlined in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Sec.652.615 are awarded per category of statutory violations, not per paycheck, and that the employer's successful cure under
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Sept. 16 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Oregon Court Rejects Per-Paycheck Penalties for Unlawful Wage Deductions
By Christine Sargent
September 15, 2026
On September 10, 2026, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's individual and class action wage violation claims in Winn v. Blakeslee Vineyard Estate, Inc., holding that the $200 statutory damages outlined in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Sec.652.615 are awarded per category of statutory violations, not per paycheck, and that the employer's successful cure underRule 32 I of the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP) barred the plaintiff's class claims.
Background
The plaintiff worked as an hourly employee at the defendant winery's tasting room for eight months in 2022. After resigning, the plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and a class of all affected employees, alleging that the defendant improperly appropriated employees' tip money, failed to compensate employees for all hours worked, and improperly deducted bonuses from employees' paychecks. The defendant moved to dismiss under ORCP 32 I, Oregon's class action cure provision, arguing it had cured the violations by notifying all affected employees of the alleged violations and its plans to remedy them. After initially finding the employer's ORCP 32 I notice deficient, the trial court allowed the defendant to supplement the notice and ultimately dismissed the class claims because the defendant had adequately cured the alleged violations.
Holding
On appeal, the central question concerned the measure of statutory damages under ORS 652.615, which provides, "There is hereby created a private cause of action for a violation of ORS 652.610 (3) for actual damages or $200, whichever is greater." The plaintiff argued that employees were entitled to recover the statutory minimum of $200 for every paycheck containing an unlawful deduction. The defendant argued, and the trial court agreed, that the statute's $200 minimum recovery applied per category or type of violation, not per paycheck or per individual deduction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's interpretation, reasoning that the phrase "a violation" in ORS 652.615 did not mean each paycheck or each unlawful deduction. Instead, the statutory context and legislative history supported that the legislature intended the $200 amount not to function as a "particularly punitive penalty," but rather to "compensate employees while keeping costs manageable for employers." The court noted that when the legislature intends penalties to accrue per pay period or per occurrence, it says so expressly, as it did elsewhere in Oregon's wage statutes, e.g., ORS 652.100, which prohibits falsifying time records and provides a remedy for "each" time the employer engages in such wrongful conduct.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the plaintiff's argument that her request for an accounting of the tips and gratuities received and paid out constituted equitable relief outside the reach of ORCP 32 I. The court determined the action was one for damages, making ORCP 32 I's cure-and-dismiss procedure applicable, and that because the defendant had provided the required notice and offered the remedy the court determined was legally owed, dismissal of the class claims was proper.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's challenge of the dismissal of her individual claims for want of prosecution. After the class claims were dismissed, the trial court ordered plaintiff to submit a stipulated order setting trial date, which the plaintiff did not do, and then issued a "notice of intent to dismiss" advising the plaintiff that the court would dismiss her case if she took no further action. When the plaintiff took no action, the trial court dismissed the individual claims. The trial court then denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the judgment under ORCP 71. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no excusable neglect based on the amount of time that passed between the dismissal notice and the general judgment of dismissal.
Takeaway for Employers
The majority's decision provides a strong defense for Oregon employers against plaintiffs seeking to multiply statutory damages based on every paycheck affected by the same deduction practice, and therefore substantially reduces exposure in wage deduction cases. Employers should also keep in mind that if they discover wage violations, they should promptly evaluate whether ORCP 32 I may be used to cure the issue before class litigation gains momentum.
* * *
Authors
Christine E. Sargent
Shareholder
Portland
csargent@littler.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/oregon-court-rejects-paycheck-penalties-unlawful-wage-deductions
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler: How Employers are Enforcing Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreements
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Sept. 16 (TNSrpt) -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
How Employers are Enforcing Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreements
With 92% losing staff to competitors in the last 12 months, Littler's survey shows how employers are protecting their propriety information and business interests.
September 15, 2026
At a Glance
* 92% of employers saw employees depart to competitors in the last year.
* When such exits involve a restrictive covenant or confidential information violation, 95% of employers took some action in response.
* Strong employment
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, Sept. 16 (TNSrpt) -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
How Employers are Enforcing Non-Compete and Confidentiality Agreements
With 92% losing staff to competitors in the last 12 months, Littler's survey shows how employers are protecting their propriety information and business interests.
September 15, 2026
At a Glance
* 92% of employers saw employees depart to competitors in the last year.
* When such exits involve a restrictive covenant or confidential information violation, 95% of employers took some action in response.
* Strong employmentagreements, monitoring for early warning signs and incentives to deter coordinated exits can limit exposure before an employee departure.
* Read Littler's complete 2026 Employer Survey Report.
-
How often are employees leaving to work for competitors?
Employers are facing an increasingly complex landscape when it comes to employee mobility. According to the Littler(R) Annual Employer Survey Report 2026, released in May and completed by more than 300 executives across the U.S., 92% of employers reported employee departures to competitors over the previous 12 months.
For many, the departure was a single employee. But a meaningful share, 18%, experienced something more disruptive: coordinated group exits that can strip businesses of talent, weaken client relationships and expose proprietary information to rival organizations.
* * *
CHART: Over the past 12 months, have any of your employees departed to competitors?
* * *
What types of restrictive covenant and confidential information violations are most common when an employee leaves for a competitor?
Among employers that saw employees leave for rival companies, more than half, 55%, reported that some type of restrictive covenant or confidential information violation occurred. Specifically, respondents reported:
* 37% said employees exiting for a competitor copied, downloaded or removed confidential information
* 33% said employees violated their contractual non-solicit obligations
* 26% said employees violated non-compete agreements
* 23% said employees violated non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements
* 2% of employees used AI tools to access, extract or transfer confidential business information
While only a small percentage cited the use of AI tools to access, extract or transfer confidential information prior to departure, this type of behavior is likely occurring more frequently than employers realize and it is also likely to increase significantly as AI adoption continues to spread.
* * *
"We're seeing a more competitive environment when it comes to employee mobility, with employees and competitors testing boundaries on non-compete agreements and use of confidential information. Employers are responding aggressively, including with litigation, when they believe their business interests are at risk."
- Melissa L. McDonagh, co-chair of Littler's Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group
* * *
What can employers do to prevent - or at least identify - violations of restrictive covenants?
Beyond the traditional methods of taking confidential information, such as bulk email forwards or transfers to personal cloud accounts, it's important for employers to strengthen monitoring systems to account for AI-enabled access. Can employees query sensitive data? Export it? Delete AI prompts and search histories? These are key questions for organizations to consider as they review confidentiality and computer-use policies on enterprise AI platforms to address these emerging risks.
What do employers do when employees break non-compete, non-solicit and non-disclosure agreements?
Employers are responding to restrictive covenant violations and/or misuse of confidential information assertively, according to Littler's survey. When such a violation occurred, the most common first step was sending a cease-and-desist letter (81%), followed by a reminder letter about ongoing obligations (71%).
Only 5% of employers did not take any action following a restrictive covenant or confidential information violation.
What's notable is how far beyond letters employers are willing to go: 35% of employers initiated litigation or legal action against the employees leaving for rivals. Another 17% initiated litigation against the new employer and an equal share sought emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
* * *
CHART: Did your organization respond with any of the following in response to the departure(s)? (Select all that apply)
This question was only posed to those whose organizations have had employees depart to competitors and where some type of restrictive covenant or confidential information violation occurred.
* * *
That a sizable percentage of employers facing violations chose to pursue litigation or legal action signals both that the stakes are high and that employers increasingly see litigation as a viable path.
Group departures prompt an even stronger response. Of the employers who reported coordinated or group exits and where violations occurred, 51% initiated litigation or legal action against employees, compared with 35% of all respondents - showcasing the significant impact that group exits can have on a business.
How can businesses prevent team lift-outs -- and respond when they do happen?
Across industries, companies are increasingly focused on recruiting entire teams as a faster and less-expensive way to accelerate growth, acquire client relationships and bypass the slower process of building capabilities organically. For businesses facing departures, the challenge is not only responding to these events when they occur but also anticipating them as part of broader risk management strategy.
How to avoid an employee exodus in 4 proactive steps:
1. Modernize employment agreements.
Employers should review contracts to check that they are current, enforceable and aligned with evolving state and federal law, as well as true legitimate business interests requiring protection. Beyond confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions, companies are incorporating stock forfeitures, clawbacks and deferred compensation provisions. Notice periods can also help slow coordinated exits and create critical response time, while multi-jurisdictional enforceability is increasingly important.
2. Enhance monitoring.
Implementing systems to detect potential coordinated departures, including monitoring for unusual access to sensitive information or large data transfers, can provide early visibility and time to respond before escalation.
3. Improve employee retention through culture and incentives.
Compensation matters, but culture is equally critical. Organizations that foster open communication may identify concerns earlier and, in some cases, retain key individuals who can provide insight into coordinated activity. Creating an environment where employees feel comfortable raising external opportunities can serve as an additional safeguard.
4. Develop a response plan for team lift-outs.
Response planning is an enterprise-wide resilience exercise. Legal, HR, IT and communications teams should align on response protocols, including internal messaging, forensic investigation, client outreach, and potential legal action. Having experienced counsel in place can be critical in time-sensitive situations.
* * *
"Group lift-outs remain a top concern for C-suite leaders, driven not only by talent loss but also by the trade secret removal and non-solicitation violations that often follow. Businesses can better position themselves to navigate this evolving dynamic by strengthening employment agreements, monitoring for early warning signs, and strengthening incentives to deter coordinated exits."
- James M. Witz, co-chair of Littler's Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group
* * *
Littler's Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group has extensive experience helping companies guard their valuable assets, effectively hire from rival companies and sustain their competitive edge.
The team has represented thousands of employers on complex and high-stakes matters involving protecting trade secrets, proprietary information and business relationships in today's fast-paced commercial landscape. Littler attorneys represent companies across a range of sizes, industries and jurisdictions and the practice has been lauded by Lex Machina as a leader in both plaintiff and defense side trade secret litigation.
James M. Witz is a trial attorney and co-chair of the Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets practice group, based in Littler's Chicago office. He helps businesses protect their confidential information, trade secrets and relationships as well as legally recruit employees from competitors. He has prosecuted and defended high-profile restrictive covenant and trade secret matters, including cases involving emergency and injunctive relief, in courts across the United States. You can follow James on LinkedIn.
Melissa L. McDonagh is co-chair of Littler's Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets practice group. She partners with employers to protect and grow their businesses, including safeguarding intellectual property, retaining valuable employees and mitigating litigation risk. She works with employers to formulate effective restrictive covenant programs and represents businesses in disputes involving non-compete, non-solicit, trade secret and other unfair competition claims. You can follow Melissa on LinkedIn.
* * *
Authors
James M. Witz
Shareholder
Chicago
jwitz@littler.com
* * *
Melissa L. McDonagh
Shareholder
Boston
mmcdonagh@littler.com
* * *
REPORT: https://www.littler.com/sites/default/files/2026-04/2026_littler_employer_survey_report.pdf?xt22j49l79q
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/littler-report/how-employers-are-enforcing-non-compete-and-confidentiality-agreements
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Advises Zankore on US$3.1 Billion Financing for AI Infrastructure
NEW YORK, Sept. 16 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises Zankore on US$3.1 billion financing for AI infrastructure
Leading global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised Zankore on a US$3.1 billion senior term loan facility, one of Asia's largest AI infrastructure financings.
The financing follows the launch of Zankore in August, with Ooredoo Group, Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison, NVIDIA and Nokia partnering to scale 1GW of NVIDIA DSX AI Factory capacity, with around 200MW of capacity due in the first
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Sept. 16 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises Zankore on US$3.1 billion financing for AI infrastructure
Leading global law firm Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised Zankore on a US$3.1 billion senior term loan facility, one of Asia's largest AI infrastructure financings.
The financing follows the launch of Zankore in August, with Ooredoo Group, Indosat Ooredoo Hutchison, NVIDIA and Nokia partnering to scale 1GW of NVIDIA DSX AI Factory capacity, with around 200MW of capacity due in the firsthalf of 2027.
"The scale and success of this financing reflects the current appetite for access to AI infrastructure in Southeast Asia, and sets a new benchmark for AI infrastructure financing in the region," said finance partner Salonika Rathod, who co-led the team advising Zankore.
"The consortium of financial institutions that supported this transaction also demonstrates that capital is ready to commit to next-generation AI and GPU cloud infrastructure in this region."
The debt financing supports the acquisition and deployment of advanced NVIDIA GPU infrastructure and is the first syndicated deal of this scale in Asia Pacific.
Citi acted as the exclusive debt adviser on the US$3.1 billion senior term loan facility, while Citi, ING, Natixis CIB, Qatar National Bank Group and United Overseas Bank acted as senior mandated lead arrangers, underwriters and bookrunners for the senior term loan facility.
"Any transaction on this scale is only made possible through intense collaboration between all parties," said finance partner Ben Thompson.
"The achievement of this landmark financing is a huge milestone for the region and will only strengthen capital interest in Asian AI infrastructure projects from here. We are delighted to have been involved."
Salonika and Ben led the team advising Zankore on the transaction.
In Singapore they were assisted by senior associate Mark Khouri and associate Yu Xuan Ho and trainee Nigel Chin; and in Jakarta by partner Adrianus Adritomo, senior associates Hanny and Yurico Mandali, and associate Laurentius Adi Prastowo.
In London, partner Nick May, counsel Nicholas Rutter and associate Greg Chan advised on hedging matters, while in New York, senior associate Christopher Boyd advised on US export controls.
* * *
URL: Zankore
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-09/hsfkramer-advises-zankore-on-financing-for-ai-infrastructure
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
