Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Law/Legal
Featured Stories
McGuireWoods Earns 40 Nationwide Practice Rankings in Legal 500 United States Guide
RICHMOND, Virginia, July 3 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
McGuireWoods Earns 40 Nationwide Practice Rankings in Legal 500 United States Guide
McGuireWoods was recognized as a leading law firm in 40 nationwide practice areas in the 2026 edition of the Legal 500 United States, the respected independent guide to the country's top firms and lawyers.
The annual rankings reaffirm McGuireWoods' litigation and transactional strength across industries and practice areas, including energy; banking and finance; M&A and private equity; healthcare; commercial litigation; ... Show Full Article RICHMOND, Virginia, July 3 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * McGuireWoods Earns 40 Nationwide Practice Rankings in Legal 500 United States Guide McGuireWoods was recognized as a leading law firm in 40 nationwide practice areas in the 2026 edition of the Legal 500 United States, the respected independent guide to the country's top firms and lawyers. The annual rankings reaffirm McGuireWoods' litigation and transactional strength across industries and practice areas, including energy; banking and finance; M&A and private equity; healthcare; commercial litigation;corporate investigations and white collar criminal defense; product liability defense; labor and employment; data protection and privacy; and transportation.
The firm earned Tier 1 nationwide rankings in Energy: litigation: electric power; Energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0-500m); and Product liability, mass tort and class action: automotive/transport. Overall, the firm improved its standing in eight practice categories.
Clients interviewed by Legal 500 said McGuireWoods stands out for its comprehensive capabilities, industry knowledge and commitment to delivering excellent service.
"When compared to other firms, the most notable difference is their availability and willingness to assist," an energy industry client said. "Given the size of their firm, McGuireWoods genuinely feels like you're dealing with a smaller boutique firm in terms of results, attention to detail and responsiveness."
A healthcare client added, "Despite their exceptional expertise and high level of accomplishment, every attorney I've worked with has demonstrated humility and professionalism, without any trace of ego. Their approach is refreshing and truly sets them apart."
The firm earned high marks for its "experienced products liability litigators who are able to think outside the box and find creative solutions to resolving costly litigation."
"They take the time to understand my business - both products and people - and use that broad knowledge base to shape their advice," a client said. "It's not transactional, and it's not a one-off strategy with this team; they are mindful of our history and our future."
McGuireWoods also won plaudits for its government investigations and white collar litigation prowess, a longstanding strength of the firm.
"It was evident that the team was comprised of individuals who had spent time within prosecutors' offices prior to joining McGuireWoods, given the skilled nature of their interviews," a client said.
Practice Rankings
McGuireWoods earned rankings in the following nationwide practice areas.
* Antitrust: cartel
* Antitrust - civil litigation and class actions: defense
* Capital markets - debt offerings: advice to issuers
* Commercial lending: advice to bank lenders
* Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense: advice to corporates
* Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense: advice to individuals
* Cyber law (including data protection & privacy)
* Education
* Energy litigation: electric power
* Energy litigation: oil and gas - mid-market ($0-500m)
* Energy regulation: electric power
* Energy: renewable/alternative power
* Energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0-500m)
* Energy transactions: oil and gas - mid-market ($0-500m)
* Environment: litigation
* Environment: regulatory
* Environment: transactional
* Fintech
* General commercial disputes - premium ($500m+)
* Healthcare: service providers
* Insurance: advice to policyholders
* Intellectual property - trade secrets (litigation and non-contentious matters)
* Labor and employment - disputes (including collective action): defense
* Labor & employment: employee benefits, executive compensation & retirement plans: design
* Labor & employment: employee benefits, executive compensation & retirement plans: transactional
* Leading trial lawyers
* M&A: middle market ($0 - $250 million)
* Media, technology and telecoms: outsourcing
* Private equity buyouts: middle-market (up to $500m)
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive/transport
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products (including tobacco)
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: pharmaceuticals and medical devices
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - toxic tort: defense
* Project finance: energy and power
* Real estate: finance
* Real estate: land use/zoning
* Tax: U.S. taxes - non-contentious
* Transport: aviation and air travel - finance
* Transport: rail and road - litigation and regulation
* Transport: shipping - litigation and regulatory
Leading Lawyers
McGuireWoods lawyers were recognized individually throughout the guide, with 14 lawyers singled out as Leading Partners in their practice areas and another named a Leading Trial Lawyer. They are:
* Heather Welch Arbogast, energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0 - $500m)
* Eric Bilik, transport: rail and road - litigation and regulation
* Anthony Carna, energy transactions: oil and gas - mid-market ($0 - $500m)
* Taylor French, employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design
* Shelby Guilbert, insurance: advice to policyholders
* Benjamin Hatch, product liability, mass tort and class action: automotive/transport
* Joanne Katsantonis, energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0 - $500m); M&A: middle market ($0-$250m)
* Brian Kelly, energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0 - $500m)
* Ava Lias-Booker, leading trial lawyers
* Amy Manning, antitrust: cartel
* Todd Mullins, energy: litigation: electric power
* John Padgett, transport: shipping - litigation and regulation
* Deepak Reddy, aviation and air travel: finance
* Samuel Tarry, product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive/transport
* Michael Woodard, M&A: middle market ($0-$250m).
In addition, Katlyn Davis Farrell (energy litigation: electric power), Gregory Fosheim (healthcare: service providers), Allison Tanner (employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design) and Natalie Zagari (transport: rail and road - litigation) were singled out as "Next Generation Partners," a designation reserved for younger partners "who make a material difference to the practice."
Counsel Katie Rak (Labor & employment: employee benefits, executive compensation & retirement plans: design) and associate Molleigh Thomas (Energy transactions: oil & gas - mid-market) also earned recognition as leading lawyers.
Legal 500 also highlighted more than 140 McGuireWoods lawyers in its editorial coverage of the firm's practices. The complete rankings can be found here (https://www.legal500.com/c/united-states).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/7/mcguirewoods-earns-40-nationwide-practice-rankings-in-legal-500-united-states-guide/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
McGuireWoods Earns 40 Nationwide Practice Rankings in Legal 500 United States Guide
McGuireWoods was recognized as a leading law firm in 40 nationwide practice areas in the 2026 edition of the Legal 500 United States, the respected independent guide to the country's top firms and lawyers.
The annual rankings reaffirm McGuireWoods' litigation and transactional strength across industries and practice areas, including energy; banking and finance; M&A and private equity; healthcare; commercial litigation; ... Show Full Article RICHMOND, Virginia, July 3 -- McGuireWoods, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * McGuireWoods Earns 40 Nationwide Practice Rankings in Legal 500 United States Guide McGuireWoods was recognized as a leading law firm in 40 nationwide practice areas in the 2026 edition of the Legal 500 United States, the respected independent guide to the country's top firms and lawyers. The annual rankings reaffirm McGuireWoods' litigation and transactional strength across industries and practice areas, including energy; banking and finance; M&A and private equity; healthcare; commercial litigation;corporate investigations and white collar criminal defense; product liability defense; labor and employment; data protection and privacy; and transportation.
The firm earned Tier 1 nationwide rankings in Energy: litigation: electric power; Energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0-500m); and Product liability, mass tort and class action: automotive/transport. Overall, the firm improved its standing in eight practice categories.
Clients interviewed by Legal 500 said McGuireWoods stands out for its comprehensive capabilities, industry knowledge and commitment to delivering excellent service.
"When compared to other firms, the most notable difference is their availability and willingness to assist," an energy industry client said. "Given the size of their firm, McGuireWoods genuinely feels like you're dealing with a smaller boutique firm in terms of results, attention to detail and responsiveness."
A healthcare client added, "Despite their exceptional expertise and high level of accomplishment, every attorney I've worked with has demonstrated humility and professionalism, without any trace of ego. Their approach is refreshing and truly sets them apart."
The firm earned high marks for its "experienced products liability litigators who are able to think outside the box and find creative solutions to resolving costly litigation."
"They take the time to understand my business - both products and people - and use that broad knowledge base to shape their advice," a client said. "It's not transactional, and it's not a one-off strategy with this team; they are mindful of our history and our future."
McGuireWoods also won plaudits for its government investigations and white collar litigation prowess, a longstanding strength of the firm.
"It was evident that the team was comprised of individuals who had spent time within prosecutors' offices prior to joining McGuireWoods, given the skilled nature of their interviews," a client said.
Practice Rankings
McGuireWoods earned rankings in the following nationwide practice areas.
* Antitrust: cartel
* Antitrust - civil litigation and class actions: defense
* Capital markets - debt offerings: advice to issuers
* Commercial lending: advice to bank lenders
* Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense: advice to corporates
* Corporate investigations and white-collar criminal defense: advice to individuals
* Cyber law (including data protection & privacy)
* Education
* Energy litigation: electric power
* Energy litigation: oil and gas - mid-market ($0-500m)
* Energy regulation: electric power
* Energy: renewable/alternative power
* Energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0-500m)
* Energy transactions: oil and gas - mid-market ($0-500m)
* Environment: litigation
* Environment: regulatory
* Environment: transactional
* Fintech
* General commercial disputes - premium ($500m+)
* Healthcare: service providers
* Insurance: advice to policyholders
* Intellectual property - trade secrets (litigation and non-contentious matters)
* Labor and employment - disputes (including collective action): defense
* Labor & employment: employee benefits, executive compensation & retirement plans: design
* Labor & employment: employee benefits, executive compensation & retirement plans: transactional
* Leading trial lawyers
* M&A: middle market ($0 - $250 million)
* Media, technology and telecoms: outsourcing
* Private equity buyouts: middle-market (up to $500m)
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive/transport
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: consumer products (including tobacco)
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: pharmaceuticals and medical devices
* Product liability, mass tort and class action - toxic tort: defense
* Project finance: energy and power
* Real estate: finance
* Real estate: land use/zoning
* Tax: U.S. taxes - non-contentious
* Transport: aviation and air travel - finance
* Transport: rail and road - litigation and regulation
* Transport: shipping - litigation and regulatory
Leading Lawyers
McGuireWoods lawyers were recognized individually throughout the guide, with 14 lawyers singled out as Leading Partners in their practice areas and another named a Leading Trial Lawyer. They are:
* Heather Welch Arbogast, energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0 - $500m)
* Eric Bilik, transport: rail and road - litigation and regulation
* Anthony Carna, energy transactions: oil and gas - mid-market ($0 - $500m)
* Taylor French, employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design
* Shelby Guilbert, insurance: advice to policyholders
* Benjamin Hatch, product liability, mass tort and class action: automotive/transport
* Joanne Katsantonis, energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0 - $500m); M&A: middle market ($0-$250m)
* Brian Kelly, energy transactions: electric power - mid-market ($0 - $500m)
* Ava Lias-Booker, leading trial lawyers
* Amy Manning, antitrust: cartel
* Todd Mullins, energy: litigation: electric power
* John Padgett, transport: shipping - litigation and regulation
* Deepak Reddy, aviation and air travel: finance
* Samuel Tarry, product liability, mass tort and class action - defense: automotive/transport
* Michael Woodard, M&A: middle market ($0-$250m).
In addition, Katlyn Davis Farrell (energy litigation: electric power), Gregory Fosheim (healthcare: service providers), Allison Tanner (employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design) and Natalie Zagari (transport: rail and road - litigation) were singled out as "Next Generation Partners," a designation reserved for younger partners "who make a material difference to the practice."
Counsel Katie Rak (Labor & employment: employee benefits, executive compensation & retirement plans: design) and associate Molleigh Thomas (Energy transactions: oil & gas - mid-market) also earned recognition as leading lawyers.
Legal 500 also highlighted more than 140 McGuireWoods lawyers in its editorial coverage of the firm's practices. The complete rankings can be found here (https://www.legal500.com/c/united-states).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/7/mcguirewoods-earns-40-nationwide-practice-rankings-in-legal-500-united-states-guide/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Jones Day's Aaron Agenbroad Named a 2026 "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal
CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 3 -- Jones Day, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jones Day's Aaron Agenbroad named a 2026 "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal
Jones Day Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco Office Aaron Agenbroad has been named a "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal. The list recognizes California attorneys who specialize in labor and employment litigation and counseling.
Mr. Agenbroad is a leading labor and employment lawyer who guides major clients through their most significant challenges across both employment litigation and traditional ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 3 -- Jones Day, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Jones Day's Aaron Agenbroad named a 2026 "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal Jones Day Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco Office Aaron Agenbroad has been named a "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal. The list recognizes California attorneys who specialize in labor and employment litigation and counseling. Mr. Agenbroad is a leading labor and employment lawyer who guides major clients through their most significant challenges across both employment litigation and traditionallabor matters.
He recently led Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital through collective bargaining negotiations for a successor contract involving 5,000 nurses. He also led successful successor contract negotiations on behalf of those same clients for a new three-year CBA covering over 3,500 service and technical employees.
Mr. Agenbroad served as lead counsel in the defense of NLRB charges brought against a major technology company in connection with a group of employees who staged unlawful workplace sit-ins, resulting in the claims being withdrawn.
Additionally, he served as lead negotiator on behalf of ITT in contentious collective bargaining negotiations that secured enhanced operational flexibility, and defended an eVTOL company in class and PAGA claims brought on behalf of hundreds of nonexempt employees, driving a favorable settlement.
* * *
Jones Day is a global law firm with 2,500 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by: a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.jonesday.com/en/news/2026/07/jones-days-aaron-agenbroad-named-a-2026-top-labor--employment-lawyer-by-the-daily-journal
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Jones Day's Aaron Agenbroad named a 2026 "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal
Jones Day Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco Office Aaron Agenbroad has been named a "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal. The list recognizes California attorneys who specialize in labor and employment litigation and counseling.
Mr. Agenbroad is a leading labor and employment lawyer who guides major clients through their most significant challenges across both employment litigation and traditional ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 3 -- Jones Day, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Jones Day's Aaron Agenbroad named a 2026 "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal Jones Day Partner-in-Charge of the San Francisco Office Aaron Agenbroad has been named a "Top Labor & Employment Lawyer" by the Daily Journal. The list recognizes California attorneys who specialize in labor and employment litigation and counseling. Mr. Agenbroad is a leading labor and employment lawyer who guides major clients through their most significant challenges across both employment litigation and traditionallabor matters.
He recently led Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital through collective bargaining negotiations for a successor contract involving 5,000 nurses. He also led successful successor contract negotiations on behalf of those same clients for a new three-year CBA covering over 3,500 service and technical employees.
Mr. Agenbroad served as lead counsel in the defense of NLRB charges brought against a major technology company in connection with a group of employees who staged unlawful workplace sit-ins, resulting in the claims being withdrawn.
Additionally, he served as lead negotiator on behalf of ITT in contentious collective bargaining negotiations that secured enhanced operational flexibility, and defended an eVTOL company in class and PAGA claims brought on behalf of hundreds of nonexempt employees, driving a favorable settlement.
* * *
Jones Day is a global law firm with 2,500 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by: a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.jonesday.com/en/news/2026/07/jones-days-aaron-agenbroad-named-a-2026-top-labor--employment-lawyer-by-the-daily-journal
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hughes Hubbard & Reed: Chris Gartman Discusses Evolving Creditor-On-Creditor Disputes
NEW YORK, July 3 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Chris Gartman Discusses Evolving Creditor-on-Creditor Disputes
Borrowers and private equity sponsors continue to develop new tools to avoid bankruptcy.
Highlights
* Creditor-on-creditor disputes and liability management exercises continue to evolve as borrowers and sponsors look to avoid bankruptcy.
* More challenges to liability management exercises are proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
* Liability management exercises are leading to more investigations, both internal by companies appointing ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Chris Gartman Discusses Evolving Creditor-on-Creditor Disputes Borrowers and private equity sponsors continue to develop new tools to avoid bankruptcy. Highlights * Creditor-on-creditor disputes and liability management exercises continue to evolve as borrowers and sponsors look to avoid bankruptcy. * More challenges to liability management exercises are proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage. * Liability management exercises are leading to more investigations, both internal by companies appointingindependent committees to conduct investigations and by examiners appointed by courts to probe disputed transactions.
* Gartman notes a growing shift toward pro-rata liability management exercises.
-
Chris Gartman discussed the constant evolution of creditor-on-creditor disputes and liability management exercises (LMEs) with Alternative Credit Investor.
Gartman noted that borrowers and private equity sponsors continue to develop new tools to avoid bankruptcy, driving constant change in the market, but that those using LMEs often end up in bankruptcy anyway. Given the complexity and constantly changing dynamics in LMEs, it is critical to have counsel that is well versed in these transactions. "You need to make sure that you're tracking everything. The deal documents, the litigation element, the courts and the judges that are issuing those decisions," Gartman said.
Whether before or after bankruptcy, LMEs are leading to significant litigation. According to Gartman, one trend is that lenders are buying in after a LME has closed, and then pursuing litigation.
He further observed that more cases are proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage. Investigations by independent committees of a borrower's board of directors and/or a creditors' committee are also becoming more common, and bankruptcy courts are increasingly appointing examiners to probe these transactions.
Gartman also noted an increasing shift to pro-rata transactions.
"That means that most or all the lenders are participating in the LME," he said. "A lot of the litigation that has been pursued to date has been about non-pro-rata deals because we're talking about deals that were done several years ago that are now being challenged. But I think that there's less of an appetite for mass litigation so there is more of a shift."
Read the article (https://alternativecreditinvestor.com/2026/07/01/creditor-on-creditor-violence-heats-up-as-lenders-weaponise-co-ops/).
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Chris Gartman
Partner
Locations
New York
chris.gartman@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6350
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/chris-gartman-discusses-evolving-creditor-on-creditor-disputes
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Chris Gartman Discusses Evolving Creditor-on-Creditor Disputes
Borrowers and private equity sponsors continue to develop new tools to avoid bankruptcy.
Highlights
* Creditor-on-creditor disputes and liability management exercises continue to evolve as borrowers and sponsors look to avoid bankruptcy.
* More challenges to liability management exercises are proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
* Liability management exercises are leading to more investigations, both internal by companies appointing ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 -- Hughes Hubbard and Reed, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Chris Gartman Discusses Evolving Creditor-on-Creditor Disputes Borrowers and private equity sponsors continue to develop new tools to avoid bankruptcy. Highlights * Creditor-on-creditor disputes and liability management exercises continue to evolve as borrowers and sponsors look to avoid bankruptcy. * More challenges to liability management exercises are proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage. * Liability management exercises are leading to more investigations, both internal by companies appointingindependent committees to conduct investigations and by examiners appointed by courts to probe disputed transactions.
* Gartman notes a growing shift toward pro-rata liability management exercises.
-
Chris Gartman discussed the constant evolution of creditor-on-creditor disputes and liability management exercises (LMEs) with Alternative Credit Investor.
Gartman noted that borrowers and private equity sponsors continue to develop new tools to avoid bankruptcy, driving constant change in the market, but that those using LMEs often end up in bankruptcy anyway. Given the complexity and constantly changing dynamics in LMEs, it is critical to have counsel that is well versed in these transactions. "You need to make sure that you're tracking everything. The deal documents, the litigation element, the courts and the judges that are issuing those decisions," Gartman said.
Whether before or after bankruptcy, LMEs are leading to significant litigation. According to Gartman, one trend is that lenders are buying in after a LME has closed, and then pursuing litigation.
He further observed that more cases are proceeding past the motion-to-dismiss stage. Investigations by independent committees of a borrower's board of directors and/or a creditors' committee are also becoming more common, and bankruptcy courts are increasingly appointing examiners to probe these transactions.
Gartman also noted an increasing shift to pro-rata transactions.
"That means that most or all the lenders are participating in the LME," he said. "A lot of the litigation that has been pursued to date has been about non-pro-rata deals because we're talking about deals that were done several years ago that are now being challenged. But I think that there's less of an appetite for mass litigation so there is more of a shift."
Read the article (https://alternativecreditinvestor.com/2026/07/01/creditor-on-creditor-violence-heats-up-as-lenders-weaponise-co-ops/).
* * *
Featured Lawyers
Chris Gartman
Partner
Locations
New York
chris.gartman@hugheshubbard.com
+1 (212) 837-6350
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news-insights/insights/chris-gartman-discusses-evolving-creditor-on-creditor-disputes
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hooper, Lundy and Bookman Issues Commentary: California Attorney General's Corporate Practice of Medicine Settlement With Carbon Health - Takeaways for the Friendly PC Model
LOS ANGELES, California, July 3 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by associate Michael Shimada and partners Stephen K. Phillips and Charles B. Oppenheim:
* * *
California Attorney General's Corporate Practice of Medicine (CPOM) Settlement With Carbon Health: Takeaways for the Friendly PC Model
On June 26, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement (subject to court approval) with Carbon Health Technologies, Inc. (the "Carbon Health MSO"), twelve affiliated professional corporations ("PCs"), and CHTI's co-founder ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 3 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by associate Michael Shimada and partners Stephen K. Phillips and Charles B. Oppenheim: * * * California Attorney General's Corporate Practice of Medicine (CPOM) Settlement With Carbon Health: Takeaways for the Friendly PC Model On June 26, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement (subject to court approval) with Carbon Health Technologies, Inc. (the "Carbon Health MSO"), twelve affiliated professional corporations ("PCs"), and CHTI's co-founderand former CEO, Eren Bali, resolving allegations that Carbon Health's "friendly PC" model violated California's prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine ("CPOM"), along with related false advertising and consumer protection claims. The proposed judgment imposes $4.4 million in civil penalties against the Carbon Health entities and a $100,000 civil penalty against Mr. Bali individually, and it permanently enjoins Carbon Health from operating under several contractual arrangements the AG considers impermissible.
The settlement is not a judicial ruling on the merits. The parties stipulated to entry of the judgment as a compromise of disputed claims, without any admission of liability, and the settlement is subject to approval by both the Los Angeles Superior Court and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, where Carbon Health recently confirmed its Chapter 11 reorganization plan. Even so, the judgment gives health care providers, investors, and management services organizations ("MSOs") a clearer picture of which contractual terms the AG considers problematic under CPOM.
Read together with the AG's amicus brief in Art Center v. WCE CA Art, LLC and the AG's May 2026 settlement with Aspen Dental over alleged violations of the corporate practice of dentistry and related issues, the Carbon Health settlement demonstrates that the AG views CPOM enforcement as a priority.
What the Complaint Alleged
According to the AG, Carbon Health's friendly PC arrangement gave the MSO control over the PCs that went well beyond the administrative and business functions that California law permits an MSO to perform. Specifically, the AG alleged:
* Overbroad MSO Authority: The management services agreements gave the Carbon Health MSO "complete authority over advertising; payor negotiations; selection of medical equipment; and the hiring, firing, and compensation" of the PCs' licensed clinicians. The AG also alleged that the Carbon Health MSO's Board of Directors discussed clinician staffing and performance, billing processes, and payor contracting.
* Continuity / Succession Provision: The physician shareholders granted the Carbon Health MSO an assignable option that permitted the Carbon Health MSO, in its sole discretion, to cause the PC's stock to be transferred to a physician of the Carbon Health MSO's choosing upon the occurrence of specified triggers, including if the Carbon Health MSO determined that the shareholder's continued ownership would impair the Carbon Health MSO's ability to provide management services.
The AG also alleged the following consumer protection violations which, while not CPOM in nature, may well have contributed to the AG's aggressive enforcement posture: (1) misrepresenting in-network status with payors, (2) overcharging patients, (3) submitting incorrect billing codes to payors, and (4) auto-charging patient credit and debit cards with limited or no notice.
The Settlement
In addition to the monetary penalties, the proposed judgment permanently enjoins the Carbon Health MSO from engaging in certain conduct that the AG views as CPOM, including but not limited to the following:
1. Having a management services agreement that grants the MSO "complete authority" over advertising, payor negotiations, selection of medical equipment, and the hiring, firing, and compensation of licensed medical professionals.
2. Having any ownership interest in a PC, including through an assignable option agreement which grants the MSO the right to acquire the PC's ownership interests for its own account.
3. Having a revolving credit agreement that requires affiliated PCs to seek financing exclusively from the MSO at above-market rates.
The judgment also enjoins the false advertising and improper billing practices alleged in the complaint and, unusually, imposes a $100,000 civil penalty on Mr. Bali personally, putting corporate officers and founders on notice that alleged CPOM violations could lead to individual exposure.
Key Takeaways
Providers and MSOs operating under the friendly PC model should review the following features of their agreements:
* Scope of MSO Authority: Does the management services agreement appear to give the MSO "complete authority" over clinical hiring, firing, or compensation; payor contracting and billing decisions in a manner that affects clinical care; or medical equipment selection?
* Continuity and Succession Provisions: The settlement prohibits assignable options that permit the Carbon Health MSO "to acquire such ownership interests for its own account." It does not appear to foreclose more customary continuity / succession arrangements (i.e., those triggered by defined events such as death, disability, loss of license, or material breach and directing transfer to a licensed successor physician rather than to the MSO), but the AG's recent enforcement posture (including its position in Art Center Holdings) invites caution. Providers and MSOs should consider whether their agreements contain triggering events for share transfers based on concrete, for-cause circumstances (death, disability, loss of license, uncured material breach) rather than open-ended MSO discretion.
* Termination Rights: Evaluate whether the PC has meaningful termination remedies for cause, without forfeiting the practice. Reasonable MSO protections against unilateral, without-cause termination presumably remain permissible, but may face heightened scrutiny in this enforcement environment.
* Financing Arrangements: Distinguish market-rate secured lending, which the Carbon Health judgment expressly preserves, from exclusive, above-market captive financing.
* * *
HLB regularly advises health care providers, MSOs, and investors on the design and operation of friendly PC arrangements. For more information or assistance with these issues, please contact Charles Oppenheim, Stephen Phillips, Michael Shimada, or your regular HLB contact.
* * *
Professionals
Charles B. Oppenheim
Partner
Los Angeles: 310.551.8110
San Francisco: 415.875.8494
coppenheim@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Stephen K. Phillips
Partner
San Francisco: 415.875.8508
sphillips@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Michael Shimada
Associate
San Francisco: 415.875.8496
mshimada@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Original text here: https://hooperlundy.com/california-attorney-generals-corporate-practice-of-medicine-cpom-settlement-with-carbon-health-takeaways-for-the-friendly-pc-model/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
California Attorney General's Corporate Practice of Medicine (CPOM) Settlement With Carbon Health: Takeaways for the Friendly PC Model
On June 26, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement (subject to court approval) with Carbon Health Technologies, Inc. (the "Carbon Health MSO"), twelve affiliated professional corporations ("PCs"), and CHTI's co-founder ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, July 3 -- Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by associate Michael Shimada and partners Stephen K. Phillips and Charles B. Oppenheim: * * * California Attorney General's Corporate Practice of Medicine (CPOM) Settlement With Carbon Health: Takeaways for the Friendly PC Model On June 26, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement (subject to court approval) with Carbon Health Technologies, Inc. (the "Carbon Health MSO"), twelve affiliated professional corporations ("PCs"), and CHTI's co-founderand former CEO, Eren Bali, resolving allegations that Carbon Health's "friendly PC" model violated California's prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine ("CPOM"), along with related false advertising and consumer protection claims. The proposed judgment imposes $4.4 million in civil penalties against the Carbon Health entities and a $100,000 civil penalty against Mr. Bali individually, and it permanently enjoins Carbon Health from operating under several contractual arrangements the AG considers impermissible.
The settlement is not a judicial ruling on the merits. The parties stipulated to entry of the judgment as a compromise of disputed claims, without any admission of liability, and the settlement is subject to approval by both the Los Angeles Superior Court and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, where Carbon Health recently confirmed its Chapter 11 reorganization plan. Even so, the judgment gives health care providers, investors, and management services organizations ("MSOs") a clearer picture of which contractual terms the AG considers problematic under CPOM.
Read together with the AG's amicus brief in Art Center v. WCE CA Art, LLC and the AG's May 2026 settlement with Aspen Dental over alleged violations of the corporate practice of dentistry and related issues, the Carbon Health settlement demonstrates that the AG views CPOM enforcement as a priority.
What the Complaint Alleged
According to the AG, Carbon Health's friendly PC arrangement gave the MSO control over the PCs that went well beyond the administrative and business functions that California law permits an MSO to perform. Specifically, the AG alleged:
* Overbroad MSO Authority: The management services agreements gave the Carbon Health MSO "complete authority over advertising; payor negotiations; selection of medical equipment; and the hiring, firing, and compensation" of the PCs' licensed clinicians. The AG also alleged that the Carbon Health MSO's Board of Directors discussed clinician staffing and performance, billing processes, and payor contracting.
* Continuity / Succession Provision: The physician shareholders granted the Carbon Health MSO an assignable option that permitted the Carbon Health MSO, in its sole discretion, to cause the PC's stock to be transferred to a physician of the Carbon Health MSO's choosing upon the occurrence of specified triggers, including if the Carbon Health MSO determined that the shareholder's continued ownership would impair the Carbon Health MSO's ability to provide management services.
The AG also alleged the following consumer protection violations which, while not CPOM in nature, may well have contributed to the AG's aggressive enforcement posture: (1) misrepresenting in-network status with payors, (2) overcharging patients, (3) submitting incorrect billing codes to payors, and (4) auto-charging patient credit and debit cards with limited or no notice.
The Settlement
In addition to the monetary penalties, the proposed judgment permanently enjoins the Carbon Health MSO from engaging in certain conduct that the AG views as CPOM, including but not limited to the following:
1. Having a management services agreement that grants the MSO "complete authority" over advertising, payor negotiations, selection of medical equipment, and the hiring, firing, and compensation of licensed medical professionals.
2. Having any ownership interest in a PC, including through an assignable option agreement which grants the MSO the right to acquire the PC's ownership interests for its own account.
3. Having a revolving credit agreement that requires affiliated PCs to seek financing exclusively from the MSO at above-market rates.
The judgment also enjoins the false advertising and improper billing practices alleged in the complaint and, unusually, imposes a $100,000 civil penalty on Mr. Bali personally, putting corporate officers and founders on notice that alleged CPOM violations could lead to individual exposure.
Key Takeaways
Providers and MSOs operating under the friendly PC model should review the following features of their agreements:
* Scope of MSO Authority: Does the management services agreement appear to give the MSO "complete authority" over clinical hiring, firing, or compensation; payor contracting and billing decisions in a manner that affects clinical care; or medical equipment selection?
* Continuity and Succession Provisions: The settlement prohibits assignable options that permit the Carbon Health MSO "to acquire such ownership interests for its own account." It does not appear to foreclose more customary continuity / succession arrangements (i.e., those triggered by defined events such as death, disability, loss of license, or material breach and directing transfer to a licensed successor physician rather than to the MSO), but the AG's recent enforcement posture (including its position in Art Center Holdings) invites caution. Providers and MSOs should consider whether their agreements contain triggering events for share transfers based on concrete, for-cause circumstances (death, disability, loss of license, uncured material breach) rather than open-ended MSO discretion.
* Termination Rights: Evaluate whether the PC has meaningful termination remedies for cause, without forfeiting the practice. Reasonable MSO protections against unilateral, without-cause termination presumably remain permissible, but may face heightened scrutiny in this enforcement environment.
* Financing Arrangements: Distinguish market-rate secured lending, which the Carbon Health judgment expressly preserves, from exclusive, above-market captive financing.
* * *
HLB regularly advises health care providers, MSOs, and investors on the design and operation of friendly PC arrangements. For more information or assistance with these issues, please contact Charles Oppenheim, Stephen Phillips, Michael Shimada, or your regular HLB contact.
* * *
Professionals
Charles B. Oppenheim
Partner
Los Angeles: 310.551.8110
San Francisco: 415.875.8494
coppenheim@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Stephen K. Phillips
Partner
San Francisco: 415.875.8508
sphillips@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Michael Shimada
Associate
San Francisco: 415.875.8496
mshimada@hooperlundy.com
* * *
Original text here: https://hooperlundy.com/california-attorney-generals-corporate-practice-of-medicine-cpom-settlement-with-carbon-health-takeaways-for-the-friendly-pc-model/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Advises MASECO on Its Acquisition by Creative Planning
NEW YORK, July 3 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises MASECO on its acquisition by Creative Planning
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised MASECO LLP, a London-based registered investment adviser ("RIA") specialising in cross-border wealth management, on its acquisition by Creative Planning, one of the largest RIAs in the United States. The matter was supported by a multidisciplinary transatlantic team, reflecting the cross-border nature of the transaction and the firm's integrated UK and US capabilities.
Founded ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises MASECO on its acquisition by Creative Planning Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised MASECO LLP, a London-based registered investment adviser ("RIA") specialising in cross-border wealth management, on its acquisition by Creative Planning, one of the largest RIAs in the United States. The matter was supported by a multidisciplinary transatlantic team, reflecting the cross-border nature of the transaction and the firm's integrated UK and US capabilities. Foundedin 2008, MASECO LLP was established to support internationally mobile families in navigating the complexities of cross-border wealth management.
The transaction has now successfully completed following receipt of the required regulatory approvals. The combination strengthens Creative Planning's global wealth management offering and adds 123 employees and over US$5 billion in assets under management to the firm.
The Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer team in the UK was led by Corporate partners James Palmer, Shaun Lee and Josh Lom, senior associates Sena Calin and James Tryfonos and associates Nicholas Tubbs, Isha Goel and James Tatton. The team in the US was led by Corporate partner John Lagrou, Head of State and Local Tax US Pamela Capps and Tax special counsel Rita Celebrezze D'Souza. The wider team also included Financial Services Regulatory partner Marina Reason and of counsel Chris Hurn and Employment partner Nick Wright and associate Lydia Carrington.
Houlihan Lokey and Spencer House Partners acted as financial advisers to MASECO.
* * *
URL: MASECO
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-07/hsf-kramer-advises-maseco-on-its-acquisition-by-creative-planning
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises MASECO on its acquisition by Creative Planning
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised MASECO LLP, a London-based registered investment adviser ("RIA") specialising in cross-border wealth management, on its acquisition by Creative Planning, one of the largest RIAs in the United States. The matter was supported by a multidisciplinary transatlantic team, reflecting the cross-border nature of the transaction and the firm's integrated UK and US capabilities.
Founded ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, July 3 -- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, a law firm, issued the following news: * * * Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer advises MASECO on its acquisition by Creative Planning Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer has advised MASECO LLP, a London-based registered investment adviser ("RIA") specialising in cross-border wealth management, on its acquisition by Creative Planning, one of the largest RIAs in the United States. The matter was supported by a multidisciplinary transatlantic team, reflecting the cross-border nature of the transaction and the firm's integrated UK and US capabilities. Foundedin 2008, MASECO LLP was established to support internationally mobile families in navigating the complexities of cross-border wealth management.
The transaction has now successfully completed following receipt of the required regulatory approvals. The combination strengthens Creative Planning's global wealth management offering and adds 123 employees and over US$5 billion in assets under management to the firm.
The Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer team in the UK was led by Corporate partners James Palmer, Shaun Lee and Josh Lom, senior associates Sena Calin and James Tryfonos and associates Nicholas Tubbs, Isha Goel and James Tatton. The team in the US was led by Corporate partner John Lagrou, Head of State and Local Tax US Pamela Capps and Tax special counsel Rita Celebrezze D'Souza. The wider team also included Financial Services Regulatory partner Marina Reason and of counsel Chris Hurn and Employment partner Nick Wright and associate Lydia Carrington.
Houlihan Lokey and Spencer House Partners acted as financial advisers to MASECO.
* * *
URL: MASECO
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hsfkramer.com/news/2026-07/hsf-kramer-advises-maseco-on-its-acquisition-by-creative-planning
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Four Thompson Hine Lawyers Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers
CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 3 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Four Thompson Hine Lawyers Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers
Four lawyers from Thompson Hine LLP have been selected to the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list. This exclusive honor recognizes the top 5% of outstanding lawyers in each state or region in more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
Included in the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list:
* Karen Boyd, partner, IP Litigation
* Marc David ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 3 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * Four Thompson Hine Lawyers Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers Four lawyers from Thompson Hine LLP have been selected to the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list. This exclusive honor recognizes the top 5% of outstanding lawyers in each state or region in more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Included in the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list: * Karen Boyd, partner, IP Litigation * Marc DavidPeters, partner, IP Litigation
* Keeley I. Vega, partner, IP Litigation
* Jacob Zweig, senior counsel, IP Litigation
* * *
Original text here: https://www.thompsonhine.com/insights/four-thompson-hine-lawyers-recognized-by-2026-northern-california-super-lawyers/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Four Thompson Hine Lawyers Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers
Four lawyers from Thompson Hine LLP have been selected to the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list. This exclusive honor recognizes the top 5% of outstanding lawyers in each state or region in more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
Included in the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list:
* Karen Boyd, partner, IP Litigation
* Marc David ... Show Full Article CLEVELAND, Ohio, July 3 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release: * * * Four Thompson Hine Lawyers Recognized by 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers Four lawyers from Thompson Hine LLP have been selected to the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list. This exclusive honor recognizes the top 5% of outstanding lawyers in each state or region in more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Included in the 2026 Northern California Super Lawyers list: * Karen Boyd, partner, IP Litigation * Marc DavidPeters, partner, IP Litigation
* Keeley I. Vega, partner, IP Litigation
* Jacob Zweig, senior counsel, IP Litigation
* * *
Original text here: https://www.thompsonhine.com/insights/four-thompson-hine-lawyers-recognized-by-2026-northern-california-super-lawyers/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath Issues Commentary: Packaging Sustainability and Compliance, Including Extended Producer Responsibility
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 3 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by partner Bonnie Allyn Barnett and associates Amy L. Waite, Amani B. Khoury and Thayer Elizabeth Ellis:
* * *
Packaging Sustainability and Compliance, Including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
What producers need to know now
At a Glance
* Laws in pursuit of environmentally sustainable packaging are on the rise.
* EPR programs face significant constitutional challenges in multiple states, raising fundamental questions about fee-setting authority, delegation ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 3 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by partner Bonnie Allyn Barnett and associates Amy L. Waite, Amani B. Khoury and Thayer Elizabeth Ellis: * * * Packaging Sustainability and Compliance, Including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) What producers need to know now At a Glance * Laws in pursuit of environmentally sustainable packaging are on the rise. * EPR programs face significant constitutional challenges in multiple states, raising fundamental questions about fee-setting authority, delegationto private entities, and the boundaries of state regulation of interstate commerce.
* Pending litigation does not currently provide grounds for non-NAW producers to delay or avoid compliance in any state. Producers should maintain full compliance with packaging laws, including EPR, while monitoring litigation developments.
* When assessing the environmental impact of packaging, companies should also consider chemicals of concern, such as PFAS and microplastics.
-
Overview
In the last four years, several statutes and regulations were enacted to address the environmental sustainability of packaging. These laws are aimed at improving circularity, reducing single-use plastic, prohibiting chemicals of concern, enhancing recycling infrastructure, stimulating recycling markets, and driving innovation. Such laws institute significant compliance burdens on manufacturers of packaged products. For example, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws place the burden on companies to fund end-of-life management for their product packaging.
Seven states -- Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington -- have now enacted comprehensive EPR packaging laws, and the landscape is evolving rapidly with active litigation in three states. Additionally, New Jersey's Recycled Content Law establishes minimum thresholds for recycled content in several plastic and glass containers, and the delayed implementation with respect to food packaging ends in January 2027. Rather than mere environmental initiatives, packaging sustainability has become an important business consideration affecting product development, distribution, and financial planning, particularly for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.
EPR at a Glance
To comply with EPR laws, companies must assess in each state (1) whether they qualify as a "producer" and (2) whether their packaging is considered "covered material." Most states define "producer" using a hierarchical approach: the first obligated entity is generally the manufacturer and/or brand owner or licensee of a packaged product. If none of these are US entities, the first importer or distributor of the packaged product into the state is typically the obligated producer. California's hierarchy differs in that the manufacturer/brand owner or licensee must be "in the state" of California to be the obligated producer. Each state also provides exceptions for small or de minimis producers based on revenue or material volume thresholds.
Once a business determines that it is a producer in a state, it must review its product packaging to determine whether it meets the state's definition of "covered material." These definitions vary by state -- each generally targets single-use consumer packaging but includes unique exemptions. In addition, Oregon and California include most business-to-business packaging in the scope of covered materials. Producers of paper products and food serviceware may also have obligations.
After making these determinations, regulated businesses must register with the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) and submit the required data. In most states, this requires reporting the types and weights of covered materials supplied to the state during the prior calendar year. In California, additional source reduction reporting and planning is required with respect to single-use plastic. To date, the nonprofit Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the approved PRO in the US for paper, food serviceware, and most packaging, though additional PROs could be approved in some states.
EPR State Program Summaries
Oregon
The Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (enacted 2021, effective July 2025) covers paper, packaging (broadly defined to include most business-to-business packaging), and food serviceware. Producers are required to have registered and reported 2024 and 2025 packaging year data to CAA, the only approved PRO. Enforcement falls to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which can impose fines of up to $25,000 per day, per violation, and noncompliant producers may be barred from selling covered products in the state. The Oregon DEQ is beginning enforcement and in April published a list of producers flagged as noncompliant. Oregon's EPR law is currently facing multiple legal challenges (see Pending Litigation, below).
Colorado
Colorado's Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (enacted 2022) follows a framework similar to Oregon, though it exempts most business-to-business packaging. In Colorado, producers are required to have registered and reported 2024 and 2025 packaging year data. Notably, the state has two approved PROs: CAA and the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA), which manages petroleum and automotive products. Penalties for noncompliance in the first instance begin at $5,000 per day for the first day and $1,500 per day thereafter. If additional violations occur within the same 12-month period, penalties can reach as high as $20,000 for the first day and $6,000 per day thereafter. Like Oregon, this program also faces a legal challenge raising due process, nondelegation, and First Amendment claims (see Pending Litigation, below).
California
SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (enacted 2022), is the most complex state EPR program. California requires producers to report both packaging data (including the number of plastic components sold or distributed in California) and progress towards source reduction targets, described in more detail below. Currently, producers are required to have registered and reported 2023 and 2025 data to CAA, the only approved PRO. CalRecycle administers and enforces the program. Penalties for noncompliance may result in fines of up to $50,000 per day, per violation. The Draft California Program Plan, published by CAA, is open for comment through August 14, 2026, with the final version and fee schedule expected in October 2026. SB 54 is facing legal challenges from both environmental and industry groups (see Pending Litigation, below).
California Source Reduction Requirements
SB 54 is unique among state EPR programs in mandating affirmative source reduction reporting. Producers must collectively reduce single-use plastic packaging by 10% by 2027, 20% by 2030, and 25% by 2032, measured by both weight and component count against a 2023 baseline. These targets are absolute caps with no adjustment for sales growth. CAA intends to reach these targets by implementing a bonus/malus (or penalty) fee structure that incentivizes source reduction -- illustrative malus fees begin at approximately $25/ton in 2027 and could reach $500-700/ton by 2032. Producers must identify strategies across five statutory pathways: (1) reuse/refill, (2) elimination, (3) shifting material, (4) right-sizing, and (5) postconsumer recycled content (PCR, capped at 8% credit). Each producer must file an Individual Source Reduction Plan (ISR Plan) no later than August 1, 2026, detailing its chosen strategies and projected reductions.
Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington
In these states, CAA required simplified supply reporting for 2025 data to inform future program planning. Importantly, these states only include consumer packaging in the scope of covered materials.
* Washington's program will also use the simplified reports to calculate early fees. Washington has a registration deadline of July 1, 2026, and CAA must develop a program plan for producers by October 1, 2028.
* Minnesota required registration by July 1, 2025, and CAA must submit its program plan for Minnesota by August 1, 2028.
* Maryland's law allows multiple PROs to operate concurrently and requires comprehensive responsibility plans by July 1, 2028. CAA is currently the only approved PRO in Maryland, and producers were required to join by May 31, 2026.
Maine
Under the Act to Support and Improve Municipal Recycling Programs and Save Taxpayer Money (enacted 2021), enforcement falls to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), although the implementation of this law is less developed than in the other six states.
Pending Litigation Challenging EPR
EPR programs face significant constitutional challenges in multiple states, raising fundamental questions about fee-setting authority, delegation to private entities, and the boundaries of state regulation of interstate commerce.
Oregon -- National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Oregon DEQ and Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon
Two separate lawsuits have been filed challenging Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act.
On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon challenging the Act on five grounds: Dormant Commerce Clause, unconstitutional conditions, Due Process (federal and state), Equal Protection, and nondelegation (Oregon Constitution). The court granted a preliminary injunction on February 6, 2026, finding likelihood of success on Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims -- particularly challenging CAA's fee-setting methodology. The injunction is limited to NAW members as of that date; the law remains fully enforceable against all other producers. Trial is set for July 13, 2026. Additional trade associations' motions to intervene were denied as untimely.
On June 25, 2026, Lollicup USA, Inc., filed a class action complaint in the same court on behalf of itself and all producers not protected by the NAW injunction, raising Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on substantially the same constitutional theories. No injunctive relief has been granted in the Lollicup case, and the Act remains enforceable against all non-NAW member producers.
Colorado -- Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) filed suit on March 12, 2026, in Colorado state court raising due process, nondelegation, and First Amendment claims -- challenging the delegation of significant governmental authority to private PROs (CAA/LPMA) and alleging restrictions on producers informing consumers about compliance costs. ILMA contends its members are smaller, independent producers disproportionately affected compared to multinationals controlling the PROs. This case tests whether the constitutional arguments brought in Oregon can succeed in other jurisdictions. No trial date has been set.
California -- Nebraska v. Heller and Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Department of Resources and Recycling Recovery
Two separate lawsuits have been filed challenging California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54). On June 2, 2026, a coalition of environmental groups filed suit in California state court alleging that CalRecycle's regulations are inconsistent with SB 54 and arbitrary and capricious -- specifically challenging provisions that allow chemical recycling (pyrolysis), fail to define "viable" responsible end-markets or address toxic materials, and permit indefinite federal-law-conflict exclusions without adequate safeguards. On June 22, 2026, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general (led by Nebraska) and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed a separate complaint in California federal court raising sweeping constitutional challenges, including Dormant Commerce Clause violations (discriminating against interstate commerce and imposing unfairly apportioned fees), First Amendment claims (content-based restrictions on disclosing fees to consumers and compelled association with the CAA), and unlawful delegation of government authority to the CAA without adequate legislative standards -- mirroring the constitutional arguments that secured a preliminary injunction in Oregon's parallel EPR litigation. No injunctive relief has been granted in either California case, and the regulations remain in full force and effect.
Key Takeaway
Pending litigation does not currently provide grounds for non-NAW producers to delay or avoid compliance in any state. Producers should maintain full compliance with packaging laws, including EPR, while monitoring litigation developments.
New Jersey's Recycled Content Law
New Jersey has set minimum required levels of recycled content in rigid plastic containers, plastic beverage containers, glass containers, paper and plastic carryout bags, and plastic trash bags. See N.J.S.A. 13:1E-99.135 et seq. The state also prohibits the sale of polystyrene loose-fill packaging. Id. Notably, food packaging was exempt from the minimum recycled content requirements for the first several years of implementation, but that ends in January 2027. Thus, food companies need to act quickly to ensure compliance. Additionally, as the minimum thresholds for recycled content increase, companies must prepare for potential cost increases and/or limited availability of quality recycled content. The purpose of this law is to stimulate the market for recycled content, especially Post-Consumer Resin (PCR), by regulating a minimum level of demand. While New Jersey is not an EPR state, this law is an adjacent requirement mandating packaging changes.
Chemicals of Concern (COCs)
When assessing the environmental impact of packaging, companies should also consider chemicals of concern. For example, more than a dozen states have banned PFAS in food packaging. Additionally, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is in the process of designating microplastics as a "Candidate Chemical," which would enable the state to impose specific regulations on consumer products and packaging. While EPR frequently prompts packaging sustainability analyses, a complete evaluation looks beyond EPR and includes COCs. Doing so not only ensures compliance but also allows for proactive regulatory planning and mitigation of litigation risks.
Recommended Next Steps
* Assess producer status and covered material definitions across all seven EPR states, and register with CAA (or applicable PRO) where required.
* Prepare and submit a California ISR Plan by August 1, 2026 -- Identify source reduction strategies across the five pathways, and budget for bonus/malus fees taking effect in 2027.
* Monitor EPR litigation -- Oregon trial (July 2026); California AG and environmental groups challenges; Colorado proceedings.
* Secure recycled-content supply and assess COCs -- PFAS and microplastics are increasingly scrutinized substances.
* Consider engaging experienced counsel to develop a coordinated multistate compliance strategy and evaluate litigation exposure related to packaging sustainability.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Bonnie Allyn Barnett
Partner
Philadelphia
+1 215 988 2916
bonnie.barnett@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Amy L. Waite
Associate
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 8211
amy.waite@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Amani B. Khoury
Associate
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 1484
amani.khoury@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Thayer Elizabeth Ellis
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5265
thayer.ellis@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/7/packaging-sustainability-and-compliance-including-extended-producer-responsibility
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
* * *
Packaging Sustainability and Compliance, Including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
What producers need to know now
At a Glance
* Laws in pursuit of environmentally sustainable packaging are on the rise.
* EPR programs face significant constitutional challenges in multiple states, raising fundamental questions about fee-setting authority, delegation ... Show Full Article MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, July 3 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on July 2, 2026, by partner Bonnie Allyn Barnett and associates Amy L. Waite, Amani B. Khoury and Thayer Elizabeth Ellis: * * * Packaging Sustainability and Compliance, Including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) What producers need to know now At a Glance * Laws in pursuit of environmentally sustainable packaging are on the rise. * EPR programs face significant constitutional challenges in multiple states, raising fundamental questions about fee-setting authority, delegationto private entities, and the boundaries of state regulation of interstate commerce.
* Pending litigation does not currently provide grounds for non-NAW producers to delay or avoid compliance in any state. Producers should maintain full compliance with packaging laws, including EPR, while monitoring litigation developments.
* When assessing the environmental impact of packaging, companies should also consider chemicals of concern, such as PFAS and microplastics.
-
Overview
In the last four years, several statutes and regulations were enacted to address the environmental sustainability of packaging. These laws are aimed at improving circularity, reducing single-use plastic, prohibiting chemicals of concern, enhancing recycling infrastructure, stimulating recycling markets, and driving innovation. Such laws institute significant compliance burdens on manufacturers of packaged products. For example, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws place the burden on companies to fund end-of-life management for their product packaging.
Seven states -- Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington -- have now enacted comprehensive EPR packaging laws, and the landscape is evolving rapidly with active litigation in three states. Additionally, New Jersey's Recycled Content Law establishes minimum thresholds for recycled content in several plastic and glass containers, and the delayed implementation with respect to food packaging ends in January 2027. Rather than mere environmental initiatives, packaging sustainability has become an important business consideration affecting product development, distribution, and financial planning, particularly for companies operating across multiple jurisdictions.
EPR at a Glance
To comply with EPR laws, companies must assess in each state (1) whether they qualify as a "producer" and (2) whether their packaging is considered "covered material." Most states define "producer" using a hierarchical approach: the first obligated entity is generally the manufacturer and/or brand owner or licensee of a packaged product. If none of these are US entities, the first importer or distributor of the packaged product into the state is typically the obligated producer. California's hierarchy differs in that the manufacturer/brand owner or licensee must be "in the state" of California to be the obligated producer. Each state also provides exceptions for small or de minimis producers based on revenue or material volume thresholds.
Once a business determines that it is a producer in a state, it must review its product packaging to determine whether it meets the state's definition of "covered material." These definitions vary by state -- each generally targets single-use consumer packaging but includes unique exemptions. In addition, Oregon and California include most business-to-business packaging in the scope of covered materials. Producers of paper products and food serviceware may also have obligations.
After making these determinations, regulated businesses must register with the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) and submit the required data. In most states, this requires reporting the types and weights of covered materials supplied to the state during the prior calendar year. In California, additional source reduction reporting and planning is required with respect to single-use plastic. To date, the nonprofit Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the approved PRO in the US for paper, food serviceware, and most packaging, though additional PROs could be approved in some states.
EPR State Program Summaries
Oregon
The Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (enacted 2021, effective July 2025) covers paper, packaging (broadly defined to include most business-to-business packaging), and food serviceware. Producers are required to have registered and reported 2024 and 2025 packaging year data to CAA, the only approved PRO. Enforcement falls to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), which can impose fines of up to $25,000 per day, per violation, and noncompliant producers may be barred from selling covered products in the state. The Oregon DEQ is beginning enforcement and in April published a list of producers flagged as noncompliant. Oregon's EPR law is currently facing multiple legal challenges (see Pending Litigation, below).
Colorado
Colorado's Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (enacted 2022) follows a framework similar to Oregon, though it exempts most business-to-business packaging. In Colorado, producers are required to have registered and reported 2024 and 2025 packaging year data. Notably, the state has two approved PROs: CAA and the Lubricant Packaging Management Association (LPMA), which manages petroleum and automotive products. Penalties for noncompliance in the first instance begin at $5,000 per day for the first day and $1,500 per day thereafter. If additional violations occur within the same 12-month period, penalties can reach as high as $20,000 for the first day and $6,000 per day thereafter. Like Oregon, this program also faces a legal challenge raising due process, nondelegation, and First Amendment claims (see Pending Litigation, below).
California
SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (enacted 2022), is the most complex state EPR program. California requires producers to report both packaging data (including the number of plastic components sold or distributed in California) and progress towards source reduction targets, described in more detail below. Currently, producers are required to have registered and reported 2023 and 2025 data to CAA, the only approved PRO. CalRecycle administers and enforces the program. Penalties for noncompliance may result in fines of up to $50,000 per day, per violation. The Draft California Program Plan, published by CAA, is open for comment through August 14, 2026, with the final version and fee schedule expected in October 2026. SB 54 is facing legal challenges from both environmental and industry groups (see Pending Litigation, below).
California Source Reduction Requirements
SB 54 is unique among state EPR programs in mandating affirmative source reduction reporting. Producers must collectively reduce single-use plastic packaging by 10% by 2027, 20% by 2030, and 25% by 2032, measured by both weight and component count against a 2023 baseline. These targets are absolute caps with no adjustment for sales growth. CAA intends to reach these targets by implementing a bonus/malus (or penalty) fee structure that incentivizes source reduction -- illustrative malus fees begin at approximately $25/ton in 2027 and could reach $500-700/ton by 2032. Producers must identify strategies across five statutory pathways: (1) reuse/refill, (2) elimination, (3) shifting material, (4) right-sizing, and (5) postconsumer recycled content (PCR, capped at 8% credit). Each producer must file an Individual Source Reduction Plan (ISR Plan) no later than August 1, 2026, detailing its chosen strategies and projected reductions.
Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington
In these states, CAA required simplified supply reporting for 2025 data to inform future program planning. Importantly, these states only include consumer packaging in the scope of covered materials.
* Washington's program will also use the simplified reports to calculate early fees. Washington has a registration deadline of July 1, 2026, and CAA must develop a program plan for producers by October 1, 2028.
* Minnesota required registration by July 1, 2025, and CAA must submit its program plan for Minnesota by August 1, 2028.
* Maryland's law allows multiple PROs to operate concurrently and requires comprehensive responsibility plans by July 1, 2028. CAA is currently the only approved PRO in Maryland, and producers were required to join by May 31, 2026.
Maine
Under the Act to Support and Improve Municipal Recycling Programs and Save Taxpayer Money (enacted 2021), enforcement falls to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), although the implementation of this law is less developed than in the other six states.
Pending Litigation Challenging EPR
EPR programs face significant constitutional challenges in multiple states, raising fundamental questions about fee-setting authority, delegation to private entities, and the boundaries of state regulation of interstate commerce.
Oregon -- National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Oregon DEQ and Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon
Two separate lawsuits have been filed challenging Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act.
On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon challenging the Act on five grounds: Dormant Commerce Clause, unconstitutional conditions, Due Process (federal and state), Equal Protection, and nondelegation (Oregon Constitution). The court granted a preliminary injunction on February 6, 2026, finding likelihood of success on Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims -- particularly challenging CAA's fee-setting methodology. The injunction is limited to NAW members as of that date; the law remains fully enforceable against all other producers. Trial is set for July 13, 2026. Additional trade associations' motions to intervene were denied as untimely.
On June 25, 2026, Lollicup USA, Inc., filed a class action complaint in the same court on behalf of itself and all producers not protected by the NAW injunction, raising Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on substantially the same constitutional theories. No injunctive relief has been granted in the Lollicup case, and the Act remains enforceable against all non-NAW member producers.
Colorado -- Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) filed suit on March 12, 2026, in Colorado state court raising due process, nondelegation, and First Amendment claims -- challenging the delegation of significant governmental authority to private PROs (CAA/LPMA) and alleging restrictions on producers informing consumers about compliance costs. ILMA contends its members are smaller, independent producers disproportionately affected compared to multinationals controlling the PROs. This case tests whether the constitutional arguments brought in Oregon can succeed in other jurisdictions. No trial date has been set.
California -- Nebraska v. Heller and Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Department of Resources and Recycling Recovery
Two separate lawsuits have been filed challenging California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54). On June 2, 2026, a coalition of environmental groups filed suit in California state court alleging that CalRecycle's regulations are inconsistent with SB 54 and arbitrary and capricious -- specifically challenging provisions that allow chemical recycling (pyrolysis), fail to define "viable" responsible end-markets or address toxic materials, and permit indefinite federal-law-conflict exclusions without adequate safeguards. On June 22, 2026, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general (led by Nebraska) and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed a separate complaint in California federal court raising sweeping constitutional challenges, including Dormant Commerce Clause violations (discriminating against interstate commerce and imposing unfairly apportioned fees), First Amendment claims (content-based restrictions on disclosing fees to consumers and compelled association with the CAA), and unlawful delegation of government authority to the CAA without adequate legislative standards -- mirroring the constitutional arguments that secured a preliminary injunction in Oregon's parallel EPR litigation. No injunctive relief has been granted in either California case, and the regulations remain in full force and effect.
Key Takeaway
Pending litigation does not currently provide grounds for non-NAW producers to delay or avoid compliance in any state. Producers should maintain full compliance with packaging laws, including EPR, while monitoring litigation developments.
New Jersey's Recycled Content Law
New Jersey has set minimum required levels of recycled content in rigid plastic containers, plastic beverage containers, glass containers, paper and plastic carryout bags, and plastic trash bags. See N.J.S.A. 13:1E-99.135 et seq. The state also prohibits the sale of polystyrene loose-fill packaging. Id. Notably, food packaging was exempt from the minimum recycled content requirements for the first several years of implementation, but that ends in January 2027. Thus, food companies need to act quickly to ensure compliance. Additionally, as the minimum thresholds for recycled content increase, companies must prepare for potential cost increases and/or limited availability of quality recycled content. The purpose of this law is to stimulate the market for recycled content, especially Post-Consumer Resin (PCR), by regulating a minimum level of demand. While New Jersey is not an EPR state, this law is an adjacent requirement mandating packaging changes.
Chemicals of Concern (COCs)
When assessing the environmental impact of packaging, companies should also consider chemicals of concern. For example, more than a dozen states have banned PFAS in food packaging. Additionally, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is in the process of designating microplastics as a "Candidate Chemical," which would enable the state to impose specific regulations on consumer products and packaging. While EPR frequently prompts packaging sustainability analyses, a complete evaluation looks beyond EPR and includes COCs. Doing so not only ensures compliance but also allows for proactive regulatory planning and mitigation of litigation risks.
Recommended Next Steps
* Assess producer status and covered material definitions across all seven EPR states, and register with CAA (or applicable PRO) where required.
* Prepare and submit a California ISR Plan by August 1, 2026 -- Identify source reduction strategies across the five pathways, and budget for bonus/malus fees taking effect in 2027.
* Monitor EPR litigation -- Oregon trial (July 2026); California AG and environmental groups challenges; Colorado proceedings.
* Secure recycled-content supply and assess COCs -- PFAS and microplastics are increasingly scrutinized substances.
* Consider engaging experienced counsel to develop a coordinated multistate compliance strategy and evaluate litigation exposure related to packaging sustainability.
For More Information
For further information, you may contact the authors.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Bonnie Allyn Barnett
Partner
Philadelphia
+1 215 988 2916
bonnie.barnett@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Amy L. Waite
Associate
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 8211
amy.waite@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Amani B. Khoury
Associate
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 1484
amani.khoury@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Thayer Elizabeth Ellis
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 230 5265
thayer.ellis@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/7/packaging-sustainability-and-compliance-including-extended-producer-responsibility
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]