News Type: Articles

Jeffrey Farrow explores the rapidly evolving intersection of trade secrets, AI, and high-stakes litigation in his latest article for World IP Review. As AI reshapes the value (and vulnerability) of proprietary information, Jeff examines the heightened scrutiny courts are applying to damages models, employee mobility disputes, and claims involving confidential AI-related assets. His analysis offers guidance for companies navigating an increasingly aggressive and technically complex trade secret landscape where precision, proof, and preparation have never mattered more.

Lara Shortz explains how California is aggressively redefining the workplace compliance landscape as federal enforcement efforts continue to retreat. In her latest article for HR.com, Lara examines the far-reaching employment laws set to impact employers in 2026,  including expanded pay transparency obligations, heightened wage-and-hour exposure, evolving AI oversight, enhanced leave protections, and new WARN Act requirements. Her analysis underscores a critical reality for employers operating in California: compliance is no longer a reactive exercise, but a strategic business imperative.

Reuben Ginsburg and Peter Steinman break down a procedural trap that can quietly derail even the most carefully managed litigation timelines. In their Daily Journal article, “The Notice Minefield: Calendar Days Versus Court Days,” they unpack the often-overlooked distinctions between statutory notice extensions, highlighting how electronic service can trigger longer deadlines than overnight delivery, and why relying on intuition rather than the Code of Civil Procedure can lead to costly miscalculations. It’s a clear and practical reminder that precision in counting days isn’t clerical; it’s strategic.

Mehdi Sinaki and Nicole Benalcazar take a deep dive into California’s expansion of nurse practitioner authority—and the critical question it leaves unresolved—in their recent Daily Journal article, “California expands nurse practitioner authority; ownership question remains.” As they explain, while Assembly Bill 890 meaningfully advances clinical autonomy for qualifying nurse practitioners, it stops short of addressing whether that independence extends to ownership of medical practices, leaving providers and investors navigating a complex intersection of scope-of-practice laws and the state’s longstanding corporate practice of medicine doctrine. Their analysis cuts through the statutory tension, outlining both the potential pathways and the real regulatory risks, and underscores a key takeaway: expanded authority without structural clarity creates uncertainty that only further legislative action can resolve.

Ruth Paley’s insights for the International Compliance Association address a potentially significant expansion of investigatory powers under the UK’s Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), and what it means for compliance teams. The UK government is considering extending POCA powers beyond traditional law enforcement to a broader group of regulators, a move that reflects a wider shift in how asset recovery tools are being deployed across the enforcement landscape. As Ruth explains in her most recent article, this is more than a technical change; it signals a world in which issues that once sat within routine regulatory supervision may escalate more quickly into asset-focused investigations, often with immediate and disruptive consequences.

Natalie Manoogian explores a timely workplace law issue in an article written for HR.com, using a headline-making NHL trade leak to examine whether employers can review employee phones, texts, and emails during internal investigations. As Natalie explains, employers often have that authority, but the analysis can quickly become more complex when personal devices or attorney-client communications are involved. The takeaway is clear: thoughtfully drafted technology and monitoring policies are critical to protecting sensitive information and ensuring investigations are handled lawfully and effectively.

Ruth Paley’s latest FT Adviser article, co-authored with Nigel Kirby, explores how the UK’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) could reshape information sharing across the financial crime landscape. The piece examines the new statutory gateway designed to allow AML-regulated firms to share customer information for defined economic crime purposes, an effort aimed at reducing the legal uncertainty that has historically made organisations hesitant to exchange intelligence, even where suspicious activity spans multiple institutions. Ruth and Nigel explain why the reforms matter in practice, who they apply to, and how they may enable firms to connect intelligence more effectively to detect and disrupt fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, and related misconduct.

Akshay Sewlikar and Dmitriy Gelfand examine the growing intersection of economic sanctions and international arbitration in a new article published by Global Legal Post. In “‘The impacts can be substantive’: Arbitrating in a sanctions led environment,” they explore how sanctions can affect key stages of the arbitration process, from contract drafting and tribunal constitution to procedural issues, merits defenses, and enforcement of awards. With coordinated sanctions regimes expanding globally, Akshay and Dmitriy highlight the practical and strategic challenges parties may face in cross-border disputes and explain why sanctions risk assessment and enforcement planning should be treated as an ongoing process rather than a one-time compliance exercise.

Kelly Hagemann and Meredith Bobber Strauss examine the sweeping impact of AB 3275 in The Recorder, detailing how the new law reshapes California’s prompt pay landscape for behavioral healthcare providers. Effective January 1, 2026, the statute replaces “working days” with calendar days, imposes a uniform 30-day payment standard (eliminating the HMO exception), clarifies timelines for contested claims, and strengthens consequences for late payment. As detailed in the article, these are all material changes that directly affect cash flow, revenue cycle management, and leverage in payer disputes. Kelly and Meredith break down what these reforms mean in practice and why providers should begin aligning internal tracking and escalation protocols now.

Sanctions compliance has evolved far beyond simple list screening. In a new article for the International Compliance Association, “Studies in Ownership and Control,” John Gibson examines two recent English Commercial Court decisions that illustrate the complex judgments companies must now make when assessing sanctions risk. Looking at EuroChem v Société Générale and Tonzip Marine v 2Rivers, John explores how courts evaluate ownership, control, and influence—sometimes through exhaustive forensic analysis and other times through the lens of reasonable commercial judgment made under uncertainty. For banks, traders, shipowners, and other global businesses, the takeaway is clear: effective sanctions compliance today requires looking well beyond formal ownership structures and being prepared to explain the reasoning behind critical decisions.