DROPLETS
Public companies and their counsel must reassess listing compliance strategies now that Nasdaq can delist shares without an automatic trading stay.
The SEC has approved a Nasdaq rule change lowering the minimum market value of listed securities to $5 million and eliminating the automatic stay that previously paused delisting during the appeal period. Companies falling below the threshold face immediate delisting once Nasdaq staff issues a determination, removing the prior buffer that allowed continued trading while hearings were pending. The change compresses the timeline for issuers to cure deficiencies or seek review, raising the stakes of routine bid-price and market-value monitoring. In-house counsel should review internal listing-compliance dashboards, confirm board-level awareness of the new floor, and prepare expedited appeal and cure protocols. Capital-markets teams should also revisit disclosure language regarding listing standards and material noncompliance risks.
In-house counsel for consumer-facing businesses must track expanding state AG enforcement actions as federal CFPB consumer protections are scaled back.
The Trump administration has substantially curtailed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) enforcement and regulatory authority, creating a significant gap in federal consumer protection oversight. In response, state attorneys general from both political parties are expanding enforcement initiatives targeting price gouging, inflated consumer pricing, and anticompetitive conduct to fill this void. In-house counsel for consumer-facing, financial services, and retail companies should monitor state-specific AG enforcement priorities, update cross-jurisdictional compliance programs to align with varying state consumer protection rules, and prepare for increased state-level investigative and enforcement risk across multiple jurisdictions.
Every economic operator placing products on, exporting from, or selling into the EU market must ensure no forced labor taints any component, with enforcement beginning December 14, 2027.
The European Commission's June 26, 2026 guidelines interpret the EU Forced Labor Regulation (EU 2024/3015), which takes effect December 14, 2027. Although formally nonbinding, the guidelines establish a detailed six-step due diligence framework that authorities will treat as the practical roadmap for compliance. The regulation imposes an unconditional, absolute obligation of result on all economic operators, regardless of size, sector, or origin, with no turnover thresholds. Even a single component produced with forced labor anywhere in the supply chain can trigger enforcement. Competent authorities in each Member State will conduct risk-based investigations, request extensive documentation (supply chain maps, purchase orders, invoices, facility data), and may issue ban-violation decisions published on a public Forced Labor Single Portal. Penalties follow a five-step methodology for noncompliance with withdrawal orders. Companies should immediately map supply chains, integrate forced labor risk assessments, prepare documentation, and coordinate FLR compliance with the Corporate Susta
…
HR and compliance leaders at employers with 100+ employees and federal contractors must weigh in on the EEOC's NPRM to scrap EEO-1 reporting before the Aug. 24, 2026 comment deadline.
The EEOC has voted to publish an NPRM rescinding the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 demographic reporting regimes under 29 C.F.R. Part 1602, citing Title VII concerns, constitutional questions about mandatory race/sex classifications, and an estimated $278 million in annual compliance savings. The proposal would also drop recordkeeping provisions maintained solely to support those reports, but the EEOC's general one-year retention rule and its investigative subpoena authority would remain intact. Until a final rule issues, all existing EEO-1 and related filing obligations stay in force, and employers should continue current reporting and preservation practices. In-house counsel and HR should evaluate submitting comments, prepare for the Aug. 11 public hearing, and assess how elimination would affect internal DEI data collection, pay-equity analyses, and OFCCP overlap.
Employers acquiring unionized businesses and their in-house counsel must revise post-acquisition labor strategies now that the NLRB’s “successor bar” rule blocking challenges to incumbent union representation for one year after ownership change has been struck down.
A D.C. Circuit three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Puerto Rico’s Hospital Menonita de Guayama, invalidating the NLRB’s “successor bar” rule that required new owners of unionized businesses to recognize and bargain with incumbent unions for up to one year after acquisition even if the union had lost majority employee support. The ruling relied on the 2024 Supreme Court Loper Bright decision ending Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations, finding the NLRB exceeded its congressional authority under the National Labor Relations Act. In-house counsel advising on M&A for unionized employers should update post-acquisition labor protocols, and may now file timely challenges to incumbent union representation if evidence shows the union no longer holds majority employee support, without waiting out the prior one-year bar period.
Any company developing, deploying, or integrating AI in the EU must reassess compliance timelines and prohibited-use policies following the July 2026 AI Act amendments.
The EU AI Act Amendment, effective 27 July 2026, extends compliance deadlines for high-risk AI systems: Article 6(2)/Annex III systems now have until 2 December 2027, while Article 6(1)/Annex I systems tied to product safety legislation have until 2 August 2028. The Commission cited delayed harmonized standards and national competent authority readiness as justification. Transparency obligations for synthetic audio, image, video, and text generators (including GPAI) are pushed to 2 December 2026; other transparency rules remain on the original 2 August 2026 date. The prohibited-AI list expands to cover systems generating non-consensual intimate imagery, effective 2 December 2026. AI literacy duties softened from 'ensure' to 'support' development. New supply-chain cooperation duties and penalties apply when original providers fail to assist downstream providers. In-house counsel should update compliance roadmaps, audit high-risk classifications, and review synthetic-content and intimate-imagery use cases.
Auto dealers, finance companies, and lenders face escalating enforcement risk as New York City's DCWP and similar municipalities pursue add-on, disclosure, and lending violations independently of federal regulators.
New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection fined a Bronx dealership nearly $130,000, signaling that municipal regulators are stepping into auto finance enforcement traditionally dominated by the FTC and CFPB. The action reflects a broader trend: state and city agencies are scrutinizing add-on products, YoY pricing disclosures, credit advertising, and lender-dealer compensation arrangements. For dealers and finance companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, this means compliance programs must account for a patchwork of local rules, not just federal standards. Recommended steps include auditing add-on disclosures, reviewing advertising for compliance with state UDAP and city-specific statutes, and confirming that lender compensation structures do not run afoul of municipal consumer protection codes. Expect more city-level actions as DCWP and peer agencies expand capacity.
Shipping operators and bunker suppliers active in Brazil face a shifting regulatory landscape as ANP reviews waterborne fuel specs to enable biofuel blends in maritime transport.
Brazil's National Petroleum Agency (ANP) has launched a public consultation on revising waterborne fuel specifications with the explicit goal of facilitating biofuel use in maritime transport. The review targets technical parameters that currently constrain the blending or substitution of fossil marine fuels with biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, and renewable diesel derivatives. Stakeholders—including shipowners, bunker traders, refiners, and fuel-blending operators—should evaluate whether proposed specification changes align with vessel engine compatibility, fuel-handling infrastructure, and IMO MARPOL Annex VI obligations. Comments submitted during the consultation window will shape ANP's eventual regulatory framework, potentially unlocking new bunker-fuel markets in Brazilian ports while imposing new compliance and quality-control obligations on suppliers and purchasers operating in the region.
Government enforcement targets and civil defendants face a pivotal Supreme Court ruling on whether courts weigh abstract societal harms or the specific defendant's conduct when assessing forfeiture proportionality.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jouppi v. Alaska to resolve a circuit split on the level of generality applied to Excessive Fines Clause analysis. Alaska sought forfeiture of a $95,000 plane after the defendant transported a six-pack of beer into a dry community; the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture by invoking abstract harms of alcohol abuse in rural Alaska. The Court will decide whether proportionality review focuses on the specific defendant's wrongdoing or the underlying offense in the abstract. The ruling will directly affect criminal defendants facing asset forfeiture and may extend to civil enforcement actions, particularly where civil penalties resemble punishment. In-house counsel should monitor the case for implications on forfeiture exposure, regulatory penalty defenses, and constitutional challenges to disgorgement or civil monetary penalties. Argument is expected next Term with a decision likely by July 2027.
Energy-sector regulated entities face continued uncertainty as DOE pivots from a direct final rule to standard notice-and-comment rulemaking on sunsetting 21 CFR Title 10 parts.
On July 9, 2026, DOE withdrew a direct final rule that would have imposed one-year automatic sunset provisions on 21 parts of Title 10 C.F.R.—spanning greenhouse gas reporting, uranium programs, nuclear waste siting guidelines, contractor legal management, and DOE computer access—effective July 13, 2026. The withdrawal followed adverse comments arguing the framework bypassed meaningful input and risked arbitrary expiration of regulations. Because DOE simultaneously published a substantively identical Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the sunsetting initiative remains live. DOE must now respond to comments and may issue a final rule with additional analysis or modifications, potentially triggering another comment period. Regulated entities—particularly nuclear, uranium, and energy-efficiency stakeholders—should monitor the docket, prepare comments on the NOPR, and assess which of their compliance obligations could lapse if a final rule adopts the proposed sunset mechanism.
Class action defendants and plaintiffs must reassess Rule 23 strategy after the Sixth Circuit en banc reversed a 90,000-member insurance class and the Fourth Circuit vacated certification for overbroad class definitions.
This quarter produced several appellate decisions tightening class certification standards. In Clippinger, the Sixth Circuit en banc reversed certification of a 90,000-member Tennessee insurance class challenging total-loss valuations, holding that individualized valuation disputes predominate and that defendants retain substantive rights to present vehicle-specific evidence under the Rules Enabling Act. The Fourth Circuit in Overby vacated certification of brewery workers, emphasizing that abstract common questions cannot mask individualized threshold issues and that sweeping class definitions compound the error. In Hossfeld, the Seventh Circuit confirmed that numerosity requires evidence, not speculation, even where joinder is practicable. On CAFA jurisdiction, Craig held the local-event exception is jurisdictional and may be raised sua sponte; Zurbriggen applied Royal Canin to hold that amended pleadings can destroy or restore CAFA jurisdiction; and Ewalt held the 30-day removal deadline is not equitably tolled. Defendants should reassess removal strategy and certification defense
…
Medicaid providers and state agencies face heightened fraud enforcement as HHS freezes over $1 billion in payments to California and Minnesota and broadens exclusion authority.
HHS announced a freeze of more than $1 billion in federal Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, signaling aggressive use of payment-hold authority to enforce compliance. Simultaneously, HHS-OIG is reviewing the performance of all state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, raising the prospect of expanded exclusions and referrals. The department's posture indicates Medicaid fraud enforcement is a top-tier priority, with OIG leveraging every available tool to pressure states and providers. In-house counsel at health systems, managed care plans, and Medicaid-dependent providers should treat this as a prompt to conduct internal audits, review billing and documentation controls, and assess exposure under the False Claims Act and civil monetary penalty authorities before enforcement actions escalate.
Employers acquiring unionized businesses and their in-house counsel must revise post-acquisition labor strategies now that the NLRB’s “successor bar” rule blocking challenges to incumbent union representation for one year after ownership change has been struck down.
A D.C. Circuit three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Puerto Rico’s Hospital Menonita de Guayama, invalidating the NLRB’s “successor bar” rule that required new owners of unionized businesses to recognize and bargain with incumbent unions for up to one year after acquisition even if the union had lost majority employee support. The ruling relied on the 2024 Supreme Court Loper Bright decision ending Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations, finding the NLRB exceeded its congressional authority under the National Labor Relations Act. In-house counsel advising on M&A for unionized employers should update post-acquisition labor protocols, and may now file timely challenges to incumbent union representation if evidence shows the union no longer holds majority employee support, without waiting out the prior one-year bar period.
In-house counsel for consumer-facing businesses must track expanding state AG enforcement actions as federal CFPB consumer protections are scaled back.
The Trump administration has substantially curtailed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) enforcement and regulatory authority, creating a significant gap in federal consumer protection oversight. In response, state attorneys general from both political parties are expanding enforcement initiatives targeting price gouging, inflated consumer pricing, and anticompetitive conduct to fill this void. In-house counsel for consumer-facing, financial services, and retail companies should monitor state-specific AG enforcement priorities, update cross-jurisdictional compliance programs to align with varying state consumer protection rules, and prepare for increased state-level investigative and enforcement risk across multiple jurisdictions.
Auto dealers, finance companies, and lenders face escalating enforcement risk as New York City's DCWP and similar municipalities pursue add-on, disclosure, and lending violations independently of federal regulators.
New York City's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection fined a Bronx dealership nearly $130,000, signaling that municipal regulators are stepping into auto finance enforcement traditionally dominated by the FTC and CFPB. The action reflects a broader trend: state and city agencies are scrutinizing add-on products, YoY pricing disclosures, credit advertising, and lender-dealer compensation arrangements. For dealers and finance companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, this means compliance programs must account for a patchwork of local rules, not just federal standards. Recommended steps include auditing add-on disclosures, reviewing advertising for compliance with state UDAP and city-specific statutes, and confirming that lender compensation structures do not run afoul of municipal consumer protection codes. Expect more city-level actions as DCWP and peer agencies expand capacity.
HR and compliance leaders at employers with 100+ employees and federal contractors must weigh in on the EEOC's NPRM to scrap EEO-1 reporting before the Aug. 24, 2026 comment deadline.
The EEOC has voted to publish an NPRM rescinding the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 demographic reporting regimes under 29 C.F.R. Part 1602, citing Title VII concerns, constitutional questions about mandatory race/sex classifications, and an estimated $278 million in annual compliance savings. The proposal would also drop recordkeeping provisions maintained solely to support those reports, but the EEOC's general one-year retention rule and its investigative subpoena authority would remain intact. Until a final rule issues, all existing EEO-1 and related filing obligations stay in force, and employers should continue current reporting and preservation practices. In-house counsel and HR should evaluate submitting comments, prepare for the Aug. 11 public hearing, and assess how elimination would affect internal DEI data collection, pay-equity analyses, and OFCCP overlap.
Employers acquiring unionized businesses and their in-house counsel must revise post-acquisition labor strategies now that the NLRB’s “successor bar” rule blocking challenges to incumbent union representation for one year after ownership change has been struck down.
A D.C. Circuit three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of Puerto Rico’s Hospital Menonita de Guayama, invalidating the NLRB’s “successor bar” rule that required new owners of unionized businesses to recognize and bargain with incumbent unions for up to one year after acquisition even if the union had lost majority employee support. The ruling relied on the 2024 Supreme Court Loper Bright decision ending Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretations, finding the NLRB exceeded its congressional authority under the National Labor Relations Act. In-house counsel advising on M&A for unionized employers should update post-acquisition labor protocols, and may now file timely challenges to incumbent union representation if evidence shows the union no longer holds majority employee support, without waiting out the prior one-year bar period.
Shipping operators and bunker suppliers active in Brazil face a shifting regulatory landscape as ANP reviews waterborne fuel specs to enable biofuel blends in maritime transport.
Brazil's National Petroleum Agency (ANP) has launched a public consultation on revising waterborne fuel specifications with the explicit goal of facilitating biofuel use in maritime transport. The review targets technical parameters that currently constrain the blending or substitution of fossil marine fuels with biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, and renewable diesel derivatives. Stakeholders—including shipowners, bunker traders, refiners, and fuel-blending operators—should evaluate whether proposed specification changes align with vessel engine compatibility, fuel-handling infrastructure, and IMO MARPOL Annex VI obligations. Comments submitted during the consultation window will shape ANP's eventual regulatory framework, potentially unlocking new bunker-fuel markets in Brazilian ports while imposing new compliance and quality-control obligations on suppliers and purchasers operating in the region.
Energy-sector regulated entities face continued uncertainty as DOE pivots from a direct final rule to standard notice-and-comment rulemaking on sunsetting 21 CFR Title 10 parts.
On July 9, 2026, DOE withdrew a direct final rule that would have imposed one-year automatic sunset provisions on 21 parts of Title 10 C.F.R.—spanning greenhouse gas reporting, uranium programs, nuclear waste siting guidelines, contractor legal management, and DOE computer access—effective July 13, 2026. The withdrawal followed adverse comments arguing the framework bypassed meaningful input and risked arbitrary expiration of regulations. Because DOE simultaneously published a substantively identical Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the sunsetting initiative remains live. DOE must now respond to comments and may issue a final rule with additional analysis or modifications, potentially triggering another comment period. Regulated entities—particularly nuclear, uranium, and energy-efficiency stakeholders—should monitor the docket, prepare comments on the NOPR, and assess which of their compliance obligations could lapse if a final rule adopts the proposed sunset mechanism.
Medicaid providers and state agencies face heightened fraud enforcement as HHS freezes over $1 billion in payments to California and Minnesota and broadens exclusion authority.
HHS announced a freeze of more than $1 billion in federal Medicaid payments to California and Minnesota, signaling aggressive use of payment-hold authority to enforce compliance. Simultaneously, HHS-OIG is reviewing the performance of all state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, raising the prospect of expanded exclusions and referrals. The department's posture indicates Medicaid fraud enforcement is a top-tier priority, with OIG leveraging every available tool to pressure states and providers. In-house counsel at health systems, managed care plans, and Medicaid-dependent providers should treat this as a prompt to conduct internal audits, review billing and documentation controls, and assess exposure under the False Claims Act and civil monetary penalty authorities before enforcement actions escalate.
Every economic operator placing products on, exporting from, or selling into the EU market must ensure no forced labor taints any component, with enforcement beginning December 14, 2027.
The European Commission's June 26, 2026 guidelines interpret the EU Forced Labor Regulation (EU 2024/3015), which takes effect December 14, 2027. Although formally nonbinding, the guidelines establish a detailed six-step due diligence framework that authorities will treat as the practical roadmap for compliance. The regulation imposes an unconditional, absolute obligation of result on all economic operators, regardless of size, sector, or origin, with no turnover thresholds. Even a single component produced with forced labor anywhere in the supply chain can trigger enforcement. Competent authorities in each Member State will conduct risk-based investigations, request extensive documentation (supply chain maps, purchase orders, invoices, facility data), and may issue ban-violation decisions published on a public Forced Labor Single Portal. Penalties follow a five-step methodology for noncompliance with withdrawal orders. Companies should immediately map supply chains, integrate forced labor risk assessments, prepare documentation, and coordinate FLR compliance with the Corporate Susta
…
Government enforcement targets and civil defendants face a pivotal Supreme Court ruling on whether courts weigh abstract societal harms or the specific defendant's conduct when assessing forfeiture proportionality.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jouppi v. Alaska to resolve a circuit split on the level of generality applied to Excessive Fines Clause analysis. Alaska sought forfeiture of a $95,000 plane after the defendant transported a six-pack of beer into a dry community; the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture by invoking abstract harms of alcohol abuse in rural Alaska. The Court will decide whether proportionality review focuses on the specific defendant's wrongdoing or the underlying offense in the abstract. The ruling will directly affect criminal defendants facing asset forfeiture and may extend to civil enforcement actions, particularly where civil penalties resemble punishment. In-house counsel should monitor the case for implications on forfeiture exposure, regulatory penalty defenses, and constitutional challenges to disgorgement or civil monetary penalties. Argument is expected next Term with a decision likely by July 2027.
Class action defendants and plaintiffs must reassess Rule 23 strategy after the Sixth Circuit en banc reversed a 90,000-member insurance class and the Fourth Circuit vacated certification for overbroad class definitions.
This quarter produced several appellate decisions tightening class certification standards. In Clippinger, the Sixth Circuit en banc reversed certification of a 90,000-member Tennessee insurance class challenging total-loss valuations, holding that individualized valuation disputes predominate and that defendants retain substantive rights to present vehicle-specific evidence under the Rules Enabling Act. The Fourth Circuit in Overby vacated certification of brewery workers, emphasizing that abstract common questions cannot mask individualized threshold issues and that sweeping class definitions compound the error. In Hossfeld, the Seventh Circuit confirmed that numerosity requires evidence, not speculation, even where joinder is practicable. On CAFA jurisdiction, Craig held the local-event exception is jurisdictional and may be raised sua sponte; Zurbriggen applied Royal Canin to hold that amended pleadings can destroy or restore CAFA jurisdiction; and Ewalt held the 30-day removal deadline is not equitably tolled. Defendants should reassess removal strategy and certification defense
…
Public companies and their counsel must reassess listing compliance strategies now that Nasdaq can delist shares without an automatic trading stay.
The SEC has approved a Nasdaq rule change lowering the minimum market value of listed securities to $5 million and eliminating the automatic stay that previously paused delisting during the appeal period. Companies falling below the threshold face immediate delisting once Nasdaq staff issues a determination, removing the prior buffer that allowed continued trading while hearings were pending. The change compresses the timeline for issuers to cure deficiencies or seek review, raising the stakes of routine bid-price and market-value monitoring. In-house counsel should review internal listing-compliance dashboards, confirm board-level awareness of the new floor, and prepare expedited appeal and cure protocols. Capital-markets teams should also revisit disclosure language regarding listing standards and material noncompliance risks.
Any company developing, deploying, or integrating AI in the EU must reassess compliance timelines and prohibited-use policies following the July 2026 AI Act amendments.
The EU AI Act Amendment, effective 27 July 2026, extends compliance deadlines for high-risk AI systems: Article 6(2)/Annex III systems now have until 2 December 2027, while Article 6(1)/Annex I systems tied to product safety legislation have until 2 August 2028. The Commission cited delayed harmonized standards and national competent authority readiness as justification. Transparency obligations for synthetic audio, image, video, and text generators (including GPAI) are pushed to 2 December 2026; other transparency rules remain on the original 2 August 2026 date. The prohibited-AI list expands to cover systems generating non-consensual intimate imagery, effective 2 December 2026. AI literacy duties softened from 'ensure' to 'support' development. New supply-chain cooperation duties and penalties apply when original providers fail to assist downstream providers. In-house counsel should update compliance roadmaps, audit high-risk classifications, and review synthetic-content and intimate-imagery use cases.
Grade 3 — worth a glance, not the full analysis.
- Employers Face Legal Exposure at Offsite Company Retreats
HR leaders and company managers must implement offsite retreat safeguards to avoid costly employment liability from harassment, wage-and-hour, and other violations that occur outside standard workplace settings.
- Rhode Island Joins Wave of State and Local Laws Regulating Self-Checkout
Multi-state retail employers with self-checkout systems must track a patchwork of municipal and state mandates on automation, staffing, and workload.
- Design Patents at PTAB: 37% Institution Rate Holds Over Decade
Patent owners defending design claims and challengers weighing IPR/PGR petitions need updated win-rate benchmarks, since design patents continue to be instituted at roughly half the rate of utility patents.
- Clean Rooms in Trade Secret Litigation: Emerging Judicial Themes
In-house counsel managing M&A diligence, lateral hires, or joint ventures should weigh clean-room protocols as both a risk shield and a litigation defense.
- Oregon EPR Trial Concludes; Post-Trial Briefing to Shape Producer Compliance
Consumer goods producers and packaging compliance teams should monitor the post-trial briefing in NAWD v. Feldon, as the court's forthcoming opinion will clarify Oregon's extended producer responsibility enforcement framework.
- German Courts Reject Registered Letterbox Delivery as Proof of Receipt
HR and legal teams serving termination notices in Germany must abandon registered letterbox delivery, as the Federal Labor Court has confirmed it carries no prima facie evidence of actual receipt.
- Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Victory Provides 3 Key Enforcement Lessons
In-house IP and brand protection teams for consumer product companies gain a clear, replicable framework for winning trade dress disputes in crowded marketplaces from the recent Van Leeuwen ruling.
- Employer Guidance on Trump Account Contributions for Recruitment, Retention
HR and compensation teams at U.S. employers considering Trump account contributions as a talent retention or recruitment incentive must review compliance and operational requirements to avoid legal and tax pitfalls.
- Podcast Examines Compliance Approaches for Non-Cookie Tracking Technologies
In-house privacy and legal operations teams must evaluate non-cookie tracking technology implementations, as these tools face growing global regulatory scrutiny and associated enforcement risk.