Publications Archives

On May 14, 2025, the Governor of Texas signed SB 29 into law which introduced significant amendments to the Texas Business Organizations Code affecting Texas corporations, limited partnerships and limited liability companies.

Overview

On May 14, 2025, the Governor of Texas signed into law significant amendments to the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC). The new laws introduce consequential changes affecting governance, governing authority liability, shareholder rights, and internal management of corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, and other entities organized under the TBOC. We have summarized the most significant changes reflected in the amendments below. These changes became effective on May 14, 2025.

Director, Officer, and Managerial Duties: New Presumptions and Protections

A central feature of the amendments is the codification of the business judgement rule. Specifically, the amendments codify the presumption that directors, officers, and other managerial officials of corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships acted in compliance with their duties. The presumptions apply to entities that are publicly traded or that affirmatively opt in.

For corporations, the actions of directors and officers are presumed to be taken in good faith, on an informed basis, in the best interests of the corporation, and in obedience to the law and the corporation’s governing documents. To prevail in a cause of action claiming a breach of duty, the claimant must rebut one or more of these presumptions and prove (i) the act or omission was a breach of the person’s duties as a director or officer and (ii) the breach involved fraud, intentional misconduct, ultra vires acts, or knowing violations of law. These protections are in addition to any existing statutory or common law defenses.

For limited liability companies and limited partnerships, these amendments also clarify that governing documents may expand, restrict, or eliminate fiduciary duties and related liabilities, including the duties of loyalty, care and good faith.

Limitation on Derivative Actions

Publicly traded corporations or corporations that (i) have 500 or more shareholders and (ii) have made an affirmative election to opt in to the statutory presumptions that directors and officers acted in compliance with their duties, may institute a minimum ownership threshold for shareholders to bring derivative actions. The amendment allows such corporations to set a minimum ownership threshold of up to 3% of the outstanding shares of the corporation to initiate such proceedings.

Attorney Fee Awards

The amendments provide limitations on awards of attorney fees in derivative proceedings through limiting what is considered a substantial benefit to an entity. The amendments provide that substantial benefits to a corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company do not include additional or amended disclosures made to shareholders, limited partners, or members respectively.

Independence of Committees Reviewing Related Party Transactions

Boards of publicly traded corporations[1] may petition the Texas Business Court (or any other district court with proper jurisdiction, if the corporation’s principal place of business is not located in an operating division of the Texas Business Court) to make a determination on the independence of the committee of directors formed to review and approve transactions involving controlling shareholders, directors, or officers. After expedited proceedings to determine appropriate legal counsel to represent the corporation and its shareholders (other than any relevant controlling shareholder), the court will hold an evidentiary hearing and render a binding determination regarding the independence of the directors on the committee. The finding is “dispositive” absent facts not presented to the court.

Jury Trial Waivers and Exclusive Forum Selection

The amendments expressly permit entities to include, in their governing documents, waivers of the right to a jury trial for any internal entity claims. Under Texas law, internal entity claims include claims of any nature such as derivative claims that are based on (i) rights, powers, and duties of its governing authority, governing persons, officers, owners, and members; and (ii) matters relating to its membership or ownership interests. This includes, for example, claims of breach of fiduciary duties by directors of corporations. Such waivers are enforceable even if not individually signed by members, owners, officers or governing persons. A person is considered to have knowingly waived the right to a jury trial if the person voted for or ratified the document containing the waiver or acquired stock in the entity at, or continued to hold stock in a particular entity after, a time in which the waiver was included in the governing documents. Also, in their governing documents, entities may choose an exclusive Texas forum and venue for internal entity claims.

Inspection Rights

The amendments clarify and, in some respects, limit the ability of shareholders, members and partners to inspect records. Notably, emails, text messages, and social media communications are excluded from entity records, unless those records effectuate an action by the corporation, limited liability company or limited partnership. Furthermore, for publicly traded corporations or corporations that affirmatively elect to opt in to the statutory presumptions that directors and officers acted in compliance with their duties, inspection demands by a requesting holder with ongoing or expected litigation involving the corporation or derivative proceedings may be denied. However, these changes do not impair the right to obtain discovery of records from the corporation in an active or pending lawsuit.

Conclusion

Texas is a notable forum for corporate activity and innovation. These amendments provide enhanced protections for directors and officers of Texas entities and should reduce litigation risks, particularly for publicly traded Texas entities. The changes also impose new limitations on shareholders, especially regarding inspection and derivative actions. Additional proposed amendments to the TBOC are currently proceeding through the legislative system. Gibson Dunn will publish a later update summarizing these amendments as they become law.

Texas corporations should update their training for boards of directors and review their organizational documents, internal procedures, and compliance practices to carefully assess the impact of these changes. Gibson Dunn’s Texas lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these developments.

[1] This section of the code also applies to corporations that opt in to the statutory presumptions that directors and officers acted in compliance with their duties.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Gerry Spedale, Jason Ferrari, and Hillary Holmes.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist with any questions you may have regarding these developments. To learn more, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work in the firm’s Securities Regulation & Corporate Governance practice group, or the authors in Houston:

Gerry Spedale (+1 346.718.6888, gspedale@gibsondunn.com)

Hillary H. Holmes (+1 346.718.6602, hholmes@gibsondunn.com)

Jason Ferrari (+1 346.718.6736, jferrari@gibsondunn.com)

Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

In the May episode of the Bloomberg Intelligence FICC Focus podcast, partner and Global Chair of our Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group, Scott Greenberg, joins Bloomberg’s Negisa Balluku to discuss his extensive involvement in the liability management space and share his unique insight into the evolution of lender cooperation agreements.

The Civil Transactions Law codifies the rules governing liquidated damages clauses under Saudi law. This client alert outlines key considerations for contracting parties when adopting such clauses, and how courts may approach them in practice.

How Liquidated Damages Clauses are Recognized in Saudi Arabia

The Saudi legal framework recognizes liquidated damages as pre-agreed estimates of losses incurred by one party due to the other party’s breach of contract, including non-performance or delay in fulfilling contractual obligations.

Historical Context

Even prior to the Civil Transactions Law, Saudi courts recognized liquidated damages clauses based on Sharia principles. Such clauses have been upheld as valid and enforceable, except in cases where:

the breaching party had a legitimate excuse for non-performance or delay; or
the agreed amount was deemed excessively high, amounting to financial coercion, in which cases courts have assessed excessiveness based on prevailing customs and practices.[1]

How Liquidated Damages Operate Today

Validity:Parties can agree on liquidated damages, either in the original contract or a later agreement.[2]

Simplified Burden of Proof:Liquidated damages clauses render the occurrence of damages presumed. To enforce such a clause, the aggrieved party is not required to prove damage or causation – merely that a breach has occurred.[3]

Avoiding Liquidated Damages:A party may avoid liability under a liquidated damages clause by proving either:
- that the other party did not suffer any damage;[4] or
- that the damage was not caused by the party’s breach, but rather by the other party’s acts, omissions, or a force majeure event.
Reducing Liquidated Damages:The breaching party may be successful in reducing the sum of liquidated damages by proving either:
- that the pre-agreed amount is grossly exaggerated, thereby allowing the court to rule in accordance with the general principles of liability under Saudi law;[5] or
- that the breaching party has partially performed their obligations, thereby allowing the court to assess the extent of unperformed obligations and apply the liquidated damages clause accordingly.[6]
Court Discretion:Courts cannot freely adjust liquidated damages clauses. Their discretion is limited to:
- reducing the amount in cases of gross exaggeration or partial performance. A mere discrepancy between the damages incurred and the agreed sum is insufficient to warrant reduction[7]; or
- increasing the sum if the non-breaching party proves that deceit or gross negligence by the debtor caused the damage to exceed the agreed sum.[8]
Prohibition on Payment Obligations:In line with Saudi Arabia’s strict prohibition of interest payments[9], it is impermissible as a matter of public policy for liquidated damages to apply to payment obligations.[10]

How Saudi Arabia Compares to Neighboring Jurisdictions:Saudi Arabia’s approach towards liquidated damages clauses shares similarities with the approaches of UAE and Egypt, but there are some differences. For example:

Element	Saudi Arabi	UAE	Egypt
Default position on prior notice of imposition	No prior notice required.[11]	Prior notice required.[12]	Prior notice required.[13]
Court discretion to adjust liquidated damages	Relatively limited.[14]	Relatively broad.[15]	Relatively limited.[16]

Points to Consider When Drafting a Liquidated Damages Clause

Be specific. Clearly define what triggers the liquidated damages (delays, quality issues, etc.).
Consider industry benchmarks. Base estimates on market standards or historical data to avoid claims of exaggeration.
Expressly address partial performance. Specify how damages will be calculated if some of the triggering obligations are met.
Follow notice requirements. While Saudi law does not by default require notice to enforce liquidated damages, your specific contract might.
Understand burden of proof requirements. Know who bears the burden of proof in different scenarios to claim or defend tactically.
Consider all available remedies and seek them tactically. Parties may be precluded from enforcing liquidated damages clauses in conjunction with other contractual remedies.

[1] Resolution No. 25 dated 31/08/1394H by the Council of Senior Scholars: “The Council unanimously decides that the penalty clause stipulated in contracts is valid and legally binding, and must be upheld unless there is a legitimate excuse for the breach of the obligation that justifies it under Sharia. In such a case, the excuse nullifies the obligation until it ceases. If the penalty clause is, by customary standards, excessive to the extent that it serves as a financial threat and deviates significantly from the principles of Sharia, then fairness and equity must prevail, based on the actual loss of benefit or incurred harm.” Cases in which Saudi courts upheld the Council of Senior Scholar’s Resolution No. 25 include the General Court’s Decision No. 1 of 1439H: “The liquidated damages clause included in contracts is a valid and enforceable condition which must be upheld, unless there is a legitimate excuse for breaching the obligation that is recognized under Shari’a, in which case the excuse suspends the obligation until it ceases. If the amount of liquidated damages is excessive by customary standards, to the point that it constitutes financial coercion and departs from the principles of Shari’a, then recourse must be had to justice and fairness, based on the actual harm incurred or the benefit lost. The determination of such matters in case of dispute is to be made by the competent court with the assistance of experts and professionals.”

[2] Civil Transactions Law, Article 178: “The contracting parties may specify in advance the amount of compensation whether in the contract or in a subsequent agreement, unless the subject of the obligation is a cash amount. The right to compensation shall not require notification.”

[3] For example: Board of Grievance’s decision in Case No. 20 of 1430H (predating the enactment of the Civil Transactions Law): “…and the administrative authority is not required to prove that it has suffered harm, given that [the liquidated damages] constitute an agreed-upon compensation for presumed harm, including harm resulting merely from delay.” Commercial Court in Riyadh’s decision in Case No. 4530906759 of 1445H: “The Law expressly provides that liquidated damages are not due to the creditor if the debtor proves that the creditor has suffered no harm. This is specifically stated in paragraph (1) of Article (179) of the same Law mentioned above,” presuming that liquidated damages are initially owed to the creditor upon breach, and it is the debtor’s burden to rebut this presumption by proving the absence of harm. This position is consistent with the literature of leading scholars in the region. For example, A. Sanhouri, ‘Al Waseet on the Explanation of the Civil Code’, Part Two, p. 817, concerning a similarly formulated legal provision in Egypt’s Civil Code: “[…] the presence of a Liquidated Damages Clause renders the occurrence of damage presumed, and the creditor would not be required to prove it. Therefore, if the debtor alleges that the creditor has not incurred damage, it is he who would bear the burden of proof, and not the creditor.”

[4] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179: “Compensation that is contractually agreed upon by the parties shall not be payable if the debtor proves that the creditor has sustained no harm.”

[5] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(2): “The court may, upon a petition by the debtor, reduce the compensation if the debtor establishes that the agreed-upon compensation was excessive or that the original obligation was partially performed.” A. Almarjah, ‘Explanation of the Saudi Civil Transactions law,’ 1445H, Part One, p. 297: “Judicial intervention is limited to removing exaggeration in the liquidated damages clause, not to assessing its proportionality to the actual harm. Accordingly, if the agreed liquidated damages exceed the actual harm, but the excess is not deemed gross, the judge may not reduce the amount.”

[6] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(2): “The court may, upon a petition by the debtor, reduce the compensation if the debtor establishes that the agreed-upon compensation was excessive or that the original obligation was partially performed.”

[7] A. Sultan, ‘A Brief on the General Theory of Obligation’, 1983, Section 2, p. 78, concerning a similarly formulated legal provision in Egypt’s Civil Code: “…if there is excess in the quantification, but it is not exaggerated, it is impermissible to reduce it, as the fundamental principle is that the Judge orders in accordance with what has been agreed-upon by the parties, and absent one of the conditions of the exception, it is obligatory to resort to the fundamental principle.” A similar opinion has been given by a Saudi scholar; A. Almarjah, ‘Explanation of the Saudi Civil Transactions law,’ 1445H, Part One, p. 297: “Judicial intervention is limited to removing exaggeration in the liquidated damages clause, not to assessing its proportionality to the actual harm. Accordingly, if the agreed liquidated damages exceed the actual harm, but the excess is not deemed gross, the judge may not reduce the amount.”

[8] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(3): “The court may, upon a petition by the creditor, increase the amount of compensation to the extent necessary to cover the harm if the creditor establishes that an act of fraud or gross negligence by the debtor is what caused the harm to exceed the agreed-upon compensation.”

[9] Commercial Court in Jeddah, Case No. 4531041638 of 1445H: “…it is impermissible to agree on compensation where the subject of the obligation is a monetary amount. Given that this Article pertains to public order (public policy), the parties may not contract out of or override its provisions…”

[10] See, Resolution No. (109) (12/3) of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy: “It is permissible to stipulate a penalty clause in all financial contracts, except in contracts where the primary obligation is a debt, as this would constitute explicit riba (usury),” upheld by the Commercial Court in Jeddah in Case No. 433665897 of 1443H.

[11] Civil Transactions Law, Article 178: “The contracting parties may specify in advance the amount of compensation […] The right to compensation shall not require notification.”

[12] UAE’s Civil Transactions Law, Article 387: “Compensation is not due without the debtor being notified, unless otherwise provided by law or agreed upon in the contract.”

[13] Egypt’s Civil Code, Article 218: “Unless otherwise specified, compensation is not due without the debtor being notified.”

[14] Civil Transactions Law, Article 179(2): “The court may, upon a petition by the debtor, reduce the compensation if the debtor establishes that the agreed-upon compensation was excessive or that the original obligation was partially performed.” Id, Article 179(3): “The court may, upon a petition by the creditor, increase the amount of compensation to the extent necessary to cover the harm if the creditor establishes that an act of fraud or gross negligence by the debtor is what caused the harm to exceed the agreed-upon compensation.”

[15] There are some inconsistent court decisions noted across and within each of the jurisdictions. UAE’s Civil Transactions Law, Article 390(2): “The judge may, in all cases, at the request of one of the parties, amend such an agreement, in order to make the amount assessed equal to the damage. Any agreement to the contrary is void.”

[16] Egypt’s Civil Code, Article 224: “(1) Damages fixed by agreement are not due, if the debtor establishes that the creditor has not suffered any loss. (2) The judge may reduce the amount of these damages, if the debtor establishes that the amount fixed was grossly exaggerated or that the principal obligation has been partially performed. (3) Any agreement contrary to the provisions of the two preceding paragraphs is void.”

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Mahmoud Abdel Baky, Rashed Khalifah, and Hamzeh Zu’bi*.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s International Arbitration, Judgment and Arbitral Award Enforcement, or practice groups, or the following authors in Riyadh:

Mahmoud Abdel-Baky (+966 55 056 6323, mabdel-baky@gibsondunn.com)

Rashed Z. Khalifah (+966 55 236 0511, rkhalifah@gibsondunn.com)

*Hamzeh Zu’bi is a trainee associate in Riyadh and not admitted to practice law.

Partner Matthew Axelrod and associates Justin duRivage and Hui Fang have written for Law360 about concrete steps that companies should consider taking to prepare for an aggressive approach to export enforcement.

Please join us for a presentation that focuses on the latest developments in two key markets: the UK and the Middle East. As regulatory landscapes and investor expectations evolve, companies seeking to go public in these markets should ensure that they are alive to the opportunities and challenges.

The session provides valuable insights for companies and shareholders preparing for IPOs, highlighting key IPO readiness steps that companies should be considering, and offering a strategic understanding of how to navigate regulatory complexities and market expectations.

MCLE CREDIT INFORMATION:

This program has been approved for credit in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board for a maximum of 1.0 credit hour, of which 1.0 credit hour may be applied toward the areas of professional practice requirement. This course is approved for transitional/non-transitional credit.

Attorneys seeking New York credit must obtain an Affirmation Form prior to watching the archived version of this webcast. Please contact CLE@gibsondunn.com to request the MCLE form.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 hour in the General Category.

California attorneys may claim “self-study” credit for viewing the archived version of this webcast. No certificate of attendance is required for California “self-study” credit.

PANELISTS:

Jade Chu is a partner in the Dubai office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where he is a member of the Mergers & Acquisitions practice group.

He has significant experience advising corporates, government-related entities, sponsors and financial institutions on a wide range of corporate transactions (including cross-border public and private M&A, JVs and equity capital markets) and general corporate advisory matters.

Marwan Elaraby is the partner in charge of the Dubai office where he is a member of the Mergers & Acquisitions and Capital Markets Practice Groups.

Marwan advises clients on M&A and private equity transactions, as well as governments on strategic and regulatory matters. He also advises both issuers and underwriters on equity and debt securities offerings.

Chris Haynes is a corporate partner in the London office of Gibson Dunn.

Chris has extensive experience in equity capital markets transactions and mergers and acquisitions including advising corporates, investment banks and shareholders on initial public offerings (including multi-track processes), rights issues and other equity offerings as well as on public takeovers, private company M&A and joint ventures. He also advises on corporate and securities law and regulation.

Ibrahim Soumrany is a partner in the Dubai and Riyadh offices of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and is a member of the firm’s Capital Markets practice group.

Ibrahim’s capital markets experience includes advising public and private issuers and investment banks on a broad range of capital markets transactions including equity offerings (IPOs and secondary offerings) and debt offerings (conventional and Islamic). Ibrahim has extensive experience advising on transactions across a number of jurisdictions in the Middle East, the US and Europe. Ibrahim also regularly advises on public M&As as well as companies and their boards on listing requirements, securities and corporate governance matters and reporting obligations.

On May 12, 2025, the United States and China announced that each country would reduce tariff rates on the goods of the other country by 115%, marking a significant breakthrough in the rapidly escalated trade war.

On May 12, 2025, the White House released a Joint Statement with the People’s Republic of China, accompanied by a Fact Sheet, announcing a significant step back from the high tariff rates each country had imposed on the goods of the other since the beginning of April. On the same day, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Modifying Reciprocal Tariff Rates to Reflect Discussions with the People’s Republic of China” (“May 12 Order”), directing relevant U.S. agencies to implement reduced tariffs on goods from China. This alert provides an overview of the impactful commitments made in the Joint Statement by the United States and China, where both governments recognized “the importance of the critical bilateral economic and trade relationship between both countries and the global economy” and committed to take certain actions by May 14, 2025, to substantially reduce the previously imposed tariffs.

The Joint Statement marks a significant breakthrough, signaling that both the United States and China have pulled back from the brink of a more serious trade war and a potential collapse in bilateral economic relations. As noted by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the United States does “not want a generalized decoupling from China.” While the Joint Statement involves mutual concessions, it remains expressly a temporary measure rather than a comprehensive or lasting resolution. While much remains to be negotiated, the Joint Statement represents a hopeful step forward.

I. U.S. Reduces Tariffs on Chinese Goods Imposed under IEEPA to 30% for the
Initial Period of 90 Days

The May 12 Fact Sheet notes that the United States and China will each lower tariffs by 115% while retaining an additional 10% tariff. Consistent with this statement, effective May 14, 2025, Chinese goods, including those originating in Hong Kong and Macau, will be subject to a total of 30% tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for an “initial period of 90 days.” These emergency tariffs will be applied in addition to any other applicable tariffs, including tariffs imposed under Section 232, Section 301, or “most favored nation” duties. Specific breakdowns are provided below.

10% So-Called “Reciprocal” Tariffs

Pursuant to Section 2 of the May 12 Order, effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 14, 2025, all articles imported into the United States from China, including Hong Kong and Macau, will be subject to an additional ad valorem tariff of 10% under the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs imposed by Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025. The prior April 2 executive order had imposed broad-reaching so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on all U.S. trading partners except for Mexico and Canada. The original country-specific rate for goods from China announced in that order was 34%. Under the May 12 Order, 24 percentage points are “suspended” for 90 days and replaced by the 10% duty. The May 12 Order removes the retaliatory tariff rates announced in subsequent executive orders of early April, notably the increased tariffs imposed by Executive Order 14259 (increasing the rate to 84%) and Executive Order 14266 (increasing the rate to 125%).

As a consequence of the May 12 Order, if a new deal is not reached during the initial period of 90 days, it appears that the United States may raise the “reciprocal” duty rate on Chinese goods to the originally announced 34%.

20% IEEPA-Fentanyl Tariffs and Other Tariffs that Continue to Apply

The May 12 Fact Sheet clarifies that the United States will retain all duties imposed on China prior to April 2, 2025, including: (i) Most Favored Nation tariffs; (ii) tariffs imposed under Section 301; (iii) industry-sector tariffs imposed under Section 232; and (iv) tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA related to the fentanyl-related national emergency announced and expanded in Executive Order 14195.

By way of background, on February 1, 2025, President Trump issued an executive orderimposing an additional 10% ad valorem rate of duty to all articles that are products of China or of Hong Kong, citing a national emergency with respect to illegal drugs entering the United States and China’s alleged failure to arrest, seize or otherwise intercept chemical precursor suppliers and money launderers connected to the illegal drug trade. President Trump subsequently increased such duties on China to 20%, effective March 4, 2025, citing China’s continued failure to adequately respond to the emergency. Thus, the total IEEPA-related tariffs imposed on goods from China is now 30%.

In addition, the Section 301 tariffs, imposed during the first Trump Administration in response to certain technology transfer practices in China, generally range from 7.5% to 25%, with certain products subject to higher duties up to 100%. Consequently, the effective average rate of duty for goods from China is approximately 40%-55%.

De Minimis Tariffs Adjustments

Section 4 of the May 12 Order decreases the tariff rate applicable to low-value imports from China (i.e., goods previously eligible for duty-free treatment under the de minimis exclusion) from 120% to 54%.

By way of background, the de minimis statutory exemption allows many shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the United States duty-free. Section 2(c)(i) of Executive Order 14256 of April 2, 2025 (Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports) eliminated the de minimis exception for China imports, effective May 2, 2025. Subsequently, Executive Order 14259 and Executive Order 14266 increased the duty rate on such goods.

The May 12 Order decreases the ad valorem rate of duty for low-value shipments from China and Hong Kong from 120% to 54% (this is still higher than the originally proposed low-value shipment rate of 30%). However, the May 12 Order retains the alternative “specific duty” option for low-value shipments delivered to the United States from China or Hong Kong via the international postal network at $100 per postal item, though this rate is no longer subject to the automatic increase originally scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 2025.

While the de minimis exclusion has been removed for goods from China and Hong Kong, it is still presently in place for imports that originate in other jurisdictions. However, President Trump has previously directed the Secretary of Commerce to develop mechanisms to collect IEEPA-based duties on low-value shipments from other jurisdictions.

II. Chinese Actions and Consultation Mechanism

China Lowers Tariffs on U.S. Goods to 10%

Pursuant to the Joint Statement, China issued an Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 7 of 2025 on May 13, 2025, local time, that suspends the prior 34% tariff on goods from the United States originally announced on April 4, 2025, for a matching 90 days, while retaining a parallel 10% tariff during the period of the pause.

China to Remove Non-Tariff Barriers

In the Joint Statement and accompanying Fact Sheet, China committed to “adopt all necessary administrative measures to suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025.”

By way of background, China announced a range of non-tariff retaliatory measures on April 4, 2025, including the following:

China’s Ministry of Commerce added 11 U.S. companies to its list of so-called “unreliable entities,” which bars them from engaging in all import and export activities in China and making new investments in China.
Beijing added 16 U.S. entities to its export control list, which prohibits exports of dual-use items to the listed firms. Nearly all of the firms so targeted operate in the defense and aerospace industries.
The Ministry of Commerce announced the launch of an anti-dumping probe into imports of certain medical computed tomography tubes from the United States and India.
Beijing launched an anti-monopoly investigation into the PRC subsidiary of a major U.S. chemical company.
Beijing announced export controls on seven types of rare earth minerals to the United States, which are vital to end uses ranging from electric cars to defense. Notably, the United States imports its rare earth materials predominantly from China, which produces approximately 90% of the world’s supply.

Parties to Establish a Consultation Mechanism

The Joint Statement also promises that the U.S. and China “will establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations,” and that such discussions may be conducted alternately in China and the United States, or a third country upon agreement of the parties.

Conclusion

These developments involving the critical bilateral trading relationship between the United States and China, a relationship valued at an estimated $582 billion worth of annual goods trade, underscores the ongoing fluidity in global trade policy. We will continue to closely monitor developments related to tariffs and the progress of this and other anticipated trade deals. Gibson Dunn lawyers are prepared to help clients navigate this evolving landscape.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Hui Fang, Adam M. Smith, Donald Harrison, and Samantha Sewall.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these issues. For additional information about how we may assist you, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or the following leaders and members of the firm’s International Trade Advisory & Enforcement practice group:

United States:
Ronald Kirk – Co-Chair, Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Donald Harrison – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8560, dharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Axelrod – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
Amanda H. Neely – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9566, aneely@gibsondunn.com)
Samantha Sewall – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3509, ssewall@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle A. Weinbaum – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8274, mweinbaum@gibsondunn.com)
Roxana Akbari – Orange County (+1 949.451.3850, rakbari@gibsondunn.com)
Karsten Ball – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9341, kball@gibsondunn.com)
Hugh N. Danilack – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9536, hdanilack@gibsondunn.com)
Hui Fang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9577, hfang@gibsondunn.com)
Mason Gauch – Houston (+1 346.718.6723, mgauch@gibsondunn.com)
Chris R. Mullen – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8250, cmullen@gibsondunn.com)
Sarah L. Pongrace – New York (+1 212.351.3972, spongrace@gibsondunn.com)
Anna Searcey – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3655, asearcey@gibsondunn.com)
Audi K. Syarief – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8266, asyarief@gibsondunn.com)
Scott R. Toussaint – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3588, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com)
Lindsay Bernsen Wardlaw – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9475, lwardlaw@gibsondunn.com)
Shuo (Josh) Zhang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8270, szhang@gibsondunn.com)

Asia:
Kelly Austin – Denver/Hong Kong (+1 303.298.5980, kaustin@gibsondunn.com)
David A. Wolber – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3764, dwolber@gibsondunn.com)
Fang Xue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8687, fxue@gibsondunn.com)
Qi Yue – Beijing (+86 10 6502 8534, qyue@gibsondunn.com)
Dharak Bhavsar – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3755, dbhavsar@gibsondunn.com)
Arnold Pun – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3838, apun@gibsondunn.com)

Europe:
Attila Borsos – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 10, aborsos@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 207 071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle M. Kirschner – London (+44 20 7071 4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)
Penny Madden KC – London (+44 20 7071 4226, pmadden@gibsondunn.com)
Irene Polieri – London (+44 20 7071 4199, ipolieri@gibsondunn.com)
Benno Schwarz – Munich (+49 89 189 33 110, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)
Nikita Malevanny – Munich (+49 89 189 33 224, nmalevanny@gibsondunn.com)
Melina Kronester – Munich (+49 89 189 33 225, mkronester@gibsondunn.com)
Vanessa Ludwig – Frankfurt (+49 69 247 411 531, vludwig@gibsondunn.com)

An article in Law360 reports on the task force created by Gibson Dunn to help clients navigate the challenges posed by increasingly active State Attorney General investigations and litigation across major U.S. industries.

Read the article, “Gibson Dunn Launches State Attorneys General Task Force,” in Law360 [PDF].

Pohl v. Cheatham, No. 23-0045 – Decided May 9, 2025

On May 9, the Texas Supreme Court held that Texas’s civil barratry statute doesn’t apply to soliciting legal-services contracts outside Texas.

“We reaffirm our longstanding presumption that a civil statute does not have extraterritorial effect unless the Legislature makes clear that such effect is intended.”

Justice Huddle, writing for the Court

Background:

Two Texas lawyers entered into legal-services contracts with clients in Louisiana and Arkansas to represent those clients in personal-injury cases filed in courts outside Texas. After those cases settled, the clients sued the Texas lawyers under Texas’s civil barratry statute, seeking to void their legal-services contracts. The clients alleged that the lawyers directed and financed out-of-state case runners to solicit clients, and that the lawyers coordinated and funded these efforts from their Texas offices.

The Texas lawyers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Texas’s civil barratry statute doesn’t apply because the alleged solicitation occurred outside Texas. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed. It held that applying Texas’s civil barratry statute wouldn’t be impermissibly extraterritorial because some of the lawyers’ acts, such as financing the out-of-state runners, occurred in Texas.

Issue:

Does Texas’s civil barratry statute apply to acts of solicitation that occurred outside Texas?

Court’s Holding:

No. Nothing in the civil barratry statute’s text overcomes the strong presumption against extraterritoriality. Applying the statute to the clients’ claims in this case would be impermissible because the statute’s focus is on the acts that procured the legal-services contracts—all of which occurred outside Texas.

What It Means:

The Court reaffirmed the strong presumption against extraterritoriality: “[T]he Legislature generally legislates with Texas concerns in mind, and Texas legislation therefore is meant to apply only within Texas’s borders.” Op. 15. The decision makes clear that defendants can challenge a plaintiff’s statutory claim on the ground that it seeks to give the statute an impermissible extraterritorial effect.
The Court rejected the position that a civil statute should be applied extraterritorially “merely because some or any conduct related to the violation occurs in Texas,” explaining that “the presumption would be meaningless if any domestic conduct could defeat it.” Op. 21–22. Instead, the Court stressed that courts must “home in on the core conduct the Legislature sought to address—the object of the statute’s solicitude—and determine where that conduct occurred.” Op. 22.
Relying heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s extraterritoriality precedents, the Court adopted a two-step framework for analyzing the extraterritoriality of Texas statutes. First, Texas courts consider whether the statutory text expresses a clear intent to overcome the “strong presumption against extraterritorial application of a Texas statute.” Op. 17–18. If not, courts must then assess whether applying the statute to the plaintiff’s claim would be an impermissible extraterritorial application. To do so, courts must “identify the ‘focus’ of the Legislature’s concern underlying the provision at issue” and “ask whether the conduct relevant to that focus occurred within or outside Texas.” Op. 21.

The Court’s opinion is available here.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Texas Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:

Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice

Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com	Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com	Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com

Related Practice: Texas General Litigation

Trey Cox +1 214.698.3256 tcox@gibsondunn.com	Collin Cox +1 346.718.6604 ccox@gibsondunn.com	Gregg Costa +1 346.718.6649 gcosta@gibsondunn.com
Mike Raiff +1 214.698.3350 mraiff@gibsondunn.com	Russ Falconer +1 214.698.3170 rfalconer@gibsondunn.com

This alert was prepared by Texas of counsels Ben Wilson and Kathryn Cherry and Texas associates Elizabeth Kiernan, Stephen Hammer, and Andrew Mitchell.

In an article for the Spring 2025 edition of Real Estate Finance Journal, partners Stephenie Gosnell Handler and David Wolber, of counsel Michelle Weinbaum, and associates Roxana Akbari, Mason Gauch, and Chris Mullen provide an overview of the final rule of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States which expands its jurisdiction over real estate transactions subject to national security review, and offer a series of takeaways for transaction parties.

London partner Sandy Bhogal shared his insights on the OECD’s landmark global tax deal for the Financial Times article “US Engaging on OECD Global Tax Deal Despite Donald Trump’s Defiance.” Sandy is Co-Chair of the Gibson Dunn Tax Practice Group.

Read the article in the Financial Times (registration required): https://www.ft.com/content/6ec6816d-063b-47c6-af28-bc9b67ada20e

A new CFIUS “fast-track” pilot program—designed to streamline the investment process for foreign investors from allied and partner countries—aims to enhance efficiencies in the CFIUS review process while maintaining robust national security protections.

On May 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in its capacity as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), announced plans to establish a “fast-track” pilot program to expedite its review of investments from allied and partner countries. This program will include a first of its kind “Known Investor” portal, where CFIUS can collect information from foreign investors pre-filing with the aim of accelerating the review process. Treasury will launch this initiative as a pilot program with plans to refine it over time, though further details have not been provided at this time.

This development closely tracks President Trump’s America First Investment Policy (the “Policy”) issued on February 21, 2025, which outlined a dual policy goal: making the United States “the world’s greatest destination for investment dollars,” while also enhancing the “ability to protect the United States from new and evolving threats that can accompany foreign investment.” The Policy announced that the U.S. would create a “fast-track” process to facilitate greater investment from “specified allies and partner sources” based on “objective standards,” though a formal list of qualifying jurisdictions was not released. At the same time, the announcement underscored that CFIUS would maintain rigorous scrutiny on non-passive investments by the People’s Republic of China.

Looking forward, the “Known Investor” program could be particularly valuable for European and Middle Eastern investors, particularly for transactions with minimal national security risks. At this stage, it remains unclear whether the implementation will follow a notice and comment procedure via the Federal Register or whether guidance will be issued directly through the CFIUS website. The exact timeline for implementation also remains unclear.

Our team at Gibson Dunn is closely monitoring this new development and is actively advising clients on preparing for the new program.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Roxana Akbari, Sarah Burns, Stephenie Gosnell Handler, and Chris Mullen.

United States:
Ronald Kirk – Co-Chair, Dallas (+1 214.698.3295, rkirk@gibsondunn.com)
Adam M. Smith – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3547, asmith@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Donald Harrison – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8560, dharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Christopher T. Timura – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3690, ctimura@gibsondunn.com)
Matthew S. Axelrod – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8517, maxelrod@gibsondunn.com)
David P. Burns – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)
Nicola T. Hanna – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Courtney M. Brown – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8685, cmbrown@gibsondunn.com)
Amanda H. Neely – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9566, aneely@gibsondunn.com)
Samantha Sewall – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3509, ssewall@gibsondunn.com)
Michelle A. Weinbaum – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8274, mweinbaum@gibsondunn.com)
Roxana Akbari – Orange County (+1 949.451.3850, rakbari@gibsondunn.com)
Karsten Ball – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9341, kball@gibsondunn.com)
Hugh N. Danilack – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9536, hdanilack@gibsondunn.com)
Mason Gauch – Houston (+1 346.718.6723, mgauch@gibsondunn.com)
Chris R. Mullen – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8250, cmullen@gibsondunn.com)
Sarah L. Pongrace – New York (+1 212.351.3972, spongrace@gibsondunn.com)
Anna Searcey – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3655, asearcey@gibsondunn.com)
Audi K. Syarief – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8266, asyarief@gibsondunn.com)
Scott R. Toussaint – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3588, stoussaint@gibsondunn.com)
Lindsay Bernsen Wardlaw – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.777.9475, lwardlaw@gibsondunn.com)
Shuo (Josh) Zhang – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8270, szhang@gibsondunn.com)

Europe

04/28/2025

CJEU | Fact Sheet | Case Law on Personal Data Protection

The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has updated its “case law fact sheet” on personal data protection which compiles its key rulings in the field.

For further information: CJEU Website

04/23/2025

European Data Protection Board | 2024 Annual Report

The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has published its annual report for 2024.

The report provides an overview of the EDPB work in 2024 and highlights key achievements such as the adoption of the 2024-2027 strategy and an increase in the consistency opinions under Article 64(2) GDPR (e.g., on “Consent or Pay” models, the use of personal data to train AI models). The report also emphasizes the EDPB’s contribution to cross-regulatory cooperation for new pieces of legislation such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the AI Act.

For further information: EDPB Website

04/14/2025

European Data Protection Board | Guidelines | Personal data and blockchain

The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has published Guidelines 02/2025 on processing of personal data through blockchain technologies, open to public consultation until 9 June 2025.

The guidelines describe the blockchain technologies and provide a framework for organizations considering their use. They outline key GDPR considerations for processing activities (e.g., data retention periods, data subjects’ rights), and clarify the responsibilities of different actors involved in a blockchain related processing.

For more information: EDPB Website

04/11/2025

European Commission | Public Consultation | EU Cybersecurity Act

The European Commission has opened a public consultation on the evaluation and revision of the 2019 EU Cybersecurity Act.

The EU Commission is seeking stakeholders’ feedback on key areas for the contemplated revision, including the mandate of the European Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), the European Cybersecurity Framework, challenges related to ICT supply chain security, and the simplification of cybersecurity measures. The public consultation is open until 20 June 2025.

For more information: European Commission Website

04/10/2025

European Commission | Guidelines | Generative AI in Research

The European Commission has updated its Living Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research.

The guidelines provide recommendations for researchers and organizations to ensure they promote and support responsible use of generative AI in their research activities. They are regularly updated to reflect the technological developments in the field.

For more information: European Commission Website, Guidelines

04/10/2025

European Data Protection Board | Report | Large Language Models

The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) has published a report on AI Privacy Risks and Mitigations Large Language Models (“LLMs”).

The report provides a risk management methodology to help developers and users of LLMs identify, assess and mitigate privacy risks in the development and use of LLM systems. As such, it complements the Data Protection Impact Assessment process (Art. 35 GDPR) and supports requirements regarding data protection by design and by default (Art. 25 GDPR) and security of personal data (Art. 32 GDPR).

For more information: EDPB Website

04/02/2025

European Commission | Report | B2B Data Sharing & EU Data Act

The European Commission’s Expert Group has issued its final report on B2B data sharing and cloud computing contracts under the EU Data Act.

The report contains model contractual terms (MCTs) covering different data sharing scenarios (e.g., data holder to user, user to data recipient), as well as standard contractual clauses (SCCs) for cloud computing contracts.

For more information: European Commission Website

03/27/2025

European Commission | DORA Directive | Infringement Procedures

The European Commission has launched infringement procedures against 13 Member States (including France, Spain, and Belgium) for failing to fully transpose the Digital Operational Resilience Act (“DORA”) Directive within the given deadline (17 January 2025).

The Member States have two months to complete their transposition and notify the adopted measures to the Commission.

For more information: European Commission Website

France

04/29/2025

French Supervisory Authority | Annual Report | Enforcement

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has released its 2024 annual report, recording 17,772 complaints, 87 sanctions, and over €55 million in fines.

The CNIL has stepped up enforcement efforts with 331 corrective actions and observed an increase in the use of simplified procedures. It has also strengthened its response to growing cybersecurity threats and expanded its oversight on AI and digital innovation.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/24/2025

French Supervisory Authority | Public Consultation | Multi-terminal Consent

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has launched a public consultation for its draft recommendation on multi-terminal consent across various devices.

The draft recommendation concerns stakeholders which intend to collect multi-terminal consent when users are authenticated on an account. They offer concrete recommendations on how to validly collect multi-terminal consent. The public consultation will end on 5 June 2025.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/23/2025

French Supervisory Authority | Publication | Data Breach

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has published a fictional data breach use case to help professionals better understand and prevent risks related to unauthorized access to data handled by processors.

The use case outlines a typical data breach based on a real-life incident that was reported to the CNIL.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/14/2025

French Supervisory Authority | 2025-2028 European and International Strategy

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has released its European and international strategy for 2025-2028.

The strategy focuses on three priorities: improving European cooperation, promoting high international data protection standards while supporting innovation, and reinforcing CNIL’s global influence.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/09/2025

French Supervisory Authority | Public Consultation | Session Recording and Replay Tools

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has launched a public consultation on browsing session recording and replay tools.

These tools, which capture detailed user interactions, raise significant privacy concerns due to their potential to collect sensitive personal data without users’ awareness. The goal of the consultation is to develop practical recommendations to help tool providers and website editors ensure GDPR compliance and better protect user privacy.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/08/2025

French Supervisory Authority | Guidelines | Mobile Applications

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has published an updated version of its recommendations on mobile applications recommendations.

The CNIL has published an updated version of its recommendations on mobile applications, originally adopted in July 2024 and released in September 2024. The revised version includes corrections and clarifications in response to stakeholder feedback, and an annotated version is available to highlight the updates.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/01/2025

French Supervisory Authority | Guidelines | Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

The French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) has published a recommendation on the implementation of multi-factor authentication (“MFA”) to help online services implement privacy-compliant cybersecurity solutions.

The guidance aims to support controllers and solution providers in aligning MFA practices with the GDPR—covering legal bases, data minimization, retention periods, and the appropriate use of authentication factors such as biometrics, SMS codes, and employee devices.

For more information: CNIL Website [FR]

04/01/2025

ANSSI | Cybersecurity | Information System Security Accreditation

The French National Cybersecurity Agency (“ANSSI”) has published updated guidance on the security accreditation of information systems.

This publication details the steps and documentation required to accredit an information system, including risk assessment, security objectives, and verification processes. It aims to ensure a structured and high-assurance approach to system security within both public and private organizations. The guidance forms part of ANSSI’s broader efforts to promote cybersecurity resilience and regulatory compliance in France.

For more information: ANSSI Website [FR]

Germany

04/29/2025

Hamburg Supervisory Authority | Data Act | Guidance

The Hamburg Supervisory Authority (“HmbBfDI”) has published guidance on the new European Data Act, which will apply from 12 September 2025.

The HmbBfDI’s guidance provides an overview of the new obligations for companies under the Data Act, in particular in relation to data sharing obligations applicable to manufacturers of connected devices. The guidance also identified the key steps companies should take to prepare for the application of the Data Act (e.g., data mapping, updating contracts, marking trade secrets). Since the Data Act applies without prejudice to the GDPR, the guidance analyses the interactions between obligations related to personal data under the GDPR and those related to personal data under the Data Act. Finally, the HmbBfDI has highlighted the responsibilities of supervisory authorities.

For further information: HmbBfDI Website [DE]

04/24/2025

Hamburg Supervisory Authority | Compliance Review | Third Party Services

The Hamburg Supervisory Authority (“HmbBfDI”) has reviewed 1.000 websites for data protection compliance regarding the use of third-party cookies and services and identified deficiencies in 185 of them.

The HmbBfDI found that although most of the websites reviewed met the data protection requirements, deficiencies were found for approximately 185 websites. Most violations result from the fact that certain tracking technologies are activated immediately when the page is first accessed, with the result that users are tracked before consent is obtained.

For more information: HmbBfDI Website [DE]

04/24/2025

Hamburg Supervisory Authority | Q&A | Tracking

The Hamburg Supervisory Authority (“HmbBfDI”) has published FAQs on tracking via third-party services on websites.

The HmbBfDI emphasises that tracking is only permitted with the explicit consent of the respective data subject. The authority included guidance on the design of consent banners, emphasising the need to implement a “reject all” option on the same level as an “accept all” button. The guidance highlights the importance of complying with the requirements of the ePrivacy Directive (transposed into national law) in relation to tracking, alongside the provisions of the GDPR.

For more information: HmbBfDI Website [DE]

04/10/2025

Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information | Annual Report

The German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BfDI) has published its annual report.

The Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information is responsible for monitoring data protection at federal public bodies and at companies that provide telecommunications and postal services. The report shows that most proceedings are related to information and transparency obligations.

For more information: BfDI Website [DE]

04/09/2025

New German Government | Coalition Agreement | Future of Data Protection

The new German Government consisting of the CDU/CSU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany/Christian Social Union of Germany) and SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) have published their coalition agreement.

The new German government intends to liberalize data protection law at both national and EU level and work towards “data utilization”, “data sharing” and a “data economy”. It is planned to bundle the data protection authorities of the individual federal states into a nationwide authority. At EU level, the coalition intends to exclude low-risk data processing activities as well as small and medium-sized enterprises from the scope of the GDPR.

For more information: SPD Website [DE]

02/20/2025

Federal Labour Court | Judgement | Right to Compensation

The Federal Labour Court (BAG) ruled in a recently published decision that a delay in providing information under Art. 15 GDPR does not by itself justify a claim for compensation.

According to the BAG, a delayed provision of information under Article 15 GDPR by a former employer does not by itself constitute non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82(1) GDPR. The BAG held that a mere delay, absent specific and substantiated fears of data misuse or an actual loss of control over personal data, does not give rise to a claim for damages. Subjective emotional responses such as worry, annoyance, or nervousness are not sufficient unless they are objectively substantiated by a real risk of data misuse.

For more information: Official Court Website [DE]

Greece

04/08/2025

Greek Supervisory Authority | Guidance | AI and GDPR

The Greek Supervisory Authority (“HDPA”) offers training sessions on AI and GDPR.

The HDPA published educational materials and provides training programs developed by external experts from the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”). It notably offers a Data Protection Officers and Privacy Professionals Program, as well as a program for ICT Professionals. The material covers various topics such as core concepts of AI, Data Protection and Large Language Models, and Transparency.

For more information: HDPA Website [GR]

Netherlands

04/16/2025

Dutch Supervisory Authority | Survey | Algorithmic Data Processing

The Dutch Supervisory Authority (“AP”) has published survey results showing that many companies feel unprepared to manage algorithms processing personal data. Businesses often lack clarity on whether and how such algorithms are used.

The AP plans to provide guidance and practical tools, as well as and collect best practices to improve responsible algorithm procurement and use. More specifically, the AP is currently developing a checklist for businesses to adequately deal with the rights of people who are subject to algorithmic decision-making.

For more information: AP Press release [NL]

United Kingdom

04/29/2025

CPPA & Information Commissioner’s Office | International Cooperation | Privacy Enforcement

The California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) signed a declaration of cooperation to strengthen international collaboration on data protection.

The agreement will enable joint research, best practice sharing, and coordinated enforcement efforts. It marks the CPPA’s third international partnership, following agreements with Korea’s PIPC and France’s CNIL, and reflects its broader commitment to global privacy cooperation.

For more information: CPPA Press release

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Ahmed Baladi, Vera Lukic, Kai Gesing, Joel Harrison, Thomas Baculard, Billur Cinar, Hermine Hubert, Christoph Jacob, and Yannick Oberacker.

Gibson Dunn lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have about these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, the authors, or any leader or member of the firm’s Privacy, Cybersecurity & Data Innovation practice group:

Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Data Innovation:

United States:
Abbey A. Barrera – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8262, abarrera@gibsondunn.com)
Ashlie Beringer – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5327, aberinger@gibsondunn.com)
Ryan T. Bergsieker – Denver (+1 303.298.5774, rbergsieker@gibsondunn.com)
Keith Enright – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5386, kenright@gibsondunn.com)
Gustav W. Eyler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8610, geyler@gibsondunn.com)
Cassandra L. Gaedt-Sheckter – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5203, cgaedt-sheckter@gibsondunn.com)
Svetlana S. Gans – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8657, sgans@gibsondunn.com)
Lauren R. Goldman – New York (+1 212.351.2375, lgoldman@gibsondunn.com)
Stephenie Gosnell Handler – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8510, shandler@gibsondunn.com)
Natalie J. Hausknecht – Denver (+1 303.298.5783, nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com)
Jane C. Horvath – Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8505, jhorvath@gibsondunn.com)
Martie Kutscher Clark – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5348, mkutscherclark@gibsondunn.com)
Kristin A. Linsley – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8395, klinsley@gibsondunn.com)
Timothy W. Loose – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7746, tloose@gibsondunn.com)
Vivek Mohan – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5345, vmohan@gibsondunn.com)
Rosemarie T. Ring – San Francisco (+1 415.393.8247, rring@gibsondunn.com)
Ashley Rogers – Dallas (+1 214.698.3316, arogers@gibsondunn.com)
Sophie C. Rohnke – Dallas (+1 214.698.3344, srohnke@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)
Benjamin B. Wagner – Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)
Frances A. Waldmann – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7914,fwaldmann@gibsondunn.com)
Debra Wong Yang – Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com)

Europe:
Ahmed Baladi – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, abaladi@gibsondunn.com)
Patrick Doris – London (+44 20 7071 4276, pdoris@gibsondunn.com)
Kai Gesing – Munich (+49 89 189 33-180, kgesing@gibsondunn.com)
Joel Harrison – London (+44 20 7071 4289, jharrison@gibsondunn.com)
Lore Leitner – London (+44 20 7071 4987, lleitner@gibsondunn.com)
Vera Lukic – Paris (+33 1 56 43 13 00, vlukic@gibsondunn.com)
Lars Petersen – Frankfurt/Riyadh (+49 69 247 411 525, lpetersen@gibsondunn.com)
Christian Riis-Madsen – Brussels (+32 2 554 72 05, criis@gibsondunn.com)
Robert Spano – London/Paris (+44 20 7071 4000, rspano@gibsondunn.com)

Asia:
Connell O’Neill – Hong Kong (+852 2214 3812, coneill@gibsondunn.com)
Jai S. Pathak – Singapore (+65 6507 3683, jpathak@gibsondunn.com)

From the Derivatives Practice Group: This week, the CFTC placed certain staff on administrative leave pending ongoing investigations.

New Developments

CFTC Staff on Leave Pending Investigation. On May 5, pursuant to the President’s executive orders on lawful governance and accountability, the CFTC placed certain staff on administrative leave for potential violations of laws, government ethics requirements and professional rules of conduct. The CFTC stated it is committed to holding employees to the highest standards, as expected by American taxpayers. Investigations are currently ongoing into these matters and the CFTC has committed to provide updates as appropriate. [NEW]
SEC Publishes New Market Data, Analysis, and Visualizations. On April 28, the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis (“DERA”) has published new data and analysis on the key market areas of public issuers, exempt offerings, Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (“CMBS”), Asset-Backed Securities (“ABS”), money market funds, and security-based swap dealers (“SBSD”) in an effort to increase transparency and understanding of our capital markets amongst the public.
Paul S. Atkins Sworn in as SEC Chairman. On April 21, Paul S. Atkins was sworn into office as the 34th Chairman of the SEC. Chairman Atkins was nominated by President Donald J. Trump on January 20, 2025, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 9, 2025. Prior to returning to the SEC, Chairman Atkins was most recently chief executive of Patomak Global Partners, a company he founded in 2009. Chairman Atkins helped lead efforts to develop best practices for the digital asset sector. He served as an independent director and non-executive chairman of the board of BATS Global Markets, Inc. from 2012 to 2015.
CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment Regarding Perpetual Contracts in Derivatives Markets. On April 21, the CFTC issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of perpetual contracts in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates (“Perpetual Derivatives”). This request seeks comment on the characteristics of perpetual derivatives, including those characteristics which may differ across products. as well as the implications of their use in trading, clearing and risk management. The request also seeks comment on the risks of perpetual derivatives, including risks related to the areas of market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading.
CFTC Staff Seek Public Comment on 24/7 Trading. On April 21, the CFTC issued a Request for Comment to better inform them on the potential uses, benefits, and risks of trading on a 24/7 basis in the derivatives markets the CFTC regulates. This request seeks comment on the implications of extending the trading of CFTC-regulated derivatives markets to an effectively 24/7 basis, including the potential effects on trading, clearing and risk management which differ from trading during current market hours. The request also seeks comment on the risks of 24/7 trading, and the associated clearing systems, including risks related to the areas of market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading.

New Developments Outside the U.S.

- ESMA Delivers Technical Advice on Market Abuse and SME Growth Markets as Part of the Listing Act. On May 7, ESMA published its advice to the European Commission to support the Listing Act’s goals to simplify listing requirements, enhance access to public capital markets for EU companies, and improve market integrity. In relation to Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the advice covers: protracted processes, identifying key moments for public disclosure; delayed public disclosure, listing situations where delays are not allowed; and Cross-Market Order Book Mechanism, indicating the methodology for the identification of trading venues with significant cross-border activity. [NEW]
- ESMA Consults on Rules for ESG Rating Providers. On May 2, ESMA published a Consultation Paper on draft Regulatory Technical Standards (“RTS”) under the ESG Rating Regulation. The draft RTS cover the following aspects that apply to ESG rating providers: the information that should be provided in the applications for authorization and recognition; the measures and safeguards that should be put in place to mitigate risks of conflicts of interest within ESG rating providers who carry out activities other than the provision of ESG ratings; the information that they should disclose to the public, rated items and issuers of rated items, as well as users of ESG ratings. [NEW]
- ESMA Publishes the Annual Transparency Calculations for Non-equity Instruments and Bond Liquidity Data. On April 30, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, published the results of the annual transparency calculations for non-equity instruments and new quarterly liquidity assessment of bonds under MiFID II and MiFIR.
- ESMA Report Shows Increased Data Use Across EU and First Effects of Reporting Burden Reduction Efforts. On April 30, ESMA published the fifth edition of its Report on the Quality and Use of Data. The report reveals how the regulatory data collected has been used by authorities in the EU and provides insight into actions taken to ensure data quality. The document presents concrete cases on data use ranging from market monitoring to supervision, enforcement and policy making. The report also highlights ESMA’s Data Platform and ongoing improvements to data quality frameworks as key advancements in tools and technology for data quality.
- ESMA Issues Supervisory Guidelines to Prevent Market Abuse under MiCA. On April 29, ESMA published guidelines on supervisory practices to prevent and detect market abuse under the Market in Crypto Assets Regulation (“MiCA”). Based on ESMA’s experience under Market Abuse Regulation (“MAR”), the guidelines intended for National Competent Authorities (“NCAs”) include general principles for effective supervision and specific practices for detecting and preventing market abuse in crypto assets. They consider the unique features of crypto trading, such as its cross-border nature and the intensive use of social media.
- ESMA Assesses the Risks Posed by the Use of Leverage in the Fund Sector. On April 24, ESMA published its annual risk assessment of leveraged alternative investment funds (“AIFs”) and its first analysis on risks in UCITS using the absolute Value-at-Risk (“VaR”) approach. Both articles represent ESMA’s work to identify highly leveraged funds in the EU investment sector and assess their potential systemic relevance.

New Industry-Led Developments

ISDA Presents Proposed Charter for the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee. On May 8, ISDA presented the proposed Charter for the Credit Derivatives Governance Committee and accompanying DC Rule changes to implement. Pursuant to the announcement made in 2024, an ISDA working group formed from ISDA’s Credit Steering Committee has worked on producing the Governance Committee solution. ISDA views the Governance Committee as the first step in implementing the other recommended changes from the Linklaters’ report as part of an independent review on the composition, functioning, governance and membership of the DCs. [NEW]
ISDA Publishes Governance Committee Proposal for CDS Determinations Committees. On May 8, ISDA published a proposal for a new governance committee for the CDS Determinations Committees (“DCs”), the first in a series of amendments to improve the structure of the DCs and maintain their integrity in changing economic and market conditions. The governance committee would be responsible for taking market feedback and adopting rule changes affecting the structure and operations of the DCs to ensure their long-term viability and meet market expectations for efficiency and transparency in credit event determinations. [NEW]
ISDA Responds to FASB Proposal on KPIs for Business Entities. On April 30, ISDA submitted a response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (“FASB”) proposal on financial key performance indicators (“KPIs”) for business entities. In the response, ISDA addressed the implications of KPI standardization, its potential impact on financial reporting and risk management, and the broader cost-benefit considerations for preparers and investors. Based on proprietary analysis, ISDA does not view financial KPI standardization or the proposed disclosures as urgent priorities for the FASB at this time.
CPMI-IOSCO Assesses that EU has Implemented Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures for Two FMI Types. On April 28, CPMI-IOSCO released a report that assessed the completeness and consistency of the legal, regulatory and oversight framework in place as of October 30, 2019. The report finds that the implementation of the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures is complete and consistent for all Principles for payment systems. The legal, regulatory and oversight frameworks in the EU for central securities depositories and securities settlement systems are complete and consistent with the Principles in most aspects. However, the assessment identified some areas for improvement, particularly in aspects where implementation was broadly, partly, or not consistent, including risk and governance principles.
ISDA/IIF Responds to EC’s Consultation on the Market Risk Prudential Framework. On April 22, ISDA and the Institute of International Finance (“IIF”) submitted a joint response to the EC’s consultation on the application of the market risk prudential framework. The associations believe the capital framework should be risk-appropriate and as consistent as possible across jurisdictions to ensure a level playing field without competitive distortions due to divergent rules.
ISDA and FIA Respond to Consultation on Commodity Derivatives Markets. On April 22, ISDA and FIA submitted a joint response to the EC’s consultation on the functioning of commodity derivatives markets and certain aspects relating to spot energy markets. In addition to questions on position management, reporting and limits and the ancillary activities exemption, the consultation also addressed data and reporting and certain concepts raised in the Draghi report, such as a market correction mechanism to cap pricing of natural gas and an obligation to trade certain commodity derivatives in the EU only.

The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this update: Jeffrey Steiner, Adam Lapidus, Marc Aaron Takagaki, Hayden McGovern, Karin Thrasher, and Alice Wang.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Derivatives practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:

Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)

Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com)

Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)

Darius Mehraban, New York (212.351.2428, dmehraban@gibsondunn.com)

Jason J. Cabral, New York (212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)

Adam Lapidus, New York (212.351.3869, alapidus@gibsondunn.com )

Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)

William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com )

David P. Burns, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3786, dburns@gibsondunn.com)

Marc Aaron Takagaki, New York (212.351.4028, mtakagaki@gibsondunn.com )

Hayden K. McGovern, Dallas (214.698.3142, hmcgovern@gibsondunn.com)

Karin Thrasher, Washington, D.C. (202.887.3712, kthrasher@gibsondunn.com)

In an article for Bloomberg Law, partner Michael Kahn explains that while a 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision left unanswered questions on how courts should analyze securities fraud claims challenging risk factor disclosures, an earlier decision provides a framework for treating risk factors as statements of opinion. He argues that this approach offers a clearer legal standard and reduces uncertainty for both companies and courts.

Read: “Treat Risk Disclosures as Opinions to Clean Up Fraud Challenges” [PDF]

In “Global Trade: What to Expect on Tariffs and Related Risks” (Financier Worldwide magazine, May 2025), Washington, D.C. partner Adam M. Smith and associates Scott Toussaint and Lindsay Bernsen Wardlaw describe the U.S. policy objectives that tariffs are designed to advance, explain the legal authorities on which President Trump has relied to impose increased tariffs, and assess the characteristics of companies that may be best able to withstand (and perhaps even thrive in) this new environment.

Adam is Co-Chair of our firm’s International Trade Advisory and Enforcement Practice Group and Sanctions and Export Enforcement Practice Group.

Read the full article in Financier Worldwide [PDF].

Partner and Co-Chair of our Tax Practice Group, Eric B. Sloan, was recently quoted by Tax Notes (subscription required) on the future of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s audit and litigation strategy for partnership related-party basis-shifting transactions following the repeal of Biden administration guidance.

We are pleased to provide you with the April edition of Gibson Dunn’s digital assets regular update. This update covers recent legal news regarding all types of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, CBDCs, and NFTs, as well as other blockchain and Web3 technologies. Thank you for your interest.

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

UNITED STATES

Oregon Attorney General Sues Coinbase
On April 18, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a lawsuit in state court against Coinbase alleging that the crypto exchange offers unregistered securities under Oregon law. The lawsuit largely parrots the theories the SEC recently abandoned in dismissing its enforcement action against Coinbase. In a blog post, Coinbase stated that “Oregon’s lawsuit, like the SEC’s, is meritless, and Coinbase will do whatever is required to beat it.” Coinbase Blog; Bloomberg Law; Complaint.
Long Island Man Gets 18-Year Term For $6 Million Crypto-Investor Fraud
On April 23, a federal court in the Southern District of New York sentenced Long Island resident Eugene William Austin, Jr. to 18 years in prison after a jury convicted him of fraud-related offenses, in connection with a scheme to defraud cryptocurrency investors. The court also ordered forfeiture of roughly $6 million and imposed restitution in an amount to be determined. Press Release.
FinCEN Identifies Cambodia-Based Huione Group as Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern; Issues New Rule
On May 1, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a proposed rule that would prohibit U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining correspondent or payable-through accounts for or on behalf of Cambodia-based Huione Group because it has laundered illicit proceeds from cybercrimes. FinCEN said that Huione Group has been critical for laundering proceeds of cyber heists by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and for convertible virtual currency scams conducted by transnational criminal organizations in Southeast Asia. FinCEN.
SEC and DOJ File Charges Against Founder of Purported Crypto Investment Platform
On April 22, the SEC and federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia filed parallel cases against Ramil Palafox, founder of PGI Global, a purported Bitcoin investment platform, alleging that he misappropriated over $57 million of investor funds. The SEC’s complaint and the indictment allege that from January 2020 to October 2021, Palafox sold “membership” packages promising high returns from cryptocurrency investments but spent the money on luxury items instead. The complaint and the indictment further allege that Palafox ran a multilevel-marketing scheme, using remaining funds to pay other investors until the company’s collapse. Press Release; Law360.
SEC Dismisses Suit Against Dragonchain
On April 24, the SEC agreed to dismiss its enforcement action against blockchain platform Dragonchain and founder Joseph J. Roets. The SEC filed a joint stipulation in the U.S. District Court of Western District of Washington, citing the January 2025 launch of the SEC’s Crypto Task Force and its efforts to develop a regulatory framework for digital assets. The case was dismissed on April 25. The lawsuit, filed in August 2022, had alleged that Dragonchain sold unregistered securities via its DRGN tokens. Law360; CoinTelegraph.
SEC and Ripple File Joint Motion to Pause Appeals in XRP Case
On April 10, the SEC and Ripple Labs asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to pause their respective appeals in the agency’s ongoing enforcement action against the company. The Second Circuit granted the motion on April 16, holding the appeal in abeyance and requiring a status report from the SEC within 60 days. Joint Letter; CoinTelegraph; CoinDesk; Reuters.
SEC and Gemini Request Pause in Suit Over Gemini Earn Program
On April 1, the SEC and crypto exchange Gemini asked the district court for a 60-day stay of the regulator’s enforcement action while the parties discuss a potential resolution. The court granted the motion on April 2 and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on May 31. The SEC filed the action against Gemini and Genesis Global Capital, LLC in January 2023 alleging they offered unregistered securities; Genesis later agreed to a consent judgment in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. CoinTelegraph; Joint Letter.
Judge Denies SafeMoon CEO’s Motion to Dismiss Criminal Fraud Case
On April 18, U.S. District Court Judge Eric R. Komitee of the Eastern District of New York denied former SafeMoon CEO Braden Karony’s motion to dismiss his indictment, stating that a jury should assess his arguments regarding whether the charged conduct is extraterritorial and therefore not subject to U.S. law and whether SafeMoon’s token is a security. Karony faces charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Trial is set for May 6. The indictment alleges that Karony, SafeMoon’s co-founder Kyle Nagy and former CTO Thomas Smith conspired to commit securities and wire fraud and money laundering in defrauding investors through a digital asset called SafeMoon. Former CTO Thomas Smith has pleaded guilty to related charges. Law360; Coin Telegraph.
Crypto Casino Founder Charged with Fraud and Misappropriation of Investor Funds
On April 13, Richard Kim, founder of cryptocurrency casino Zero Edge, was charged in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York with securities fraud and wire fraud for allegedly stealing millions from investors between March 2024 and July 2024. According to the complaint, Kim raised $4.3 million from investors, promising to develop an online casino with on-chain games and a new cryptocurrency called “$RNG”, but instead allegedly used the investor funds for speculative cryptocurrency trades and gambling. He was arrested and released on a $250,000 bond. CoinDesk; Complaint.
Nova Labs Settles SEC Lawsuit Over False Client Claims
On April 23, Nova Labs, Inc., the creator of a decentralized wireless network known as the Helium Network, agreed to pay $200,000 to settle an SEC lawsuit filed in January 2025. The suit alleged that Nova Labs falsely claimed client relationships with various prominent businesses to sell preferred stock in a private placement. Nova Labs neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations in its settlement. CoinDesk; Law360; Final Judgment.
CLS Global Sentenced for Running Fraudulent Wash Trading Scheme
On April 2, United Arab Emirates-based financial services firm CLS Global FZC LLC was sentenced in Massachusetts federal court for allegedly running a fraudulent “wash trading” scheme. The firm pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit market manipulation and wire fraud and wire fraud in January. Additionally, CLS Global was ordered to pay approximately $428,059 in fines and seized cryptocurrency, and sentenced to three years of probation during which CLS Global cannot participate in U.S. cryptocurrency markets. CLS Global also entered into a separate agreement with the SEC over related civil claims. Press Release; Law360

INTERNATIONAL

ADGM Cancels HAYVN Licence, Imposes USD 8.85 Million Fine
On April 17, the ADGM Financial Services Regulatory Authority (“FSRA”) initiated an enforcement action against the HAYVN Group, a digital asset-focused financial institution, and its former CEO for regulatory breaches, including unlicensed virtual asset activity. The FSRA cancelled HAYVN ADGM’s license, banned the former CEO from ADGM’s financial sector, and imposed USD $8.85 million in fines across four related parties for misconduct including unlicensed virtual asset activity, AML failures such as not recording all of its client relationships and allowing client transactions to be routed through unregulated accounts, and providing false information to banks and the FSRA. ADGM.

REGULATION AND LEGISLATION

UNITED STATES

GOP Lawmakers Introduce Draft of Crypto Market-Structure Bill
On May 5, Republican lawmakers released a discussion draft of a bill that seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets. The bill provides for joint rulemaking by the SEC and CFTC, a pathway for digital-asset developers to raise funds under the SEC’s jurisdiction and a process for market participants to register with the CFTC for digital commodity trading. The bill would require digital-asset developers to provide accurate disclosures including relating to their digital asset’s operation, ownership and structure. Press Release; The Block.
New Hampshire Passes ‘Strategic Bitcoin Reserve’ Bill
On May 6, New Hampshire passed legislation allowing the state to invest up to 5% of the state’s public funds in precious metal and digital assets with a market cap of over $500 billion – a threshold that currently only permits Bitcoin. Business Insider.
President Trump Signs Resolution to Nullify Expanded IRS Crypto Broker Rule
On April 11, President Trump signed into law a resolution under the Congressional Review Act that nullifies a Treasury Department and IRS rule that would have subjected DeFi participants to onerous tax-reporting requirements for digital-asset transactions (the “DeFi Broker Rule”). The resolution not only effectively repeals the DeFi Broker Rule but also will prohibit the U.S. Treasury and the IRS from issuing a new rule that is “substantially the same” as the repealed rule absent new legislation. The resolution does not repeal the IRS’s July 2024 broker rule applicable to custodial digital asset trading platforms. Reuters; Bloomberg; CoinTelegraph; CoinDesk.
Paul Atkins Confirmed as SEC Chairman
On April 9, Paul Atkins was confirmed as the next Chairman of the SEC. Atkins served as an SEC commissioner under President George W. Bush and previously worked at the Commission during both Republican and Democratic administrations. Atkins founded a financial services consulting firm in 2008, Patomak Global Partners, which has advised clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including issues related to digital assets. Atkins was sworn in on April 21. SEC; New York Times.
SEC Staff Says Certain Reserve-Backed Stablecoins Are Not Securities
On April 4, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued guidance stating that the offer and sale of certain reserve-backed dollar stablecoins are not securities transactions. To qualify as a “Covered Stablecoin” under the guidance, the stablecoin’s value must be pegged to the U.S. dollar, and the stablecoin must be backed by dollars or other low-risk, liquid assets and be redeemable one-for-one for U.S. dollars at any time and in unlimited amounts, among other requirements. As is typical, the guidance states that it is nonbinding and does not have Commission-level approval. SEC.
SEC Staff Statement Urges Detailed Crypto Disclosures
On April 10, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance issued a staff statement providing the Division’s views about the application of certain disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws to offerings and registrations of securities in the digital-asset markets. The statement recommends that companies describe their business operations without overly relying on technical jargon and specify the business activity, “such as operating or developing a network or application, and the current stage of development” and how the issuer expects to generate revenue. With respect to risk factors for offerings and registrations of securities in the crypto asset markets, the guidance provides examples such as risks relating to technology and cybersecurity, price volatility, liquidity issues and potential registration requirements under state and federal laws. The statement also emphasizes that it “does not address all material disclosure items, and the disclosure topics addressed … may not be relevant for all issuers.” As is typical, the guidance states that it is nonbinding and does not have Commission-level approval. SEC; Coindesk.
DOJ Publishes Memorandum Announcing Shift in Enforcement Priorities and Disbandment of Crypto Enforcement Unit
On April 7, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum (the “Blanche Memo”) announcing a shift in the Department of Justice’s enforcement priorities concerning digital assets. According to the memo, the DOJ “will no longer pursue litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets while President Trump’s actual regulators do this work outside the punitive criminal justice framework.” Instead, the focus will be on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing.” The memo also announced the disbandment of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team. DOJ; Reuters; CoinDesk; New York Times.
Acting Chairman Pham Lauds DOJ Policy Ending Regulation by Prosecution of Digital Assets Industry and Directs CFTC Staff to Comply with Executive Orders
On April 8, CFTC Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham praised the Blanche Memo, and directed CFTC staff to comply with the President’s executive orders and Administration policy. Consistent with the DOJ’s enforcement priorities, Pham has refocused the CFTC’s enforcement resources on cases involving combatting fraud and manipulation rather than regulating by enforcement. Specifically, Pham has directed CFTC staff not to charge regulatory violations in cases involving digital assets unless there is evidence that the defendant knew of the licensing or registration requirement at issue and willfully violated such requirement. CFTC.
Federal Reserve Retracts Crypto-Related Guidance for Banks
On April 24, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it withdrew guidance for banks related to their digital-asset and dollar-tokens activities. The agency rescinded a 2022 supervisory letter requesting state member banks to provide advance notification of digital-asset activities and a 2023 supervisory letter regarding the supervisory nonobjection process for state member bank engagement in dollar-token activities. These actions follow earlier comments from Fed Chair Jerome that the Fed does not intend to limit the bank sector’s interaction with digital assets. Federal Reserve; Cryptoslate; WSJ.
Illinois Lawmakers Advance Crypto Fraud Protection Measure
On April 10, Illinois state senators passed out of committee Senate Bill 1797, which requires crypto firms to register with the state and provide disclosures to protect consumers. It also empowers the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation to set and enforce guidelines for crypto companies. Sen. Mark Walker, one of the bill’s sponsors, emphasized the need for standards to prevent bankruptcy, fraud, and deceptive practices in the crypto industry. Illinois State Assembly; Cointelegraph.
Hidden Road Receives Broker-Dealer License Following Ripple Acquisition
On April 17, prime brokerage platform Hidden Road announced it received a broker-dealer license from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), shortly after Ripple Labs agreed to acquire the firm for $1.25 billion. The license allows Hidden Road to offer FINRA-compliant prime brokerage, clearing, and financing services in fixed income assets. CoinDesk; Press Release.
CFTC Seeks Comments on 24/7 Trading and Perpetual Derivatives
On April 21, the CFTC issued a request for comment on the implications of extending the trading of CFTC-regulated derivatives markets to an effectively 24/7 basis, including the potential effects on trading, clearing and risk management which differ from trading during current market hours. 24/7 trading is already prevalent in digital assets markets. On the same day, the CFTC also requested comment on the characteristics of perpetual derivatives, the implications of their use in trading, clearing and risk management and the risks of such derivatives risks in connection with market integrity, customer protection, or retail trading. Perpetual derivatives are commonly traded on offshore digital asset exchanges. CFTC 24/7 Trading; CFTC Perpetual Derivatives.

INTERNATIONAL

European Securities and Markets Authority Publishes Official Translations of its Guidelines on Conditions for Qualification of Crypto Assets as Financial Instruments Under MiCA
On March 19, the European Securities and Markets Authority (“ESMA”) published the official translations of its guidelines on the conditions and criteria for the qualification of crypto assets as financial instruments (ESMA75453128700-1323) under Article 2(5) of MiCA. The guidelines clarify when MiCA or other rules apply to crypto assets. They are effective starting on May 18, 2025, and relevant authorities are required to update ESMA. ESMA.
Securities and Futures Commission and Hong Kong Monetary Authority Issue Circulars on Providing Virtual Asset Staking Services
On April 7, the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (“HKMA”) issued circulars to SFC-licensed virtual asset trading platform (“VATP”) operators and authorized institutions to permit the offering of staking services. VATPs must obtain the SFC’s prior approval and agree to be bound by the SFC’s ‘Terms and Conditions for Staking Services’ before offering staking services. Broadly, other requirements to offer staking services include that VATPs must (i) maintain possession or control over all mediums through which clients’ virtual assets may be withdrawn from the staking service, (ii) implement policies, internal controls and operational rules to ensure that staked virtual assets are adequately safeguarded and (iii) manage operational risks and conflicts of interest. VATPs must also exercise skill, care and diligence when selecting a blockchain protocol for their staking service and when selecting its arrangement for participating in the validation process. VATPs must also ensure adequate disclosure of additional staking risks to their clients and obtain their written acknowledgement before providing them with staking services. SFC; HKMA.
Hong Kong SFC Revises Circular on SFC-Authorized Funds to Engage in Staking Activities Through VATPs and AIs
On April 7, the SFC revised an existing circular that was originally issued on December 22, 2023 delineating the requirements for authorizing investment funds with exposure to virtual assets of more than 10% of their net asset value for public offerings in Hong Kong. The fund manager must obtain the SFC’s prior approval before it can engage in staking activities for its managed SFC-authorized virtual asset fund, and the staking activities must be conducted through an SFC-licensed VATP or authorized institution, subject to a cap to manage fund liquidity. The fund manager must also ensure that the staking activities are consistent with the fund’s investment objective and strategy. SFC.
Monetary Authority of Singapore Consults on Prudential Treatment and Disclosure of Crypto Asset Exposures for Banks
On March 27, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) published a Consultation Paper seeking feedback on proposed amendments aimed at implementing standards promulgated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”) on prudential treatment and disclosure of crypto asset exposures for banks. Specifically, the MAS has proposed to amend relevant MAS notices relating to capital, liquidity, large exposures and disclosure frameworks for banks to implement the BCBS’ standards on prudential treatment and disclosures for crypto asset exposures for banks. MAS.
Monetary Authority of Singapore Proposes Amendments to Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Laws
On April 8, the MAS published a Consultation Paper seeking feedback on proposed amendments to MAS Notices on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism to take into account the latest money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing developments. The amendments apply across the financial sector and are relevant to financial institutions including banks, insurers, capital markets intermediaries, payment service providers (including digital payment token or crypto asset service providers). Broadly, the proposed amendments reference the latest revised standards set by the Financial Action Task Force and cover topics ranging from risk assessments to the clarification of regulatory expectations on the filing of suspicious transaction reports. MAS.
Dubai Financial Services Authority Opens Tokenization Regulatory Sandbox for Expressions of Interest
On March 17, the Dubai Financial Services Authority (“DFSA”) called for expressions of interest to join its new Tokenization Regulatory Sandbox, with a deadline of April 24, 2025. The initiative forms part of the DFSA’s Innovation Testing Licence program and is aimed at firms offering tokenized financial products and services, including equities, bonds, sukuk, and fund units. The sandbox provides a controlled environment for testing tokenized investment solutions, offering a structured path to full regulatory authorization. DFSA.
Abu Dhabi Global Market and Chainlink Forge Alliance to Advance Tokenization Frameworks
On March 24, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with decentralized network Chainlink to promote compliant tokenization and enhance blockchain innovation. The partnership will support projects under the ADGM Registration Authority by leveraging Chainlink’s technical expertise in blockchain interoperability and verifiable data solutions. Chainlink’s infrastructure has enabled over $19 trillion in transaction value globally and is trusted by leading financial institutions. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, ADGM and Chainlink will collaborate on regulatory dialogue and host educational initiatives focusing on blockchain, AI and tokenization. ADGM.

SPEAKER’S CORNER

New York Attorney General Letitia James Sends Letter to Congress Proposing Crypto Regulatory Framework
On April 10, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter to congressional leaders warning that the lack of strong federal regulations on cryptocurrencies and digital assets increases the risk of fraud, criminal activity, and financial instability. She argued that federal regulations would bolster America’s national security, strengthen its financial markets and protect investors from cryptocurrency scams. James’s letter called for protections including “i) onshoring stablecoins to protect the U.S. dollar and the treasuries market, ii) requiring platforms to only conduct business with anti-money laundering compliant platforms, iii) providing for the registration of issuers and intermediaries to ensure accountability, transparency and basic protections to the public, iv) protecting against conflicts of interest, v) promoting price transparency, vi) requiring platforms and intermediaries to actively identify and prevent fraud and scams, and vii) disallowing digital assets in retirement accounts.” NY; Reuters.

OTHER NOTABLE NEWS

SoftBank, Tether and Cantor Fitzgerald Launch Twenty One Capital
On April 23, stablecoin issuer Tether, Bitfinex, SoftBank, and Cantor Fitzgerald announced the launch of Twenty One Capital, Inc., a Bitcoin investment vehicle. CCN.
HM Treasury and the UK Debt Management Office Publish Policy Paper on Pilot Digital Gilt Instrument
On March 18, HM Treasury and the UK Debt Management Office (“DMO”) released a policy paper detailing their pilot Digital Gilt Instrument (“DIGIT”). DIGIT is a new, short-dated, transferable security that will be held on a Distributed Ledger Technology (“DLT”) platform and issued within the Digital Securities Sandbox, operating independently from the Government’s standard debt issuance processes. The policy paper outlines the initial features of DIGIT and seeks input from financial sector firms to gauge investor demand and design preferences for further development. Additionally, it requests information from potential DLT suppliers to explore available technology options and the scope of services required for DIGIT issuance. Stakeholders are invited to submit their responses by April 13, 2025. HM Treasury.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers contributed to this issue: Jason Cabral, Kendall Day, Jeff Steiner, Sara Weed, Sam Raymond, Nick Harper, Emma Li, Michelle Lou, Zachary Montgomery, Aliya Padhani, Henry Rittenberg, Nicholas Tok, and Apratim Vidyarthi.

FinTech and Digital Assets Group Leaders / Members:

Ashlie Beringer, Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5327, aberinger@gibsondunn.com)

Michael D. Bopp, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8256, mbopp@gibsondunn.com

Stephanie L. Brooker, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3502, sbrooker@gibsondunn.com)

Jason J. Cabral, New York (+1 212.351.6267, jcabral@gibsondunn.com)

Ella Alves Capone, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3511, ecapone@gibsondunn.com)

M. Kendall Day, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8220, kday@gibsondunn.com)

Sébastien Evrard, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3798, sevrard@gibsondunn.com)

William R. Hallatt, Hong Kong (+852 2214 3836, whallatt@gibsondunn.com)

Nick Harper, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3534, nharper@gibsondunn.com)

Martin A. Hewett, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8207, mhewett@gibsondunn.com)

Sameera Kimatrai, Dubai (+971 4 318 4616, skimatrai@gibsondunn.com)

Michelle M. Kirschner, London (+44 (0)20 7071.4212, mkirschner@gibsondunn.com)

Stewart McDowell, San Francisco (+1 415.393.8322, smcdowell@gibsondunn.com)

Hagen H. Rooke, Singapore (+65 6507 3620, hhrooke@gibsondunn.com)

Mark K. Schonfeld, New York (+1 212.351.2433, mschonfeld@gibsondunn.com)

Orin Snyder, New York (+1 212.351.2400, osnyder@gibsondunn.com)

Ro Spaziani, New York (+1 212.351.6255, rspaziani@gibsondunn.com)

Jeffrey L. Steiner, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.887.3632, jsteiner@gibsondunn.com)

Eric D. Vandevelde, Los Angeles (+1 213.229.7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)

Benjamin Wagner, Palo Alto (+1 650.849.5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)

Sara K. Weed, Washington, D.C. (+1 202.955.8507, sweed@gibsondunn.com)

The coalition agreement includes noteworthy planned changes in the area of white collar and international trade law that identify trends that will shape the near-term future of businesses operating in Germany and the EU.

On May 6, Friedrich Merz was elected Germany’s new Chancellor, marking the start of the new legislative period. The incoming government – formed by a coalition of the center left and right parties CDU, CSU, and SPD – recently published its coalition agreement.[1]

The coalition agreement outlines the common legislative goals of the German Government for the next four years.

Enforcement proceedings in money laundering cases shall become more efficient

In the area of financial crime, federal-level competencies will be consolidated. Cooperation and information exchange between the federal and state governments, as well as with national and international organizations, the EU, and the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), are to be improved.[2]
Improvements in anti-money laundering efforts are planned, particularly in light of the upcoming evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).[3] These plans are not entirely new initiatives, as they had already been put forward by the previous government in light of Germany’s poor FATF assessment.
Gaps in the German Transparency Register, which is a central database that records information on the beneficial owners of legal entities, are to be closed.[4]
Legal transactions by legal entities exceeding a net amount of EUR 10,000 may not be carried out by parties subject to anti-money laundering obligations if one or more beneficial owners cannot be identified.[5]

Lowering the thresholds for asset seizures shall help fighting organized crime

An administrative procedure for asset investigation is to be introduced, with the aim of securing suspicious high-value assets where a legal origin cannot be clearly demonstrated.[6]
Existing asset seizure instruments are to be further developed and supplemented by a procedure for confiscating assets of unclear origin.[7]
The fight against organized crime is to be intensified by fully reversing the burden of proof in the confiscation of assets of unclear origin.[8]

EU-Directives on Corporate Crimes shall be implemented, but initiatives to reform German law relating to Corporate Crimes will not be pursued

Unlike the previous coalition agreements[9], the new agreement includes neither plans to regulate internal investigations nor to introduce any legal framework for corporate criminal law. However, it is likely that the EU Anti-Corruption Directive will have to be implemented during this legislative period, which may result in relevant changes in these two areas.

Supply Chain Due Diligence Requirements shall be brought in line with updated EU-Directives and the German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act will be repealed

The German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) is to be repealed. It is planned to replace it with a new “International Corporate Responsibility Act” designed to implement the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) in a low-bureaucracy and enforcement-friendly manner.[10]
The reporting obligations under the LkSG are to be abolished immediately and permanently.[11]
It is planned that existing due diligence obligations will not be sanctioned, except for severe human rights violations, until the new law comes into force.[12]

FDI and Export Control topics will remain high on the agenda, while making processes more efficient

The German Foreign Trade Act is to be revised. Screening and licensing procedures are to be made faster, simpler, and more practical. Foreign investments that conflict with national interests – particularly in critical infrastructure and strategic sectors – are to be effectively blocked.[13]
The effective national implementation of sanctions due to Russia’s war of aggression is to continue to be ensured. The EU’s plans to impose tariffs on fertilizer imports from Russia and Belarus are to be endorsed.[14]
Export licensing procedures are to be simplified and accelerated, with the aim of a paradigm shift in German international trade law. Comprehensive checks are to be replaced by targeted checks on a random basis, supported by heavy penalties for violations. Within the scope of this system, prior export authorizations would no longer be required.[15]
Germany’s China Strategy is to be revised in accordance with the principle of “de-risking”.[16]

To what extent these plans will be implemented in detail remains to be seen in the next few months.

[1] Coalition Agreement of the 21st legislative period, can be found on the websites of the three parties CDU: here; CSU: here; SPD: here; and the German Bundestag: here.

[2] Coalition Agreement of the 21st legislative period, para. 1548 et. seq.

[3] Ibid., para. 1545 et. seq.

[4] Ibid., para. 1550.

[5] Ibid., para. 1550 et seq.

[6] Ibid., para. 1553 et seq.

[7] Ibid., para. 1556 et seq.

[8] Ibid., para. 2261 et seq.

[9] Coalition Agreement of the 19th legislative period, p. 126; Coalition Agreement of the 20th legislative period, p. 111.

[10] Coalition Agreement of the 21st legislative period, para. 1909 et. seq.

[11] Ibid., para. 1911 et seq.

[12] Ibid., para. 1913 et seq.

[13] Ibid., para. 275 et seq.

[14] Ibid., para. 287 et seq.

[15] Ibid., para. 290 et seq.

[16] Ibid., para. 297 et seq.

The following Gibson Dunn lawyers prepared this update: Benno Schwarz, Katharina Humphrey, Nikita Malevanny, Karla Böltz, and Annabel Dornauer*.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. If you wish to discuss any of the matters set out above, please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any leader or member of Gibson Dunn’s White Collar Defense & Investigations or International Trade Advisory & Enforcement practice groups, or the authors in Munich:

Benno Schwarz (+49 89 189 33 210, bschwarz@gibsondunn.com)

Katharina Humphrey (+49 89 189 33 217, khumphrey@gibsondunn.com)

Nikita Malevanny (+49 89 189 33 224, nmalevanny@gibsondunn.com)

Karla Böltz (+49 89 189 33 219, kboeltz@gibsondunn.com)

Annabel Dornauer* (+49 89 189 33 463, adornauer@gibsondunn.com)

*Annabel Dornauer is a trainee attorney in Munich and is not admitted to practice law.

A growing number of federal, state, and international whistleblower programs create a complex and often overlapping landscape for companies facing potential allegations of misconduct. From programs established to generate enforcement leads for the SEC, CFTC, DOJ, FinCEN, and the IRS, to analogous international whistleblower mechanisms, each program has its own incentives, protections, and reporting mechanisms. These nuances result in significant enforcement risks for businesses across industries, but also opportunities to demonstrate effective compliance controls. This webcast explores the evolving whistleblower framework both in the United States and abroad, recent whistleblower trends, and best practices for managing whistleblower complaints while mitigating legal and reputational exposure.

MCLE CREDIT INFORMATION:

Attorneys seeking New York credit must obtain an Affirmation Form prior to watching the archived version of this webcast. Please contact CLE@gibsondunn.com to request the MCLE form.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1.0 hour in the General Category.

California attorneys may claim “self-study” credit for viewing the archived version of this webcast. No certificate of attendance is required for California “self-study” credit.

PANELISTS:

Greta Williams, Co-Partner in Charge of Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C. office, is a nationally recognized employment lawyer and trusted advisor to companies facing high-profile employment litigation, internal investigations, and executive-level employment disputes involving claims of discrimination, harassment, whistleblower retaliation, noncompete violations and trade secret theft. Known for leading sensitive workplace investigations and handling complex cases with discretion and impact, Greta is recognized by Lawdragon 500, Benchmark Litigation, and Best Lawyers in America as one of the leading employment lawyers in the country.

Matt Axelrod, a nationally recognized white-collar defense lawyer with extensive criminal, national security, and export enforcement experience, serves as co-chair of the firm’s Sanctions and Export Enforcement Practice Group. Matt’s practice focuses on internal investigations, crisis management, and white collar criminal defense for U.S. and multinational companies. From 2021-2025, Matt served as the Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), where he led a team of over 200 agents, analysts, and compliance specialists responsible for enforcing the country’s export controls. Matt also previously spent 14 years at the U.S. Department of Justice.

John D.W. Partridge, a Co-Chair of Gibson Dunn’s FDA and Health Care Practice Group and Chambers-ranked white collar defense and government investigations lawyer, focuses on government and internal investigations, white collar defense, and complex litigation for clients in the life science and health care industries, among others. John has particular experience with the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, including defending major corporations in investigations pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Katharina Humphrey is a partner in Gibson Dunn’s Munich office. She advises clients in Germany and throughout Europe on a wide range of compliance and white collar crime matters. Katharina regularly represents multi-national corporations in connection with cross-border internal corporate investigations and government investigations. She has significant expertise in the areas of anti-bribery compliance – especially regarding the enforcement of German anti-corruption laws and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) –, technical compliance, as well as sanctions and anti-money-laundering compliance. She also has many years of experience in advising clients with regard to the implementation and assessment of compliance management systems.

Osman Nawaz is a litigation partner in the New York office, and a member of the firm’s White Collar Defense and Investigations and Securities Enforcement and practice groups. He advises clients on internal and government investigations and enforcement actions, as well as follow-on civil litigation and regulatory and compliance-related issues. Prior to joining Gibson Dunn, Osman concluded a 14-year career with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). During his time with the SEC, he worked in the agency’s New York Office, serving through multiple administrations and in roles ranging from Staff Attorney to Assistant Regional Director, and ultimately serving as a Senior Officer leading a nationwide enforcement group.

Sanford W. Stark is a partner in Gibson Dunn’s Washington D.C. office and the global Chair of the firm’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Practice Group. Sanford counsels on a wide range of complex domestic and international tax issues and has served as counsel in a number of the largest tax controversy and litigation matters in recent years. He is consistently named one of the nation’s leading Tax Controversy lawyers as recognized in Chambers USA, The Best Lawyers in America, the World Tax Experts Guide, the Tax Controversy Leaders Guide, ITR World Tax, and other publications. Sanford previously served as a Trial Attorney in the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he received the Tax Division’s Outstanding Attorney Award.

Gibson Dunn’s Workplace DEI Task Force aims to help our clients navigate the evolving legal and policy landscape following recent Executive Branch actions and the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Prior issues of our DEI Task Force Update can be found in our DEI Resource Center. Should you have questions about developments in this space or about your own DEI programs, please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of our DEI Task Force or the authors of this Update (listed below).

Key Developments:

On May 2, Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia permanently enjoined enforcement of Executive Order 14230, which, among other things, ordered federal agencies to suspend security clearances for employees of the law firm Perkins Coie, restrict their access to federal buildings, restrict communications by government officials with Perkins lawyers and employees, terminate government contracts with the law firm, and review the government contracts of Perkins Coie’s clients, and directed the Acting Chair of the EEOC to investigate the DEI practices of large law firms. In a 102-page order, the Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the complaint, granted Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment, and concluded that the EO “violates the Constitution and is thus null and void.” The Court observed that, “[n]o American president has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue,” adding, “In purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’ . . . Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”

The Court held that the EO violates the First Amendment by retaliating against the law firm for protected activity—specifically, the firm’s statements and viewpoint in favor of DEI as well as its association with and advocacy on behalf of the President’s opponents in the 2016 and 2020 elections. The Court also held that the EO violates the firm’s clients’ Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel and First Amendment associational rights, denies the firm Equal Protection, and violates Due Process. The Court also invalidated the EO as void for vagueness, in part because the EO directs adverse action against Perkins Coie purportedly in response to the firm engaging in illegal discrimination through its DEI policies, without explaining which of the firm’s policies violate the law or otherwise clarifying what conduct of Perkins Coie’s is unlawful. The Court noted “The terms diversity, equity, and inclusion . . . could refer to a wide range of actions and programs, formal or informal, as well as basic thoughts and beliefs. The Order provides no definition or guidance as to what form of program possibly described by these terms is considered unlawful discrimination by the Trump Administration, leaving plaintiff to guess at what is and is not permissible in the government’s view, while already facing the threat of adverse actions during the guessing.” The government identified two alleged acts of illegal discrimination in which Perkins Coie engaged: (1) participating in the Sponsors for Education Opportunity (“SEO”) summer fellowship program and (2) adopting the “Mansfield Rule.” The Court rejected the government’s arguments as to both, reasoning that (a) the firm’s summer fellowship was “open to all” and does “not contain discriminatory requirements,” and (b) the Mansfield Rule “does not establish any hiring quotas or other illegally discriminatory practices, requiring only that participating law firms consider attorneys from diverse backgrounds for certain positions.” The Court concluded that neither was evidence of unlawful discrimination.

With respect to the EO’s provision directing the Acting Chair of the EEOC to “review the practices of representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms,” the Court said that “no authority is identified by the government—and the Court is aware of none—empowering the President to direct the EEOC to target specific businesses or individuals for an investigation,” and that the EEOC’s investigative authority is generally limited to formal charges filed with the agency. Addressing specifically the investigative letter the EEOC sent Perkins Coie requesting information about its hiring and employment practices, the Court held that “By not following its own procedures, the EEOC has undermined the legitimacy of its own investigation, revealing this investigation . . . to be a product of the retaliation ordered by EO 14230 rather than any legitimate investigative activity.”

On April 23, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” seeking to “eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.” The executive order directs the repeal or amendment of certain regulations that impose disparate-impact liability on recipients of federal funding under Title VI, such as universities, nonprofits, and certain contractors. It also directs the Attorney General, “in coordination with the heads of all other agencies,” to review “all existing regulations, guidance, rules, or orders that impose disparate-impact liability or similar requirements,” and to “detail agency steps for their amendment or repeal.” The order likewise directs all federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability.” This would include Title VII, the Fair Housing Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Finally, the executive order instructs all heads of federal agencies to “assess” or “evaluate” all pending proceedings relying on disparate-impact theories and “take appropriate action” within 45 days, and to conduct a similar review of “consent judgments and permanent injunctions” within 90 days. For more analysis on this executive order, please see our April 25 client alert.

On April 24, 2025, federal district courts in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington D.C. granted preliminary injunctions in three separate cases challenging recent actions by the U.S. Department of Education in relation to DEI. The challenged actions include the Department’s February 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter, which purported to “clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance” and instructed educational institutions to “(1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.” The cases also challenge the Department’s February 28 guidance document entitled “Frequently Asked Questions About Racial Preferences and Stereotypes Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,” which addressed a range of issues relating to DEI initiatives in educational institutions, including by providing examples of DEI programming that the Administration might find discriminatory. Finally, the cases challenge the Department’s April 3, 2025 letter requiring state and local officials to certify their compliance with the administration’s interpretation of Title VI in relation to DEI. For more information on these agency actions, please see our February 19, March 5, and April 21 Task Force Updates.

The plaintiffs in these three lawsuits challenged the Department’s actions under the First and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). While all three courts granted the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions, each ruled on different—and at times, conflicting—grounds.

In American Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Department of Education, et al., 1:25-cv-00628 (D. Md. 2025), Judge Stephanie Gallagher concluded that the Dear Colleague letter constitutes a “legislative rule” prescribing “new law and policy”—and not merely an “interpretive rule” providing guidance on existing law—because it extends the existing reach of Title VI, substantively alters the legal landscape, and has the force and effect of law. Accordingly, Judge Gallagher concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their procedural challenge to the Dear Colleague letter because the Department failed to follow the procedural requirements for legislative rules as set forth in the APA. Judge Gallagher also concluded that the Dear Colleague letter likely violated the APA because the Education Department likely exceeded its statutory authority, failed to explain its change of position, failed to produce any facts to support its position, failed to consider the reliance interests of educators, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in publishing the letter. Judge Gallagher also concluded that the Dear Colleague letter likely violated the First Amendment by preemptively prohibiting speech. The court declined to enjoin the letter establishing a certification requirement because the plaintiffs had not adequately challenged it in their complaint.

In National Education Association, et al. v. Department of Education, et al., 1:25-cv-00091 (D.N.H. 2025), Judge Landya McCafferty similarly held that the Dear Colleague letter is a legislative rule because it imposes new, substantial obligations on schools. Accordingly, Judge McCafferty concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their procedural challenge due to the Department’s failure to follow the procedural requirements that the APA imposes on legislative rules. Judge McCafferty also concluded that the Dear Colleague letter was likely impermissibly vague in violation of the Due Process Clause, and that the Frequently Asked Questions document “does not ameliorate” the letter’s vagueness “but rather, exacerbates it.” Judge McCafferty also concluded that the agency actions likely violated the First Amendment by targeting speech based on viewpoint.

In NAACP v. U.S. Department of Education, et al., 1:25-cv-01120 (D.D.C. 2025), by contrast, Judge Dabney Friedrich concluded that the challenged Department actions were not legislative rules but rather interpretive rules intended to provide guidance on existing obligations, rather than impose new obligations. Accordingly, Judge Friedrich concluded that they did not violate the APA’s procedural requirements, nor were they arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. Judge Friedrich also concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the agency’s actions on First Amendment grounds. However, she agreed with the other courts in finding that agency actions were likely void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment because they “fail[ed] to provide an actionable definition of what constitutes ‘DEI.’” Judge Friedrich also concluded that the “shortened timeframe for certifying compliance further exacerbate[d] vagueness concerns.”

On April 21, 2025, Harvard University sued to prevent the freezing of more than $2 billion in federal funding to the university after it refused to comply with policy change demands from the Trump Administration. Naming as defendants numerous federal officials and agencies, the complaint alleges violations of the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Harvard argues that the Administration’s actions—including the demand that Harvard discontinue all DEI practices—are unconstitutional government interference with a private actor’s speech. The funding freeze, Harvard argues, is an unlawful use of legal sanction by the Administration seeking to suppress disfavored speech. Harvard also alleges that the Administration violated the APA by failing to follow the prescribed procedures under Title VI before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns. Harvard asks the court to undo the funding freeze and declare it unconstitutional.

On April 21, the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) issued guidance stating that recipients of NIH grant funding must not “operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.” Relatedly, the National Science Foundation (“NSF”) announced on April 18 a shift in funding priorities, including that “[r]esearch projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities.” In its announcement, NSF also stated that “[r]esearchers may recruit or study individuals based on protected characteristics when doing so is (1) intrinsic to the research question (e.g., research on human physiology), (2) not focused on broadening participation in STEM on the basis of protected characteristics, and (3) aimed to fill an important gap in [science and engineering] knowledge. For example, research on technology to assist individuals with disabilities may be supported even when the research subject recruitment is limited to those with disabilities.”

Media Coverage and Commentary:

Below is a selection of recent media coverage and commentary on these issues:

New York Times, “‘Vaguely Threatening’: Federal Prosecutor Queries Leading Medical Journal” (April 25): Teddy Rosenbluth of the New York Times reports that the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, has sent letters to various medical and scientific journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, regarding their selection of papers for publication. According to Rosenbluth, the letters suggest the publications are “partisan in various scientific debates” and ask whether the journals “accept submissions from scientists with ‘competing viewpoints,” what they do if authors “may have misled their readers,” and whether they are “transparent about influence from ‘supporters, funders, advertisers, and others.’” The letters also ask what role the NIH plays “in the development of submitted articles.” Rosenbluth reports that it is “unclear how many journals have received these letters or the criteria that Mr. Martin used to decide which publications to target.”
NPR, “Trump Signs Executive Actions on Education, Including Efforts to Rein in DEI,” April 24): NPR’s Elissa Nadworny reports on a series of executive actions taken by the White House on April 23 aimed at educational institutions and relating to DEI. The first instructs Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “overhaul” the college accreditation system and recognize new accreditors. The second provides that universities may lose federal grants unless they complete “full and timely disclosures of foreign funding.” The third calls for changes in disciplinary policies in K-12 schools, including by prohibiting use of “racially preferential discipline practices” and abandonment of disparate impact analyses of discipline.
Law.com, “Companies Toning Down ‘DEI’ References but Not Necessarily Ditching It, Analysis Reveals” (April 24): Law.com’s Chris O’Malley reports on an analysis of financial reports from 10 leading S&P 500 companies which found that companies are “‘recalibrating’ how they present diversity, equity and inclusion in their regulatory filings.” The study found a “measurable decline in explicit DEI mentions” in these reports. Nevertheless, “substantive commitments persist through neutral phrasing,” including “diversity of thought” and “global workforce composition.” Moreover, O’Malley notes that the study found some exceptions to the trend exist, including major companies with unchanging usage of DEI-related language in their reports year over year.
Law360, “How Proxy Advisory Firms Are Approaching AI And DEI” (April 21): Writing for Law360, Javier Ortiz, Geoffrey Liebmann, and Trevor Lamb report that proxy advisory firms Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (“ISS”) and Glass Lewis & Co. LLC (“Glass Lewis”) have both issued updated proxy voting policy guidelines relating to DEI. ISS will cease to consider the gender, racial, or ethnic diversity of a company’s board when making voting recommendations for the election or re-election of directors at U.S. companies. Glass Lewis, by contrast, will continue to recommend votes against nominating committee members for companies where Glass Lewis believes the board lacks sufficient diversity. However, Glass Lewis will inform clients when its recommendation concerns diversity, and it will provide two recommendations in those instances, including one that excludes gender or community diversity considerations. Glass Lewis will apply the same policy to shareholder proposals. For more information, please see our February 2025 client alert.

Case Updates:

Below is a list of updates in new and pending cases:

1. Challenges to statutes, agency rules, and regulatory decisions:

American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Ivey, No. 2:24-cv-00104 (M.D. Ala. 2024): On February 13, 2024, AAER filed a complaint against Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, challenging a state law that requires the governor to ensure there are no fewer than two individuals “of a minority race” on the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board. The Board has nine seats, including one for a member of the public with no real estate background, which has been unfilled for years. Because there was only one minority member among the Board at the time of filing, AAER asserts that state law requires that the open seat go to a person with a minority background. AAER states that one of its members applied for this final seat, but was denied on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On March 29, 2024, Governor Ivey answered the complaint, admitting that the Board quota is unconstitutional and will not be enforced. On March 19, 2025, AAER moved to substitute Laura Clark, whom AAER had referred to as “Member A” in its complaint, as the plaintiff. On April 2, 2025, Governor Ivey responded to the motion to substitute, arguing that AAER lacked good cause for the substitution, and that the motion was merely an attempt by AAER to “resist discovery.”
- Latest update: On April 17, 2025, the court denied AAER’s motion to substitute because AAER failed to show “good cause” for the substitution and could have substituted Ms. Clark as named plaintiff before the deadline to amend the pleadings, but chose not to do so.
California et al. v. U.S. Department of Education et al., No. 1:25-cv-10548 (D. Mass. 2025): On March 6, 2025, the states of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Wisconsin (collectively, “the Plaintiff States”) sued the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that it arbitrarily terminated previously awarded grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership (“TQP”) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (“SEED”) programs in violation of the APA. On March 6, 2025, the Plaintiff States filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Department of Education from “implementing, giving effect to, maintaining, or reinstating under a different name the termination of any previously-awarded TQP and SEED grants.” The Plaintiff States argued that the “abrupt and immediate” termination of the TQP and SEED programs threatened imminent and irreparable harm. The court issued a TRO on March 10, 2025, concluding that the Plaintiff States were likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim, that they adequately demonstrated irreparable harm absent temporary relief, and that the balance of the equities weighed in their favor. The government appealed the order the next day, arguing, among other things, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Department of Education’s decisions on how to allocate funds because the APA does not permit judicial review of “agency action” that “is committed to agency discretion by law.” On April 4, 2025, the United States Supreme Court stayed the TRO, concluding that the government was likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the TRO under the Administrative Procedure Act
- Latest update: On April 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint status report. The government indicated it intends to move to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictional grounds by May 12, its deadline to answer the complaint. The plaintiffs asked the court to order “expedited production of the administrative record to assist the court in resolving the jurisdictional arguments that the government is expected to make in its motion to dismiss.” The government opposed expedited discovery and instead contended “that the proper and most efficient approach” would be for it to file the administrative record in conjunction with its answer, should the court deny the forthcoming motion to dismiss. On April 16, the court issued an order stating that it would assess the request for expedited production of the administrative record after reviewing the forthcoming motion to dismiss.
De Piero v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 2:23-cv-02281 (E.D. Pa. 2023): A white male professor sued his employer, Penn State University, claiming that university-mandated DEI trainings, discussions with coworkers and supervisors about race and privilege in the classroom, and comments from coworkers about his “white privilege” created a hostile work environment that led him to quit his job. He claimed that after he reported this alleged harassment and published an opinion piece objecting to the impact of DEI concepts in the classroom, the university retaliated against him by investigating him for bullying and aggressive behavior towards his colleagues. The plaintiff alleged harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of Title VI, Title VII, Section 1981, Section 1983, the First Amendment, and Pennsylvania civil rights laws. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 6, 2025, the court granted summary judgment to the university on the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims. The court found that the behaviors complained of by the plaintiff, including “campus wide emails” pertaining to racial injustice, “being invited to review scholarly materials,” and “conversations about harassment levied by and against [the plaintiff],” could not reasonably be found to rise to the level of severe harassment. As to the “pervasive” conduct prong, the court explained that of the 12 incidents in the complaint, no “racist comment” was directed at the plaintiff and “only a few” involved actions that were directed at the plaintiff at all. On March 20, 2025, the plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in support of his remaining claims, arguing that these claims should proceed to trial. He presented what he asserted were undisputed facts to support his claims, including that he was reported for “micro aggressions” after objecting to racial harassment, that colleagues lodged false claims against him, and that he faced retaliatory disciplinary action and salary claw backs. On March 27, 2025, the university filed its own supplemental brief in support of summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s putative Title VII and PHRA retaliation claims failed as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot prove the university took adverse employment action against him, or there is no causal link between his alleged protected activity and adverse actions taken by the university.
- Latest update: On April 17, 2025, the court granted summary judgment for the university on the plaintiff’s remaining retaliation claims, concluding that none of the alleged acts by the university constituted adverse employment action.
Nat’l Urban League et al., v. President Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00471 (D.D.C. 2025): On February 19, 2025, the National Urban League, National Fair Housing Alliance, and AIDS Foundation of Chicago sued President Donald Trump challenging EO 14151, EO 14168, EO 14173, and related agency actions, as ultra vires and in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs allege that these orders penalize them for expressing viewpoints in support of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, and transgender people. They also claim that, because of these orders, they are at risk of losing federal funding. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment holding that the EOs at issue are unconstitutional, as well as a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of these EOs. On February 28, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Latest update: On May 2, 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to challenge provisions of the EOs that are intra-governmental and “not aimed at them.” For the remaining challenged provisions of the executive orders—including provisions mandating certification by government contractors that they do not operate unlawful DEI and terminating grants relating to DEI and gender ideology—the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood that they would succeed on the merits.

2. Employment discrimination and related claims:

Beneker v. CBS Studios, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-01659 (C.D. Cal. 2024): On February 29, 2024, a heterosexual, white male writer sued CBS, alleging that the company’s de facto hiring policy discriminated against him on the bases of sex, race, and sexual orientation. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that CBS violated Section 1981 and Title VII by refusing to hire him as a staff writer on the TV show “Seal Team,” instead hiring several black writers, female writers, and a lesbian writer. The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that CBS’s de facto hiring policy violates Section 1981 and Title VII, an injunction barring CBS from continuing to violate Section 1981 and Title VII, an order requiring CBS to offer the plaintiff a full-time producer job, and damages. CBS moved to dismiss the complaint on June 24, 2024, arguing that the First Amendment protects its hiring choices and that two of the plaintiff’s Section 1981 claims were untimely.
- Latest update: On April 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The stipulation did not reveal whether the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice on April 21, 2025.

3. Contracting claims under Section 1981, the U.S. Constitution, and other statutes:

Do No Harm v. Nat’l Assoc. of Emergency Medical Technicians, No. 3:24-cv-00011 (S.D. Miss. 2024): On January 10, 2024, Do No Harm challenged the diversity scholarship program operated by the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (“NAEMT”), an advocacy group representing paramedics, EMTs, and other emergency professionals. NAEMT awards up to four $1,250 scholarships annually to students of color hoping to become EMTs or paramedics. Do No Harm requested a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction to prevent the continued operation of the program. On January 23, 2024, the court denied Do No Harm’s motion for a TRO, and NAEMT moved to dismiss Do No Harm’s amended complaint on March 18, 2024. On March 31, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding Do No Harm had standing and plausibly alleged a prima facie Section 1981 violation.
- Latest update: On April 17, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal, indicating that the defendant will “revise” its scholarship program to remove eligibility requirements and preferences based on race or ethnicity.

The following Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in preparing this client update: Jason Schwartz, Mylan Denerstein, Zakiyyah Salim-Williams, Cynthia Chen McTernan, Zoë Klein, Cate McCaffrey, José Madrid, Jenna Voronov, Emma Eisendrath, Kristen Durkan, Simon Moskovitz, Teddy Okechukwu, Beshoy Shokralla, Heather Skrabak, Maryam Asenuga, Angelle Henderson, Kameron Mitchell, Lauren Meyer, Chelsea Clayton, Maya Jeyendran, Albert Le, Allonna Nordhavn, Felicia Reyes, Godard Solomon, Laura Wang, and Ashley Wilson.

Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you usually work, any member of the firm’s Labor and Employment practice group, or the following practice leaders and authors:

Jason C. Schwartz – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8242, jschwartz@gibsondunn.com)

Katherine V.A. Smith – Partner & Co-Chair, Labor & Employment Group
Los Angeles (+1 213-229-7107, ksmith@gibsondunn.com)

Mylan L. Denerstein – Partner & Co-Chair, Public Policy Group
New York (+1 212-351-3850, mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com)

Zakiyyah T. Salim-Williams – Partner & Chief Diversity Officer
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8503, zswilliams@gibsondunn.com)

Molly T. Senger – Partner, Labor & Employment Group
Washington, D.C. (+1 202-955-8571, msenger@gibsondunn.com)