Articles + Publications - Troutman Pepper Locke

Our team published new content and podcasts to the Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor throughout the month of March. To catch up on posts and podcasts you may have missed, click on the links below:

Workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs face more scrutiny than ever in light of President Trump’s recent executive orders regarding DEI policies and programs across the public and private sectors, recent Supreme Court decisions, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance on DEI initiatives, and the rise of “reverse” discrimination claims. Here are some key takeaways from the current legal landscape and what employers should be thinking about regarding their DEI programs.

Q. How have employers changed their approach to DEI over the last few years?

A. For many years, a large number of employers have increased their DEI efforts and commitments — adopting new DEI initiatives, making public-facing statements, and creating DEI departments. But the momentum has shifted over time, beginning with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decisions holding that the use of race as a plus factor in the college admissions process is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Even though these rulings did not apply to private employers directly, they contributed to increased awareness of the legal issues involved with workplace DEI initiatives and added to the conversation about DEI in corporate America.

Q. What changes have occurred under the new administration?

A. More recently, the Trump administration issued several executive orders and government memoranda rolling back DEI mandates, including Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” Executive Order 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs,” Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and an attorney general memorandum, dated February 5, 2025, titled “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” Among other things, these orders directed federal agencies to combat “illegal” corporate DEI programs in the private sector. As a result, many organizations have begun to scale back their DEI programs.

In early March, President Trump issued several executive orders targeting large law firms specifically and calling for a broader review of DEI policies and practices of “representative large, influential, or industry leading law firms” by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and federal and state attorneys general. Subsequently, on March 17, the EEOC Acting Chair sent letters to 20 major law firms requesting a broad range of information about their DEI-related employment practices. Two days later, on March 19, the EEOC issued a joint technical assistance document with the DOJ, “What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work,” and a longer question-and-answer technical assistance document, “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work.” Between the executive orders and EEOC initiatives, the President has begun to push hard to dismantle DEI programs.

On the other hand, some states are stepping in to try to “fill the gap.” For example, in a recently issued joint guidance, 16 state attorneys general reaffirmed their commitment to DEI programs. This makes staying on top of current guidance and laws particularly challenging for multistate employers.

Q. I’ve heard that some executive orders have been challenged. What is the status of these new orders and initiatives?

A. On February 21, portions of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 were enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump. On March 14, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the federal government’s request to stay, pending appeal, the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. As a result of the stay, the government may enforce Executive Orders 14173 and 14151 while the appeal proceeds on an expedited basis.

Similarly, while certain law firms entered into agreements with the government to rescind executive orders issued against them and federal courts enjoined portions of executive orders targeting other law firms, the President’s Executive Orders and the EEOC’s recent letters to law firms and technical assistance documents have made it clear that, regardless of the fate of any given executive order, many arms of the federal government are scrutinizing and taking action regarding public and private DEI programs.

Q. What about “reverse” discrimination?

A. The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, involving the standard for reverse discrimination claims. The issue before the Court is whether — in addition to the usual showings that must be made to establish a prima-facie case of discrimination under Title VII — the plaintiff in a “reverse” discrimination matter must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Currently, the United States Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits require this showing. If the Court rules that additional background circumstances are not required, it will become easier for employees to assert reverse discrimination claims in those five circuits, leading to increased litigation. The availability of these claims may, in turn, prompt employers to reassess and potentially scale back their DEI initiatives.

Q. In light of all of this uncertainty, what should employers do?

A. Employers should consider auditing their existing DEI programs, identifying what initiatives are in place, assessing potential legal risks, and aligning efforts with business objectives and current legal guidance, while maintaining awareness of the fast-changing nature of the legal landscape in this area. At a minimum, it is advisable to eliminate quotas, preferences, exclusionary practices, and aspirational goals and instead focus on inclusion and belonging, and ensuring that all employees have equal employment opportunities.

Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter co-host the Hiring to Firing podcast, using TV shows and movies to kick off discussions about hot-button labor and employment law issues. Episodes of Hiring to Firing can be found on the Troutman Pepper Locke website or any major podcast streaming service.

Over the last few years, employers have faced new and expanded obligations under state and federal employment laws relating to prohibition of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace. These changes stem from agency regulations and opinions, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) shift on workplace guidance for sexual harassment, newly enacted state laws, including the expansion of protected classes, and changes to judicial review of employment claims (e.g., case law relaxing the harm standard for discrimination).

Responding properly to reports of unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation includes conducting appropriate workplace investigations. The purpose of the investigation is to collect the facts related to the allegations based on interviews of the claimant, the alleged wrongdoer, and other potential witnesses, and review of reasonably available records and other evidence, so that company management can review the factual findings and make well-informed decisions about how best to promptly and effectively stop the violation of company policy, if any.

Employers should keep the following tips in mind for workplace investigations:

There is no one-size-fits-all response. Complaints vary in severity, risk, and level of concern. Similarly, employment investigations vary in light of the underlying complaint. Some investigations may necessitate a more expansive investigation, with formal witness interviews or the involvement of outside counsel, but others may not. Employers should use their reasonable judgment in their response to employee complaints, considering the applicable circumstances, and they should avoid a one-size-fits-all investigative response. As a general rule, all investigations should include interviewing the complainant and the alleged wrongdoer and accurate documentation of what steps were taken, when, and what was learned.
Formal complaint not required to begin an investigation. Employers do not need to wait for a formal complaint before beginning their investigation. Employers can, and often should, begin a workplace investigation following a verbal or informal complaint by an employee (such as a comment to human resources or a supervisor relating to a potential violation of a law or company policy).
Investigations don’t always have to be performed by an internal investigator. Though companies may use an in-house internal investigator to conduct an investigation (such as qualified human resources personnel), certain circumstances may be better suited for an impartial external investigator, such as severe allegations, an increased risk of litigation, when appropriate corrective action may involve employment termination of one or more employees, or in the absence of an experienced and uninvolved internal investigator
Witness interviews don’t have to be in-person. Interviews can take many forms, of varying degree of formality. Interviews can be conducted in person or remotely. Remote video interviews are effective where in-person interviews are not reasonably practicable, such as when they may lead to delays in completing the investigation or the witness’ anticipated role is less critical and does not justify the added expense. Seeing a witness’ face allows the employer to better assess credibility and read facial gestures or other movements, and is generally preferable to a phone call discussion. Relatedly, employers should consider oral witness statements as opposed to written witness statements for similar reasons. The investigator should accurately document each interview, including the date of the interview, who was present, and what the witness reported.
Inform witnesses of evidence preservation obligations. Depending on the severity of the allegations and the risk of litigation, employers should consider sending out evidence preservation letters to witnesses (or potential witnesses), so those individuals are on notice to not delete any potentially helpful documents and communications. In lieu of an evidence preservation letter, employers can also consider orally informing witnesses of their evidence preservation obligations. Preserving key documents and communications can greatly assist in workplace investigations and can also be helpful in the unfortunate event that litigation ensues.
Concluding investigation. Regardless of how the investigation shakes out, employers should emphasize that retaliation is prohibited against the complainant(s) or any employees who participate in an investigation. Employers should also consider informing the parties who are the subject of the investigation (i.e., the complainant and alleged harasser) of the outcome of the investigation, such as whether a company policy was violated. This does not mean that employers must inform the complainant about the specific corrective actions taken by the employer, but whether the allegations were substantiated or unsubstantiated, and that proper corrective action will be taken if substantiated. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, employers should also consider periodic and documented follow-up with the complainant to determine whether any further concerns exist.
Employee training is key. Regardless of how an employer elects to move forward with a workplace investigation, they should be sure to have reporting procedures in place and train their workforce on relevant policies regarding harassment, discrimination, and other potentially unlawful employment activity. Proactive employers are typically in a better position to conduct effective workplace investigations.

In keeping these practical tips in mind, employers will be well-positioned to respond to employee complaints in a timely and dutiful manner.

On January 27, 2025 — seven days after he was sworn in — President Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member, and former Chair of, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”). Although Wilcox’s term was not set to expire until August 27, 2028, President Trump became the first U.S. president to terminate a sitting member of the Board. The next day, January 28, the NLRB announced that President Trump also terminated Jennifer Abruzzo, President Biden’s General Counsel of the NLRB (“GC Abruzzo”). President Biden had terminated GC Abruzzo’s predecessor, Peter Robb, in January of 2021. On February 3, 2025, President Trump appointed William B. Cowen as Acting General Counsel of the NLRB (“Acting GC Cowen”).

Following President Trump’s initial actions, the NLRB was left with an interim General Counsel and only two sitting members — Marvin Kaplan (R) and David Prouty (D). With three open seats and no quorum, the Board has been unable to issue any rulings. Meanwhile, Wilcox’s termination has presented legal questions that appear destined for the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 6, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C. ordered President Trump to reinstate Wilcox as the third member of the Board. President Trump subsequently appealed the decision to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. On March 28, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals stayed the lower court’s ruling to reinstate Wilcox. However, on April 7, the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. vacated the panel’s decision, allowing Wilcox to return to her position on the Board while the three-judge panel considers the merits of the dispute, and setting the stage for a Supreme Court decision.

As the legal battle regarding President Trump’s constitutional power to remove NLRB members unfolds, President Trump must also fill the two open Board seats. Although the White House has indicated it is actively working toward naming Republican NLRB nominees to fill those seats, Board Chair Marvin Kaplan has stated that the Senate backlog in the confirmation process will delay this process several months. On March 25, President Trump nominated Crystal Carey for the permanent General Counsel role, which also requires confirmation by the Senate. In the meantime, covered employers must continue to follow the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and proceed under ever-changing guidance from the Board and its General Counsel.

Importantly, on February 14, Acting GC Cowen rescinded more than 30 Biden General Counsel memoranda. Although a General Counsel memorandum is not law, it indicates how the General Counsel intends to address issues in his or her investigatory and prosecutorial capacity. General Counsel memoranda also guide Regional Directors on how to enforce the provisions of the NLRA. As a result of these recent rescissions, below are some of the key NRLB developments of which all employers should be aware:

1. Non-Compete Agreements

On May 30, 2023, GC Abruzzo issued GC 23-08, which stifled employers’ use of employee non-compete agreements. GC Abruzzo contended that, except in special circumstances, proffering, maintaining, or enforcing non-compete agreements violates the NLRA. However, Acting GC Cowen rescinded GC 23-08 and GC 25-01 (regarding non-competes and “stay-or-pay” provisions). These actions indicate that the Trump Board (and, potentially, other federal agencies) will not prohibit employers’ use of non-compete agreements. However, employers should be aware that the NLRB decisions which form the basis of GC 23-08 and 25-01, McLaren Macomb and Stericycle, Inc., are still good law and continue to limit the use of non-compete agreements, unless or until the Trump-appointed Board reverses these decisions.

2. Severance Agreements

In addition to scrutinizing non-compete agreements, in McLaren Macomb, the Biden-era Board limited employers’ use of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements. Then, in GC 23-05, GC Abruzzo took the position that: (1) any confidentiality provisions must be “narrowly-tailored to restrict the dissemination of proprietary or trade secret information for a period of time based on legitimate business justification,” but not the ability of individuals to discuss the severance agreement’s terms; and (2) “a narrowly-tailored, justified, non-disparagement provision [must be] limited to employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue, such that they are made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.” GC Abruzzo also recommended expanding the decision to encompass supervisory employees in certain circumstances. Acting GC Cowen rescinded GC 23-05, signaling that he and the Trump Board will aim to reverse McLaren Macomb and, once again, permit the use of broader confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in employee severance agreements.

3. Available Remedies

In its December 2022 Thryv Inc. decision, the Biden Board added “consequential damages” to its growing list of remedies available when an employer commits an unfair labor practice. Specifically, the Board held that employers can be ordered to pay for all “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” resulting from an unfair labor practice. These consequential damages could involve reimbursement for business expenses, out-of-pocket medical expenses, or restoration of an employee’s “book of business.” At that time, the Biden Board did not adopt GC Abruzzo’s request to require employers to also pay damages for emotional distress or pain and suffering. Nevertheless, the Biden Board continued expanding remedies available under the NLRA. Now, Acting GC Cowen rescinded: GC 21-06 (instructing Regional Directors to seek “the full panoply of remedies available” in cases in which an employer commits an unfair labor practice); and GC 21-07 (instructing Regional Directors to seek consequential damages in settlement agreements). Acting GC Cowen also rescinded GC 22-02 and 24-05 regarding the Board’s use of 10(j) injunctions, stating that further guidance will be forthcoming. These actions signal that the Trump Board will walk back the sweeping unfair labor practice damages available during President Biden’s administration.

As explained above, General Counsel memoranda are not law. And many of former GC Abruzzo’s memoranda were based on a series of Biden Board decisions that drastically altered employers’ rights and changed the landscape of union representation elections. Despite the rescission of over 30 Biden-era General Counsel memoranda, binding NLRB decisions will not change until the Trump Board has: (1) a quorum, and (2) an opportunity to address and/or overturn the underlying legal decisions.

In addition to addressing employee non-compete and severance agreements, the Trump Board is also expected to address (and overturn) a variety of additional decisions, including those relating to (1) the Board’s test for independent contractors, (2) standards and processes for an employer’s voluntary recognition of a union and the related duty to bargain, (3) whether workplace rules and handbook policies chill workers’ rights under the NLRA, (4) the standard for unilateral changes to job requirements and working conditions in unionized workforces, (5) whether employers may conduct “captive-audience” meetings during union elections, and (6) whether employers can make comments to employees regarding the potential consequences of joining a union.

As employers await further guidance from Acting GC Cowen (or GC Carey, if confirmed by the Senate) and rulings from the Trump Board, employers should take this opportunity to review their existing policies and procedures, including any current non-compete and severance agreements. In addition, employers should take this opportunity to train managers on updated, and continually changing, NLRB standards, union tactics, and election procedures.

Regulatory Oversight Blog

Make sure to visit Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Oversight blog to receive the most up-to-date information on regulatory actions and subscribe to our mailing list to receive a monthly digest.

Regulatory Oversight will provide in-depth analysis into regulatory actions by various state and federal authorities, including state attorneys general and other state administrative agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Contributors to the blog will include attorneys with multiple specialties, including regulatory enforcement, litigation, and compliance.

Troutman Pepper Locke Spotlight

Troutman Pepper Locke Receives Unanimous Support as 52 Attorneys General File Amicus Brief to Protect Educational Benefits for Veterans

By Misha Tseytlin, Timothy McHugh, Mary Grace Metcalfe, Jeff Johnson, Lauren Hancock Miller, and Trey Smith

NEW YORK – In a remarkable display of unity, a bipartisan coalition of the attorneys general for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Troutman Pepper Locke and Dominion Energy’s petition for extraordinary relief in the matter of Yoon v. Collins, which continues the fight for veterans’ denied educational benefits.

**RISE Practice Group Members Selected to Law360 2025 Editorial Advisory Boards**

We are pleased to announce that RISE Partners Ashley Taylor and Jean Gonnell have been selected to serve on Law360‘s editorial advisory boards this year. Ashley will contribute his expertise to the Consumer Protection Advisory Board, while Jean will lend her insights to the Cannabis Advisory Board. We congratulate them, along with the other Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys who have been chosen for their respective boards. Continue reading for a full list of Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys selected to serve on Law360 editorial advisory boards this year.

The Future of Auto Dealership Compliance: A Conversation With Tom Kline

By Stephen C. Piepgrass, Brooke Conkle, and Chris Capurso

This episode of Regulatory Oversight spotlights recent Moving the Metal episode “The Future of Auto Dealership Compliance: A Conversation With Tom Kline.” In this episode, Brooke Conkle and Chris Capurso from Troutman Pepper Locke’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group are joined by Tom Kline, lead consultant and founder of Better Vantage Point. Tom shares his extensive experience in the auto industry, discusses the implications of the recent vacating of the CARS Rule by the Fifth Circuit, and provides insights into the most common compliance challenges faced by dealers. He also delves into the importance of having a robust compliance program and the evolving regulatory landscape. Additionally, Tom talks about his book, Tuck the Octopus, which offers valuable strategies for managing dealership operations and mitigating risks. Tune in to gain expert perspectives on staying compliant and competitive in the auto finance industry.

The People’s Protector: A Conversation With AG Jason Miyares

By Stephen C. Piepgrass and Chuck Slemp

In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, Chuck Slemp welcomes his former boss, Virginia Attorney General (AG) Jason Miyares. With more than two decades of shared history, Chuck and Jason delve into a candid conversation about their journey from young professionals in the AG’s office to their current roles. Jason shares his inspiring journey from intern to becoming the first Hispanic AG of Virginia and the first child of an immigrant to hold the office.

Arizona AG Takes Action Against Company for Alleged Deceptive Marketing Practices

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Dascher Pasco

Earlier this month, Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes announced a lawsuit alleging that CBR Systems, Inc. (CBR), one of the nation’s largest cord blood banking companies, engaged in deceptive and unfair practices.

Alaska Obtains Six-Figure Civil Penalty in Product Labeling Case

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Natalia Jacobo

Alaska’s Department of Law’s Consumer Protection Unit recently announced it obtained a Superior Court order issuing a $250,000 civil penalty against B. Merry Studio, which the state alleged to have marketed products as being made in Alaska, when the products were manufactured in the Philippines. The products at issue include knives, figurines, and animal carvings. While some of the products included raw materials sourced from Alaska, the products were assembled in the Philippines. When B. Merry Studio shipped the products to Alaska, their finishings included “Made in Philippines” stickers. The company allegedly replaced these stickers with labels that stated, “Alaskan Made” and “Made in Alaska.”

Indiana AG and Gaming Commission Warn Consumers About Illegal Gambling Ads

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Blake Christopher

Indiana Attorney General (AG) Todd Rokita recently partnered with the Indiana Gaming Commission to alert consumers about advertisements for illegal gambling.

State AGs Allege Bitcoin ATMs Increasingly Facilitate Scams

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Trey Smith

Recent actions by the Pennsylvania and Iowa state attorneys general (AG) suggest increasing regulatory scrutiny of bitcoin transaction machines (BTMs) in connection with the role they allegedly play in facilitating scams. In Pennsylvania, AG David Sunday issued a consumer alert, warning Pennsylvanians that scammers are using BTMs to gain access to their money. In Iowa, AG Brenna Bird brought two lawsuits against Bitcoin Depot and CoinFlip, Iowa’s two largest BTM operators, over alleged collection of illegal fees and failures that allowed Iowans to send millions of dollars to scammers through their kiosks.

New York AG James Reaches $16.75M Settlement With DoorDash for Allegedly Misleading Tip Practices

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Namrata Kang

The New York Attorney General’s (AG) Office announced a $16.75 million settlement with DoorDash, the prominent delivery platform. The settlement relates to claims that DoorDash misled both consumers and delivery workers (Dashers) regarding the handling of tips. Specifically, AG Letitia James alleged that DoorDash employed a guaranteed pay model that was supposed to ensure that delivery workers knew their pay upfront. However, DoorDash allegedly used the model to redirect customer tips to subsidize the wages the company had guaranteed to the Dashers. Instead of giving Dashers the full tips as intended, the tips were used to reduce DoorDash’s payment obligations that were needed to satisfy the guaranteed payment amount.

California Businesses Must Consider Auto-Renewal Law Changes

By Clayton Friedman, Michael Yaghi, and Natalia Jacobo

California’s Auto Renewal Law is one of the most comprehensive laws applying to businesses offering automatic renewal or continuous service subscriptions in the country. Notable changes over the past few years—including new measures going into effect in July—mean businesses need to stay alert to comply if they sell any consumer goods or services to consumers through subscription programs that automatically renew.

Massachusetts AG Campbell Releases “Junk” Fees and Auto-Renewal Regulations

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Namrata Kang

Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell announced Massachusetts’ new consumer protection regulations prohibiting “junk fees” and providing consumers with greater transparency regarding trial and subscription offers, prohibiting unfair marketing tactics that obscure the true cost of a product or service. The regulations are intended to help consumers understand the total cost of products and services at the outset of a transaction, avoid fees, and make it easier to cancel unwanted costs associated with trial and subscription offers.

Arizona AG Pursues Fraudulent Real Estate Scheme Targeting Alleged Fraudsters, Title Companies, Attorneys, and Law Firms

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Troy Homesley

On March 7, Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kristin Mayes filed a novel lawsuit alleging consumer fraud and racketeering against numerous entities, individuals, and even law firms and title companies involved in the residential real estate market. The lawsuit is now pending in Maricopa County. The lawsuit offers a warning to entities, individuals, title companies, and even attorneys and law firms involved in the residential real estate industry.

Washington AG Accuses Collection Agency of Violating Notice Requirement for Collecting Medical Debt

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Michael Lafleur

The Washington State Attorney General’s (AG) Office filed a lawsuit against Renton Collections Inc., accusing the company of violating Washington’s Collection Agency Act by failing to include certain disclosures in their collection letters to debtors.

New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Issues Finding of Probable Cause Against Consumer Financial Services Company for Discrimination

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Lane Page

On March 11, New Jersey Attorney General (AG) Matthew Platkin and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced that DCR issued a finding of probable cause against Advance Funding Partners/Same Day Funding (Advance Funding), a company that provides cash advances and consumer loans, alleging that it violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against both consumers and employees.

Wisconsin v. Bell and What’s Next for FCA Enforcement

By Amy Pritchard Williams, Michael S. Lowe, Callan G. Stein, and Ayana Brown

2025 is already shaping up to be an active year for False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. With the recent announcements of executive orders that may expand the FCA as an enforcement tool, as discussed in a recent Troutman Pepper Locke client alert, everyone is keeping a close eye on what is next. In the past few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten in on the FCA action.

The Federal Contractors’ Playbook: Managing Increased Costs From Tariffs and Domestic Material Demands

By Hilary Cairnie and Bonnie Gill

Just two months into President Donald Trump’s second term, contractors have been whipsawed by a flurry of executive orders, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) directives, and agency actions. This has brought an era of chaos, confusion, and uncertainty to the government marketplace as contractors endeavor to figure out what all of this means, day to day as they proceed with contract performance.

New York AG James Proposes Expansion of State Consumer Protection Law

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team and Warren F. “Jay” Myers

New York Attorney General (AG) Letitia James recently announced her support for legislation that would significantly broaden the state’s consumer protection statute to prohibit not just deceptive acts, but also unfair and abusive business practices. The proposed Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act, an idea long backed by leaders of the Biden-era Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has been introduced in both the New York State Senate and Assembly.

FTC, States Sue John Deere in Right to Repair Lawsuit

By Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team, Stephen C. Piepgrass, Bradley Weber, Christy Matelis, and Daniel Waltz

On January 15, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Minnesota, and Illinois filed a lawsuit against Deere & Company (Deere). The complaint, which Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona have since joined, accuses Deere of creating and maintaining a repair services monopoly and engaging in anticompetitive business practices that interfere with farmers’ rights to repair their Deere agricultural equipment in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.

Dear Mary Column

Dear Mary,

Our company experienced a cybersecurity incident. It seemed pretty minor — just a few suspicious emails and an employee’s account being locked. To my dismay, we’re now hearing from our IT team that the issue is more serious. We have cyber insurance, but we didn’t notify our carrier right away. Did we make a mistake? When should I reach out to our insurance provider?

– Unsure Insured of San Francisco

Unpacking the Illicit E-Cigarette Crackdown by State AGs

By Chris Carlson, Michael Jordan, and Zie Alere

In mid-January, a bipartisan coalition of nine state attorneys general, as well as the Washington, D.C., attorney general, announced a coordinated effort to curb illicit electronic cigarette sales. The attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Ohio and Washington, D.C., are coordinating enforcement activity targeting dealers of these products — issuing warning letters, serving civil investigative demands and filing complaints.

Massachusetts Efforts to Ensure Safety in the Cannabis Industry: New Testing Requirements and Recent Advisories

By Jean Smith-Gonnell and Sydney Goldberg

On February 3, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) issued two public health and safety advisories regarding potentially contaminated marijuana products sold by two separate licensees in Massachusetts.

Suit Against Cannabis Giant Trulieve Underscores Cashless ATM Risks and the Need for Banking Reforms

By Jean Smith-Gonnell and Michael Jordan

In a February 19 complaint filed in Arizona state court, Texas-based payment processer Switch Commerce LLC argued that multistate cannabis operator Trulieve Cannabis Corp. and its affiliates should be responsible for a $950,000 fine from Visa for their alleged fraudulent use of “cashless ATMs” — not Switch.

Stephanie Kozol, Senior Government Relations Manager – State Attorneys General, also contributed to this newsletter.

Our Cannabis Practice provides advice on issues related to applicable federal and state law. Marijuana remains an illegal controlled substance under federal law.

Since taking office, President Trump has issued a flurry of terminations and appointments at different administrative agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

As many expected, President Trump quickly appointed Commissioner Andrea Lucas as the Acting Chair of the EEOC. However, President Trump then fired two Democratic members of the EEOC, Commissioners Charlotte A. Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels. These terminations left the EEOC without a three-member majority (or “quorum”). As a result, the EEOC is limited in its ability to implement significant, immediate change, such as issuing, modifying, or revoking formal legal guidance.

Once a quorum is reinstated, employers should expect the EEOC to begin taking action that aligns with President Trump’s agenda. Based on published comments by Chair Lucas and executive orders to date, employers may anticipate EEOC action in, at minimum, the following areas.

Sex Based Rights

Gender Ideology. Upon her appointment, Chair Lucas stated that she is intent on “returning to [the EEOC’s] mission of protecting women from sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination” and rolling back the “gender identity agenda.” Consistent with that announcement, and at the heels of President Trump’s Executive Order 14168, Chair Lucas removed several “materials promoting gender ideology” from the agency’s website and other agency materials, including internal documents, statements, forms, and training materials, further evidencing her priorities.

Chair Lucas has also been vocal in her opposition to the previous EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. In particular, Chair Lucas criticized portions of that guidance relating to harassment based on gender identity — including protections for bathroom access based on an individual’s gender identity and intentional misuse of an individual’s desired gender pronouns. While Chair Lucas cannot unilaterally remove or modify this guidance, an eventual partial modification or recission of that guidance seems likely.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Chair Lucas has also voiced concerns over the previous EEOC’s final rule implementing the PWFA. Her position is that several portions of that final rule are overly burdensome, particularly those relating to the requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations for abortion-related procedures. Once a quorum is re-established, Chair Lucas has stated that she intends for the EEOC to reconsider portions of the final rule. In the meantime, the Eighth Circuit is also considering an ongoing legal challenge to the lawfulness of the final rule. As such, employers may see changes to this final rule, and the obligations it imposes, even before a quorum of the EEOC is reinstated.

Religious Protections

The issue of when and how an employer must grant religious accommodations may be trickier now than ever under this new administration. Chair Lucas has stated that she is intent on “protecting workers from religious bias and harassment,” with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Christian bias in the workplace. Employers will have to consider how these priorities, along with the possible changes to sex-based rights noted above, may complicate balancing religious requests and safeguarding worker rights against unlawful discrimination and harassment.

National Origin Discrimination

Chair Lucas has also announced that the EEOC will target employers that “illegally prefer non-American workers” through the increased enforcement of Title VII’s national origin protections. As a result, employers may expect to see increased investigations, compliance checks, and litigation targeting employers who appear to prefer or favor immigrant workers over U.S. workers.

Employers can expect that changes to the makeup of the EEOC will come with significant shifts in policymaking and litigation initiatives pursued by the commission. Though agency guidance is a useful tool, that guidance often is subject to political influence and different priorities from administration to administration. As a result, employers should use all tools available to them to ensure legal compliance, including agency guidance (both formal and informal) and, most importantly, the law as interpreted by the courts. Now, more than ever, employers must be vigilant and flexible in their approach to compliance with federal and state discrimination laws.

Since day one in the Oval Office, President Trump has made sweeping immigration policy changes with a focus on tightening the U.S. borders and deporting undocumented migrants. While these changes undoubtedly affect individuals the most, they also impact U.S. businesses. Here are the top three areas of change impacting employers.

ICE Enforcement Raids
During President Trump’s first term, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) most frequently targeted states in the Southeast and Midwest. This term, however, ICE aims to make up to 1,500 arrests per day across the U.S. under President Trump’s directive to deport undocumented migrants. The current administration also rescinded the policy that protected sensitive locations (such as schools, hospitals, and churches) from such raids. Overall, the agency’s all-hands-on-deck approach to deporting undocumented migrants has resulted in a 627% increase in monthly arrests compared to 33,000 arrests made under the Biden administration in 2024. These arrests have occurred in homes, at traffic stops, and at places of employment, to name a few. As ICE continues to target undocumented individuals in the U.S., more businesses can expect a visit from ICE in its efforts to apprehend such individuals.

As ICE’s enforcement raids can undoubtedly have an operational and financial impact on businesses, employers should consider devising a Response Plan that prepares the management for a potential raid. Factors to consider as part of a Response Plan may include whether to designate public versus nonpublic areas (which require a judicial warrant to gain access), preparing a script for personnel who would interact with the agents on site, and deciding whether to grant or deny access if the agents do not present a valid judicial warrant.

Form I-9 Audits
Employers may expect a similarly aggressive approach from ICE to ensure that they comply with the employment eligibility requirements under federal law, including proper Form I-9 documentation showing that they verified the identity and work authorization status of their employees. The number of I-9 audits quadrupled compared to the prior administration in President Trump’s first term, so employers should anticipate an uptick in ICE’s efforts to enforce employer compliance in the coming months.

The president’s directives encourage ICE to seek the maximum penalties for I-9-related violations. The current monetary fines for I-9-related violations, which went up in January 2025, are as follows:

Penalties for I-9 paperwork violations range from $288 to $2,861 per I-9 form; and
Penalties for knowingly hiring, recruiting, and/or retaining unauthorized workers range from $716 to $28,619 per violation.

Criminal penalties are also possible, especially for serious violations such as engaging in a pattern of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. If found guilty, employers could face debarment from government contracts and even six months of imprisonment for individuals who are found to have perpetrated this practice. During the current administration, employers may expect ICE officers to investigate any instances of hiring unauthorized workers more rigorously than before. Note that constructive knowledge (knowledge implied from certain circumstances, as opposed to actual knowledge) can be sufficient to find an employer guilty of knowingly hiring, recruiting, and/or retaining unauthorized workers.

While some businesses will be selected at random, employers with prior histories of an audit as well as those suspected of hiring undocumented workers may have higher chances for an I-9 audit. Additionally, certain industries which are more likely to employ undocumented workers and businesses with a history of noncompliance may become greater targets for an I-9 audit.

Employers should consider conducting an internal I-9 audit in advance, making proper corrections and updates to the existing I-9 forms to bring them up to compliance and exhibit good faith in the event of an audit by the federal government.

Temporary Protected Status Designation Terminated
So far, there have been changes to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Haiti and Venezuela.

Haiti
On February 20, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem partially vacated a prior TPS extension of Haiti, thereby reducing the designation period from 18 months to 12 months. As a result, the TPS designation and authorization to work are expected to terminate on August 3, 2025, instead of February 3, 2026. Employers who have reverified the Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for Haitian national employees under the TPS category code A-12 or C-19 are instructed to go back to the applicable Forms I-9 and update their authorization to work to August 3, 2025.

Venezuela
Both the 2021 and 2023 TPS designations for Venezuela were extended by the previous secretary of homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas, in January 2025. On February 3, 2025, Noem vacated the former secretary’s decision to extend the TPS designation. As a result, any eligible automatic extensions through April 2, 2026, under the 2023 TPS designation are no longer valid. For purposes of verifying an employee’s work authorization, employers should go by the actual expiration date on the employee’s EAD. Further, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will invalidate any EADs, I-797s, or I-94 records issued with the October 2, 2026 date.

In anticipation of the work authorization expirations of impacted workers, employers should review their I-9 forms to determine potential impact. Employers may also want to explore alternative visa options for employees essential to their business.

Relevance of SEC Staff’s Rule 506(c) Minimum Investment Amount Guidance

In new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (see CDIs 256.35 and 256.36) and a related no-action letter (Latham & Watkins LLP, March 12, 2025), the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance provided guidance on meeting the requirement under the Rule 506(c) safe harbor exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 that an issuer take reasonable steps to verify the accredited investor status of purchasers. The guidance confirms that what are reasonable verification steps is a facts and circumstances determination and specifically that a high minimum investment amount (generally $200,000 for individuals and $1 million for entities), coupled with certain representations from the purchaser, is a relevant factor and could itself be sufficient.[1] The representations include that the investment was not financed in whole or in part by a third party for the specific purpose of making the particular investment. The issuer also cannot have actual knowledge indicating that a purchaser is not an accredited investor or that the representation regarding the absence of financing is incorrect. Rule 506(c) permits use of general solicitation to find investors if purchasers are limited to accredited investors, but it has had relatively limited use, in part because of the perceived burden on issuers and intrusiveness to investors from the verification requirement. The new guidance may eliminate this concern in cases where a high minimum investment is applicable.

The SEC staff’s guidance focuses on the reasonable verification steps requirement of Rule 506(c), but it could have broader application. For example, Rule 506(b) permits an unlimited number of accredited investors to be purchasers without a disclosure requirement for those investors based upon an issuer’s reasonable belief that an investor is accredited. If an issuer would satisfy the Rule 506(c) reasonable verification steps test, it likely would meet the reasonable belief standard. Outside of the Rule 506(b) and (c) exemptive safe harbors, a high minimum amount investment or, in the case of debt securities, high minimum denominations has generally been considered a relevant factor in assessing the availability of the statutory 4(a)(2) private offering exemption and the so-called 4(1 ½) private resale exemption as part of an overall assessment of an investor’s sophistication and ability to bear the risk of the investment. The use of this factor in being satisfied that these exemptions are available can now find further support by analogy to the SEC staff’s Rule 506(c) guidance.

Another place where the SEC staff’s guidance may have relevance is in the private offering exemption from the official statement disclosure requirements for underwriters of municipal securities in Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under 15c2-12(d)(1), primary offerings of municipal securities with $100,000 minimum denominations are exempt from the rule’s disclosure requirements if the securities are sold to no more than 35 persons who the underwriter reasonably believes satisfy the sophistication test. Minimum denominations above the $100,000 amount might be a relevant factor in satisfying the reasonable belief of sophistication test.

The new SEC staff guidance is directly helpful for using the Rule 506(c) exemption, but it may also be helpful in other contexts that involve the status of investors.

Lock-Up Agreements in Rule 145 Mergers

Many years ago, a small group involved in the ABA Federal Regulation of Securities Committee met with the SEC staff to discuss issues raised by the traditional practice of an acquiring company obtaining lock-up agreements with voting commitments from key stockholders of a target company to be acquired in a merger transaction requiring registration. The concern prompting the discussion was the staff’s position that offers of the securities had begun privately and therefore could not be completed as a registered public offering. An understanding was reached that these agreements were permissible and the securities to be issued in the transaction could be registered so long as there was no actual vote of the shares (which would be considered a “sale” before the registration statement was effective) and that other stockholders would be voting on the transaction. The understanding was first identified at securities law programs and in our outline on the integration of private and public offerings.

The understanding was first addressed by the SEC in the Division of Corporation Finance Outline of Current Issues and Rulemaking Projects at VIII.A.8 (third paragraph) and, after proposed rulemaking that was not adopted, in CDI 239.13. The understanding is now reflected in a recently issued revision of that CDI that allow the key stockholders to deliver written consents in favor of approving the transaction before the registration statement is filed, so long as they don’t represent 100% of the voting shares, the offering to them is made pursuant to a valid exemption, which likely would result in their receiving restricted securities, and the registered securities will be given only to stockholders who did not deliver written consents and who were delivered a prospectus.

The new interpretation provides parties to a merger transaction with the flexibility to choose to limit the commitments of key stockholders to an agreement to vote in favor of the transaction and have all the securities to be issued registered or to obtain the actual votes of the key stockholders to enhance the assurance that there will be a completed transaction based upon issuing unregistered securities to those key stockholders whose shares are voted while issuing registered securities to the other stockholders.

[1] This harkens back to an earlier day when Regulation D was first adopted in 1982 and a minimum $150,000 investment alone, so long as it did not exceed 20% of a purchaser’s net worth, was sufficient to qualify a purchaser as an accredited investor. That measure could be subject to abuse and was repealed and is now a factor to consider as part of the reasonable verification steps determination.

On March 25, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a significant expansion of its Entity List restrictions, adding 80 entities from China, the United Arab Emirates, South Africa, Iran, Taiwan, and elsewhere to the list. As the first major export control action under President Donald Trump’s second term, it is worth pausing and considering what this signals about the direction of export controls under this administration. Republican leaders have been vocal for years about the need to close “loopholes” in U.S. export controls, in particular when it comes to China’s access to advanced U.S. technology with military applications. These Entity List designations indicate that the Trump administration is focused on doing just that. With this in mind, companies with exposure to China should be thinking about what may be next on this trajectory.

One prominent concern that leading Republicans (and others) have vocalized about perceived “loopholes” in the U.S. Export Administration Regulations (EAR) is that the Entity List generally only imposes restrictions on the specifically designated entities, and not on their parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates that are not on the list or otherwise involved in the activity. These limitations have been widely reported on for years. With many Chinese technology companies operating in sprawling group structures internationally, these limitations have allowed quite a bit of business with such targeted groups to continue despite the Entity List designations that have been imposed in many cases on some of the group companies. This has led to calls, for example, to apply to the EAR’s Entity List an approach akin to the “50% rule” that has long been a feature of the sanctions regulations of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC’s 50% rule extends the restrictions to unlisted entities that are 50% or more owned by listed parties.

These new Entity List designations were designed primarily to curtail China’s development of artificial intelligence (AI), high-performance computing, and other advanced technologies, while also targeting other proliferation concerns like unsafeguarded nuclear activities and ballistic missile programs in Pakistan and elsewhere, and Iran’s procurement of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) components.

While this is consistent with the Biden administration’s approach, a particularly notable feature of this recent action was the designation of several additional Inspur entities, seeking to close one of the perceived “loopholes” that Republicans and others have been vocal in criticizing. China-based Inspur is one of the world’s largest makers of servers, with an affiliate in the U.S. that reportedly has been using the most advanced Nvidia chips that are subject to global restrictions under the EAR. A few Inspur entities were put on the Entity List in early 2023, making waves in the global electronics sector, and this week several more key Inspur entities were added to the list.

Looking Ahead

While this new BIS action does not fundamentally alter the regulatory framework, it may be a signal of the Trump administration’s intent to continue closing “loopholes” in the EAR. It has recently been reported that the administration is looking at expanding the scope of the EAR in several ways, including to capture remote access to controlled hardware and software, which would be a massive expansion of U.S. export control authority. There were legislative proposals to do this in the last Congress that were not enacted. However, there are grave concerns within industry and government about how to craft this type of export control expansion and whether it would be workable.

With experienced staff at BIS reportedly being pushed into early retirement, and the agency facing potential funding cuts, administering and enforcing complex new regulations could be a challenge. At BIS’s annual flagship conference last week, no substantive remarks were made by the agency’s new political leaders, and the AI panel was abruptly canceled at the last minute with no explanation. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick gave a sweeping speech about an intention to ramp up enforcement of export controls, but offered no detail about any specific plans.

While the administration remains focused on cost-cutting, removing career officials, and accommodating industry concerns, it is unclear how they may also pursue their China-focused national security goals. Companies should continue to watch for signals of what the trajectory will look like over the next four years.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us with questions.

On April 2 — labeled “Liberation Day” by President Trump — the Trump administration is set to add a new sanctions-like boost to its tariff strategy, with a threat to impose unprecedented “secondary tariffs” of 25% on “all goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, whether directly from Venezuela or indirectly through third parties.” These tariffs would be in addition to other existing duties in place for a specific country and type of product. Also set to take effect on this date are the additional 25% tariffs on U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)-compliant goods, which were previously paused, as well as new “reciprocal” tariffs on major trading partners, all of which we discussed in a recent alert.

These novel measures are being referred to as “secondary tariffs,” because they resemble “secondary sanctions,” a longstanding but controversial U.S. foreign policy tool. However, these secondary tariffs are a new concept in U.S. sanctions policy (and U.S. trade policy). Secondary sanctions have been used in the past to blacklist non-U.S. parties conducting transactions entirely outside of U.S. jurisdiction in ways that implicate certain U.S. sanctions authorities, e.g., targeting Iran and Russia. Historically, the implementation of secondary sanctions focused on the financial sector, but for that reason, in some cases the U.S. government was hesitant to forcefully act on these authorities due to the often devastating impacts that U.S. sanctions can have on foreign financial institutions and other non-U.S. parties. The use of secondary tariffs by the Trump administration, therefore, is an innovative new approach that fits with the President’s economic vision and expressed skepticism of U.S. sanctions due to their potential long-term threat to the primacy of the U.S. dollar and international reliance on the U.S. financial system.

Tariffs have been used in the sanctions context before, but not like this. For example, new tariffs were imposed on Russia following its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but tariffs have played a minimal role in U.S. sanctions policy toward Russia given the small import volumes from Russia. Another example was the back-and-forth between the U.S. and Colombia in January, when President Trump threatened to impose tariffs and sanctions on the country as punishment for initially refusing to accept deportation flights from the U.S.

How will these new tariff sanctions work?

The Executive Order (EO) imposing these secondary tariffs defines “Venezuelan oil” as “crude oil or petroleum products extracted, refined, or exported from Venezuela, regardless of the nationality of the entity involved in the production or sale of such crude oil or petroleum products.” This suggests that the remaining foreign entities still involved in Venezuela’s oil sector may fall within the scope of this authority.

In a Truth Social post, President Trump had alluded to the possibility that these tariffs would include natural gas, but that does not appear to be the case currently, based on the language of the EO.

The EO defines the term “indirectly” to include “purchases of Venezuelan oil through intermediaries or third countries where the origin of the oil can reasonably be traced to Venezuela, as determined by the Secretary of Commerce.” Because these are discretionary “secondary tariffs,” importers hit with these new duties and other impacted parties will have limited legal recourse, even if, for example, there is a disagreement regarding a Venezuelan origin determination by the Secretary of Commerce.

Because the EO only refers to tariffs on “goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil,” it appears that parties other than importers that are involved in the trade of Venezuelan oil, such as shipping, financing, etc., may not be in the crosshairs of this particular authority. Rather, it appears that the EO may be focused on the location and possibly also the domicile of parties engaged in the importation of Venezuelan-origin oil and petroleum products, which could even potentially include ports, storage facilities, and other related businesses. This aspect of the EO is not well-defined, but again this is a discretionary authority, so caution is warranted.

Despite the limitations of the EO, any party involved directly or indirectly in business with the Venezuelan oil or gas sectors should be aware of the broader sanctions risks that can apply under other authorities, such as the “blocking” of the Government of Venezuela and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), and the secondary sanctions that can apply in this context.

These “secondary tariffs” are not necessarily going to be applied automatically. Instead, the U.S. Secretary of State has the discretion to decide whether to impose them. Therefore, foreign policy considerations will likely play a role in the implementation of this new authority, as is the case with U.S. secondary sanctions.

Additionally, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce must determine “whether a country has imported Venezuelan oil, directly or indirectly.” This is unusual, given that the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has previously been the lead agency in monitoring oil trade with Venezuela for sanctions enforcement purposes. It will be interesting to see what role Treasury will play here and how the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) will manage its role in this program.

Once imposed, these tariffs will “expire 1 year after the last date on which the country imported Venezuelan oil, or at an earlier date if the Secretary of Commerce . . . determines at his discretion.” While the State Department has the discretion to impose these tariffs, Commerce has the discretion to remove them, which is a unique arrangement.

Conclusion

Just last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had posted on X that, “[u]nless the Maduro regime accepts a consistent flow of deportation flights, without further excuses or delays, the U.S. will impose new, severe, and escalating sanctions.” Following that threat, on March 24, Venezuela accepted its first recent deportation flight of Venezuelan migrants from the U.S., following a pause that had been implemented by the Maduro regime after the Trump administration’s decision to revoke Chevron’s license to carry out certain operations in Venezuela, which we discussed in a previous article. One is left to wonder why this EO was issued right after what appears to have been renewed cooperation by the Maduro regime. This also raises questions about the Trump administration’s desire to use these new authorities and what may trigger that. It will be important to watch whether the Trump administration adds any clarity to its policy toward Venezuela and how this EO may be used to promote that.

A new and seemingly aggressive approach to sanctions policy by the Trump administration has not been limited to Venezuela. For example, on March 20, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on a Chinese “teapot” refinery and its CEO for refining Iranian oil, and the State Department sanctioned a crude oil and petroleum products storage terminal in China for receiving and storing Iranian crude oil. These are aggressive sanctions actions against major economic operators in China, and reflect the seriousness of this administration’s renewed “maximum pressure” sanctions policy on Iran. If a similarly aggressive approach is taken with respect to these new Venezuela secondary tariffs, global market participants will be well advised to watch this space closely.

Energy

Financial Services

Health Care + Life Sciences

Insurance + Reinsurance

Private Equity

Real Estate

Innovation

plus

Pro Bono

Alumni Network

Emerge

The Pepper Center

Learn + Connect

BLOG, Microsite + Podcast HUB

ACHIEVEMENTS

Auto Finance

Banking

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Cryptocurrency + FinTech

Debt Buyers + Collectors

Regulatory Enforcement + Compliance

Podcasts

Newsletters