European Commission Proposes Expansion to Records of Processing Derogation
On May 21, 2025, the European Commission published a proposal for a new regulation simplifying certain regulatory requirements for “small mid-cap enterprises” (the “Simplification Regulation Proposal”). Small mid-caps will be companies with fewer than 750 employees and either up to €150 million in turnover or up to €129 million in balance sheet.
As part of its simplification efforts, the European Commission proposes amending the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) by extending the derogation from the obligation to maintain records of processing activities (Article 30(5) of the GDPR) to small mid-caps. The current version of the derogation is only applicable to companies employing fewer than 250 persons.
The amended derogation would apply unless an organization carries out processing activities that are likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, expanding the current formulation. In this context, the European Commission proposes clarifying that the processing of special categories of personal data which is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the individual in the field of employment and social security and social protection law will not impact the derogation under Article 30(5) of the GDPR.
In addition, the Simplification Regulation Proposal also proposes amending the GDPR to require that the needs of small mid-caps be specifically considered when drafting GDPR codes of conduct, certification mechanisms, seals, and marks.
The Simplification Regulation Proposal will now be subject to the EU’s legislative procedure and may be further amended by the European Parliament or the Council.
Read the Simplification Regulation Proposal.
May 2025 Legal News: Law Firm News, Industry Awards and Recognition and Women in Law
Thank you for reading The National Law Review’s legal news roundup, highlighting the latest law firm news! Please read below for the latest in law firm news and industry expansion, legal industry awards, recognition and women in the legal field.
Law Firm News
Jackson Lewis P.C. announced that Kelly Eisenlohr-Moul joined the firm’s Chicago office, bringing with her almost 20 years of employment and labor law experience.
Focusing her practice on restrictive covenant matters and complex employment litigation, Ms. Eisenlohr-Moul represents Fortune 100 companies in legal issues ranging from class action claims to individual disputes. She has experience with multiple industries, including finance, transportation, security and health care.
“We are thrilled to welcome Kelly to our office,” said Kirsten A. Milton, managing principal of the Chicago office. “She brings not only an impressive litigation background, but also a thoughtful, down-to-earth approach that clients truly value. Kelly’s experience and energy are a great fit for our team and we’re excited about all she brings to our office and to our clients.”
Ms. Eisenlohr-Moul also provides advice to employers on workplace matters, as well as to companies on internal investigations.
Sarah Wirskye joined Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP’s Government Enforcement & Investigations Practice Group in the firm’s Dallas office. She is the 11th attorney to join the office in the past year.
Ms. Wirskye has defended individuals and businesses in civil fraud and white-collar criminal disputes with the government for over 25 years, with an emphasis on the False Claims Act and customs and tax fraud, as well as healthcare fraud.
“Sarah’s arrival aligns with our strategic goal of expanding our government investigations work in Dallas and throughout Texas. Bradley is widely known for its capabilities in defending clients facing significant enforcement actions and investigations, and Sarah will be an excellent addition to this nationally recognized team,” said Bradley Dallas Office Managing Partner John A. Bonnett III. “She is an exceptional attorney with a proven record of success that will be beneficial to the work we are doing for our clients.”
Quarles & Brady LLP announced that Li Zhu, an intellectual property attorney, rejoined the firm’s Washington, D.C., office as a partner.
Dual-qualified in the U.S. and China, Ms. Zhu helps brands protect and enforce their IP across borders. She brings to the firm her extensive experience in cross-border enforcement campaigns to stop unauthorized sales and dismantle counterfeit networks.
“Li’s experience has proven to be a valuable and a differentiating asset for our clients and we are thrilled to welcome her back to Quarles,” said Lori Ruhly, national co-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. “Her strength in IP rights in Asian countries is needed and provides strategic guidance that will benefit many of our clients.”
Legal Industry Awards and Recognition
Brad Evans and Devon Williams, Co-Managing Directors at Ward and Smith, P.A., were named to Business North Carolina’s 2025 Power List. The publication is an annual roundup of the most influential leaders across various industries in the state.
Mr. Evans handles complex intellectual property, business, professional licensing and estate disputes. He was inducted into the American Board of Trial Advocates in 2023, an honor reserved for experienced trial lawyers, as well as being a certified mediator with the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Ms. Williams focuses her practice on employment and labor matters, working with clients in the cannabis, hemp and alcoholic beverages industries. In addition to her current honor on the 2025 Power List, she has also been named a “Managing Partner to Watch” two years in a row by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP announced that the firm’s Private Wealth practice received the Magic Circle Awards from Citywealth, a UK-based media company, in the categories of International Law Firm of the Year and UHNW (ultra-high-net-worth) Private Client Services of the Year.
The company recognizes top-performing advisors and managers in global private wealth, including attorneys and law firms. The firm was selected based on nominations demonstrating firm performance and innovative client services.
“These honors are a testament to the strength and depth of our premier Private Wealth team,” said Joshua S. Rubenstein, national chair of Katten’s Private Wealth practice. “Whether advising on estate planning, fiduciary litigation or sophisticated multijurisdictional legal and tax matters, our attorneys are trusted by ultra-high-net-worth clients worldwide for delivering strategic counsel and exceptional service.”
Mayer Brown LLP was named “ABS Law Firm of the Year” for the fifth consecutive year, as well as “ESG Law Firm of the Year,” at GlobalCapital’s US Securitization Awards. The awards honor innovative and impactful achievements in structured finance in the United States.
The firm boasts one of the world’s largest structured finance practices and has securitized nearly every asset type. The team’s experience includes private placements, warehouse facilities, asset purchases, collateralized fund obligations and other investments.
DEI and Women in Law
Bracewell LLP announced that senior associate Amelia Bowring won the Private Practice Rising Star Award at the 2025 Middle East Legal Awards, which celebrates outstanding legal achievements across the Middle East region.
Ms. Bowring assists Dubai Managing Partner Chris Williams and is seasoned in a wide range of commercial contract work, corporate advisory and cross-border transactions. In addition, she serves as the primary liaison between the firm and Sony Music.
Tina Dorr, an intellectual property partner in Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Atlanta office, was named one of the “25 Most Influential Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Georgia” for 2025 by Georgia Asian Times. She was recognized for her leadership in both the AAPI and legal communities.
Currently serving as a board member for the Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Ms Dorr has helped expand the organization’s impact. In addition, she serves in leadership roles with the Intellectual Property Owners Association and Georgia Tech. Her development of sophisticated IP strategies has protected innovation and elevated brands.
Moore & Van Allen announced that Karin McGinnis, co-head of Privacy & Data Security, was named to the 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers.
The guide honors top legal professionals across the globe who are shaping the future of data protection and digital law. Ms. McGinnis’ inclusion shows professional excellence as well as contributions to the legal community and innovation in the cybersecurity field.
With New White Collar Enforcement Priorities Memo, DOJ Seeks to Provide More Pathways to Declinations and Non-Prosecution Agreements: Part Two
In Part One of this series, we discussed the May 12, 2025, U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division’s new guidance memo on white-collar enforcement priorities in the Trump 2.0 Administration entitled “Focus, Fairness, and Efficiency in the Fight Against White-Collar Crime.”
In this new DOJ memo, and in an accompanying speech by Matthew R. Galeotti, the Trump Administration’s appointed Head of the Criminal Division, the DOJ announced its priorities and areas of focus for white collar enforcement.
In Part Two of this series, we address the DOJ’s changes made the same day to its Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Disclosure Policy (“the CEP”), contained within the Justice Manual. The revised CEP provides additional benefits to companies that self-disclose and cooperate. In his May 12th speech, Galeotti asserted that prior versions of the CEP were “unwieldy and hard to navigate” and noted that the DOJ seeks to be “as transparent as [it] can to companies and their counsel about what to expect under [DOJ’s] policies.” As part of this effort to increase transparency, the revised CEP includes a flowchart of potential outcomes should a company decide to make a voluntary self-disclosure as well as definitions of key terms such as “Voluntary Self-Disclosure,” “Full Cooperation,” “Timely and Appropriate Remediation” and “Providing Cooperation Credit.”
1. Increased Opportunities for Companies to Receive Declinations of Prosecution
The revised CEP provides that, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, a company will receive a declination if they voluntarily self-disclose misconduct to the DOJ, fully cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation, and timely and appropriately remediate. This is a change from the prior version of the CEP which provided only a presumption of a declination where a company takes these steps. And now, even if there are aggravating circumstances related to the nature and seriousness of the offense, prosecutors retain discretion to recommend a declination by weighing the severity of those circumstances and the company’s cooperation and remediation. Note that companies receiving declinations will be required to pay all disgorgement/forfeiture as well as restitution/victim compensation payments resulting from the misconduct at issue. The method for calculating such payments is not set forth in the CEP. Additionally, all declinations under the CEP will be made public.
2. “Near Miss” Voluntary Self-Disclosures or Aggravating Factors Could Also Warrant a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
In the most significant policy change, the revised CEP includes a new “near miss” category providing for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) where a company fully cooperates and timely and appropriately remediates but is ineligible for a declination because the company did not timely disclose, the company had a preexisting obligation to disclose or the DOJ already knew about the conduct when the company disclosed. A company can also qualify for a NPA if it was ineligible for a declination on account of aggravating factors, but there were not particularly egregious or multiple aggravating factors. In these circumstances, the DOJ will agree to a NPA, allow a term length of fewer than three years, not require an independent compliance monitor, and provide a 75 percent reduction off the low end of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
3. Additional Opportunities for Discretion Remain in Determining An Appropriate Resolution
Even if companies are not eligible for a declination or a NPA, prosecutors still retain discretion to determine an appropriate resolution related to form, term length, compliance obligations, and monetary penalties, with a company’s recidivism factoring into the appropriate resolution.
Takeaways
The revised CEP, as written, is more business-friendly and seeks to provide more predictable outcomes to federal criminal corporate investigations. The changes move the needle away from requiring a guilty plea as part of a resolution and provide easier pathways to a corporate declination or a NPA.
These changes to the CEP intend to provide more certainty for companies if they self-disclose misconduct to the DOJ, fully cooperate with an investigation, and remediate the misconduct. Although these changes appear to offer more certainty to companies considering a voluntary disclosure, it remains to be seen how this new CEP will be applied going forward. Although terms such as “Full Cooperation” and “Timely and Appropriate Remediation” are defined, there will still be potential for disagreement as to whether a company has met those definitions, including providing all non-privileged facts relevant to the conduct at issue and timely and voluntarily preserving, collecting and disclosing relevant documents and information.
Finally, and notably, the CEP does not modify the controversial and short timelines set forth in the Department-wide Merger & Acquisition Policy (M&A) Policy outlined in Justice Manual 9-28.600 and 9-28.900, which applies to misconduct uncovered in the context of M&A pre- or post-acquisition due diligence.
We will be monitoring additional developments in this area as the Administration continues to implement policy changes.
Historic US Presidential Visit to the Middle East
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, recently concluded a landmark tour of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) visiting Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
This was his first official foreign visit, with a clear focus on deepening economic ties and securing trade deals with GCC nations. Key announcements included an estimated US$600 billion in trade agreements with Saudi Arabia, US$1.2 trillion with Qatar, and further investments of US$200 billion with the UAE (taking the amount committed by the UAE to US$1.4 trillion).
Key Sectors and Agreements
The new trade corridor features substantial investments across several critical sectors.
Qatar Airways signed a US$96 billion agreement with Boeing to purchase up to 210 widebody aircraft—Boeing’s largest-ever widebody order.
In the artificial intelligence (AI) and semiconductor space, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-backed AI firm, Humain, confirmed a US$3.2 billion deal with Nvidia for 18,000 high-performance Graphics Processing Units. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. also announced a US$10 billion joint AI development initiative in Saudi Arabia. These announcements follow the rollback of the AI Diffusion Rule by the US administration, lifting restrictions on the export of advanced AI chips to the region.
Amazon Web Services, Inc has committed US$5.3 billion towards building a new “AI Zone” in Saudi Arabia, while Supermicro is investing US$20 billion in data center infrastructure across both the United States and Saudi Arabia through a joint venture with DataVolt.
In the defense sector, Qatar agreed to US$3 billion in contracts with Raytheon and General Atomics involving next-generation drone and counter-drone systems. Continued investment into the US Air Force’s Al Udeid base in Qatar underscores the long-standing defense partnership between the two nations.
These developments represent a major influx of capital and opportunities across both regions, but navigating the legal and regulatory frameworks on both sides remains critical to success.
Some Legal Considerations
For Middle Eastern Investors Entering the United States:
Investors from the Middle East looking to capitalize on opportunities in the United States will need to be mindful of several key regulatory and legal issues.
One of the primary considerations is compliance with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which reviews transactions involving foreign investment that could affect national security. This is particularly relevant in sensitive sectors such as defense, technology, infrastructure, and data.
The US legal landscape can be complex, especially for those unfamiliar with its dual federal and state systems. Laws relating to tax, employment, corporate governance, and securities can differ significantly between states and must be analyzed carefully in each case. Structuring investments through appropriate vehicles is essential for managing risks and limiting liability, particularly in sectors subject to close regulatory scrutiny.
Shari’ah-compliant investors are increasingly exploring opportunities in the United States, especially in real estate and private equity. However, these require tailored structuring to ensure alignment with the requirements of Shari’ah supervisory boards while still complying with US legal and tax frameworks.
Unlike many Middle Eastern jurisdictions, the United States is a highly litigious environment. The risk of regulatory disputes, shareholder actions, employment litigation, and antitrust investigations is considerably higher. The US antitrust and competition laws, for example, are far more robust and frequently enforced compared to their relatively nascent counterparts in the Middle East. Securities laws, especially in public market transactions, are similarly stringent and must be factored in from the outset.
State-level differences also play a critical role. States such as Delaware are particularly attractive due to their favorable corporate, tax, and litigation environments. Selecting the right jurisdiction for incorporation and operation can significantly impact regulatory exposure and operational flexibility.
For US Investors Entering the Middle East:
For US companies investing into the Middle East, it is important to understand that the region is not a monolith; legal systems and business cultures vary widely between countries.
First, US companies must consider the sanctions and export control regimes administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, especially when dealing with sovereign wealth funds, defense entities, or dual-use technologies in the region. With the recent relaxation of the AI Diffusion Rule, there is now greater potential for AI exports to the Middle East—but this still requires close attention to the scope of US export controls.
Legal systems in the Middle East are primarily based on civil law, unlike the common law system in the United States. This means there is often greater judicial discretion and less reliance on precedent. Contracts and dispute resolution mechanisms must be carefully drafted, particularly in jurisdictions where court decisions may be unpredictable.
Each country in the region offers different investment incentives and legal structures. Free zones have played a major role in attracting foreign capital by allowing full foreign ownership and profit repatriation. Qatar’s Financial Centre and free zones, for instance, provide flexible regulatory frameworks tailored to global investors. The UAE hosts more than 30 free zones designed for specific industries, offering bespoke legal and commercial environments.
In recent years, there has been a concerted effort across the Middle East to reform key areas of business law, including company formation, insolvency, taxation, and dispute resolution. Many of these reforms are designed to meet international standards and increase investor confidence. Incentive programs—including multi-billion-dollar funds to attract asset managers and tech firms—are now available and should be assessed early when planning market entry.
Sector-specific regulations are also evolving quickly. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE have implemented modern data protection regimes and frameworks supporting cloud computing and digital infrastructure. There is a strong focus on aligning digital transformation with ethical considerations rooted in local culture, particularly in areas like AI, surveillance, and data localization.
While competition laws are still developing in the region, they are gaining traction and should not be overlooked. Employment and immigration rules are often more flexible than in the United States, but enforcement can vary widely and must be understood in context.
Next Steps
Despite the complexity of legal and regulatory environments in both regions, the depth of capital and collaboration stemming from this new wave of bilateral investment offers unparalleled opportunities.
With 25 offices in the United States, and a well-established presence in the Middle East, the firm is well positioned to support clients looking to capitalize on this strengthened trade corridor.
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Suggests the SEC Will Not Rescind the Climate Disclosure Rule
SEC Commissioner Uyeda, one of the Republican appointees to the Securities & Exchange Commission, recently stated (in remarks at the 2025 “SEC Speaks” Conference) that the SEC should not rescind the climate disclosure rule promulgated under the Biden Administration. This was somewhat surprising, as a number of opponents of the climate disclosure rule have suggested that such a rescission would be the most effective way of overturning the climate disclosure rule without the risks of an adverse decision by the courts.
Importantly, though, these remarks by Commissioner Uyeda were not based on any newfound support for the policies embodied by the climate disclosure rule; rather, Commissioner Uyeda viewed such an action as “plac[ing] a significant strain on the Commission’s resources” and thought the SEC’s staff could be deployed more efficiently to address the Trump Administration’s policy priorities. Further, Commissioner Uyeda suggested that he saw value in having the courts opine upon the merits of the climate disclosure rule, as such a decision would answer key questions of statutory authority and compliance with the [Administrative Procedures Act].” In other words, Commissioner Uyeda appears to believe that a court decision concerning the climate disclosure rule could potentially limit future efforts by the SEC to enact regulations beyond what he perceives as the agency’s appropriate remit. Fundamentally, this is a dispute over tactics as to the best method to repeal the climate disclosure rule, and Commissioner Uyeda–one of the key voices on the matter–appears to view the courts as the more effective option rather than action by the SEC itself.
Some have suggested that the Commission could simply move to rescind the climate-related disclosure rule, which I view as a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the key questions of statutory authority and compliance with the APA. . . . For the Commission to rescind the climate-related disclosure rule—and address the countless factual findings discussed in that 885-page release—would place a significant strain on the Commission’s resources. This effort would be a difficult lift, and it would potentially take away staff resources needed to advance the regulatory regime with respect to crypto and capital formation. Further, any such recission would further be likely challenged in the courts. If such rescission is struck down, then the question of whether the original climate-related disclosure rule was lawfully adopted would escape judicial review altogether.
www.sec.gov/…
Mental Health Parity Alert – Non-Enforcement of Final Rules
The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), and its implementing regulations and guidance, prohibits health insurance policies and group health plans that cover mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits from imposing limitations on MH/SUD benefits that are less favorable than the limitations imposed on medical/surgical benefits. As we have written previously, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) added a requirement for health plans to document their compliance with nonquantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) requirements under the MHPAEA by completing a written NQTL analysis. As described in detail below, the Trump Administration has recently indicated that it will make it a bit easier for plan sponsors to comply with the written NQTL analysis requirement.
Last fall, the Department of Labor , Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury (“the Departments”) published final MHPAEA regulations (“Final Rule”). You can read more about the Final Rule in our prior article available here, and about the Departments’ priorities related to MHPAEA here and here. Several of the requirements imposed under the Final Rule significantly raised the bar that health plans are required to meet in their NQTL analysis.
In January, a lawsuit was filed against the Departments seeking to invalidate the Final Rule for several reasons, including alleging that the Departments exceeded their authority in issuing the Final Rule. Earlier this month, the Departments indicated in a filing in that lawsuit (which is now paused) that the Trump Administration intends to reconsider the Final Rule and will be issuing a non-enforcement policy in the near future related to the Final Rule’s requirements.
While this position of non-enforcement means that the Final Rule will not be enforced against health plans, it does not impact the status quo under the CAA. Plan sponsors still need to maintain a written NQTL analysis, but the Final Rule’s additional NQTL analysis requirements will not be enforced (e.g., ERISA fiduciary certification, “meaningful benefits” standard, etc.). The Departments have continued to indicate that MHPAEA compliance is a top priority, and lawsuits in the MHPAEA space remain common. While the reduced lift from non-enforcement of the Final Rule offers welcome relief to employers and plan service providers, the underlying requirement created by the CAA remains in effect.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel: An Overview of the Current Regulatory Landscape in the UK, EU And USA
Introduction
We have set out below an overview of the current regulatory frameworks governing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) in the key jurisdictions of the UK, EU and USA.
SAF has emerged as a critical component in the global drive to decarbonise the aviation sector, a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike conventional jet fuels, SAF offers substantial reductions in lifecycle carbon emissions by incorporating renewable feedstocks and innovative production technologies.
Recognising its potential to drive sustainable growth, policymakers across the UK, EU, and USA are actively shaping regulatory frameworks to accelerate its deployment and adoption.
Note that this is an evolving regulatory landscape that is subject to change – however, this overview sets out the current regulations and initiatives of each of the UK, EU and USA – and strongly indicates the direction of travel of each of these jurisdictions.
We conclude with a comparison of these jurisdictions and analyse their strengths and limitations in fostering market growth. We also examine potential pathways for future development, including harmonisation of international standards, technological advancements, and policy synergies.
By presenting such analysis and exploring projected trends, this overview offers insights into the role of regulation in shaping the trajectory of SAF as an essential enabler of sustainable aviation.
United Kingdom
The UK SAF landscape
Current Status and Future Developments
The UK’s SAF industry is progressing rapidly, driven by a number of policy measures that integrate SAF into the UK’s broader decarbonisation goals. With increasing regulatory and financial support, the UK aims to position itself as a global leader in SAF development, production, commercialisation and use.
A key component of this strategy is the SAF Mandate, alongside other legislative and market-based incentives designed to accelerate SAF adoption. Under these principles, SAF is defined based on achieving a minimum level of greenhouse gas emission reductions and specific sustainability criteria.
The key features include the introduction of compulsory, incrementally increasing SAF supply requirements, a buy-out mechanism to enforce compliance, and funding incentives to support industry growth.
The Jet Zero Taskforce (JZT) (building on the previous Government’s Jet Zero Council) was announced by the UK Government in November 2024 to advance sustainable aviation. Members include UK Government ministers, industry leaders and academics. Established to accelerate the transition to net zero aviation by 2050, the JZT aims to streamline aviation decarbonization priorities and support the development, production, commercialisation and use of SAF in the UK and globally.
Legislation
The UK is at the forefront of SAF development as the one of the first countries in the world to legislate for mandatory SAF requirements. The UK’s key policy to decarbonize aviation and secure demand for SAF is the SAF Mandate.
SAF Mandate
Key terms (2025 onwards):
The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024 came into force on January 1, 2025. This introduced compulsory SAF requirements for suppliers of at least 15.9 terajoules (c.468,000 litres) per year of aviation fuel to the UK: from 2025, SAF is required to make up 2% of the total UK aviation fuel mix, increasing to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040.
SAF suppliers earn Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates for SAF supplied to the UK that meets certain GHG emission reductions and sustainability criteria (SAF must comprise fuel that achieves minimum GHG emission reductions of 40% relative to traditional fossil fuel-based jet fuel). Evidence of the SAF supplied to UK needs to be provided to the Department for Transport to assess and award corresponding certificates. The number of certificates issued will be proportionate to the level of GHG emission reductions achieved by the fuel delivered (i.e. the greater the reductions, the greater the number of certificates issued). Suppliers can either use their certificates to demonstrate that they have complied with their obligations or trade them to other suppliers.
HEFA Caps (2027 onwards):
SAF produced through hydro-processed esters and fatty acids (HEFA) can contribute 100% of SAF for the first 2 years of the Mandate and thereafter decreasing to 71% in 2030 and 35% in 2040.
This is due primarily to HEFA’s emission reduction inefficiencies (when compared to SAF alternatives) and feedstock sustainability concerns.
Power to Liquid (PtL) Obligations (2028-2040):
A separate PtL obligation requires 0.2% of UK aviation fuel to be sourced from PtL commencing in 2028 and thereafter rising to 4.4% by 2040.
PtL requires energy-derived production of aviation fuels (from e.g. green hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide).
Buy-out Mechanism (2025 onwards):
Fuel suppliers unable to meet their SAF Mandate requirements must pay a buy-out price determined by their SAF or PtL shortfall amounts.
The aim is to create a financial incentive to prioritize SAF, with the buy-out prices (currently £4.70 per litre for SAF and £5.00 per litre for PtL) being set at a level to encourage the supply of SAF over the use of the buy-out.
SAF Revenue Support
The Sustainable Aviation Fuel (Revenue Support Mechanism) Bill (2024) was announced in the King’s speech on 17 July 2024, proposing a revenue certainty mechanism for SAF producers investing in UK-based facilities. A number of funding options were proposed and, in January 2025, the UK Government confirmed that the Guaranteed Strike Price mechanism was the preferred option.
The Guaranteed Strike Price is envisaged to operate akin to a contract-for-difference (as utilised in the UK renewable power sector), offering price stability for UK SAF producers. The mechanism will operate through a private law contract between a UK SAF producer and a designated Government agency, establishing a strike price (being the guaranteed price the producer will receive for eligible SAF over a specified period). If the reference price surpasses the strike price, the producer reimburses the Government agency for the difference, and, if the reference price falls below the strike price, the Government agency compensates the producer for the shortfall.
In line with the “polluter pays” principle, the UK Government has confirmed that it intends for the revenue certainty mechanism to be funded by aviation fuel suppliers.
Further SAF Incentives
To further promote UK SAF development, the UK Government has implemented various financial incentives:
Advanced Fuels Fund: First launched in 2022 with £165 million of grant funding available, the Advanced Fuels Fund aims to support the establishment and development of first-of-a-kind SAF projects in the UK.
SAF Clearing House: Any new aviation fuel must meet strict specifications and undergo testing to meet industry standards; the cost and complexity of which can be a significant barrier to new fuels entering the market. The UK SAF Clearing House provides technical support and funding to SAF producers.
Furthermore, aircraft operators can reduce their obligations under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) by using eligible SAF, which qualifies for emissions reductions under the scheme.
Projections and Insight
It is estimated that, by 2050, the global aviation industry will need approximately 400 million tonnes of SAF annually to meet international decarbonization goal and, whilst the SAF market is still in a nascent stage of its development, the UK is positioned to play a significant role in the global effort to decarbonize aviation. The development of SAF production facilities in the UK are key for the successful implementation of the UK Government’s SAF goals.
The SAF Mandate has only just come into force and the revenue certainty mechanism for SAF producers has yet to be finalized and take effect. As such it remains to be seen whether these mechanisms will be sufficient to meet international decarbonization goals and position the UK as a leader in SAF development, production, commercialisation and use:
The success of the buy-out mechanism in incentivizing the production and use of SAF will depend on the future production costs of SAF. Whilst the buyout rates are currently projected to exceed SAF production costs, if the buy-out price is set too low (for example, if production costs spiral), suppliers may choose to simply pay the buy- out price.
With respect to the revenue certainty mechanism, there are a number of questions and policy decisions that remain outstanding: what will be used as the “reference price” (unlike in the power market where there is a published market price for electricity, no such benchmark exists for SAF)? How will the strike price adjust over time? Precisely how will the mechanism be funded? At a most fundamental level, the deployment of significant capital into SAF development will require further clarity regarding the revenue certainty mechanism.
For further clarity on the information above, we set out below (at Figure 1) a timeline of key projected regulatory developments in the UK SAF market.
UK SAF Timeline
Figure 1: UK SAF Timeline
European Union
The EU SAF Landscape
Current Status and Future Developments
Despite efforts to curb its growth, commercial flights in the EU could rise by up to 42% by 2040 compared to 2017. Recognizing the pressing need to address the climate impact of the aviation sector, the EU has prioritized the development of a SAF market. By leveraging the collective action potential of its member states, the EU is uniquely positioned to lead in SAF implementation.
SAF is defined by the EU as a “drop-in” aviation fuel, including advanced biofuels or biofuels produced from sustainable feedstocks, recycled carbon fuels, or synthetic fuels.
With mandates introduced in 2023 and effective as from January 2025, the European Union is meticulously crafting a policy framework to stabilize the SAF market, foster innovation, and create a level playing field, driving progress toward its Fit-to-55 climate goals.
Legislation
The European regulatory framework for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has been shaped by two key legislative milestones: the Renewable Energy Directives (RED) and the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation.
The RED have progressively established binding renewable energy targets across the EU, including for the transport sector, and have increasingly integrated SAF into the broader energy transition strategy. From RED I (2009), which set initial renewable energy targets, to RED II (2018), which introduced incentives for SAF, and finally RED III (2023), which reinforced sector-specific mandates, these directives have paved the way for SAF regulation.
Complementing this framework, the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, adopted in 2023, marks a decisive shift in SAF development by imposing direct obligations on fuel suppliers at EU airports. Unlike the RED directives, this regulation is immediately applicable across the EU and imposes a progressive incorporation of SAF into jet fuel, with binding quotas extending to 2050. Together, these two instruments define the roadmap for SAF deployment, balancing long-term policy incentives with immediate regulatory requirements.
RED Directives
RED served as the cornerstone for establishing the EU’s shift toward greener fuels.
Adopted on April 23, 2009, the RED I Directive introduced ambitious renewable energy targets across EU Member States:
General Targets: Each Member State was assigned a binding target to achieve 20% renewable energy in its final energy consumption by 2020. These targets varied for each country: Some countries were optimistic about their renewable energy potential and set ambitious targets, such as Sweden with 49% by 2020, Denmark with 30%, and France with 23%. Others, however, were more cautious, with the Netherlands setting a target of 14% and Italy aiming for 17%.
Transport Sector: A specific target of 10% renewable energy was set for the transport sector by 2020. This included biofuels and other renewable fuels but did not explicitly address aviation.
Impact on SAF: While RED I did not explicitly include SAF, it established a foundation for their future integration by defining sustainability criteria and promoting advanced biofuels.
Entering into force on December 11, 2018, the RED II Directive strengthened the EU’s renewable energy framework in response to increased climate ambitions:
Revised Targets: The overall binding target for emissions reduction was raised to 32%, with a renewable energy target of 14% for the transport sector.
Promotion of SAF
Advanced Biofuels and RFNBOs: The RED II Directive encouraged the use of advanced biofuels and Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBOs), explicitly including SAF. Advanced biofuels refer to biofuels produced from feedstocks that do not compete with food production or contribute to land-use changes that could negatively impact biodiversity. They are typically derived from waste and residues, or non-food crops such as algae and plant fibers. As for RFNBOs, they are fuels produced from renewable electricity rather than biological sources.
Incentive Multipliers
Biofuels derived from feedstocks listed in Annex IX (including advanced biofuels) count twice their energy content towards renewable targets, meaning that for every unit of energy produced from these fuels, it counts as two units towards the target.
Fuels supplied to the aviation sector (including RFNBOs) count as 1.2 times their energy content, meaning that for every unit of energy from these fuels, it counts as 1.2 units toward the target.
Limitations on Food-Based Biofuels: These are capped at 7% to mitigate adverse effects on land use and food production.
Adopted on October 18, 2023, the RED III Directive was a decisive step towards integrating SAF into the EU’s energy framework, by:
Enhanced Targets: The share of renewable energy in the EU’s overall energy consumption must reach 42.5% by 2030, with a binding target of 29% for the transport sector.
Sectoral Sub-Targets: Specific targets were introduced for advanced biofuels and RFNBOs, solidifying SAF’s role as a cornerstone of aviation decarbonization.
Aviation Catalyst: RED III emphasized increased SAF integration into national energy strategies while supporting emerging technologies, such as synthetic fuels.
Directives are legal acts that generally need be transposed into national law by EU member states, meaning that each country must adopt its own legislation to achieve the directive’s objectives. Therefore, the RED directives’ provisions need to be transposed into national law. There is generally an 18-month deadline for member states to do so, with an occasionally shorter deadline for some provisions.
Member States successfully met the RED I targets, despite varying national goals, demonstrating the EU’s commitment to renewable energy. This progress laid the foundation for the more ambitious targets in RED II and RED III, and Member States are on track to achieve these goals. In particular, the push for SAF under these directives is progressing well, with ongoing efforts to scale production and expand infrastructure. While challenges remain, Member States are well- positioned to meet the targets for both renewable energy and SAF by 2030, especially with the introduction of the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation.
ReFuelEU Aviation regulation
Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 of October 18, 2023 through ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport (ReFuelEU Aviation) represents a cornerstone of the EU’s strategy to decarbonize aviation in line with the Green Deal objectives and the Fit-for-55 package. This regulation establishes a comprehensive legal framework to accelerate the adoption of SAF across the EU.
Finalized in 2023, most of its provisions entered into force on 1 January 2024, with Articles 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 becoming applicable from January 1, 2025. As an EU regulation, ReFuelEU Aviation is directly applicable in all Member States without requiring transposition into national law.
The regulation imposes binding SAF blending obligations on aviation fuel suppliers, requiring them to progressively integrate SAF into the aviation fuel supplied at EU airports. The mandated SAF share begins at 2% in 2025 and will increase incrementally to 70% by 2050, of which a dedicated sub-target for synthetic aviation fuels starts at 0.7% in 2030, reaching 35% by 2050 (see Figure 2). For instance, the goal for 2040 is to achieve a 42% share of SAF in the aviation fuel supplied to EU airports, with 15% of that being synthetic.
To be eligible, SAF must comply with the sustainability and emissions reduction criteria set out in RED I. Acceptable SAF sources include advanced biofuels, synthetic fuels derived from renewable hydrogen, and recycled carbon aviation fuels. Fuel suppliers may also utilize hydrogen for direct aircraft propulsion or synthetic low-carbon fuels.
Within this regulatory framework, synthetic fuels—particularly e-kerosene—are set to play an increasingly prominent role, with a specific mandate ensuring their integration into the fuel mix.
EU airport operators are required to facilitate access to SAF, while aviation fuel suppliers, airports, and aircraft operators must systematically collect and report data to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and national competent authorities to ensure regulatory compliance.
The regulation further establishes enforcement mechanisms, designating national competent authorities responsible for supervision. Fuel suppliers failing to meet their SAF blending obligations will face financial penalties and must compensate for any shortfall by supplying the missing volume the following year.
By setting clear, long-term SAF quotas through 2050, the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation creates a stable and predictable market framework, reinforcing the EU’s ambition to achieve a more sustainable aviation sector.
Figure 2: SAF Mandate Levels in the ReFuelEU Directive
Incentives for SAF Production and Innovation
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Financial Incentives for SAF
In addition to the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, the EU’s climate strategy for the aviation sector is reinforced by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), established under Directive 2003/87/EC. As a “cap-and-trade” mechanism, the EU ETS aims to progressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions by setting a cap on total emissions while allowing market- based trading of emission allowances. Initially, free allowances were allocated to aircraft operators based on the average emission of the sector and their historical performance. In 2023, approximately 22.5 million aviation allowances were allocated for free, while about 5.7 million were auctioned.
To accelerate decarbonization, the EU has initiated a phased reduction of free emission allowances for aircraft operators:
In 2024, free allowances were reduced by 25%;
In 2025, they will be further cut by 50%;
By 2026, all free allowances will be phased out, requiring operators to fully cover their emissions through auctioning.
This transition is designed to incentivize the adoption of SAF, as airlines can lower their compliance costs by integrating SAF into their fuel mix. To support this shift, the EU has introduced targeted financial incentives within the EU ETS framework:
A dedicated SAF allowance mechanism provides 20 million allowances (valued at approximately €1.7 billion) until 2030, rewarding aircraft operators based on SAF usage. This mechanism helps bridge the price gap between conventional aviation fuel and SAF. SAF remains significantly more expensive to produce. However, by reducing compliance costs for airlines under the EU ETS, it makes SAF adoption more financially viable, supporting the transition to cleaner aviation fuels while maintaining competitiveness in the sector.
SAF that meets RED sustainability criteria is attributed zero emissions under the EU ETS, reducing the number of allowances airlines must purchase.
Beyond emissions trading, the EU has also introduced monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) measures for non-CO₂ aviation effects, with additional policy proposals expected by 2028.
Financial Support Mechanisms for SAF Development
Recognizing the financial and technological challenges associated with SAF production, the EU has established several funding instruments to support research, innovation, and large-scale deployment:
EU Innovation Fund (EUIF): A €40 billion fund aimed at de-risking SAF production across various technology readiness levels. For example, the Innovation Fund awarded in 2023 a €167 million grant to the Biorefinery Östrand project, which seeks to develop, construct, and operate the world’s first large-scale biorefinery dedicated to producing renewable SAF and naphtha, in Östrand, Sweden.
Horizon Europe: The EU’s flagship €95.5 billion research and innovation program, which funds SAF-related projects.
InvestEU: A €26.2 billion initiative supporting sustainable infrastructure investments, including SAF production facilities. One of the most notable projects funded by InvestEU is the INERATEC synthetic fuel production facility in Frankfurt. Backed by a €70 million investment, this initiative is supported by a €40 million venture loan from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and a €30 million non-repayable grant from Breakthrough Energy Catalyst. The funding will help develop Europe’s largest carbon-neutral synthetic fuel plant, set to open in 2025.
Clean Aviation Joint Undertaking: A €1.7 billion public-private partnership between the European Commission and the aeronautics industry to accelerate the development of new aviation technologies.
Projections and Insight
While the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation establishes a robust framework and clear mandates for SAF adoption, several policy areas will require further clarification and potential amendments. The regulation’s overall timeline is generally aligned with industry expectations, but additional interventions may be necessary to ensure a smooth and effective implementation:
Penalty enforcement and cost volatility: The current penalty mechanism for suppliers failing to meet SAF quotas is directly tied to SAF costs, which remain highly volatile due to potential supply shortages. If SAF prices surge, penalties could become unsustainable, adding financial pressure on suppliers while delaying compliance. Additionally, without a price cap mechanism, rising SAF costs could impact air travel affordability, potentially triggering public and industry backlash.
Exploring a tradable SAF system: Under Article 15 of ReFuelEU, the European Commission is mandated to assess additional measures to enhance SAF market liquidity and ensure supply stability. One key consideration is the creation of a book-and-claim system, which would enable fuel suppliers and aircraft operators to purchase SAF credits and allocate them flexibly across EU airports. As of January 2025, the Commission’s report on these measures remains pending.
Beyond regulatory refinements, the political landscape in the EU is evolving, with recent electoral shifts favoring parties historically opposed to Green Deal policies. As EU policymakers shift their focus toward an Industrial Deal, maintaining strong momentum for SAF adoption will be critical. Ensuring a stable regulatory environment and continued financial support will be essential to securing the long-term success of SAF integration within the aviation sector.
The effectiveness of SAF regulations in the EU stems from the fact that they are binding, compelling operators to take immediate action and enhance their performance.
Despite its relatively high cost, airlines and operators are eager to contribute and even exceed their obligated SAF targets as early as possible. They understand that this is the only way to assert themselves in the market and to ensure the long- term sustainability and viability of the industry, which must adapt to greener practices to secure its future.
United States of America
The U.S. SAF Landscape
Current Status and Future Developments
Aviation represents roughly 3.3% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and jet fuel consumption is forecasted to increase by 2-3% annually through to 2050. This obviously presents significant opportunities for SAF investment, and the market has responded: projects have been announced in recent years that are projected to meet over 10% of U.S. jet fuel demand. Nonetheless, the biggest challenge SAF faces in the U.S. is that it is not cost-competitive with fossil jet fuel. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, SAF currently costs two to ten times more than fossil jet fuel. Consequently, the federal and state incentives discussed in this section are playing and will continue to play a critical role in the growth of SAF in the U.S.
Federal Support for SAF
The U.S. government supports SAF development in several ways: annual renewable fuel regulatory mandates; tax policy; and grants. Several of these incentives are in flux, however, given the shift in the balance of political power in the U.S. Congress and the White House.
Regulatory Mandates:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issues annual regulations under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program that require the national pool of transportation fuel to contain a certain percentage of alternative fuels such as SAF. Production and use of biofuels under these mandates is tracked using a system of tradeable credits (Renewable Identification Numbers or RINs). Among other requirements, eligible SAF must have lifecycle GHG emissions that are at least 50% below a 2005 fossil fuel baseline.
Although compliance with the program’s mandates falls on fossil fuel producers and importers, RINs implicitly subsidize biofuels such as SAF. Depending upon the feedstock and production process, SAF can generate RINs that may be used to meet the biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel or cellulosic biofuel mandates and value of the RIN varies by type. RINs generated by producing SAF can be “stacked” with federal tax credits for SAF, such as those provided by the 2022 IRA, as well as state credits relevant to SAF.
Tax Policy:
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) has a significant impact on the SAF market in the U.S. by offering comprehensive support to encourage the production and adoption of this fuel. Instead of setting mandates, the IRA offers SAF credits for qualified neat fuels and provides grants for SAF production and distribution.
The IRA supports SAF through two credits. First, IRA created a new SAF blender’s tax credit under Internal Revenue Code section 40B, available through to the end of 2024. Then, from January 1, 2025 through to December 31, 2027, the IRA made available a new technology neutral production credit for clean fuels including SAF, the section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit.
The section 45Z credit provides a tax credit for the production of clean fuels that are “suitable for use in a highway vehicle or aircraft” and meet a specified threshold for emissions reductions. The credit is worth up to $1.00 per gallon for transportation fuels and $1.75 or more per gallon for SAF, provided that prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements are met. The 45Z credit is claimed by the producers of SAF, rather than the blenders, but can be transferred or sold to third parties as a means of monetizing the credit.
Since August 2022, significant work has been done by a multi-disciplinary task force including the U.S. Treasury, the IRS, the Energy Department, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the White House to implement the section 45Z credit and publish tax guidance. Most recently, on January 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service released Notice 2025-10 and Notice 2025-11, establishing an intent to propose regulations and clarifying annual emissions rates for the credit. At the same time, the 119th Congress is currently reviewing tax legislation that may include revisions to several clean energy tax credits established by the IRA, including section 45Z. As a result, airlines, SAF producers, and conventional energy companies are queuing up to talk to Congress and Trump tax officials about the future of federal tax support for clean fuels, since the current production credit is set to expire at the end of 2027.
Grants:
IRA Section 40007 establishes a grant program for eligible U.S. entities involved in SAF production, transportation, blending, or storage, administered by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through the Fueling Aviation’s Sustainable Transition (FAST) grants program.
Section 324 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for 2023 allows the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to pilot SAF usage, with a plan to be implemented by FY2028, while permitting waivers under certain conditions.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023 and 2024 authorize discretionary grants for airport infrastructure that supports SAF’s distribution and storage, provided they meet the 50% lifecycle GHG reduction requirement.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Energy for America program also provides grants and loan guarantees to rural businesses and agricultural producers for renewable energy projects, including SAF production facilities.
State Incentives for SAF Production and Innovation
State-level policies further support SAF production and consumption by allowing producers to generate and sell credits to fossil jet fuel suppliers. In 2009, California established the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce transportation sector GHG emissions in the state and develop a range of low- carbon and renewable alternatives to reduce petroleum dependency. This market-based program sets an annual average carbon intensity (CI) benchmark for all fuels – fossil and renewable – produced or imported into the state. Fuels with a CI below the benchmark (such as eligible SAF) generate credits that producers can sell to other fuel producers in the state as a revenue stream. Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico have adopted similar fuel programs.
In other states – Illinois, Minnesota, and Nebraska – per-gallon SAF production tax credits promote SAF alignment with national objectives.
Projections and Insight
By 2030, domestic SAF production is expected to reach 3 billion gallons annually – a 130-fold increase from 2030 consumption. By 2050, production could rise to 35 billion gallons per year, reflecting a 12-fold increase from the 2030 target.
The shift towards SAF represents a long-term transition in the aviation industry. Given the international nature of air travel, SAF is a clean fuel whose market drivers are largely insulated from the political swings of the US; and American airlines and airports will need to access this fuel to comply with global emissions standards. Driven by discretionary grants from the FAA, significant investments in airport infrastructure for SAF distribution and storage are anticipated. This could lead to an improved supply chain and logistics, facilitating broader SAF availability at major airports by 2025. Increased funding through grants and tax credits may accelerate research and development of new SAF feedstocks and production technologies, enhancing efficiency and reducing costs. This could also lead to advancements in alternative feedstocks, potentially doubling production efficiency by 2030. As government initiatives and incentives ramp up, it is likely that the market share of SAF in total jet fuel consumption will increase significantly from the current less than 0.1%. Projections estimate reaching 5 -10% market share by 2030, depending on regulatory support and industry adoption.
The incentives enacted under the IRA constitute a good beginning in establishing the support necessary for overcoming barriers to SAF adoption. With investors comparing the short three-year timeline of the IRA’s section 45Z clean fuel production credit to ten-year timelines for other clean energy technologies, producers and airlines are making a long-term legislative extension of the credit a top priority for 2025. State level initiatives, like the California LCFS program, look to play a critical role in driving SAF adoption. Other states may follow suit, creating a patchwork of supportive policies that could incentivize producers while also fostering competition among states for SAF leadership.
Conclusion: Comparative Analysis of SAF
Regulatory Frameworks in the UK, EU, and US
The regulatory approaches adopted by the UK, EU, and US to promote SAF reflect distinct policy priorities, economic
structures, and aviation market dynamics. Whilst all three jurisdictions recognize the need to scale SAF production to achieve net-zero aviation emissions, their methods for incentivization, mandate enforcement, and industry engagement exhibit some notable divergences.
Key Similarities
Despite differences in policy mechanisms, several overarching themes emerge across all three jurisdictions:
Mandatory Blending Requirements: The UK, EU, and US each employ a mix of blending mandates and incentives to encourage SAF adoption. The UK’s SAF Mandate (starting at 2% in 2025 and increasing to 22% by 2040) aligns with the EU’s ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation, which also begins at 2% in 2025 but escalates to 70% by 2050. Although the US lacks a direct federal blending mandate, the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and state-level Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) programs create market-driven demand for SAF.
Financial Incentives: Each jurisdiction incorporates financial incentives to lower SAF’s production costs and bridge the price gap with fossil-based jet fuel. The UK’s proposed Revenue Support Mechanism, the EU’s SAF Allowance Mechanism under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), and the US’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits all aim to de-risk SAF investment. Notably, the US offers the most aggressive tax-based support via the Section 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit, which directly rewards SAF producers.
Technology-Specific Targets: Recognizing the need for diversification in SAF production pathways, the UK and EU establish dedicated quotas for Power-to-Liquid (PtL) fuels and synthetic fuels, whereas the US allows greater flexibility in feedstocks, as seen in its Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and LCFS programs. The UK’s PtL obligation has similar aims to the EU’s sub-target for synthetic fuels, indicating a shared commitment to emerging technologies.
Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Each jurisdiction incorporates a credit trading system to enhance compliance flexibility. The UK’s Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates (RTFCs), the EU’s ETS allowances and (if to be applied) book-and-claim system, and the US’s RIN (Renewable Identification Number) market under the RFS facilitate compliance while stimulating a secondary market for SAF credits.
Key Differences
Despite these similarities, the jurisdictions differ in several key respects:
Direct v Market-Based Approach:
The EU and UK impose direct mandates on fuel suppliers, ensuring binding obligations for SAF blending. The UK’s buy-out mechanism acts as a penalty for non-compliance, while the EU enforces fines and requires compensation for missed SAF quotas.
The US primarily relies on market-driven incentives, with no direct SAF blending mandate at the federal level. Instead, state-based programs such as California’s LCFS and financial incentives like the IRA credits encourage voluntary SAF adoption.
Policy Longevity and Stability:
The EU offers the longest regulatory certainty, with ReFuelEU Aviation’s SAF mandates extending to 2050. The UK’s SAF Mandate provides clarity through 2040 but leaves open questions regarding future expansion.
The US approach is, potentially, more politically vulnerable. The IRA’s Section 45Z tax credit is set to expire by the end of 2027, raising questions about long-term investor confidence. This contrasts with the EU’s more predictable long-term regulatory trajectory.
Scope of SAF Eligibility and Feedstock Restrictions
The UK and EU impose stricter sustainability criteria, progressively limiting HEFA (Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids) (or similar) feedstock eligibility. The UK caps HEFA at 92% by 2027, declining to 35% by 2040, while the EU limits food-based biofuels to prevent indirect land-use impacts.
The US allows broader feedstock eligibility, including corn ethanol-derived alcohol-to-jet SAF, which the EU explicitly excludes. This reflects the political influence of the US agricultural sector, leading to a pragmatic approach to scaling SAF production with available resources.
Enforcement Mechanisms and Market Oversight
The EU employs oversight through the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and national regulatory bodies, ensuring strict compliance through direct penalties. The UK SAF Mandate will be administered by the UK’s Department for Transport and will be responsible for enforcing the scheme with power to revoke certificates or issue civil penalties.
The US relies on tax compliance mechanisms and voluntary participation in state-based LCFS (or similar) markets, which, as an incentive-driven approach results inleading to comparatively less stringent enforcement as can be expected in the EU and UK.
Comparative Insights and Future Implications
Each jurisdiction’s SAF strategy reflects its unique regulatory philosophy and economic priorities. The EU’s highly structured, mandate-driven approach aims to achieve rapid SAF integration but places cost burdens on fuel suppliers and buyers. The UK’s hybrid model, combining mandates with revenue support mechanisms, seeks to balance regulatory certainty with investment incentives. Meanwhile, the US favors a market-driven, incentive-based model, fostering innovation but opening up potential regulatory uncertainty due to shifting political landscapes.
This evolving landscape reflects a multi-faceted approach, balancing stringent emissions reduction targets with mechanisms that incentivise investment and production. The UK has introduced ambitious mandates within its Jet Zero strategy, while the EU’s Fit-to-55 package integrates SAF quotas through the ReFuelEU Aviation initiative.
Meanwhile, the USA leverages tax credits and grant programs under initiatives like the Inflation Reduction Act to stimulate domestic SAF production. These diverse regulatory tools aim to address the significant challenges of scaling SAF, including high production costs, limited feedstock availability, and infrastructure constraints.
Looking ahead, international policy harmonization will be critical to ensuring the global scalability of SAF. The International Civil Aviation Organization and industry stakeholders may push for greater alignment between EU- style mandates and US-style incentives, potentially influencing future SAF policies. Additionally, ongoing bilateral agreements between the UK, EU, and US on carbon accounting, emissions reporting, and SAF certification will play a crucial role in fostering a globally integrated SAF market.
Despite their differences, the UK, EU, and US share the common goal of scaling SAF production to enable a net zero aviation future. While their paths to achieving this differ, their collective efforts will be instrumental in driving the technological and economic transformation needed for sustainable aviation. As regulatory frameworks evolve, continued cross-border collaboration and policy adjustments will be essential to maximizing SAF’s impact on global decarbonization goals.
Additional Authors: Parker A. Lee, Brittany M. Pemberton, and Timothy J. Urban.
The Nuts and Bolts of a Federal Equity Receivership: Understanding the Order Appointing the Receiver
When a business or individual faces financial turmoil or regulatory scrutiny, a court may appoint a receiver to take control of assets and oversee the operations of the entity. This process is governed by the order appointing a receiver, a document issued by the court that outlines the receiver’s powers, duties, and responsibilities.
Federal Equity Receivership or State Court Receivership?
This article focuses on federal equity receiverships, which have more in common than differences from state receiverships.
The primary differences are in the legal authority under which the receivership is created, the scope of the court’s jurisdiction, and the typical use cases.
A federal equity receivership is established by a federal court under its equitable powers, usually in the context of an enforcement action brought by a federal agency — think SEC, FTC, or CFTC. These receiverships often arise from allegations of fraud or misconduct involving interstate commerce or securities violations. The federal court appoints a receiver to take control of the defendant’s assets, with broad authority to preserve, manage, and, if necessary, liquidate them to protect victims and creditors. Federal receiverships are also more likely to involve multiple jurisdictions, so the federal system’s nationwide reach gives the receiver broader power to marshal assets across state lines.
A state court receivership, by contrast, is governed by that particular state’s statutes and procedures, which vary widely. State court receiverships are more commonly used in matters like dissolutions of partnerships, foreclosures, family business disputes, or distressed real estate situations. While still powerful, a state court-appointed receiver typically has authority confined within the borders of that state, unless additional proceedings are initiated elsewhere to extend the receiver’s power. In short, a state receivership is more likely to involve traditional business disputes, while federal receiverships often involve regulatory oversight or white-collar enforcement.
To put it in cinematic terms: if state court receiverships are Matlock episodes — localized, a bit more predictable — then federal equity receiverships are like an episode of Billions—feds swooping in, asset freezes, and a lot of drama.
Understanding the terms, provisions, and implications of a receivership order is crucial for anyone involved in these cases.
This article dives into the key provisions of a receivership order (again, focusing on federal equity receivership orders), providing insights into the practical application of receivership law and offering guidance on managing these complex cases.
What Is a Receivership Order?
A receivership order is a legal document issued by a court in cases of insolvency, fraud, or regulatory enforcement. It grants a receiver the authority to take control of the defendant’s business or assets in order to manage them, prevent asset dissipation, and ultimately distribute the proceeds to creditors.
Receiverships can arise from regulatory actions, such as those initiated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), or from private actions brought by individuals or organizations seeking to recover assets from fraudulent or financially distressed parties. The order itself acts as the governing document for the case, outlining the receiver’s powers and defining their role in managing the estate.
Key Provisions of the Receivership Order
1. Asset Freeze
One of the most important provisions in a receivership order is the asset freeze. This provision prevents the defendant from transferring, dissipating, or hiding any assets once the receivership order is entered. An asset freeze is typically one of the first actions taken, often implemented on what is called ‘takedown day.’
An asset freeze is a crucial step in protecting creditors’ interests, as it ensures that the defendant’s assets are preserved during the receivership process. This provision is particularly vital in cases where there is a risk that the defendant may attempt to hide or liquidate assets in anticipation of the receiver’s appointment.
The injunctive relief provided by an asset freeze ensures that the receiver has the sole authority to control and dispose of assets, preventing any unauthorized actions by the defendant or others with access to the assets.
In some cases, an asset freeze may extend to include the assets of relief defendants, individuals or entities that have received assets from the primary defendant but have not provided reasonably equivalent value in return. This ensures that assets in the possession of third parties, which may have been improperly transferred, are also safeguarded.
2. General Powers and Duties of the Receiver
The general powers and duties of a receiver are outlined in the order and grant the receiver significant authority. The receiver is tasked with managing the assets and overseeing the business’s operations, if applicable. This can involve taking control of business operations, making decisions about the continuation or cessation of business activities, and determining the value and disposition of assets.
As Kelly Crawford, of Scheef and Stone, explains, the powers granted to a receiver are extensive, but not unlimited. The receiver is bound by the terms of the order and must operate within the scope of authority granted by the court. If the receiver needs to take actions outside of the specified powers, they must seek court approval.
Receivers have the authority to hire professionals such as accountants, attorneys, and consultants to assist in managing the estate. They may also be granted the power to make decisions on behalf of the business or individual, effectively stepping into the shoes of the defendant’s management team.
One key responsibility of a receiver is to prioritize the best interests of creditors. The receiver must maximize the value of the assets for distribution to creditors, whether through the continued operation of a business or the liquidation of assets.
3. Access to Books, Records, and Property
Receivership orders typically grant the receiver immediate access to the books and records of the defendant. This access is crucial for the receiver to assess the financial condition of the business or entity, trace any fraudulent transfers, and understand the full scope of the assets and liabilities involved.
In today’s digital age, electronic records play a central role in receivership cases. Melanie Damian of Damian Valori Culmo highlights that the order should allow the receiver to access not only physical records but also digital records, including email accounts, cloud storage, and other electronic data sources. This provision ensures that the receiver can fully assess the entity’s financial status and trace the flow of funds.
Additionally, the receiver is typically granted access to the defendant’s real and personal property, which includes everything from physical assets like real estate and equipment to intangible assets like intellectual property or digital currency. If necessary, the receiver may have the authority to change locks, seize property, or take other actions to secure the estate.
4. Stay of Litigation
Another important provision often included in a receivership order is a stay of litigation. This provision halts all ongoing litigation and prevents new lawsuits from being filed without the receiver’s approval. The stay ensures that no creditor or other party can take independent action that could undermine the receivership process.
This stay is similar to the automatic stay found in bankruptcy proceedings, which stops creditors from pursuing collection actions against a debtor once a bankruptcy petition is filed. The stay of litigation in a receivership is intended to preserve the assets and prevent any actions that could disrupt the receiver’s control over the estate.
In some cases, the receiver may have the exclusive right to file for bankruptcy on behalf of the estate. This provision is particularly important when there is a risk that the defendant may attempt to initiate bankruptcy proceedings in order to avoid the receivership.
Practical Steps for Receivers
Providing Notice and Communication
Once the order is in place, one of the receiver’s first tasks is to provide notice to relevant parties. This includes notifying creditors, landlords, banks, employees, and any other stakeholders who have a vested interest in the receivership’s outcome.
Melanie Damian emphasizes the importance of prompt communication. The receiver must notify parties such as landlords and financial institutions to ensure that they comply with the order, freeze relevant accounts, and redirect payments as necessary. For instance, if the business is involved in renting real property, the receiver must notify tenants to direct payments to the receiver’s control.
In addition to notifying third parties, the receiver should establish a receivership website to provide information to creditors and interested parties. This site can serve as a communication hub, ensuring that everyone has access to updates and relevant documents. Insurance is another critical consideration, and the receiver must immediately verify whether the business or entity holds adequate insurance for its assets.
Managing Non-Cooperative Defendants
In many cases, defendants may resist cooperating with the receiver. Kelly Crawford notes that the receiver must act within the authority granted by the court. If the defendant is uncooperative, the receiver has the power to seek court enforcement through motions for contempt.
The receiver may also face resistance in accessing records or physical property. To mitigate this, Greg Hays of Hays Financial Consulting suggests that the receiver should include language in the order that explicitly grants the receiver the authority to seize property, change locks, and prevent the destruction of records. Law enforcement assistance is often necessary to carry out these actions effectively, especially in high-stakes cases.
Managing the Assets: Liquidation and Recovery
Once the receiver has taken control of the assets, the next step is to assess their value and decide how to manage them. This may involve liquidation — selling off assets to convert them into cash. Receivers are typically granted the authority to sell real property, personal property, and intangible assets, often with court approval.
As Kelly Crawford explains, the receiver should establish procedures for selling assets that maximize their value. This may involve public auctions, private sales, or even online platforms such as eBay for smaller items. The receiver must also comply with statutory requirements for selling real property, which may include obtaining multiple appraisals and publishing notices of the sale.
In some cases, the receiver may uncover fraudulent transfers, where the defendant has moved assets to third parties in an attempt to shield them from creditors. In such cases, the receiver may pursue legal action to recover assets through actions like fraudulent conveyance claims or by seeking the imposition of a constructive trust on assets transferred improperly.
The Role of the Receiver
The receiver plays a pivotal role in managing a distressed estate, preserving assets, and ensuring that creditors receive fair treatment. The receivership order is the legal framework that governs the receiver’s actions, and understanding the provisions of this order is essential for legal and financial professionals involved in such cases.
By understanding the key provisions of a receivership order — such as the asset freeze, the general powers and duties, and the provisions for access to records and property — professionals can better navigate the complexities of receiverships and help their clients protect their interests.
To learn more about this topic view Orders Appointing Receivers: Following the Script and Playing the Part. The quoted remarks referenced in this article were made either during this webinar or shortly thereafter during post-webinar interviews with the panelists. Readers may also be interested to read other articles on federal equity receiverships.
This article was originally published on here.
©2025. DailyDACTM, LLC d/b/a/ Financial PoiseTM. This article is subject to the disclaimers found here.
Employment Law This Week- New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide [Video, Podcast]
This week, we explore how key changes introduced by President Trump’s Executive Order 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” (“EO 14281”), raise important questions for employers navigating compliance with varying federal, state, and local laws.
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide
EO 14281 poses significant challenges for employers because it seeks to limit disparate impact liability but clashes with established state and local regulations and laws, such as New York City’s law regarding the use of automated employment decision tools. This tension underscores the increasing complexity of managing artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision-making in the workplace amid shifting legal standards.
This week’s key topics include:
the scope of EO 14281;
conflicts between EO 14281 and existing federal, state, and local laws; and
best practices to mitigate risks in AI employment decisions.
Epstein Becker Green attorneys Marc A. Mandelman and Nathaniel M. Glasser unpack these developments and provide employers with practical strategies to stay compliant and address critical workforce challenges.
Maryland Clarifies Parental Leave Law: FMLA-Covered Employers Now Exempt
Takeaways:
Starting October 1, 2025, Maryland employers who are covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are no longer required to comply with the state’s unpaid parental leave law.
Senate Bill 785 changes the definition of “employer” under Maryland’s Parental Leave Act to exclude those already covered by FMLA, even if they have between 15 and 49 employees.
Because both laws determine coverage based on employee counts over a 20-week period in the current or previous year, some employers may qualify for FMLA even if they currently have fewer than 50 employees—making them exempt from the state law under the new rule.
Effective October 1, 2025, Maryland employers covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) will no longer be subject to the state’s unpaid parental leave requirements.
Senate Bill 785, sponsored by Senator Justin Ready, was passed by the Maryland General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Wes Moore on May 6, 2025. The bill amends Maryland’s Parental Leave Act (“PLA”) to reduce overlap with federal law and ease compliance burdens for certain employers.
What Is the Maryland Parental Leave Act?
The Maryland PLA requires employers with 15 to 49 employees in Maryland to provide eligible employees with up to six weeks of unpaid parental leave for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child. To qualify, employees must have worked for a covered employer for at least 12 months and logged 1,250 hours in the prior 12 months before leave.
This law was designed to ensure that employees at smaller companies—those not covered by the federal FMLA—still had access to job-protected parental leave. A covered employer for purposes of the FMLA is one with 50 employees.
What’s Changing?
Senate Bill 785 changes the definition of “employer” under the PLA. Now, if an employer is already covered by the federal FMLA, they are excluded from the Maryland PLA—even if they have between 15 and 49 employees.
This change prevents employers from being subject to both state and federal leave laws. It simplifies compliance for businesses that already meet federal requirements.
Example: When This Applies
Let’s say a Maryland company has 48 employees in twenty or more workweeks this calendar year. Normally, that would make that employer subject to the Maryland PLA. But if that company had 50 or more employees for at least 20 workweeks in the prior calendar year, it is considered covered by the FMLA for the current year—even if their headcount has since dropped.
Under the new law, that company would no longer have to comply with Maryland’s PLA, because they are already covered by the FMLA.
Washington’s Digital Ad Tax Enacted: Is Litigation Now Inevitable?
On May 20, 2025, Washington Governor Bob Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 5814, a sweeping tax bill that expands Washington’s retail sales and use tax to digital advertising services and a range of high-tech and IT services. The new law takes effect for sales occurring on and after October 1, 2025.
As we noted previously, this legislation marks a significant shift in Washington’s tax policy, extending sales tax to categories of traditionally exempt business-to-business services. With enactment, legal challenges – particularly under the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) – are ripe and appear inevitable.
WHAT THE LAW DOES
SB 5814 amends RCW 82.04.050 by redefining “sale at retail” to include “advertising services,” broadly covering both digital and nondigital forms of ad creation, planning, and execution. The law specifically includes:
Online referrals
Search engine marketing
Lead generation optimization
Web campaign planning
Digital ad placement
Website traffic analysis
However, the law expressly excludes services rendered in connection with:
Newspapers (RCW 82.04.214)
Printing or publishing (RCW 82.04.280)
Radio and television broadcasting
Out-of-home advertising (g., billboards, transit signage, event displays)
With these carve-outs, it is difficult to see how anything other than internet advertising remains subject to tax. The structure of the new tax facially discriminates against e-commerce and is barred by ITFA.
ITFA AND THE CERTAINTY OF A LEGAL CHALLENGE
ITFA prohibits states from imposing taxes that discriminate against digital services when comparable offline equivalents are exempt. While SB 5814 purports to cover both digital and nondigital advertising, the exclusions for nondigital forms of advertising cause it to target the digital side of the industry. For example, a digital banner ad will be taxed, whereas a banner towed by an airplane promoting the same product will not.
This distinction mirrors the structure of Maryland’s Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax, which has been tied up in litigation since its enactment in 2021. A Maryland trial court found that law facially violated ITFA and federal preemption principles. That litigation continues, and Washington now finds itself on a similar path.
HIGH-TECH AND IT SERVICES ARE NOW TAXABLE
In addition to digital advertising, SB 5814 extends the retail sales tax to high-tech services, including:
Custom website development
IT technical support and network operations
Data processing and data entry
In-person or live-virtual technical training
Like advertising, these intermediate services typically are purchased by businesses in support of operations rather than for end consumption. Taxing their sale introduces tax pyramiding and adds costs that will ultimately be passed on to consumers. For Washington’s tech-driven economy, this change will inflate prices and reduce competitiveness.
Local advertisers and businesses that rely on digital marketing and high-tech services will see these costs rise and lead to higher prices for consumers.
OUTLOOK
While SB 5814 is now law, its enforceability remains far from certain. Taxing digital advertising services while expressly excluding offline media places the new law on a collision course with ITFA. A legal challenge is all but guaranteed.
At the same time, the law’s fiscal impact is speculative. Revenue projections assume compliance across a complex landscape of service transactions, but practical realities, including sourcing ambiguities, administrative burdens, and behavioral changes, may undermine the base.
Washington, like Maryland, will find that taxing digital advertising is easier to legislate than to defend. The real test will come not in Olympia, but in the courts.
OCR Reaches Settlement with Small Radiology Provider Over HIPAA Violations Stemming from Breach
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced a settlement with Vision Upright MRI, a small California-based radiology provider, over alleged violations of the HIPAA Security and Breach Notification Rules. The enforcement action stems from a breach involving unauthorized access to a medical imaging server that exposed the protected health information (“PHI”) of over 21,000 individuals.
OCR initiated its investigation after receiving notification that Vision Upright MRI had experienced a breach involving its Picture Archiving and Communication System (“PACS”) server. The server, which stored and managed radiology images, had been accessed by an unauthorized third party.
OCR’s investigation revealed several key compliance failures:
Vision Upright MRI had had not conducted a HIPAA risk analysis, as required by the Security Rule.
Vision Upright MRI also failed to provide timely breach notifications to affected individuals, HHS, and the media, violating the Breach Notification Rule.
To resolve the investigation, Vision Upright MRI agreed to:
Pay a $5,000 monetary settlement to OCR.
Implement a corrective action plan that includes two years of OCR monitoring.
Take remedial steps to improve its HIPAA compliance posture.
Under the corrective action plan, Vision Upright MRI must:
Provide the required breach notifications to affected individuals, HHS, and the media.
Submit a comprehensive risk analysis covering all systems and locations containing ePHI.
Develop and implement a risk management plan to mitigate identified security vulnerabilities.
Create and maintain updated written HIPAA policies and procedures.
Provide HIPAA training to all workforce members with access to ePHI.
OCR Acting Director Anthony Archeval emphasized that HIPAA compliance obligations extend to entities of all sizes, and noted that small providers must conduct “accurate and thorough risk analyses to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities to protected health information and secure them.”
This latest settlement reinforces OCR’s continued focus on cybersecurity risks in healthcare and the need for all regulated entities, regardless of size, to maintain robust privacy and security programs.