Employers Must Adapt to Worksite Raid Surge: Sanctuary Cities Face Intensified Enforcement Efforts
Takeaways:
Increased Worksite Enforcement: Businesses can expect a surge in ICE raids and I-9 audits at workplaces.
Impact on Sanctuary Cities: Federal agents will target sanctuary cities for immigration enforcement operations.
Employer Preparedness: Businesses, especially those operating in sanctuary cities, should have an action plan ready for potential ICE enforcement actions.
Tom Homan, President Donald Trump’s border czar, has announced a significant escalation in the administration’s interior immigration enforcement strategy to increase deportation of undocumented immigrants. The initiative involves deploying more federal agents to places of work, particularly those in “sanctuary cities.”
Targeting Sanctuary Cities
Although there is no official definition, in general a sanctuary city limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies often to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation. Limited cooperation can take many forms, such as refusing to share information about undocumented immigrants with federal authorities or restricting local law enforcement’s involvement in immigration enforcement. These cities often refuse to detain undocumented immigrants who have not committed serious crimes, which has been a point of contention between local and federal authorities.
Homan’s announcement underscores the administration’s frustration with these jurisdictions. He stated that if federal agents cannot arrest individuals in jails, they will do so on the streets, and if they cannot do so on the streets, they will do so in targeted worksite enforcement operations. This approach is part of the federal government’s broader strategy to expedite removal of undocumented individuals regardless of whether they have committed serious crimes.
Immediate Implications for Employers
Homan outlined a two-pronged approach. First, there will be a higher presence of federal agents in sanctuary cities. This means that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents will be more visible and active in these jurisdictions, conducting operations aimed at identifying and detaining undocumented immigrants.
Second, Homan emphasized worksite enforcement operations. “If we can’t do it in the streets, then we’re going to increase worksite enforcement operations in those sanctuary cities. We’re going to flood worksite enforcement operations,” he said.
Increased Worksite Enforcement
Businesses can expect a substantial increase in I-9 audits and raids at workplaces. Employers should prepare for ICE enforcement actions, including audits of employment records and I-9s, raids, and arrests of undocumented workers and even the employers who hire them. Employers need to prepare well beyond routine I-9 Notices of Inspection from ICE, although I-9 audits are trending up as well.
Employer Preparedness
Employers, especially those in sanctuary cities, should be vigilant and prepared for increased ICE audits and raids and potential business disruptions. Understanding the broader context of the rising enforcement efforts can help businesses navigate the complexities of immigration compliance and enforcement.
Navigating the Evolving Pharmacy Landscape in 2025: Challenges, Opportunities and Innovations
As we stride further into 2025, the pharmacy industry faces a landscape teeming with challenges and opportunities. From tackling drug price transparency to juggling implementation of artificial intelligence, the industry is being transformed before our eyes. The journey ahead is anything but straightforward, with solutions ranging from bold, large-scale changes to more nuanced, focused innovations. Let’s delve into the high-level, dynamic trends shaping the pharmacy world today.
Medication Accessibility Challenges
Imagine living in a community where accessing essential medications has become a Herculean task. Increasingly, this is the reality for patients who live in areas hit hard by the closure of pharmacies. A study in Health Affairs found that more than 29% of the nearly 89,000 retail U.S. pharmacies that operated between 2010 and 2020 had closed by 2021, with the rate of closures increasing between 2018 and 2021 (during which time the number of pharmacies declined in 41 states).[1] That amounts to more than 26,000 store closures.[2] According to one of the study’s authors, Dima Qato, a University of Southern California pharmacy professor, closures are occurring at a higher rate at pharmacies that serve a greater percentage of Medicaid and Medicare patients.[3]
Closures have impacted stores owned by large chains as well as independent pharmacies. Store closures make it more difficult for patients to access to medications and to adhere to medication regimes, which puts patients at a greater risk, deepening health disparities. But there is hope. There are opportunities to enhance reliability for a mail-order pharmacy model and user-friendliness for remote pharmacy services. These have the potential to bridge existing gaps in healthcare access, ensuring patients conveniently and timely receive medications and expert guidance from pharmacists.
Shoring Up Supply Chains
At the same time as the number of pharmacies has decreased, pharmacies have faced challenges accessing product through the pharmaceutical supply chain. Drug shortages in the U.S. healthcare system are driven by several systemic and operational factors, including a vulnerable supply chain that relies heavily on foreign manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients from countries like China and India.[4] This reliance exposes the supply chain to disruptions from geopolitical tensions, pandemics, and natural disasters.[5]
However, these challenges have highlighted opportunities for improvement and growth. Solving drug shortages will require policy innovation, strategic investments, and professional advocacy. Strengthening domestic production of active pharmaceutical ingredients can reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and enhance resilience. Legislative efforts, such as California’s CalRx initiative, focus on drug affordability by producing and distributing generic medications at low costs with transparent pricing, targeting markets lacking competition,[6] while federal proposals like the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act advocate for government-backed production of essential generics.[7] Pharmacist advocacy is crucial, as they can engage with policymakers to highlight operational challenges and push for reforms like improved communication and streamlined FDA processes during shortages, creating a sustainable framework for drug manufacturing and encouraging fair pricing and access.[8]
Drug Price Transparency Reform
Drug price transparency is under renewed focus, with reforms aiming to increase clarity and reduce the control exerted by pharmacy benefit managers. President Trump’s Executive Order, issued on February 25, 2025, mandates agencies to enhance enforcement of existing health plan transparency regulations and to propose new guidelines for further standardizing and comparing pricing data.[9] The order provides a 90-day timeline for agencies to publish new policies, leaving the extent of change uncertain.[10] Despite this uncertainty, pharmacies have a significant role to play in driving these reforms. By emphasizing transparency in negotiated drug prices, pharmacies can foster more competitive dynamics and potentially improve rebate terms.[11]
Artificial Intelligence Caution
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize pharmacy by enhancing medication management, patient care, and healthcare efficiency. It can assist pharmacists in selecting drugs and dosages, identifying interactions, and reducing errors, while allowing personalized treatment plans based on patient data, which can improve outcomes and minimize adverse events.[12] AI also has the potential to streamline workflows by automating tasks like dispensing and inventory management, allowing pharmacists to focus on patient care, and can enhance communication through pharmacy applications offering 24/7 support.[13]
Despite its benefits, AI integration in pharmacy faces challenges such as high implementation costs, potential lack of empathy and personal touch that human pharmacists provide, and dependence on the quality of data inputs; incorrect or biased data can lead to flawed outcomes.[14] Ethical concerns like data privacy and informed consent are significant, as AI systems handle sensitive patient information.[15] Moreover, the need for substantial computing resources and technical expertise poses hurdles, particularly for smaller pharmacies.[16]
The pharmacy industry has opportunities to address these risks by investing in training to build trust and proficiency, collaborating with developers to ensure accuracy and to construct error protection measures, and to prioritize data privacy and ethical considerations.[17] By using AI to augment human expertise rather than replace it, pharmacies can maintain personal patient interactions while leveraging AI’s capabilities to enhance care.[18] Through collaborative efforts and innovative solutions, the pharmacy industry has possibilities to enhance health outcomes and access to care for all communities, paving the way for a healthier future.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Jenny S. Guadamuz et al., More US Pharmacies Closed Than Opened In 2018–21; Independent Pharmacies, Those In Black, Latinx Communities Most At Risk, 43 Health Affairs 1703 (2024); see Tom Murphy, Nearly 30% of US Drugstores Closed in One Decade, Study Shows, The Associated Press (Dec. 3, 2024, at 5:10 PM CDT), https://apnews.com/article/drugstore-closings-cvs-walgreens-independent-pharmacies-6b54d4bd1564b2bff7a55a624da61c19.
[2] See Murphy, supra note 1.
[3] See Guadamuz et al., supra note 1; Decline in Number of Pharmacies in Most States Since 2018, U.S. Pharmacist (Dec. 5, 2024), https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/decline-in-number-of-pharmacies-in-most-states-since-2018.
[4] See Joseph L. Fink & Kelli A. Boyden, Addressing Drug Shortages: A Call to Action for Pharmacists and Policymakers, 91 Pharmacy Times 38 (2025).
[5] Id.
[6] Fact Sheet: Making Prescription Drugs More Affordable For Californians, The State of California (updated Mar. 17, 2023), https://calrx.ca.gov/uploads/2023/03/CalRx-Fact-Sheet.pdf.
[7] Fink & Boyden, supra note 4.
[8] Id.
[9] Donald J. Trump, Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information, The White House (Feb. 25, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/making-america-healthy-again-by-empowering-patients-with-clear-accurate-and-actionable-healthcare-pricing-information/.
[10] Id.
[11] See Ed Schoonveld, US Drug Price Negotiations and Transparency, Pharmaceutical Commerce, Pharmaceutical Commerce (Apr. 9, 2025), https://www.pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/view/us-drug-price-negotiations-and-transparency.
[12] See Rayn Oswalt, The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacy Practice, Pharmacy Times (Sept. 5, 2023), https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-pharmacy-practice; Osama Khan et al., The Future of Pharmacy: How AI is Revolutionizing the Industry, 1 Intelligent Pharmacy 32-40 (2023).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
Listen to this post
Advancing the IRS Whistleblower Program
The director of the IRS Whistleblower Office (the Office) released the Office’s first multi-year operating plan outlining its guiding principles, strategic priorities, achievements, and efforts to advance the program. As part of its plan, the Office’s mission and vision statements were enhanced. The mission states it is to effectively administer the Whistleblower Program by ensuring:
the IRS compliance functions receive and consider specific, timely and credible claims that identify non-compliance with the tax and other laws administered by the IRS;
whistleblowers receive required notifications timely; and
awards are fairly determined and paid
The IRS Whistleblower Office states its vision is “to effectively promote voluntary compliance and reduce the tax gap by providing excellent service to whistleblowers, taxpayers and other stakeholders.”
With the intention of making the Whistleblower Program a success, the plan is framed around six strategic priorities:
1.
Enhance the claim submission process to promote greater efficiency.
2.
Use high-value whistleblower information effectively.
3.
Award whistleblowers fairly and as soon as possible.
4.
Keep whistleblowers informed of the status of their claims and the basis for IRS decisions on claims.
5.
Safeguard whistleblower and taxpayer information.
6.
Ensure the workforce is supported with effective tools, technology, training, and other resources.
Each of these strategic proprieties sets forth its priority efforts for 2025 and, separately, for 2026-2027.
Apart from increasing processing efficiencies, expanding the use of data analytics, adjusting staffing and other procedural efforts to enhance the program, the plan proposes significant improvements for whistleblower claimants. It updated and improved Form 211 (Application for Award for Original Information), including an updated list of alleged violations to select from, and includes a new option for multiple whistleblowers to file jointly. It is developing a digital portal to make claim submission easier. It also is developing a new approach for the initial analysis of claims to ensure high-value submissions are identified and prioritized to improve and speed up the evaluation of claims for awards.
The Plan and its implementation will make it easier and faster to obtain a reward while still preserving confidentiality and protection of whistleblower records and taxpayer information. It also provides for improved communication with whistleblowers during the pendency of their claims.
European Commission Publishes the AI Continent Action Plan
On April 9, 2025, the European Commission published the AI Continent Action Plan (the “Action Plan”). The objective of the Action Plan is to strengthen artificial intelligence (“AI”) development and uptake in the EU, making the EU a global leader in AI. The Action Plan builds upon the InvestAI initiative that aims to mobilize €200 billion for investment in AI in the EU.
The Action Plan is divided into five strategic areas where the EU intends to intervene to foster its AI ambitions:
Computing infrastructure. Measures envisioned include setting up 13 AI Factories across the EU, five AI Gigafactories (powered by over 100,000 advanced AI processors) for which it will mobilize €20 billion from the InvestAI initiative, and proposing a Cloud and AI Development Act to boost private investment in the EU in cloud and data centers.
Data. The European Commission aims to fully realize the single market for data through the upcoming Data Union Strategy. This strategy intends to respond to the scarcity of robust and high-quality data for the training and validation of AI models. The European Commission will also implement data labs within AI factories to gather and organize high-quality data from diverse sources and continue supporting the deployment of Common European Data Spaces.
Foster innovation and accelerate AI adoption in strategic EU sectors. Measures to be implemented include adapting scientific research programs to boost development and deployment of AI/generative AI, and through the Apply AI Strategy, integrating AI in strategic sectors and boosting the use of this technology by the European industry.
Strengthen AI skills and talent. Measures to be implemented include facilitating international recruitment, supporting the increase in provision of EU bachelor’s and master’s degrees as well as PhDs focusing on key technologies, including AI, and promoting AI literacy in the current workforce.
Fostering regulatory compliance and simplification. Measures to be implemented in this context include creating an AI Act Service Desk through which organizations may request clarifications and obtain practical advice regarding their AI Act compliance. The European Commission will also continue its efforts with regards to providing AI Act guidance and launch a process to identify stakeholders’ regulatory challenges and inform possible further measures to facilitate compliance and possible simplification of the AI Act.
Read the AI Continent Action Plan.
CAA Taps Julie Zorn to Build a Family Office Powerhouse
Why is one of the world’s most influential talent agencies expanding from managing fame to managing wealth?
Creative Artists Agency (CAA) is entering the Family Office space with a new advisory division focused on ultra-high-net-worth clients. This is more than a service expansion-It reflects a shift in how CAA supports individuals at the center of culture and capital.
With the launch of its Global Family Office Advisory division, led by veteran adviser Julie Zorn, CAA is becoming a partner in long-term planning, legacy building, and wealth strategy.
A Generational Wealth Transfer Creates a Timely Opening
Cerulli reports that $124 trillion will pass from one generation to the next by 2048. Much of that wealth belongs to individuals who built fortunes through entrepreneurship and entertainment.
These clients are not just seeking investment results. They are focused on structure, values, and impact. CAA already plays a key role in their public lives. Now, it is helping them build systems to preserve wealth across generations.
An Experienced Leader Behind the Strategy
Julie Zorn brings over two decades of experience advising families on establishing and managing Family Offices. Her background includes senior roles at Citi and BMO Harris, where she designed governance frameworks, recruited leadership, and built long-range plans.
Her work helps clients create systems aligned with their goals to support long-term wealth. This includes governance, operations, team development, and leadership planning.
A Strategic Path Toward a Multi-Family Office Model
Most celebrity clients are not looking to build a Family Office from scratch. It is costly and complex. Yet, they want privacy, control, and tailored advice. A shared platform offers those benefits without the burden.
CAA is positioned to deliver this. With a trusted network and strong client insight, the firm could build a multi-family office model that is both efficient and personal.
A Natural Evolution of CAA’s Role
If successful, CAA will move beyond representation to become a long-term partner in how clients approach legacy and continuity.
This expansion raises the bar for advisors who have struggled to serve public wealth creators. CAA understands the balance between visibility and privacy, and the mindset of clients navigating influence and affluence.
A Broader Shift in How Wealth Is Managed
This reflects a broader change in how modern wealth holders want to be supported. Today’s clients seek partners who understand their goals and offer integrated solutions.
CAA is entering a space that has long lacked clarity. If it succeeds, it may reshape how the next generation of wealth creators approaches legacy.
CAA is making a long-term investment in its clients’ futures. No longer just guiding careers, the firm now helps build structures that last. For those managing wealth and visibility, that may be the most valuable role of all.
Changes at the OFCCP: Enforcement Employees Placed on Administrative Leave Amid Federal Workforce Cuts
Employees in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) across the country have been placed on administrative leave. The move is part of the Administration’s broader federal workforce reduction efforts.
The email communication, sent Wednesday, April 16, by newly appointed OFCCP Director Catherine Eschbach, notified staff in the agency’s enforcement division—both at the national office and in five of six U.S. regional offices—of their change in status. Eschbach cited a “significantly reduced scope of mission” as the reason behind the administrative action.
The OFCCP, which monitors federal contractors for compliance with anti-discrimination and, prior to the rescinding of Executive Order 11246, affirmative action laws, has been a key target in the Administration’s plan to streamline the Department of Labor (DOL). Executive Order 14173 issued in January 2025, which rescinded Executive Order 11246, curtailed the agency’s authority by eliminating or reducing key legal and oversight powers.
As discussed in our prior blog post, a February 25 memo from the DOL outlined plans to ultimately eliminate up to 90% of OFCCP’s workforce. The April 16 notice to OFCCP employees came two days after a final deadline for staff to opt into voluntary exit programs, including deferred resignation and early retirement.
The administrative leave impacts primarily the enforcement staff, meaning the national office’s policy, operations, and administrative branches will remain as well as the Southwest and Rocky Mountain (SWARM) regional office, according to Eschbach’s message.
Employers should work with outside counsel to stay abreast of government changes and understand how they may impact their companies.
“Just Do It” May Sell Shoes, but Can It Revolutionize Bureaucracy?
There are a variety of accounts on the progress and success of the first days of the Trump Administration. Some put special significance on a new administration’s first 100 days, but is this the first 100 days or four years + 100 days?
In particular, appearing April 21, 2025, in The Washington Post, there is a report tracing what has happened to the “Five Things” mandate coming from Elon Musk and the DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) effort. This was a “mandate” to report every federal employee’s work achievements at the risk of losing their job. Apparently, that reporting mandate has now withered away into a range of requirements widely varying by agency.
Some employees are reported to respond with repetitive boilerplate or curt (and sometimes offensive) language. An earlier Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) blog post provided advice about how one might respond to the requirement. Some agencies have told employees to ignore it, some have continued the requirement but do not appear to do anything with the information, and a few continue to mandate reporting and claim to make use of it in employee evaluations.
So catchy phrases (“You’re fired”), props (chainsaws), Executive Orders (take your pick), and even 900-page blueprints (Project 2025) may not be enough to impose fundamental change on “the system.” More benign is the realization that the workforce of two-plus million federal workers is hard to manage with only the 1,000 or so most senior appointees arriving with the new Administration.
One lesson from the President’s first term might have been to realize the utility of fostering some level of confidence (or even trust) in the employees of any agency or program, even if seeking fundamental reforms or impactful budget and staff cuts. Instead, the DOGE effort has seen what appear to be ad hoc personnel cuts without following required procedures or a semblance of planning (example: getting a notice that you no longer have a job when you try to enter the building on a Monday morning), and has raised even more distrust and contempt beyond that which was widely reported during the first Trump term.
Change is difficult even among friends, perhaps more so if you are trying to be a demanding boss (especially one demanding program and staff cuts). Respect for the person, respect for the program’s mission generally, and some semblance of process might reduce some of the upset. In another time and place, a reform plan might have included suggestions from the staff about what should be changed, or even how a significant cut (say 25-50 percent) could be imposed and still maintain the organization.
Such a suggestion box would include everything from old grievances, ode to the status quo, and “cuts for thee not me” ideas. The advantage that may be among the suggestions could be ideas from those employees who “know where the bodies are buried” — outdated practices or procedures, staffing imbalances, or program areas in need of trimming (at least with a pruning saw, however less fetching on social media).
Viable suggestions coming from the incumbent staff are impossible when the staff is afraid and confused by the swirl of e-mails from questionable authority. Surprise cuts to your program or the end of your career coming from press releases and reports of the latest Executive Order is not good for morale. The apparent rationale for the chainsaw metaphor is a “move fast and break things” approach. This is evocative of some strategies used in the Vietnam war, summarized as: “burn down the village to save it.”
Even if big moves and fundamental changes are the order of the day, the private sector and government functions are different in ways that matter. Failed mergers resulting in a drastic drop in stock prices are impactful in different ways than a drastic impairment of important government functions the public depends on — including clean water or safe food and social security checks delivered on time (and that do not bounce).
More respect for the staff and more understanding of the agency mission and how procedures or budgets evolved into today’s program (warts and all) would have served the reform taskmasters more effectively than the progress reported until now.
Wyoming Joins the List of States Banning Some Noncompete Agreements
On March 19, 2025, Wyoming became one of the latest states to enact legislation banning noncompete agreements.
The new law, which goes into effect July 1, 2025, voids “[a]ny covenant not to compete that restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor.” The law applies only to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2025, and specifically states that nothing in the law alters, amends or impairs “any contract or agreement entered into before July 1, 2025.”
The law, as drafted, broadly applies to any agreement containing a noncompete clause, such as an employment agreement, independent contractor agreement, or some other type of agreement. The law does not impact or address non-solicitation agreements.
Though the new law appears on its face to be far-reaching, it contains notable exceptions that effectively narrow the scope of noncompetes impacted by the law, discussed below.
Trade Secret Exception
The Wyoming noncompete ban does not include covenants not to compete “to the extent the covenant provides for the protection of trade secrets as defined by W.S. 6-3-501(a)(xi).” Under W.S. 6-3-501(a)(xi), “trade secret” is broadly defined as:
the whole or a portion or phase of a formula, pattern, device, combination of devices or compilation of information which is for use, or is used in the operation of a business and which provides the business an advantage or an opportunity to obtain an advantage over those who do not know or use it. “Trade secret” includes any scientific, technical or commercial information including any design, process, procedure, list of suppliers, list of customers, business code or improvement thereof. Irrespective of novelty, invention, patentability, the state of the prior art and the level of skill in the business, art or field to which the subject matter pertains, when the owner of a trade secret takes measures to prevent it from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the owner to have access to it for limited purposes, the trade secret is considered to be:
(A) Secret;
(B) Of value;
(C) For use or in use by the business; and
(D) Providing an advantage or an opportunity to obtain an advantage to the business over those who do not know or use it.
The breadth of Wyoming’s statutory definition of “trade secret” arguably leaves employers with a fair amount of leeway to structure their restrictive covenants so that they fall under this exception.
Executive and Management Personnel Exception
The law also excludes noncompete agreements entered into with executive and management personnel and officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel. The law does not define the terms “executive and management personnel” or “officers and employees who constitute professional staff to executive and management personnel,” potentially providing employers relatively wide latitude in determining which employees may fit within this exception.
Physicians
The law also voids covenants not to compete in employment, partnership or corporate agreements between physicians that restrict the rights of a physician to practice medicine as that term is defined under Wyoming’s Medical Practice Act. All other provisions of a physician’s agreement that are “enforceable at law shall remain enforceable.”
Additionally, physicians will be permitted to disclose their “continuing practice of medicine and new professional contact information to any patient with a rare disorder as defined in accordance with the national organization for rare disorders, or a successor organization, to whom the physician was providing consultation or treatment before termination of the employment, partnership or corporate affiliation.” Physicians, and their new employers, shall not be liable for any damages resulting from the disclosure or from the physician’s treatment of the patient following the termination of the agreement or the physician’s employment, partnership or corporate affiliation.
Expense Repayment Provisions
Contractual provisions for recovering the “expense of relocating, educating and training an employee” are also exempt from the new law pursuant to the following statutory repayment provisions based on how long the employee has worked for the employer:
(A) Less than 2 years: Recovery up to 100% of expenses
(B) At least 2 years but less than 3 years: up to 66% of expenses
(C) At least 3 years but less than 4 years: 33% of expenses
(D) 4 or more years: 0% of expenses
Contract for the Purchase and Sale of a Business or Its Assets
Finally, the law also excludes covenants not to compete that are contained in a contract for the purchase and sale of a business or the assets of a business.
Key Takeaways
Employers wishing to enter into noncompete agreements on or after July 1, 2025 may only do so if the noncompete falls within one or more of the law’s specific carveouts. Notably, the law does not provide for any statutory damages or penalties, such as an attorneys’ fee-shifting or “loser pays” penalty, should a party choose to challenge the validity of a noncompete agreement. The law’s lack of a damages or penalties provision could potentially diminish the law’s impact as employers may perceive little risk in asserting a noncompete provision which falls under one or more of the law’s more expansive exceptions, such as the trade secret exception or executive and management personnel exception.
As Wyoming joins the growing list of jurisdictions considering and adopting legislation governing noncompetes, we will continue to report on key legislative updates and trends
EU Sustainability Omnibus: Now That the Clock Has Stopped, What’s Next?
First, in a record time of less than two months, the so-called ‘Stop the clock’ Directive (EU) 2025/794 was adopted and published in the EU official journal.
The Directive amends the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (‘CSDDD’) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (‘CSRD’), thereby delaying the two flagship ESG legislation’s entry into application and transposition deadlines.
This entails the following changes:
The application of CRD reporting requirements is postponed by two years, for large companies that have not yet started reporting, and for listed SMEs; and
In the case of the more recent CSDDD, the transposition deadline is postponed by one year (e.g. 26 July 2027) while the first phase of its application is also postponed by one year.
Member States have until 31 December 2025 to transpose the Stop the clock Directive. Until then, national transposition norms implementing the requirements of the CSRD remain in force.
A period of uncertainty thus remains until their adoption, although we can expect a swift action by the Member States.
Meanwhile, the EU’s co-legislators have made progress with the examination of the proposed Substantive Amendments to the CSRD and CSDDD requirements.
The European Parliament presented a first work timetable, announcing that the JURI Committee in charge of the file would present a draft report (e.g. a draft EP position on the text) on 23-24 June. MEPs will have until 27 June to prepare amendments, with a vote in Committee on 13 October 2025.
The Council’s Presidency on the other hand has issued a first version of its position on the text on 16 April 2025.
This suggests that trilogue discussions between the co-legislations would not be held until the end of the year, with an adoption in 2026 at the earliest.
In this regard, uncertainty will remain for the industry until then, with the possibility that the postponement of deadlines introduced by the Stop the clock Directive be insufficient to account for potentially lengthy negotiations between the two institutions.
EEOC Breaks Silence on 2024 EEO-1 Filing Cycle and Plans Shortened Filing Period
After a long silence, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken steps to move forward with the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection by submitting documents for approval to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The proposed 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection Instruction Booklet states that the 2024 EEO-1 filing platform will open on May 20, 2025, and close on June 24, 2025.
Quick Hits
The 2024 EEO-1 data collection is set to open on May 20, 2025, and close at 11:00 p.m. (EDT) on June 24, 2025.
The proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet requires filers to indicate their federal contractor status and requires federal contractor employers with fifty or more employees (but with fewer than one hundred employees) to file EEO-1 reports.
The proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet removes the option to provide information about non-binary employees.
Shortened Reporting Period
The proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet provides for a shortened reporting period—down to five weeks—from the platform opening date of May 20, 2025, to the filing deadline of June 24, 2025.
Changes to Reporting by Sex
The proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet eliminates the option to report non-binary employees, stating that the reporting provides “only binary options (i.e., male or female) for reporting employee counts.” This change is tied to Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
Reporting Based on EO 11246 Continues
Despite the rescission of Executive Order 11246 on January 21, 2025, the proposed 2024 Instruction Booklet and sample 2024 EEO-1 report provide that federal contractors with fifty or more employees are still required to file EEO-1 reports for the 2024 cycle.
Conclusion
Based on documents submitted by the EEOC, the 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection site will open on May 20, 2024, and close on June 24, 2025. In addition, the proposed EEO-1 Instruction Booklet eliminates all references to non-binary employees. Due to the shortened filing period, EEO-1 filers may want to consider working now toward gathering the data necessary for the filings.
State Antitrust Enforcement Roundup: New Laws; New Potential Legislation; and New (and Broader) Areas of Focus
The number of U.S. states implementing or considering new antitrust laws (or supplementing existing laws) targeting proposed transactions continues to grow. As detailed in our healthcare merger matrix, many states have focused their attention on the healthcare industry, and that continues to be the case, for example, in New York, where a broad range of proposed transactions involving health care entities could be subject to filing requirements and suspensory rules before they can close.
Moreover, and as detailed below, recently adopted laws and legislation under consideration in certain states are not limited to transactions involving healthcare providers or payors, nor are such developments limited to “blue” (politically more liberal) states, with Arkansas, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia, among others, undergoing or considering substantial expansions of their respective antitrust laws.
Arkansas Adopts Law Banning Pharmacy Benefit Managers from Owning Pharmacies
On April 16, 2025, Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed HB 1150 into law, which will prohibit pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) from owning pharmacies. This Arkansas law is the first of its kind and provides that a pharmacy benefits manager shall not acquire a direct or indirect interest in, or otherwise hold, directly or indirectly, a permit for the retail sale of drugs or medicines as of January 1, 2026.
California Considers Expansive New Antitrust Laws
In 2022, the California Law Review Commission (CLRC) was asked by the California Legislature to consider and recommend revisions to the state’s competition laws, i.e., the Cartwright Act. As a result of its review, the CLRC has recommended substantial revisions to the state’s antitrust regime.
The CLRC’s recommended changes cover the antitrust enforcement waterfront, from single firm conduct (monopolization and attempted monopolization) to concerted action. With respect to mergers, the CLRC found that California should adopt its own, independent merger control regime (today the state may only challenge deals under the federal Clayton Act). Most notably, the CLRC proposed that California become more aggressive when it comes to challenging proposed transactions by adopting a lesser standard to challenge deals than the federal standard, which requires the FTC or DOJ to provide that it is more likely than not that a deal would substantially lessen competition.
Washington State Enacts First-in-the-Nation General Premerger Notification Law; Colorado, D.C., Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, and West Virginia Considering Similar Legislation
The state of Washington became the first state to enact a state-level general premerger requirement. While many states have industry-specific notification laws (e.g., for health care mergers), this is the first general premerger notification requirement for a state. The law is modeled on the Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification Act. Similar legislation is under consideration in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah and West Virginia.
Starting July 27, 2025, any person that files a federal Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) filing must also submit contemporaneously a copy of the HSR form to the state if the person meets one of three criteria:
the person’s “principle place of business” is in Washington; or
the person (or a person it controls directly or indirectly) has annual net sales in Washington for the goods or services involved in the proposed transaction that are at least 20% of the Federal HSR size of transaction filing threshold (at present, 20% is $25,280,000); or
the person is a healthcare provider or provider organization in Washington (filing already required under Washington’s existing healthcare transaction law).
All required Washington filers must submit a copy of their federal HSR form to the state. Filers whose principle place of business is in Washington must also file the additional documentary material filed with an HSR form. Notably, the state may, upon request, require any filer to submit the additional documentary material, even if their principle place of business is not in Washington. There is no filing fee for the state filing and it does not trigger a suspensory waiting period. However, failure to file may result in a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day of noncompliance.
* * * * *
We can now definitively say that the growing state-level interest in becoming active participants in the review process for transactions that impact their state is part of a long-term secular trend. Regardless of political bent, many states are no longer content to sit passively by while the FTC or DOJ make enforcement decisions that can have dramatic impacts at the state level. In the months and years that follow, we expect that more states will enact antitrust or antitrust adjacent laws that are independent of and potentially even more stringent than, the federal antitrust regime. These state regimes, once more of an afterthought, will require the full attention of parties considering transactions that may be captured by these new laws.
Listen to this post
This Week in 340B: April 15 – 21, 2025
Find this week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation.
Issues at Stake: Rebate Model; Contract Pharmacy; Other
In six cases against HRSA related to rebate models:
In five cases, defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion for summary judgment.
In one case, the plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
In a case against Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) challenging its certification of a group of entities as 340B-eligible, defendants filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of their partial motion to dismiss.
A trade association representing drug manufacturers filed a complaint to challenge a Utah state law restricting contract pharmacy arrangements.
In two appealed cases challenging a Louisiana law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, a group of amici filed amicus briefs.
Nadine Tejadilla contributed to this article.