Illinois PBM Law to Limit Steering, Other Plan Design Features in 2026
Under a new law, employer-sponsored health plans will not be able to require employees to use—or give them financial incentives to use—pharmacies owned or controlled by their pharmacy benefit managers (PBM), but will stand to receive 100 percent of the rebates received by a PBM or an affiliated rebate aggregator. Illinois’s “Prescription Drug Affordability Act” will further impact employer plans by prohibiting PBMs from using “spread pricing,” referring to arrangements in which the contracted price charged to a plan for a drug is different from the price the PBM directly or indirectly paid to a pharmacist or pharmacy for that drug.
Quick Hits
Illinois’s recently enacted Prescription Drug Affordability Act regulates PBMs by imposing strict transparency requirements.
The law prohibits PBMs from utilizing spread pricing, requires that PBMs pass on rebates to health plan sponsors, and prohibits steering patients toward specific pharmacies that a PBM owns or controls.
The law also adds a new $15.00-per-member fee for PBMs, which will be used to support independent pharmacies in underserved areas.
Illinois House Bill (HB) 1697 (Public Act 104-0027), which was signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker on July 1, 2025, principally regulates PBMs, which operate under state licenses. The statute also imposes a new $15.00-per-member fee on PBMs to fund grants for independent pharmacies in underserved areas, and it provides important audit rights for plan sponsors. In addition, HB 1697 expressly applies to services provided to both self-insured plans and insured plans, and prohibits PBMs from limiting access to specialty medications by using broad definitions of specialty drugs and imposing restrictions on them.
Audits
Under HB 1697, contracts between PBMs and insurers or health benefit plan sponsors must allow for “an audit at least once per calendar year of the rebate and fee records remitted from a pharmacy benefit manager or its affiliated party to a health benefit plan.” And contracts with rebate aggregators, drug manufacturers and others will be required to be available for audit by employer plan sponsors.
Steering
The Illinois law prohibits PBMs from steering participants toward certain pharmacies. The law specifically defines “steer” to include:
“requiring a covered individual to only use a pharmacy, including a mail-order or specialty pharmacy, in which the [PBM] or its affiliate maintains an ownership interest or control”;
“offering or implementing a plan design that encourages a covered individual to only use a pharmacy in which the [PBM] or an affiliate maintains an ownership interest or control, if the plan design increases costs for the covered individual”; and
“reimbursing a pharmacy or pharmacist for a drug and pharmacist service in an amount less than the amount that the [PBM] reimburses itself or an affiliate, including affiliated manufacturers or joint ventures for providing the same drug or service.”
Some reporting and payment requirements went into effect in 2025, but the anti-steering provisions will not apply until a PBM agreement entered into before January 1, 2026, is terminated. The other parts of the law are effective for PBM agreements that take effect or are amended, delivered, or issued on or after January 1, 2026.
Rebates
Though Illinois will require 100 percent rebate pass-throughs for amounts received by “affiliated” aggregators, meaning those owned or controlled in part by a PBM, the law does not require that treatment when a rebate aggregator is not affiliated.
Under the Illinois law, “rebate” is defined as a “discount or drug pricing concession based on drug utilization or administration that is paid by the manufacturer to a [PBM] or its client.” And “rebate aggregator” is defined in part as an entity “including [a] group purchasing organization[], that negotiate[s] rebates or other fees with drug manufacturers on behalf or for the benefit of a [PBM] or its client.”
Specialty Medications
PBMs and their affiliates will be prohibited from “limiting a covered individual’s access to drugs from a pharmacy or pharmacist enrolled with the health benefit plan under the terms offered to all pharmacies in the plan coverage area by designating the covered drug as a specialty drug, contrary to the definition in [the Illinois statute].”
“Specialty drug[s]” under the Illinois law are defined relatively narrowly as those that:
are “prescribed for a person with a complex or chronic condition or a rare medical condition”;
have “limited or exclusive distribution”;
require “specialized product handling by the dispensing pharmacy or administration by the dispensing pharmacy”; and
require “specialized clinical care, including frequent dosing adjustments, intensive clinical monitoring, or expanded services for patients, including intensive patient counseling, education, or ongoing clinical support beyond traditional dispensing activities, such as individualized disease and therapy management to support improved health outcomes.”
Reporting Requirements
PBMs will be required to submit written annual reports to the Illinois Department of Insurance, each health benefit plan sponsor, and each insurer by September 1 each year. The reports must include information on drugs and rebates, including lists of drugs, specifics on rebates, fees, or discounts for drugs, and information on reimbursement costs. PBMs that fail to submit the required reports could be subject to fines not exceeding $10,000 per day.
The law states that the Department may share the reports with “an established institution of higher education” in Illinois to create an annual “pharmacist dispensing cost report” with a “survey of the average cost of dispensing a prescription for pharmacists in Illinois.
Member Fees
A key provision of the law requires registered PBMs to pay the Illinois Department of Insurance “an amount equal to $15 or an alternate amount as determined by the Director by rule per covered individual enrolled by the pharmacy benefit manager in [Illinois].” The first payment was due on September 1, 2025, and will be due annually on September 1 each year thereafter.
The collected amounts will be deposited into a new “Prescription Drug Affordability Fund,” and each fiscal year, $25 million will be transferred to a grant program for community pharmacies, especially those in rural counties, low-income communities, and medically underserved areas.
Next Steps
Employers with employees in Illinois may want to evaluate whether their existing PBM agreements meet these and other new standards and what changes in their agreements might be needed or desirable under this Illinois law.
US and Japan Agree to Trade Framework on Energy Infrastructure and Critical Mineral Investments
What Happened?
On October 28, 2025, the governments of the United States and Japan signed the United States-Japan Framework (US-Japan Framework) to coordinate on securing and refining important minerals. The US-Japan Framework is part of a bilateral strategic trade and investment agreement between the two countries and includes provisions to encourage Japanese investment in US critical energy infrastructure and critical minerals, and to outline the US commitment for reduced tariffs for Japanese goods. The Framework follows Executive Order 14345 and the September announcements outlining the trade deal.
The Bottom Line
The US-Japan Framework announces investment in key US sectors for energy, critical minerals, AI and electronics, and signals an easing of trade tensions between the two countries. Companies operating in these sectors and with cross-border relationships between the US and Japan should note these developments. The US-Japan Framework also signals US trade priorities and indicates how similar trade agreements between the United States and other countries may take shape in the future.
The Full Story
In July 2025, the Trump administration announced that the United States reached a trade deal with Japan that included a flat 15 percent tariff on nearly all Japanese goods and commitments from Japan to reduce non-tariff barriers and invest billions of dollars in the United States. In Executive Order 14345 of September 4, 2025, President Trump directed the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Chair of the United States International Trade Commission, to reduce stacked tariffs and impose a flat 15 percent duty on almost all Japanese imports. The United States and Japan signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in September outlining strategic investments in the United States. The US-Japan Framework memorializes trade commitments between the two countries and investments under the MOU in the United States.
Tariffs on Japanese Goods
Under Executive Order 14345, the 15 percent rate for Japanese imports will not “stack” on top of existing tariff rates. The 15 percent rate is inclusive of any most-favored nation (MFN) tariff rate above zero applied by the United States to goods not traded under a free trade agreement. If the MFN rate is above 15 percent, no additional tariff pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) will be applied to Japanese goods. The new 15 percent tariff rate is retroactive to August 7, 2025, subject to an exception for Japanese automotive products, which face a 15 percent tariff, inclusive of MFN rates, effective September 16, 2025. Japanese products under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (except for unmanned aircraft) will be exempt from additional tariffs under IEEPA and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act on steel, aluminum, and copper. Executive Order 14345 leaves open the possibility that other Japanese products, including natural resources and generic pharmaceuticals, could be granted duty-free treatment following an assessment of the Secretary of Commerce regarding US national interests and Japan’s actions to carry out its commitments, including those under the US-Japan Framework.
Investment Commitments
According to a Fact Sheet published to announce the US-Japan Framework, Japan and various Japanese companies have committed to significant investments and collaborations in energy, infrastructure and industrial projects in the United States, to include:
Critical Energy Infrastructure Investments:
Up to $332 billion to support critical energy infrastructure in the United States, including the construction of AP1000 nuclear power plants and small modular reactors (SMRs), the supply of large-scale baseload power infrastructure, engineering, procurement and other services to build critical power plants, substations and transmission systems, design, procurement and maintenance services for large-scale power infrastructure, and natural gas transmission and power infrastructure services.
Up to $25 billion to supply large-scale power equipment such as gas turbines, steam turbines and generators for grid electrification and stabilization systems, including high-voltage direct current and substation solutions for mission-critical facilities.
Up to $25 billion to supply electrical power modules, transformers and other power-generation substation equipment.
Up to $20 billion to supply thermal cooling systems and solutions, including chillers, air handling systems and coolant distribution units essential for power infrastructure.
AI Infrastructure Investments:
Up to $30 billion to supply power station systems and equipment for data centers.
Up to $25 billion for advanced electronic components and power modules.
Up to $20 billion to supply fiber optic cables.
Electronics and Supply Chain Investments:
Up to $15 billion to produce advanced electronic components, including multilayer ceramic capacitors, inductors and electromagnetic interference suppression filters.
Up to $15 billion to supply energy storage systems and electronic devices and components.
Critical Minerals Investments:
Up to $3 billion to construct an ammonia and urea fertilizer facility in the United States
Up to$2 billion to construct a copper smelting and refining facility in the western United States.
Manufacturing and Logistics Investments:
$600 million to upgrade ports and waterways across the southern United States to facilitate the export of US crude oil.
$500 million to establish a high-pressure, high-temperature diamond grit manufacturing facility in the United States.
$350 million to construct a lithium-iron-phosphate production facility in the United States.
Trade and Defense Commitments
According to the Fact Sheet, Japan has also committed to further expand opportunities for US exports to Japan, including exports of some US-made vehicles to Japan, and to enhance distribution platform in Japan for US automakers to facilitate the sale of US manufactured and US safety-certified vehicles without additional testing in Japan. According to a Joint Statement issued in July, Japan already agreed to expedite increased purchases of US rice, and to make significant annual purchases of US agricultural goods and US energy. Japan has also committed to implement its anti-competition law applicable to smartphone software in a way that does not discriminate against US companies, balances the need for fair and free competition with user safety and convenience, and respects the legitimate exercise of intellectual property rights. The Fact Sheet notes US commitments to Japan’s defense sector, AI collaboration, and intelligence sharing.
FINRA Announces Targeted Review of Small-Cap Foreign Offerings
FINRA has initiated a targeted examination focusing on broker-dealers’ participation in small-cap offerings involving foreign issuers, particularly those with business operations in foreign jurisdictions such as China. The review covers member firms that participated in IPOs that raised $25 million or less and priced between $4.00 and $8.00, between January 1, 2023, and September 30, 2025. The review also includes follow-on offerings and private placements tied to those transactions.
This initiative, announced last week, emphasizes FINRA’s ongoing commitment to market integrity, due diligence and supervisory controls in cross-border small-cap transactions.
Scope of the Review
FINRA’s review will encompass:
Public and private offerings of small-cap exchange-listed issuers with business operations in foreign jurisdictions, such as China;
Broker-dealers acting as underwriters, bookrunners, syndicate members, selling group members, or placement agents in these offerings; and
Firms participating in initial and/or secondary market trading related to small-cap offerings, including those with omnibus accounts trading in these securities.
FINRA has requested that selected firms provide detailed documentation, including:
Written supervisory procedures relevant to small-cap offerings;
Compliance policies, manuals, training materials, bulletins and any other written guidance in place relevant to small-cap offerings;
Due diligence processes conducted on issuers, officers and affiliates; and
A comprehensive list of all small-cap offerings, including detailed information that includes the compensation received by the firm, names of other member firms involved in the offering and the identities of all individuals involved in the offering.
Regulatory Focus
FINRA’s review is part of its broader efforts to mitigate risks associated with low-priced, thinly traded securities and microcap markets. FINRA remains particularly concerned about potential market manipulation or pump-and-dump schemes and offshore entities acting as intermediaries or promoters. The review also dovetails with FINRA’s ever-present focus on weak or inconsistent anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) controls.
Implications for Broker-Dealers
FINRA’s targeted examination offers a potential roadmap for firms participating in small-cap offerings involving foreign issuers to tighten their controls and compliance policies. Among other actions, firms would be well-advised to:
Identify any transactions between January 2023 and September 2025 that would be captured by this targeted review;
Reassess supervisory systems and procedures under FINRA Rules 2010, 3010 and 3110;
Review due diligence frameworks for adequacy and documentation; and
Ensure risk management and AML compliance systems are appropriately scaled to these types of offerings
Proactive review now can mitigate regulatory risk later, especially given FINRA’s increasing coordination with the SEC on cross-border microcap investigations.
Brussels Regulatory Brief: September/October 2025
Antitrust and Competition
European Commission Accepts Commitments to Address Bundling Concerns in the Tech Sector
On 12 September 2025, the European Commission (Commission) accepted legally binding commitments offered by a tech company to address concerns related to a possible abuse of dominant position by tying its communication and collaboration platform to its operating system and applications for business customers. The alleged conduct would have anticompetitively foreclosed competitors in the market for cloud-based communication and collaboration products.
Commission Imposes First Ever Fine for Incomplete Response to Request for Information in Antitrust Proceedings
On 8 September 2025, the Commission imposed a €172,000 fine on a company and its then parent company for providing an incomplete reply to a request for information during its antitrust investigation in the synthetic-turf sector. While similar fines have long been imposed in merger-control proceedings, this marks the first time the Commission has fined a company in antitrust proceedings.
Commission Notes Growing Foreign Investment Activity and Progress Toward Harmonization in its Fifth Annual Report on FDI Screening
On 14 October 2025, the Commission released its fifth annual report on the screening of foreign direct investments (FDI) into the European Union (EU) (Report). The 2025 Report highlights that investment screening has become a central component of the EU’s economic and security policy. The EU is entering a new phase in which self-resilience is prioritized alongside competitiveness and innovation, an evolution that will test the EU’s ability to balance economic openness with the need to protect strategic assets and technologies critical to European security.
Financial Affairs
Commission Sets Out Simplification Drive in Financial Services Secondary Legislation
The Commission decided to de-prioritize 115 non-essential Level 2 acts in financial services to simplify regulatory burdens for companies.
European Parliament Rejects Legal Affairs Mandate on Omnibus Proposal
Members of the European Parliament have rejected the Legal Affairs Committee’s report on the Omnibus proposal amending the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.
Antitrust and Competition
European Commission Accepts Commitments to Address Bundling Concerns in the Tech Sector
On 12 September 2025, the European Commission (Commission) accepted and made legally binding commitments from a tech company (Tech Company) aimed at addressing serious competition concerns linked to its team collaboration platform.
In July 2023, after a complaint, the Commission opened an investigation to assess whether the Tech Company’s conduct in connection with the distribution of its collaboration and communication platform (Communication Platform) violates Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits companies from abusing a dominant market position. A company is dominant when it holds such market power that it can operate independently of competitors, customers, and ultimately consumers.
In June 2024, after opening a second investigation based on another complaint, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to the Tech Company with the preliminary view that the Tech Company abused its dominant position since at least 2019 in the market for Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) productivity applications for professional use by tying its Communication Platform to its core SaaS productivity applications for business customers. Tying occurs when a dominant company makes the use or purchases of one product where it has a dominant market position (i.e., the tying product) conditional on obtaining another product (i.e., the tied product). These practices may restrict consumer choice and foreclose competitors who are unable to match such distribution advantages.
The Commission found in its preliminary investigation that the Tech Company restricted competition and claimed that, for many customers, Tech Company’s Communication Platform became the go-to solution not necessarily by choice, but by design, integrated seamlessly into the tools they were already using.
In order to address the Commission’s concerns, the Tech Company offered to: (i) increase the price difference between some of the Tech Company’s suites with and without its Communication Platform by 50%; (ii) clarify that any software offer on its websites that includes the Tech Company’s suites with its Communication Platform also displays an offer without the Communication Platform; and (iii) publish detailed documentation on interoperability and data portability for developers.
The Commission concluded that these amended commitments adequately address its concerns and decided to make them legally binding in a commitment decision under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003. The commitments will remain in force for seven years, except for the commitments related to interoperability, which will remain in force for 10 years.
By offering commitments, the Tech Company has avoided a potentially large fine and an infringement decision under Article 7 of Regulation 1/2003. Although the Commission decision does not constitute a finding of violation, it effectively rewrites the rules of engagement in the European software market. By decoupling the Collaboration Platform from Tech Company’s productivity suites and opening the door for competitors to integrate more seamlessly into the Tech Company’s ecosystem, the European Union (EU) aims to ensure a level playing field. The Tech Company also decided unilaterally to apply these commitments not just in the European Economic Area but also worldwide.
Commission Imposes First Ever Fine for Incomplete Response to Request for Information in Antitrust Proceedings
On 8 September 2025, the Commission imposed a fine of €172,000 on a company and its then ultimate parent entity for providing an incomplete reply to a request for information during its antitrust investigation in the synthetic-turf sector.
In June 2023, the Commission was carrying out unannounced inspections (dawn raids) at companies active in the synthetic-turf sector. As part of the investigation, the Commission issued two requests for information (RFI) to the company. The first RFI was an informal RFI pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Regulation 1/2003 whereby the recipient is not obliged to respond. However, the recipient who decides to respond can be fined in the amount of up to 1% of a company’s total turnover in the last financial year if the information provided is incorrect or misleading. The Commission assessed and compared the information provided by the company with the information that was seized during the dawn raids and found that the company’s responses were incomplete. Providing incomplete (but not misleading) information in response to a simple RFI, though, is not subject to a fine according to Article 23(1) (a) of Regulation 1/2003.
The Commission subsequently sent an RFI by decision to the company pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Regulation 1/2003 (RFI by Decision). The recipient of an RFI by Decision, unlike in the case of a simple RFI, must respond, and the Commission is empowered to impose fines of up to 1% of a company’s total turnover in the last financial year not only for providing incorrect and misleading information but, according to Article 23(1) (b) of Regulation 1/2003, also for incomplete information in response to an RFI by Decision and if the information is not provided within the required time limit. The Commission again found that the response to the RFI by Decision was incomplete.
The Commission launched a separate procedural investigation into the company in November 2024 that resulted in the imposition of a fine against that company and its then parent company of €172,000. According to Teresa Ribera, executive vice-president for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition: “Information requests are a vital tool to uncover antitrust infringements. If companies do not provide full and complete replies to our requests, they can compromise our investigations […].” She also stated that the Commission will not hesitate to pursue similar cases in the future to ensure that its investigations are carried out effectively to the benefit of consumers. The Commission set the fine at 0.3% of the company’s total turnover at group level in the last financial year and granted a 30% fine reduction for cooperation as the company actively cooperated after the Commission started the infringement proceedings.
While the fine may appear limited, this is the first time that the Commission has fined a company for providing an incomplete response to an RFI in antitrust proceedings. This decision also adds to the enforcement record on the Commission’s procedural infringements. For instance, the Commission imposed fines for the deletion of electronic evidence during inspections (€15.9 million, 2024) and for breaking seals during dawn raids (€38 million, 2008; Suez Environnement, €8 million, 2011), as well as fines in merger-control proceedings for incorrect or misleading information (the highest being €110 million, 2017). Although responding to an RFI may be burdensome, companies that receive an RFI must be very careful when responding to an RFI and ensure that their replies are accurate, complete, and verified; otherwise, they will face liability if their responses are incorrect, incomplete, or misleading.
Commission Notes Growing Foreign Investment Activity and Progress Toward Harmonization in its Fifth Annual Report on FDI Screening
On 14 October 2025, the Commission released its fifth annual report on the screening of foreign direct investments (FDI) into the EU (Report). While the Commission does not have the power to directly review foreign investments into the EU, it has initiated since 2020 a process of coordination and partial harmonization of the foreign investment review regimes by EU member states through the adoption of the EU FDI screening Regulation. Under that Regulation, member states can ask questions on FDI reviews that are notified in other EU member states, and the Commission can in some instances provide a formal opinion on certain foreign investment reviews that are notified by EU member states through the EU FDI screening mechanism.
Increased Number of Cases Notified Through the EU FDI Screening Mechanism
According to the Report, in 2024:
EU member states handled a total of 3,136 FDI notifications, up from 1,808 in 2023. 59% of these FDI notifications resulted in no-jurisdiction letters or received unconditional clearances, while formal screening occurred in 41% of these notifications.
Out of the 41% FDI notifications that were formally screened: (i) the vast majority (86%) resulted in unconditional authorization decisions; (ii) 9% involved an approval subject to conditions; and (iii) 1% were blocked/withdrawn.
477 of the 3,136 notifications were notified by member states to the Commission under the EU FDI screening mechanism. Out of these 477 cases:
Other EU member states raised questions in 10% of cases.
The Commission issued formal opinions in less than 2% of cases.
92% of these 477 cases were closed within two weeks, while the remaining 8% underwent an in-depth (Phase II) assessment and took a considerably longer timeframe.
Half of the Phase II cases that underwent an in-depth assessment (4%) concerned investments in the manufacturing sector, often due to concerns about technology leakage and supply-chain security, followed by investments in the Information, Communications, and Technology (ICT) sector and the financial sector.
2024 also marked the entry into force of new FDI screening mechanisms in Bulgaria and Ireland, bringing the total number of member states with such frameworks to 24 out of the 27 EU member states. The three remaining EU member states (Cyprus, Croatia, and Greece) that do not yet have FDI review regimes are in the process of adopting FDI review laws.
Investment Trends in 2024
In terms of original foreign investment into the EU, the Report noted the following:
The United States remained the EU’s top foreign investor, accounting for 30% of acquisitions (597 deals, a 7% increase compared to 2023) and 37% of greenfield investments (626 projects, a 17% decrease compared to 2023).
The United Kingdom ranked second, representing 23% of acquisitions (451 deals) and 24% of greenfield projects (412 transactions).
Other notable trends included a sharp rise in acquisitions from Singapore (+85%) and Norway (+34%) and a 23% rebound in Chinese and Hong Kong investments after a decline in 2023.
As for the destination countries for foreign investment:
Germany was the leading EU destination for mergers and acquisitions (M&A) deals by non-EU acquirers, with 21% of all deals (a 17% increase compared to last year).
France was the second EU destination with 13% of M&A deals.
Poland and the Netherlands recorded the strongest growth in deal activity by non-EU acquirers, increasing 39% and 30% respectively.
Ireland and Denmark saw declines of 26% and 9%.
The EU manufacturing sector remained the most active sector for FDI, representing 27% of foreign M&A, followed by the ICT sector at 24%. For greenfield investments, retail dominated (31%), followed by professional, scientific, and technical activities (15%), manufacturing (13%), and ICT (10%).
Looking Ahead
The EU plans to further harmonize FDI reviews while at the same time expanding the scope of FDI reviews to outbound investments.
The adoption of the revised FDI screening regulation is in an advanced process of adoption and is currently being negotiated before the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, and the Commission. The proposal seeks to make FDI screening mechanisms mandatory for all 27 EU member states, establish a minimum level of harmonization and a common scope of reviewable transactions, and extend screening to cover EU-based investors ultimately controlled by non-EU entities. It also aims to enhance cooperation and accountability between the Commission and national authorities. On 15 January 2025, the Commission adopted Recommendation (EU) 2025/63, calling on member states to assess potential security risks associated with EU outbound investments in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies. Member states are asked to review past and ongoing transactions to identify risks of technology leakage for military or intelligence misuse and report their findings by June 2026.
Financial Affairs
Commission Sets Out Simplification Drive in Financial Services Secondary Legislation
On 1 October 2025, the Commission published a letter to the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) outlining its decision to de-prioritize a significant number of Level 2 measures in the financial services frameworks.
This initiative, part of the Commission’s broader agenda on simplification, responds to concerns from stakeholders about the growing volume of delegated and implementing acts stemming from recent legislative reforms. Existing legislative initiatives mandate the Commission to adopt more than 430 Level 2 measures across banking, insurance, securities, sustainable finance, and anti-money laundering frameworks.
The Commission has categorized these empowerments into three groups: those with a legal obligation to act within a set timeframe; those with a legal obligation but no deadline; and those where the Commission is not legally required to act. Following consultations with the European Parliament, the Council of the EU, and ESAs, 115 empowerments have been identified as “nonessential” for the effective functioning of the underlying Level 1 acts.
To manage these, the Commission will follow a two-step approach. First, the nonessential Level 2 acts listed in the annex to its letter will not be adopted before 1 October 2027. Second, in cases where empowerments carry a legal obligation to act by a specific deadline, the Commission will propose amendments or repeals during upcoming reviews of the relevant Level 1 legislation. Many of these reviews are scheduled within the next two years.
European Parliament Rejects Legal Affairs Mandate on Omnibus Proposal
On 21 October 2025, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) rejected the mandate adopted by the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) on the Omnibus proposal amending the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). Following this rejection, MEPs are expected to table further amendments to the proposal, which will then need to be approved during the next plenary session of the European Parliament, scheduled for 13 November.
The rejection underscored widening political divisions within the European Parliament. The centrist coalition that typically secures major legislative compromises, including the European People’s Party (EPP), the Socialists & Democrats (S&D), and Renew Europe (Renew), fractured over the proposed text. While the EPP and parts of Renew backed JURI mandate as a necessary step to reduce regulatory burdens and increase legal clarity for businesses, many S&D and Green MEPs withdrew support, warning that the proposal would significantly dilute EU’s sustainability and human-rights framework. On the other side, more conservative and far-right groups argued the reforms did not go far enough in easing compliance obligations. The resulting cross-party misalignment led to the narrow rejection of the mandate, reflecting the growing polarization between calls for competitiveness and demands to preserve the integrity of the EU’s sustainability agenda. The JURI report sought to narrow the scope of both directives. It proposed reducing the number of companies subject to mandatory obligations, introducing simplified reporting templates, and limiting due diligence requirements to the largest firms only. Under the proposed changes to CSRD, mandatory reporting would apply only to companies with more than 1,000 employees and annual turnover exceeding €450 million. Smaller companies would be exempt, though they could choose to report voluntarily. Sector-specific requirements would become optional and standard reporting templates would be streamlined to focus on key quantitative indicators.
For CS3D, JURI proposal limits obligations to identify, prevent, and mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts to large EU companies with over 5,000 employees and turnover above €1.5 billion, as well as to non-EU companies generating more than €1.5 billion within the EU. It also introduces a risk-based approach, allowing companies to collect information from business partners only where there is a material risk of impact, replacing the previously broader data-collection duties. Enforcement would remain primarily at national level, with the civil liability regime further reduced, while potential fines would be capped at 5% of global turnover.
Once the European Parliament adopts its mandate, interinstitutional negotiations, also known as trilogues, with the Council of the EU and the Commission will begin. The institutions aim to conclude the legislative process by the end of 2025.
Further contributions to this article were made by Petr Bartoš, Sara Rayon Gonzalez, Edoardo Crosetto, Etienne Perrin, Martina Pesci
Enablement – Skilled Artisan’s Knowledge No Substitute for Adequate Written Description
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US International Trade Commission’s (Commission) decision that a water filtration patent was invalid for lack of written description and enablement because the scope of the asserted claim was not enabled by the patent’s specification. Brita LP v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 24-1098 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Chen, JJ.)
Brita filed a complaint at the Commission alleging that Vestergaard Frandsen and Helen of Troy infringed its water filtering patent. The main dispute focused on the patent’s only independent claim, which in part recites a “gravity-fed water filter, comprising filter media including at least activated carbon and a lead scavenger” that achieves a “Filter Rate and Performance (FRAP) factor of about 350 or less.” The patent identifies several types of filter media, including carbon filters.
The administrative law judge (ALJ) construed the term “filter usage lifetime claimed by a manufacturer or seller of the filter” to mean “the total number of gallons of water that a manufacturer or seller has validated can be filtered before the filter is replaced.” Based on this construction, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding that the asserted claims met the written description and enablement requirements.
Brita sought review of the initial determination before the full Commission. On review, the Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding of a violation, concluding that the “filter usage” term was indefinite, the asserted claims lacked adequate written description, and the claims were not enabled with respect to non-carbon block filters. Brita appealed.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent must demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. This means the specification must adequately support each claim. In this case, the Federal Circuit found that the specification only supported carbon block filters meeting the claimed FRAP factor, not the broader category of “filter media” as claimed. As a result, the Court found that the asserted claims failed the written description requirement.
The Federal Circuit emphasized that the patent specification failed to support the broad claim language because of its narrow focus on carbon block filters. Specifically, the specification:
Described only carbon blocks, with other filter media mentioned solely as tested examples for FRAP factor
Provided specific formulations for carbon blocks only
Illustrated only carbon block filters in the figures
Made clear distinctions between carbon blocks and other filter types.
The Federal Circuit found persuasive the inventor’s testimony that only carbon block filters were created to meet the FRAP factor.
The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s finding that the claims were invalid for lack of enablement. Under the Federal Circuit’s 1988 In re Wands decision, enablement requires that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. The Court found no reversible error in the Commission’s conclusion that undue experimentation would be required for filters other than carbon blocks to meet the claimed FRAP factor. The inventors had not developed non-carbon block filters, and the specification lacked guidance for overcoming the challenges associated with them. As the Court noted, the Commission correctly found that there was no “road map for how . . . any type of filter other than carbon blocks, can achieve the required FRAP.”
Finally, the Federal Circuit rejected Brita’s argument that the asserted patent concerned a “highly developed, predictable art,” finding that the FRAP equation involved interrelated variables that made performance outcomes unpredictable.
DOE Directs FERC to Take Action on Large Load Interconnection
On 23 October 2025, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to consider an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) for the interconnection of retail loads greater than 20 MW to jurisdictional transmission facilities.1 DOE expects FERC to take final action not later than 30 April 2026.
In issuing the letter and proposed rule, Secretary Wright explained that unprecedented and extraordinary quantities of electricity and substantial investment in the nation’s interstate transmission system are necessary to meet the Trump administration’s commitment to revitalizing domestic manufacturing and driving American artificial intelligence innovation. Secretary Wright points to the fact that electricity demand is expected to grow at an extraordinary pace due in large part to the rapid growth of large loads and the unique challenges presented by the size and speed with which data centers can be connected to the grid. Secretary Wright argues that it has become necessary to standardize interconnection procedures and agreements for large loads.
The ANOPR presents a number of principles for consideration in a large load/hybrid interconnection rule, including:
Limited Jurisdiction
FERC interconnection rules would apply only to direct interconnections to jurisdictional transmission facilities.
Large Loads
The rules would apply only to new standalone loads greater than 20 MW and loads greater than 20 MW that share a point of interconnection with new or existing generation facilities (hybrid facilities). The ANOPR seeks comments on whether a 20 MW cutoff for large loads or an alternative threshold is appropriate.
Loads and Generation Studied Together
When possible, interconnecting large loads and hybrid facilities would be studied with generating facility interconnections, which may reduce the scope and cost of network upgrades for the interconnection customer.
Standardized Study Procedures
Large loads and hybrid facilities would be subject to standardized deposits, readiness requirements, and withdrawal penalties. The ANOPR seeks comments on what study deposits, thresholds, commitments, or penalties should apply.
Study Parameters
Hybrid facilities’ interconnections would be studied using the developer’s requested amount of system injection and withdrawal rights.
System Protections
Hybrid interconnections would be required to install system protection facilities that prevent unauthorized injections or withdrawals in excess of study parameters. The ANOPR seeks comments on proposed operational limitations and technical requirements.
Expedited Processes
Curtailable large loads and dispatchable hybrid facilities could seek expedited study procedures. The ANOPR seeks comments on recommendations for accomplishing expedited studies for curtailable large loads.
Cost Causation
Load and hybrid facilities would be responsible for the full cost of all network upgrades identified during the study process. The ANOPR seeks comments on offsetting costs for network upgrades via a crediting mechanism.
Self-Build for Certain Network Upgrades
Large loads and hybrids could exercise the same self-build option that is available to generator interconnection customers.
Co-location with Existing Generation to be Studied
An existing generating facility that enters a partial suspension to serve co-located load would be studied for system reliability impacts. The ANOPR seeks comments on the role of resource adequacy in the relevant studies.
Transmission Service
Transmission service would be based on system withdrawal rights, reflecting the quantity of capacity and energy that is being transmitted across the transmission system to the load.
Ancillary Services
Large loads would pay for ancillary services based on peak demand, without netting for energy supplied by co-located generation.
Transition Plan
A transition plan would address the treatment of large load interconnections that are already being studied for interconnection. The ANOPR seeks comments on appropriate transition plans for interconnections already being studied.
Compliance
All applicable NERC reliability standards and tariff requirements would be complied with.
The ANOPR is intended to provide a path forward to address the urgent electric power needs of large loads. Nevertheless, the rulemaking is going to be controversial. As DOE acknowledges, FERC has never before exercised authority over the interconnection of retail loads. Such a move will likely be viewed by some as an unacceptable encroachment on states’ historic authority.
The ANOPR provides several justifications for exercising jurisdiction over these interconnections. First, large load connections are a critical component of open access transmission service that require minimum terms and conditions to ensure nondiscriminatory transmission service. Second, large load interconnections are directly affecting FERC-jurisdictional wholesale electricity rates. Third, states’ authority to regulate retail electricity sales and site data centers is undisturbed. Lastly, according to DOE, any contrary view would conflict with the Federal Power Act’s core purposes.
Comments on the ANOPR are due by 14 November 2025, and reply comments are due by 28 November 2025.2
Ready to help
The firm’s Power practice group is closely monitoring these developments and stands ready to assist clients in navigating evolving laws, regulations, and policies governing interconnection of data centers, industrial facilities, and large loads.
1Secretary of Energy’s Direction that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Initiate Rulemaking Procedures and Proposal Regarding the Interconnection of Large Loads Pursuant to the Secretary’s Authority Under Section 403 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Oct. 23, 2025), https://www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-acts-unleash-american-industry-and-innovation-newly-proposed-rules.
2 Interconnection of Large Loads to the Interstate Transmission System, Docket No. RM26-4-00, Notice Inviting Comments (Oct. 27, 2025), https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20251027-3056.
Not Only Tariffs on Trucks – Trump Administration’s Proclamation Amends the Tariff Landscape on Automobiles, Steel, and Aluminum
On October 17, 2025, the Trump Administration released a significant proclamation imposing new Section 232 duties on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (MHDVs) (such as trucks); MHDV parts; and buses. These changes further expand tariff coverage over sectors critical to U.S. industrial capacity and national security, and bring a few new complexities to both importers and domestic manufacturers.
A fact sheet regarding the tariffs can be found here.
The tariffs take effect starting on November 1, 2025.
1. Tariff Rates and Scope
The new proclamation covers MHDVs (which include Class 3 to Class 8 vehicles such as large pickup trucks and box trucks), along with key parts like engines, transmissions, and tires as designated in Annex I. Covered items will be subject to a 25 percent tariff as of November 1. Additionally, buses and similar vehicles, including school and transit buses and motor coaches, classified under HTSUS 8702, are subject to a 10 percent tariff.
These tariffs do not apply to MHDVs and buses that were manufactured 25 years before entry into the United States.
Importantly, domestic stakeholders will be able to request additional MHDV parts to be within the scope of these tariffs. This is the same kind of process we have seen for earlier Section 232 cases, enabling U.S. producers an opportunity to request expansion of the scope of the tariffs.
2. United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Treatment
Similar to the Section 232 automobile proclamation, importers of qualifying USMCA MHDVs (except buses under 8702) may submit documentation detailing the proportion of U.S. content in each model. In such cases, the 25 percent tariff would then apply solely to the non-U.S. portion of the vehicle’s value.
MHDV knock-down kits or similar parts collections always face the full additional tariff, regardless of USMCA qualification.
MHDV parts that qualify under USMCA will also not be subject to the 25% tariff until CBP establishes a process for calculating non-U.S. content and publishes a notice to that effect.
3. Import Adjustment Offset for U.S. Assembly
Manufacturers that complete the final assembly of MHDVs in the United States are eligible for an import adjustment offset. This offset allows them to reduce any Section 232 tariffs owed on imported MHDV parts. The offset amount can be as much as 3.75% of the total value of MHDVs assembled domestically, providing an opportunity to lower overall tariff liability for qualifying manufacturers.
This offset program will run from November 1, 2025 through October 31, 2030.
The same offset structure also applies to MHDV engine manufacturers. Additionally, the program aligns with and extends the automobile offset provisions under Proclamation 10925; automobile manufacturers affected by that proclamation can now offset a portion of tariffs on automobile parts, up to 3.75% of the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of vehicles they assemble in the United States, through 2030.
It is important to note that neither MHDV nor automobile knock-down kits, or similar parts compilations, are eligible for these offset programs. Furthermore, the Department of Commerce retains the authority to revoke the import adjustment offset for specific products if it determines that the program conflicts with national security objectives.
4. Tariff Stacking Rules
Products covered by this proclamation follow established stacking practices for automobiles and auto parts. If a product is subject to Section 232 auto or auto parts tariffs, or the new MHDV and truck parts tariffs, it is not simultaneously subject to other Section 232 tariffs, nor to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) reciprocal tariffs, or the IEEPA tariffs concerning Canada, Mexico, Brazil, or India. However, the IEEPA fentanyl tariff on China will still apply.
Importantly, even where a tariff is not owed—whether due to USMCA origin compliance, offset adjustments, or reductions through security or trade agreements—the product remains “subject to” the proclamation, and thus excluded from additional tariffs.
Of course, that means we now have two definitions of subject to! As our readers may recall under the tariff stacking rules, “subject to” also means that a duty more than 0% is owed under the tariff action. See CSMS # 65236574 (Jun. 3, 2025).
5. Reduced Aluminum and Steel Tariffs for USMCA-Qualifying Suppliers
Notably, the proclamation also provides up to a 25 percent reduction in steel and aluminum tariffs for aluminum or steel producers that operate production facilities in Canada or Mexico and supply United States automobile or MHDV manufacturers. However, this reduction will only be limited to quantities of aluminum or steel that support new U.S. production capacity. Further, only imports that qualify for preferential treatment under the USMCA, and that were actually smelted and cast or melted and poured in Canada or Mexico, can benefit from this lower tariff.
But the addition of this tariff reduction indicates that the Trump Administration is attempting to create a domestic ecosystem in the steel, aluminum, automobile, and MHDV industry sectors.
6. Chapter 98 HTS Exception
As with previous Section 232 proclamations, goods that are claimed under certain provisions in Chapter 98 of the HTSUS may be exempt from the MHDV/MHDV parts tariff. However, for entries under HTS 9802.00.60, the Section 232 duties must be calculated on the full value of the imported item.
New FAR Thresholds Broaden the Coverage for Streamlined Acquisitions
What Changed and Why? The FAR Council Issues a Rule to Amend FAR Thresholds for Inflation Every Five Years Pursuant to a Statute.
Effective October 1, 2025, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council issued a final rule to amend FAR thresholds applied in federal procurements. By statute, these thresholds are required to be updated for inflation every five years, using the Consumer Price Index. The threshold changes do not apply to the Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute, the Service Contract Labor Standards statute, performance and payment bonds, and trade agreements thresholds.
What Are the Key Changes?
1. Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT): The MPT is the threshold below which government purchases can be made without soliciting competitive bids, simplifying procurement procedures to expedite small transactions.
Standard MPT: Increased from $10,000 → $15,000
Contingency Operations:
U.S.: $20,000 → $25,000
Outside U.S.: $35,000 → $40,000
Impact: Provides agencies with a higher threshold to make fast and small purchases without competition.
2. Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT): The SAT is the monetary limit under which federal agencies can use simplified acquisition procedures to streamline the procurement process, making it easier and faster to acquire goods and services.
Standard SAT: Increased from $250,000 → $350,000
Contingency Operations:
U.S.: $800,000 → $1,000,000
Outside U.S.: $1,500,000 → $2,000,000
Impact: More procurements qualify for streamlined procedures, reducing administrative work and speeding up awards.
3. Cost or Pricing Data Threshold: This is the threshold at which contractors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data to establish fair and reasonable pricing. This type of data is often burdensome to prepare and is accompanied by exposure to defective pricing claims under the Truthful Cost or Pricing Data statute (formerly TINA).
Contracts After July 1, 2018: $2,000,000 → $2,500,000
Contracts Before July 1, 2018: $750,000 → $950,000
Impact: Fewer contracts meet the threshold for certified cost and pricing data, reducing burden and exposure to defective pricing issues.
4. Subcontracting Plan Thresholds: This is the threshold at which federal contractors are required to submit a subcontracting plan, detailing how they will provide opportunities for small businesses to participate in the contract.
Supplies/Services: $750,000 → $900,000
Construction: $1,500,000 → $2,000,000
Impact: Fewer primes will need formal subcontracting plans.
5. 8(a) Competition Limitation Threshold: This is the threshold beneath which federal agencies may issue awards to 8(a) firms on a sole-source basis. Above this threshold, the contract must be competitively awarded among eligible 8(a) participants.
General Ceiling: $25,000,000 → $30,000,000
Manufacturing Ceiling: $7,000,000 → $8,500,000
Impact: Agencies and 8(a) contractors have easier access to sole-source awards.
6. Simplified Procedures: Commercial Products/Services Threshold:
• Ceiling: $7,500,000 → $9,000,000• Impact: Provides a higher threshold for agencies to purchase commercial items using streamlined procedures, making commercial items more accessible and easing the regulatory burden of selling commercial items to the government.
The new FAR thresholds help mitigate the impact of inflation and provide agencies with more ability to use streamlined procedures to make smaller purchases with less regulatory burden. With the current Administration’s recent emphasis on procurement of commercial items, the increased threshold for streamlined commercial acquisitions will be helpful to contactors who are seeking to offer commercial products and services to the government.
The new thresholds will also increase opportunities for small businesses and 8(a) contractors. From FY 2022 to 2024, the government awarded more than, approximately, 560,000 awards valued at or below the MPT of $10,000. With the heightened threshold, the government estimates a nine percent increase in the number of MPT awards. Additionally, from FY 2022 to 2024, the government awarded approximately 235,000 contract actions above the current MPT but at or below the current SAT to more than, approximately, 48,000 different contractors. The government estimates that, with the increased SAT threshold, another 5,150 contract actions (two percent) could be awarded to approximately 3,580 different entities via contracts at or below the SAT.
Zoe Waldman, Intern, contributed to this client alert.
Coordinated & Far-Reaching New Sanctions on Russia Represent Strongest Yet as UK, US, & EU Push to End the War in Ukraine
In August, Bracewell discussed the evolving impact of UK and EU sanctions on corporations in the energy and infrastructure sectors. In a significant escalation, in October, the UK, US and EU changed the landscape again by imposing a new set of more expansive Russia-related sanctions. These sanctions packages represent the strongest measures taken to date by each of the authorities aimed at increasing pressure on Russia to end the war in Ukraine. Below, we set out the key changes made with respect to each of the sanctions regimes, the effects of those changes, and the resultant increased risk of transacting with any players with ties to the Russian energy sector. In short, these measures represent a significant escalation in pressure and a concomitant significant escalation in risk; while the risk is real, it is also manageable with the right steps.
UK Strikes First, Sanctioning Two of Russia’s Largest Oil Companies
On October 15, 2025, the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) issued sanctions against Open Joint Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft) and Lukoil OAO (Lukoil), two of Russia’s largest oil companies. “Russian oil is off the market,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves said of the UK’s measures aimed at stifling Russia’s energy revenues, which include banning imports of oil products refined in third countries from Russian-origin crude oil. OFSI also designated 51 shadow fleet vessels, 35 entities and 5 individuals, with several entities having transport sanctions imposed, including Rosneft and Lukoil. This means that any ship or aircrafts associated with the sanctioned entities or Russia are prohibited from entering a UK port/overflying the UK.
Concurrent with these sanctions, OFSI issued general licenses to allow for a wind down period expiring November 28, 2025, for any transactions involving Rosneft and Lukoil. This includes closing out any positions and any reasonably necessary activity to do so. OFSI have also given exceptions, through a separate license, to two German subsidiaries of Rosneft (currently under German trusteeship), which allow the continuation of business on existing contractual obligations, commencing of new contractual obligations and processing of any necessary payments.
US Joins UK, Targets Lukoil and Rosneft
Executive Order (E.O.) 14024, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,” empowers the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC) to impose sanctions against individuals and entities furthering specified harmful foreign activities of Russia and against certain sectors of the Russian economy. Initially, sanctions were directed at Russia’s technology and defense sectors. In January 2025, OFAC extended these sanctions to any person to operate or have operated in Russia’s energy sector and imposed sanctions on Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas (Russia’s third and fourth largest oil producers and exporters respectively) and their subsidiaries, a network of traders of Russian oil linked to the Russian government and more than 30 Russian oilfield service providers.
On October 22, the Trump administration intensified the sanctions on Russia’s energy sector by naming Rosneft, Lukoil and 34 of their subsidiaries (listed as Annex 1) as Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs). Such designation imposes blocking sanctions on these entities and all entities owned 50 percent or more — whether directly or indirectly — by the SDN. Blocking sanctions immediately freeze the entity’s assets or other property and prohibit all transactions by US persons, within the United States, or involving US dollars that involve any property or interests in property of blocked entities. E.O. 14024 also prohibits so-called facilitation, the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person. Together, the breadth of impacted parties and breadth of conduct captured mean that these blocking sanctions reach far beyond Russia.
The US sanctions represent the first full blocking sanctions against Russia during the second Trump administration and, according to Treasury, are a “result of Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine”
OFAC has also issued four new and amended general licenses :
GL 124A authorizes certain transactions related to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium or Tengizchevroil projects;
GL 126 authorizes transactions that are “ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of any transaction involving” Rosneft, Lukoil, or any entity owned 50 percent or more by Rosneft of Lukoil until November 21, 2025;
GL127 authorizes transactions “that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the divestment or transfer, or the facilitation of the divestment or transfer, of debt or equity issued or guaranteed by [Rosneft, Lukoil, or any entity owned 50 percent or more by Rosneft of Lukoil] to a non-US person” until November 21, 2025;
GL 128 authorizes certain transactions that are “ordinarily incident and necessary to the purchase of goods and services from, or the maintenance, operation, or wind down of Lukoil retail service stations located outside of the Russian Federation” until November 21, 2025, provided that any payment made to a blocked person is made into a blocked account in accordance with the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 587 (RuHSR).
But the long arm of US sanctions enforcement goes beyond these direct sanctions. Even where the transaction does not occur within the United States, does not involve any US person, and does not involve US dollars, any entity that knowingly engages in a “significant transaction” with a blocked entity may be subject to secondary sanctions. As one former senior State Department official put it, “A Chinese bank, a UAE oil trader, an Indian refinery — if any of them transact with those Russian companies, they could be hit with US sanctions.”[1] Such secondary sanctions are meant to influence the behavior of actors that lack a direct nexus to the United States.
EU Adopts 19th Russia Sanctions Package to Hit “Where it Hurts”
The EU’s 18th Sanctions Package, adopted July 2025, included energy-related measures such as an import ban on refined oil products derived from Russian crude, the lowering of the Oil Price Cap, asset freezes and travel bans throughout the shadow fleet value chain and a transaction ban regarding the Nord Stream pipelines. The 18th Package also included financial, trade and anti-circumvention measures, measures targeting Russia’s military capabilities and supply chain, and protective restrictions relating to investor-to-state dispute settlement.
On October 23, 2025, the EU adopted its 19th package of Russia sanctions aimed at the Russian gas and energy sector as well as a number of vessels, Russian banks and Russian-related transactions, services and trade measures (19th Package). The 19th Package targets key sectors: energy, finance, services and military.
Energy-related sanctions include a total ban on imports of liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas as of January 1, 2027, for long-term contracts and April 2026 for short-term contracts, additional vessel listings and sanctions across the shadow fleet value chain, and an extension on the port infrastructure ban.
Transaction sanctions include a full transaction ban on Rosneft and Gazprom Neft, as well as five new banks in Russia and five banks in Central Asia (primarily in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). The 19th package also prohibits A7A5 stablecoin transactions, the first sanction on a cryptocurrency platform.
Services sanctions include bans on Russian access to digital, energy, scientific and technical services. The existing targeted ban on services to the Russian government will also be reinforced and any non-prohibited services to the Russian government will now require prior authorization, ensuring sufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Trade-related sanctions include export restrictions and bans on certain items to include certain metals for weapons constructions, salts and rubber-related articles.
According to the Commissioner for Financial Services and the Savings and Investments Union, the goal of this expansion is to hit Russia with a goal of hitting “where it hurts the most.”
Conclusion
Together, these three enhanced sanctions packages not only demonstrate the extent to which authorities will go to counter Russian aggression and war efforts, but also exponentially increase the risk of doing business or having any dealings with Russia or Russia-connected entities and individuals across a number of sectors. Parties involved, directly or indirectly, with the newly blocked and sanctioned entities must evaluate the risk of sanctions and tighten compliance controls.
Long & Winding Road – New CFTC Chair
Former Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Commissioner Brian Quintenz was nominated to be the CFTC Chair in February 2025. However, his nomination was officially withdrawn on September 30, 2025. Former Commissioner Quintenz’s withdrawal marks the end of a stunning turn of events for the CFTC Chair nominee, who once appeared to be a lock for confirmation. Since Inauguration Day, the CFTC has been led by Acting Chair Caroline Pham, who is not expected to remain, as she has announced plans to leave the CFTC upon the confirmation of her successor. In late October 2025, President Donald Trump chose a top attorney on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s cryptocurrency task force to be the new chair of the CFTC. In an October 25, 2025, post on X, Michael Selig confirmed news reports that he was being nominated to lead the CFTC, saying he wanted to “help the president make the United States the crypto capital of the world.” Selig has been at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission since March, but he is no stranger to the CFTC, having joined the agency in 2014 as a law clerk to then-Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo, who later was chair of the agency during Trump’s first administration.
Navigating Antitrust Deregulation – What Businesses Need to Know about Executive Order 14267
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) announced in September 2025 that they had identified over 125 “anticompetitive regulations” for review as part of their work to advance President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers (“EO 14267”). The September report is an initial report, and the agencies continue to evaluate whether additional regulations should be targeted for repeal. The review period presents an opportunity for companies to identify problematic regulations that impede their ability to compete and to advocate before the agencies. Businesses that have benefited from favorable regulatory schemes should take immediate steps to assess the potential impact of regulatory changes and proactively strengthen their competitive capabilities.
The Trump Administrative Deregulation Effort
EO 14267 directs federal agencies to consult the FTC Chairman and the Attorney General to review regulations that:
(i) create, or facilitate the creation of, de facto or de jure monopolies;
(ii) create unnecessary barriers to entry for new market participants;
(iii) limit competition between competing entities or have the effect of limiting competition between competing entities;
(iv) create or facilitate licensure or accreditation requirements that unduly limit competition;
(v) unnecessarily burden the agency’s procurement processes, thereby limiting companies’ ability to compete for procurements; or
(vi) otherwise impose anti-competitive restraints or distortions on the operation of the free market.
Under EO 14267, federal agencies had until June 18, 2025 to identify such regulations along with a recommendation by the agency head regarding whether to rescind or modify the regulation, along with a justification for regulations that are “anti-competitive by design” if the agency is not proposing rescission or modification.
Regulations for Review
While the list of 125 regulations for review has not yet been made public, the FTC Chairman, Andrew Ferguson, submitted an initial report and recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) highlighting four key proposals, including (1) that the Department of Transportation eliminate regulations that give contracting preferences to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; (2) that the Department of Education revise its regulation allowing colleges and universities to include the cost of textbooks and supplies in tuition covered by financial aid; (3) that the Consumer Product Safety Commission continue to review its proposed rule requiring table saws to use finger detection technology because the rule was proposed by the patent holder for the technology; and (4) that the Department of Agriculture Forest Service modify its handbook establishing requirements for grazing permits to remove barriers to entry for new ranchers. In his letter, Chairman Ferguson also indicated that the FTC intends to supplement its initial report with additional recommendations.
While the regulations identified by FTC Chairman Ferguson are currently under review by the OMB, EO 14267 does not require the OMB Director to do more than consult on the recommendations and determine whether they should be included in the “Unified Regulatory Agenda” established under Executive Order 14219 (“Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Deregulatory Initiative”). All recommendations submitted by the FTC or the DOJ will ultimately be reviewed by the Executive Office and the decision of whether to take action on any of the identified regulations rests with the President, acting through the OMB, the Attorney General, the President for Economic Policy, and the substantive agency responsible for the regulation. This process may be delayed as a result of the Government shutdown as many government employees remain furloughed. Even if the OMB proceeds with the recommendations and they are added to a deregulatory agenda, the changes cannot go immediately into effect as the agencies must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, Congress will want to express its views on efforts to repeal or revise regulations. For example, on September 30, 2025, Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called on OMB to release the full list of laws and rules deemed anticompetitive by the FTC and DOJ asserting that transparency is required during the process.
Other Antitrust Division Initiatives
The Antitrust Division has instituted other initiatives consistent with the goals of EO 14267. In March 2025, the Antitrust Division launched an Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force with the aim of eliminating laws and regulations that it views as anti-free market competition, and with a particular focus on housing, transportation, food and agriculture, healthcare, and energy markets.
During Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) Gail Slater’s first antitrust address as AAG of the Antitrust Division in April 2025, she stated that the values that underpin “America First Antitrust” include “the protection of individual liberty from both government and corporate tyranny” (including the “tyranny of coercive monopoly power”) and “a healthy fear of regulation that saps economic opportunity by stifling rather than promoting competition.” AAG Slater continued that there is a preference for litigation over regulation to “cure market ills.”
Most recently, on September 26, 2025, the Antitrust Division and the Department of Agriculture signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to increase communication and coordination between the agencies on matters relating to feed, equipment, and other products involved in agriculture with the aim of sustaining competitive supply chains and consumer prices.
Industry Impact and Opportunity
Although the full list of regulations under review has not been released, Chairman Ferguson’s letter provides valuable insight: many of the rules targeted for elimination or revision will likely align with both the Trump Administration’s antitrust enforcement goals and larger stated Administration Priorities. In particular, regulations perceived by the Administration as favoring established market incumbents over consumers or new entrants, as well as policies granting preference or set-aside opportunities to certain groups — where such preferences conflict with the Administration’s stated commitment to ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs – may be prioritized in the review.
It is also likely that the targeted regulations will affect a broad range of industries. Areas that may receive particular scrutiny include housing, transportation, food and agriculture, healthcare, energy, and government procurement programs — consistent with the priorities identified by the Antitrust Division’s Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force and other announced initiatives.
Chairman Ferguson described his September report to OMB as an “initial response” subject to ongoing deliberation and refinement. Both the FTC and the DOJ are continuing to work with federal agencies to identify anticompetitive regulations and plan to issue a supplemental report with additional recommendations for modifying or eliminating such rules in the future. This process creates a valuable, ongoing opportunity for companies to identify problematic regulations that they believe harm competition or create unnecessary barriers to market entry. The FTC and the DOJ have indicated they remain receptive to input from market participants during this deregulatory review. In particular, businesses that believe certain regulatory frameworks limit their abilities to compete can use this window to advocate for change—either directly to the agencies during the review phase or later through the formal notice-and-comment process required for any federal regulatory amendments. By engaging early and providing clear, competitive-impact perspectives, businesses can position themselves to help shape future regulatory landscapes in ways that foster fair competition and reduce unnecessary burdens.
Throughout the process, companies must remain in full compliance with all existing regulations, even those identified for possible elimination. Placement on the “review list” may signal a shift in priorities, but it does not remove legal obligations. Until formally repealed, regulations remain enforceable and noncompliance during this interim period can still result in costly enforcement actions, steep penalties, and reputational risk.
At the same time, businesses benefiting from preferential treatment under DEI initiatives or “set-aside” programs should begin preparing for potential policy changes. Similarly, businesses currently enjoying favored status as incumbents should anticipate that the removal of certain barriers may open the market to new competitors. Acting now to assess potential impacts will help companies adapt to evolving market dynamics and leverage upcoming opportunities.
Inside the Exclusive- Restrictive Covenants Under the Microscope—Trends and Insights [Podcast]
In this podcast recorded at our recent Corporate Labor and Employment Counsel Exclusive® seminar, Christine Bestor Townsend (shareholder, Milwaukee/Chicago) and Tobias Schlueter (shareholder, Chicago), explore the dynamic landscape of restrictive covenants, offer updates on recent developments, and emphasize the need for employers to adopt thoughtful, tailored approaches to ensure enforceability, Tobias and Christine, who is co-chair of the firm’s Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group, offer an overview of the evolving focus of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), discuss current federal agency focus on restrictive covenant agreements, state developments, and reflect on trends in the area, including restrictions on the use of non-competes for healthcare workers and low-wage earners.