When States Step In: PFAS Policy Innovation or Fragmentation?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remain a top concern for regulators and the public alike. While federal regulators continue to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive response, including through the PFAS Strategic Roadmap, states are increasingly positioning themselves as policy innovators in this space. The recent announcement that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue additional guidance and extend the compliance deadline for the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule underscores a broader dynamic: in the absence of fast-moving federal action that states perceive as comprehensive, states are setting the pace, even if their approaches do not always (or ever) mirror the federal approach to regulation and risk mitigation.
Federal Rulemaking Slows, States Surge Ahead
EPA issued in final the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule in October 2023 to obtain historical data on PFAS manufactured or imported since 2011. Following significant stakeholder pushback over the reporting burden and the scope of the information required, EPA announced on May 13, 2025, that it extended by direct interim final rule the reporting deadline to October 2026 (longer for small business). EPA also signaled its receptivity to revisiting the contours of the core reporting rule — music to many corporate ears.
While this federal delay, and retreat in other PFAS areas, is recent, states have not waited for federal action. Over the past few years, several states have increasingly framed PFAS regulation as a space for environmental leadership, and their regulatory approaches diverge significantly from federal approaches to PFAS regulation.
PFAS Trendsetting: State-by-State
States have introduced wide-ranging PFAS policies aimed at consumer products, environmental media, and public health surveillance. Notably, many of these state efforts include categorical bans and reporting obligations that would be difficult to implement under TSCA without extensive TSCA rulemaking.
Maine’s landmark PFAS in Products Program, An Act To Stop Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution, enacted in 2021 and most recently amended in 2024, first prohibits intentionally added PFAS in certain consumer products before setting an ambitious timeline to eliminate most uses by 2032, while also allowing industry to submit currently unavoidable use (CUU) proposals. The 2021 statute required manufacturers to report the presence of intentionally added PFAS, but after several postponements, the legislature amended the statute so that only products with CUU determinations will be required to report. While implementation has faced logistical hurdles, the law positions Maine as a national trendsetter.
California continues to expand its PFAS regulatory portfolio through targeted legislation. Recent laws prohibit PFAS in juvenile products, food packaging, textile articles (including apparel, bedding, handbags, and upholstery), and menstrual products, while adding numerous PFAS chemicals to the Proposition 65 list. This piecemeal approach prompted Governor Gavin Newsom (D) to veto three bills in 2023 that separately addressed PFAS.
Colorado’s HB22-1345, passed in 2022, phases out PFAS in products such as carpets, cosmetics, and firefighting foam, and includes a labeling requirement for cookware that contains intentionally added PFAS. The labeling requirement took effect January 1, 2024, yet the same month that the labeling requirement took effect, SB24-081 was introduced. Enacted on May 1, 2024, the bill repeals the labeling requirement for cookware effective January 1, 2026, when cookware containing intentionally added PFAS is banned, as well as certain other consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS. This legislative one-two for cookware reinforces the idea that while consumer product restrictions are a primary policy tool for many states, the states may not have a long-term view in mind.
Minnesota passed Amara’s Law in 2023, and it was modeled after Maine’s 2021 statute — intentionally added PFAS were banned in certain consumer products on January 1, 2025; reporting on intentionally added PFAS will be required on or before January 1, 2026; and effective January 1, 2032, intentionally added PFAS will be banned in all products that are not exempt and do not have a CUU determination.
Connecticut and Vermont both enacted laws in 2024, with Vermont’s law (S25) restricting certain chemicals, including PFAS, in cosmetic and menstrual products and Connecticut’s statute (S.B. No. 292) banning intentionally added PFAS in certain consumer products and mandating disclosure and reporting.
New Mexico’s HB 212, the most recently enacted statute, is similar to Minnesota’s in that it will phase out certain consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS, require reporting, and ultimately ban products containing intentionally added PFAS that are not exempt or that do not have a CUU determination. New Mexico is unique among enacted legislation to date in that it distinguishes fluoropolymers. Products that contain only intentionally added fluoropolymers are exempt from both the reporting requirements and prohibition.
Leadership or Fragmentation?
While many states are eager to demonstrate environmental leadership, the result for industry is a fragmented landscape. State definitions of intentionally added PFAS vary, as do timelines, disclosure requirements, and enforcement approaches. Moreover, some states are advancing policies that would be difficult to replicate under federal law without significant evidentiary support or economic impact analysis — processes TSCA requires but state legislatures often bypass.
For companies operating across jurisdictions, this growing divergence raises compliance challenges and highlights the need to monitor both federal and state developments, along with a growing number of international measures. Safer States maintains a table of PFAS bans in key sectors with implementation dates.
Looking Ahead
EPA’s decision to extend the reporting window under TSCA Section 8(a)(7) may not have triggered state action, but it reinforces a pattern that has been building for years: states are not waiting for federal consensus before moving forward on PFAS. Whether these policies ultimately converge or further diverge remains to be seen, but what is clear is that PFAS compliance is increasingly being shaped by state leadership — and companies will need to navigate that evolving terrain carefully.
Employer Compliance with Illinois E-Verify Law Still Necessary Despite DOJ Lawsuit
Takeaways
The DOJ suit against Illinois to block a new state law argues that Illinois is intruding on federal immigration authority.
Illinois’ law requires E-Verify employers to post state notices and give employees advance notice of any Form I-9 inspections, among other obligations not required under federal law.
A similar California law (AB 450) was upheld, which suggests Illinois’ employee-notice requirements might survive the DOJ’s challenge.
In its complaint in United States v. State of Illinois, No. 1:25-cv-04811, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that Illinois’ new E-Verify amendment (SB 508) “encroaches on federal immigration authority” by layering state rules on the employment verification process.
SB 508 amended the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act effective Jan. 1, 2025, imposing new obligations on any employer enrolled in E-Verify. Illinois now mandates employee notifications that go beyond federal requirements. For example, employers must display both federal and state E-Verify notices at their workplace and provide written notice to all employees within 72 hours whenever the employer receives notice of a government inspection of I-9 employment eligibility forms. Illinois also requires training for staff who use E-Verify and formal attestations of compliance to the state. Failure to meet these state requirements can trigger state civil fines.
DOJ’s Legal Challenge
The DOJ contends that Illinois is stepping into the federal government’s territory of immigration enforcement. In a press release, officials argue that SB 508 “discourages and complicates the use of E-Verify” by imposing confusing rules and threatening hefty penalties on employers. The complaint asserts that the Illinois law violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and conflicts with the Immigration Reform and Control Act’s federal scheme for employment verification. DOJ officials caution that Illinois’ advance notice requirements (like alerting employees of government I-9 audits) could undermine federal immigration enforcement, for instance, by giving unauthorized workers warning that they may be losing their positions. Illinois’ law even prescribes the time, place, and manner of employee notifications, which DOJ argues goes beyond what federal law permits.
Comparison to California’s AB 450
California enacted a similar law in 2018. It required employers to notify employees in advance of any I-9 inspections and to share inspection results with affected workers, among other things. DOJ sued California, claiming interference with federal authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2019 that California’s employee-notice provisions were not preempted by federal law and did not improperly hinder federal immigration enforcement. This suggests that courts allow states some leeway to impose notification and poster rules on employers if those rules don’t directly conflict with federal employer obligations. Illinois’ requirements (including posting a state-prescribed E-Verify notice and giving 72-hour audit notices) resemble California’s and could withstand a preemption challenge.
What Employers Should Know
The DOJ’s lawsuit is in the early stages and does not relieve Illinois employers’ obligations to comply with SB 508. Employers must post the required “Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act” E-Verify notice (available from the Illinois Department of Labor) in your workplace, ensure E-Verify users are trained, and be prepared to promptly notify employees of any government I-9 inspections or E-Verify discrepancies as the Illinois law directs. HR departments should keep a close eye on the DOJ lawsuit.
Payroll Brass Tax: Understanding PTO Donation Programs—A Guide for Employers [Podcast]
Ogletree Deakins’ new podcast series, Payroll Brass Tax, offers insights into frequently asked questions about employment and payroll tax. In the inaugural episode, Mike Mahoney (shareholder, Morristown/New York) and Stephen Kenney (associate, Dallas) discuss paid time off (PTO) donation programs, which allow employees to support each other during challenging times, such as natural disasters or prolonged illnesses. Stephen and Mike explain the three types of PTO donation programs—general, medical emergency, and natural disaster—and highlight the tax implications and administrative considerations associated with each type. The speakers emphasize the importance of carefully structuring PTO donation programs to avoid potential tax issues, particularly those related to the assignment of income doctrine, which provides that income is taxed to the individual who earns it, even if the right to that income is transferred to someone else.
DOJ Alert: New White-Collar Priorities and Stronger Incentives to Self-Report
DOJ sets out new enforcement priorities for corporate and white-collar crime and emphasizes “focus, fairness and efficiency.”
This week, Matthew R. Galeotti, Head of the Criminal Division at the US Department of Justice, issued a memorandum outlining the Department’s renewed enforcement priorities and updating policies regarding the prosecution of corporate and white-collar crime. In this memorandum, Galeotti emphasized a commitment to addressing “the most urgent criminal threats to the country,” and promoting equality and efficiency throughout the Department. The DOJ will concentrate its efforts and resources on both longstanding areas of focus and new areas identified in the current administration’s “America First Priorities,” memorandum, including:
Material Support by Corporations to Cartels, Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) and Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs): As Bracewell previously reported, the DOJ is intensifying its scrutiny of companies that provide material support or resources to designated FTOs or facilitating the criminal operations of cartels and TCOs through bribery. On his first day in office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders addressing this issue. Accordingly, businesses operating in high-risk regions such as in parts of Mexico and other areas in Central and South America — as well as the Middle East — are encouraged to adopt robust internal controls and compliance protocols to mitigate investigation and enforcement risk.
Waste, Fraud and Abuse (Health Care Fraud and Federal Program and Procurement Fraud): The DOJ will continue its efforts to hold accountable individuals and corporations that defraud vital government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and defense-related initiatives, thereby resulting in harm to the public fisc.
Trade and Customs Fraud, Including Tariff and Sanctions Evasion: The DOJ will focus its resources on combatting these forms of fraud, as they threaten the US economy, American competitiveness and national security.
Fraud Perpetuated Through Variable Interest Entities (VIEs): The America First Investment Policy highlights the importance of investor protection against fraudulent practices tied to certain foreign adversary companies listed on US exchanges. The DOJ will focus its efforts on VIEs — which are typically “Chinese-affiliated” companies listed on US exchanges — that facilitate fraud in the US markets via schemes such as “ramp and dumps,” elder fraud, securities fraud and other forms of market manipulation.
Fraud that Victimizes US Investors, Individuals and Markets: This includes, but is not limited to, Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, elder fraud, servicemember fraud and fraud that threatens the health and safety of consumers.
Conduct that Threatens US National Security: This includes, but is not limited to, threats to the US financial system by gatekeepers, such as financial institutions and their insiders that commit sanctions violations or enable transactions by cartels, TCOs, hostile nation-states and/or foreign terrorist organizations.
Complex Money Laundering: The DOJ will focus on Chinese money laundering organizations and other organizations involved in laundering funds used in the manufacturing of illegal drugs.
Violations of the Controlled Substances Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA): This includes the unlawful manufacture and distribution of chemicals and equipment used to create counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and the unlawful distribution of opioids by medical professionals and companies.
Bribery and Associated Money Laundering Impacting U.S. National Interests: The DOJ recognizes that bribery and money laundering undermine US national security, harm the competitiveness of US businesses and enrich foreign corrupt officials.
Crimes Involving Digital Assets: As provided by the Digital Assets DAG Memorandum, the DOJ will focus on crimes (1) involving digital assets that victimize investors and consumers; (2) that use digital assets in furtherance of criminal conduct; and (3) willful violations that facilitate significant criminal activity. Notably, cases involving cartels, TCOs, or terrorist groups, or that facilitate drug money laundering or sanctions evasion will receive the highest priority.
Related Policy Updates
To address these areas of focus, Galeotti announced that the Department would undergo various policy updates, as summarized below:
Incentives for Corporate Self-Reporting: Acknowledging that not all corporate misconduct warrants prosecution, the DOJ is encouraging companies to self-report violations. In emphasizing its dedication to equality and fairness, the Department has revised the Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP) to now offer clearer benefits — such as potential declinations and fine reductions — for companies that demonstrate transparency, cooperation and a genuine commitment to remediation. In a recent speech, Galeotti stated that companies will have a “clear path to declination” from criminal charges if they “voluntarily self-disclose to the Criminal Division, fully cooperate, timely and appropriately remediate, and have no aggravating circumstances” and that “[c]ompanies that are ready to take responsibility should not be overburdened by enforcement.” Even where a company does not qualify for declination, resolutions resulting in non-prosecution agreements, deferred prosecution agreements or reduced penalties be available. Prosecutors are encouraged to conduct case-by-case assessments of the facts while prioritizing transparency and fairness in their determinations.
Streamlined Corporate Investigations: To promote efficiency in addressing complex, cross-border white-collar investigations, the Department will collaborate closely with relevant authorities to expedite investigations and make timely charging decisions. In fact, the central theme of Galeotti’s memorandum is the emphasis the Department will now place on “three core tenets: (1) focus; (2) fairness; and (3) efficiency.”
Enhanced Whistleblower Protections: Galeotti also directed updates to the Criminal Division’s Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program to reflect the DOJ’s current enforcement priorities. In addition to existing categories of eligibility, new eligible “Subject Areas” for whistleblower tips that lead to forfeiture will now include:
Corporate violations related to international cartels or TCOs (e.g., money laundering, narcotics, Controlled Substances Act infractions);
Corporate breaches of federal immigration law;
Material support of terrorism;
Corporate sanctions violations;
Trade, tariff and customs fraud; and
Corporate procurement fraud.
Narrowly Tailored Use of Monitorships: Through this memorandum, the DOJ has emphasized that independent compliance monitorships should only be imposed when a company is unlikely to implement an effective compliance program or otherwise address the root causes of misconduct. When monitorships are deemed necessary, they must be narrowly tailored to meet essential objectives while minimizing cost, burden and disruption to legitimate business operations — further exemplifying how the Department’s three core tenets will be practically applied. In support of this principle, Galeotti announced a new monitor selection memorandum that outlines the key factors prosecutors should consider when evaluating the appropriateness of a monitorship and emphasizes the importance of tailoring the monitor’s scope to the specific risks of future criminal conduct, thereby avoiding unnecessary expenses. The Department has also initiated a case-by-case review of all existing monitorships to assess their continued necessity.
Key Takeaways
To what extent these new focus areas and priorities will truly shift the DOJ’s operations remains to be seen. However, in light of the announcement, companies should consider the following measures:
Conduct an updated risk assessment and create or revise internal controls and policies to address specific risks that align with DOJ’s stated enforcement priorities.
Conduct an audit of the company’s compliance program to test and evaluate its effectiveness in preventing and detecting wrongdoing and make necessary policy and internal control changes to addresses any material weaknesses.
Review and update policies and processes around internal complaints. Ensuring that stakeholders are encouraged to raise complaints internally so that the company can review, investigate and can self-report if needed is more important than ever.
Assess and review internal investigation procedures to ensure efficient and thorough internal investigations to capitalize on self-disclosure benefits.
Galeotti’s full memorandum can be reviewed here.
Proposed New Legislation to Significantly Impact the Dynamics of First-Party Insurance Disputes in Florida
In December 2022, the Florida Legislature held a special session to stabilize Florida’s struggling insurance market. The outcome was Senate Bill 2A, comprehensive legislation that, in part, repealed Florida’s long-standing one-way attorney fee provision in first-party property damage coverage disputes, which had provided policyholders the right to attorney fees if they secured any amount in a lawsuit against their insurers. The elimination of one-way attorney fee awards, and the return to the American rule that parties pay their own legal fees, significantly reduced frivolous suits and predatory litigation in the property insurance context, but also served to deter, and sometimes impede, non-frivolous suits by policyholders, because (i) policyholders were unable to pay attorney fees out-of-pocket, (ii) contingency-fee agreements left policyholders without enough money to complete repairs to property, and (iii) policyholders and attorneys were disincentivized from prosecuting small-value claims. The result was potential inequities in pursuing legitimate claims arising from property damage coverage disputes.
Florida now appears poised to realign the playing field through the enactment of Florida House Bill 1551 (HB 1551) and Florida Senate Bill 426 (SB 426), which were filed in February 2025.
HB 1551 mandates, through the creation of sections 627.4275 and 626.9375 of the Florida Statutes, that courts award attorney fees to prevailing parties in first-party insurance disputes against surplus lines and other property insurers; it provides that an insured is the “prevailing party” upon obtaining a judgment greater than the highest written, good faith settlement offer previously made by the insurer, and that an insurer is the “prevailing party” when the insured does not obtain a judgment greater than the highest written, good faith settlement offer previously made by the insurer. HB 1551 provides that an offer made by an insurer must be left open for at least five (5) business days to qualify as a “good faith” offer. The bill defines “judgment” to include any reasonable attorney fees, taxable costs, and prejudgment interest incurred by an insured when the highest written, good faith settlement offer previously tendered by an insurer was made. The definitions of “prevailing party,” as it relates to an insured, and “judgment” incorporated into HB 1551 generally mirror the definitions of those terms the Florida courts used to apply when interpreting the now-repealed one-way attorney fee statute.
Importantly, HB 1551 provides that Florida’s offer of judgment statute does not apply where prevailing party attorney fees are awardable. In practical terms, this will make the two-way, prevailing party attorney fee statutes (ss. 627.4275, 626.9375) the sole mechanism by which attorney fees may be awarded in first-party insurance coverage disputes (absent the award of attorney fees as a sanction under s. 57.105, F.S., or a controlling contract provision).
SB 426 is the companion to HB 1551. It requires courts to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing parties in declaratory relief actions to determine insurance coverage after an insurer has “denied coverage or reserved its right to deny coverage in the future.” SB 426 specifies that awardable fees are “limited to those incurred in the claim for declaratory relief to determine coverage of insurance.”
Both HB 1551 and SB 426 specify that changes made by the bills will apply only to policies issued on or after their effective date(s) and may not be construed to impair or limit any right under an insurance policy or contract issued before the bills’ effective date(s).
These legislative proposals aim to promote fairness, reduce unnecessary lawsuits, and address the perspective that the previous 2022 reforms left consumers vulnerable to insurers. HB 1551 and SB 426 would establish a “loser pays” system, where the losing party is responsible for the prevailing party’s attorney fees.
If the legislative proposals pass, courts will need to interpret the intent of the legislation to ensure its application promotes fairness in insurance disputes and establish clear guidelines for the determination of the “prevailing party” and the calculation of reasonable attorney fees.
On March 20, 2025, HB 1551 was heard by the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee of the House and received favorable reporting. SB 426 is currently awaiting action before the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee. Florida’s legal community anticipates their enactment in the coming months.
Some insurers have expressed strong concerns about the proposed legislation, fearing it may reverse recent reforms aimed at stabilizing Florida’s insurance market. The 2022 legislation, which the new legislation seeks to amend, was credited with attracting new insurers to Florida and slowing premium increases. Opponents to the proposed new legislation argue that reinstating a “loser pays” system could lead to increased litigation and higher costs for insurers, again potentially destabilizing Florida’s property insurance market.
Overall, the proposed new legislation should incentivize insurers to expediently and fairly resolve insurance disputes, and incentivize insureds to accept fair settlement offers tendered by their insurers. The proposed new legislation will likely increase Florida’s first-party property damage coverage litigation. However, the volume of new lawsuits is not likely to approach the volume of suits seen prior to Florida’s 2022 repeal of one-way fee-shifting, and the proposed new legislation may result in an increase in insurance premiums.
Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Repeal Earned Paid Sick Time Law
On May 14, 2025, the Missouri General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 567, which would repeal the Missouri paid sick time statute and eliminate Missouri employers’ obligation to provide earned paid sick time to all Missouri employees.
Quick Hits
The Missouri paid sick time statute requires Missouri employers to provide earned paid sick time, starting May 1, 2025.
On May 14, 2025, the Missouri General Assembly passed HB-567, which would repeal the paid sick time statute. If signed by the governor, the law will be repealed effective August 28, 2025.
Proposition A, which Missouri voters passed via a ballot measure on November 5, 2024, includes a provision that raises the state’s minimum wage as of January 1, 2025, and requires employers to begin providing earned paid sick time (PST) on May 1, 2025. In addition to repealing the state paid sick time law, HB-567 would amend the minimum wage statute.
The Missouri Paid Sick Time Law
Under the current paid sick time law, most Missouri employers must provide earned paid sick time to employees working in Missouri starting May 1, 2025. The law exempts employers that are federal, state, or local governments or political subdivisions of the state. The statute also excludes some categories of workers, such as volunteers, camp counselors, babysitters, golf caddies, some rail carrier employees, and retail employees of businesses with annual gross volume sales of less than $500,000. The law does not apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that was in effect on November 5, 2024, until the CBA is amended, extended, or renewed.
The current PST law allows Missouri employees to:
earn one hour of earned paid sick time for every thirty hours worked;
use PST for an employee’s own illness or medical reasons, illness/medical reasons of an immediate family member, closure of the employer’s business or the employee’s child’s school, and absences due to sexual assault or domestic violence;
use PST in increments of one hour;
use up to fifty-six hours of PST for covered reasons;
carry over up to eighty hours of unused PST at year-end; and
use PST without discipline or retaliation for covered use.
Repealing the Missouri PST Statute
HB-567 passed without an emergency clause because the emergency clause was defeated in the Missouri House of Representatives when it did not receive the requisite two-thirds approval before moving to the Senate. The emergency clause would have allowed the repeal to become effective immediately upon signature by the governor. The bill would take effect on August 28, 2025.
If the bill is signed into law, there will be a seventeen-week period from May 1, 2025, to August 28, 2025, during which Missouri employers must comply with the current PST law. Many employers may want to implement a temporary policy to cover the period when the PST law is still in effect. For employers that have a paid-time-off (PTO) policy that meets all the requirements of the statute, no additional PTO policy is necessary.
Key Takeaways
Missouri employers must provide earned paid sick time to eligible Missouri employees while the law is in effect. If the governor signs HB-567, employers may want to implement a short-term policy to provide the required PST benefits from May 1, 2025, to August 28, 2025. Additionally, employers may want to consider how to use an existing PTO policy for short-term compliance and address what will happen to earned PST upon repeal of the law.
Mississippi Gaming Commission Meeting Report May 2025
The Mississippi Gaming Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at the Jackson office. Executive Director Jay McDaniel and Chairman Franc Lee, Commissioner Kent Nicaud and Commissioner Jeremy Felder were all in attendance. The following matters were considered:
LICENSING
The Commission approved the issuance of a license to the following:
Sega Sammy Creation USA Inc. as a Manufacturer and Distributor
Coast Gaming Supply, Inc. as a Manufacturer and Distributor
KGM Gaming, LLC as a Manufacturer and Distributor
FINDINGS OF SUITABILITY
The Commission approved findings of suitability for the following persons and entities:
Naoki Kameda – Sega Sammy
Hajime Satomi – Sega Sammy
Haruki Satomi – Sega Sammy
Shuji Utsumi – Sega Sammy
Ayumu Hoshino – Sega Sammy
Hiroshi Ishikura – Sega Sammy
Koichi Fukazawa – Sega Sammy
David Benjamin Sambur – AP X Voyager VoteCo, LLC (Everi Payments, Everi Games, and IGT)
Daniel Cohen – AP X Voyager VoteCo, LLC (Everi Payments, Everi Games, and IGT)
Skrmetta MS, LLC – BTN, LLC d/b/a Boomtown Casino Biloxi
Motozumi Miwa – Glory LTD and Glory Global Solutions, Inc.
OTHER APPROVALS
The Commission approved the following:
Request for Approvals – Sega Sammy
Registration of Sega Sammy Creation Inc. as a Holding Company of Sega Sammy Creation USA Inc.
Registration of Sega Sammy Holdings Inc. as a Publicly Traded Company of Sega Sammy Creation USA Inc.
Waiver of the Stock Restriction Legend Requirement
Continuous Approval of Public Offerings and/or Private Placements
Pledges of Equity Interests or Securities
Imposition of Equity Restrictions including Negative Equity Pledges
Guarantee of Securities and Hypothecation of Assets
Request for Approvals – GAN
Proposed Acquisition of Control of GAN Limited
Approval of the Merger of Arc Bermuda Limited with and into GAN Limited
Registration of each of GAN Limited and Sega Sammy Creation Inc. as a Holding Company of GAN Nevada Inc.
Registration of Sega Sammy Holdings Inc. as a Publicly Traded Corporation of GAN Nevada Inc.
De-Registration of GAN Limited as a Publicly Traded Company of GAN Nevada Inc.
Request for Approvals – Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of Voyager Parent, LLC as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of Voyager Holdco II, LLC as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of Voyager Holdco I Corporation as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of Voyager TopCo, L.P. as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of AP Voyager Holdings, L.P. as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of AP X Voyager Aggregator, L.P. as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Finding of Suitability of AP Voyager Co-Invest, L.P. as a Greater than 5% Owner of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Registration of AP X Voyager VoteCo, LLC as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc., Everi Payments Inc., and IGT
Proposed Acquisition of Control of Everi Holdings Inc.
Approval of the Merger of Voyager Merger Sub, Inc. with and into Everi Holdings Inc.
De-Registration of Everi Holdings Inc. as a Publicly Traded Corporation of Everi Games Inc. and Everi Payments Inc.
Registration of Everi Holdings Inc. as a Holding Company of Everi Games Inc. and Everi Payments Inc.
Transfer of the Equity Interests or Securities of International Game Technology
Registration of Ignite Rotate LLC as a Holding Company of IGT
Transfer of the Equity Interests or Securities of Ignite Rotate LLC
De-Registration of International Game Technology PLC as a Publicly Traded Corporation of IGT
Pledges of Equity Interests or Securities
Imposition of Equity Restrictions including Negative Equity Pledges
Issuance of Options and Restricted Stock Units and Exercise Thereof of Voyager Holdco I Corporation
Review of Hearing Examiner’s Decision regarding player dispute hearing held and decision rendered on April 7, 2025, in Aaron J. Goetsch vs. BTN, LLC d/b/a Boomtown Casino Biloxi; MGC No. 24- 00149 (SD)
The Commission declined to review the decision of the hearing officer.
End of Other Approvals
The State of Employment Law: Eight States Require Final Pay on the Termination Date
It’s time to terminate an employee. Perhaps they were a consistently poor performer, and you have known for months that this day would come. Or perhaps an employee committed gross misconduct today and the need for termination is sudden and unexpected. Either way, are you prepared to pay your terminated employee their final paycheck right away? In eight states, you need to be.
Most states allow employers a reasonable time to pay a terminated employee their final wages. The next regularly-scheduled payday is a common deadline, but even less-patient states tend to give employers at least several days to pay final wages. But California, Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and Nevada all require employers to pay final wages to an employee on the date of their termination.
There are a few caveats to this rule. In Colorado and Hawaii, if an employer’s payroll unit is not operational on the termination date or there is some other circumstance that makes immediate payment impossible, the employer may have until the following business day to pay. In Massachusetts, employers in Boston may wait to pay until payrolls, bills, and accounts are certified. Otherwise, employers in these states need to be prepared to pay final wages on the termination date without exception.
This can put employers in a logistical bind. What do you do, for example, if an employee punches a coworker at 4:55 before you close for the day at 5:00 and your payroll staff is already gone for the day? In situations like this, you may need to wait until the following day to terminate your fighting employee.
Foley Automotive Update- 15 May 2025
Trump Administration and Tariff Policies
The U.S. lowered the base level of duties on most Chinese goods to 30% from 145%, and China cut its levies on many U.S. products to 10% from 125% as part of a 90-day tariff pause scheduled between the nations that is to take effect this week.
A U.S.-UK trade deal announced May 8 would allow imports of 100,000 vehicles annually by UK car manufacturers under a 10% “reciprocal tariff,” with additional vehicles subject to 25% levies. The American Automotive Policy Council expressed disappointment that in certain instances, “it will now be cheaper to import a UK vehicle with very little U.S. content than a USMCA compliant vehicle from Mexico or Canada that is half American parts.”
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection guidance document for the auto parts tariffs that took effect May 3 indicated that US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)-compliant parts have a “0 percent additional ad valorem rate of duty.” The duration of this exemption is unknown.
A pair of executive orders announced on April 29 will ease some of the impact of certain automotive import tariffs. One order will establish a complex system of temporary and partial reimbursements for certain tariffed auto parts, and another order indicates tariffed vehicles and auto parts will not “stack” on other levies, such as the 25% duty on steel and aluminum. One large supplier quoted in Automotive News indicated the orders were a positive step, while an unnamed major supplier stated the tariff revisions were “not cause for celebration” as the industry will still encounter significantly higher operational costs. An analyst from Wedbush described the revised tariffs as a “gut punch” for the auto industry.
May 16, 2025 is the deadline for submitting public comments regarding the Trump administration’s Section 232 investigation into imports of processed critical minerals and their derivative products.
Automotive Key Developments
Automotive News provided updates on suppliers’ concerns regarding the potential for lower production volumes this year as a result of automotive import tariffs, as well as the challenges of assessing USMCA-compliant content in vehicles.
GM estimated the Trump administration’s tariffs could increase its costs by up to $5 billion this year, and potentially reduce 2025 net profit by up to 25% year-over-year. The automaker expects to offset its projected tariff exposure by roughly 30% through spending reductions and shifting more supplies and manufacturing to the U.S. In 2024, GM imported more vehicles into the U.S. than any other automaker.
Japanese automakers could collectively experience a $19 billion impact from U.S. import tariffs, according to analysis from Bloomberg.
Toyota and Honda projected annual net profit declines of 35% and 70%, respectively, for fiscal year ending March 2026, if U.S. automotive import tariffs are maintained. Toyota estimated its tariff impact reached $1.3 billion within just two months, while Honda expects an annual tariff impact of up to $3 billion.
Ford projected a $2.5 billion impact from tariffs in 2025, but noted it plans to offset up to $1 billion of the costs.
Revised analysis from the Anderson Economic Group estimates the Trump administration’s current automotive tariff policies will raise vehicle costs from $2,000 to $15,000.
U.S. new light-vehicle inventory is down by an estimated 24% year-over-year, representing a 61 days’ supply, following robust sales in April.
Kelley Blue Book estimated the U.S. new light-vehicle average transaction price (ATP) rose 2.5% in April 2025 from March. New-vehicle sales incentives fell to 6.7% of ATP last month, down from 7% in March and compared to a pre-pandemic norm of roughly 10%.
The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee included a measure to eliminate consumer tax credits of up to $7,500 for a new EV and $4,000 for a used EV at the end of 2025 in the “Big, Beautiful” tax package introduced on May 12. The initial proposal would extend new EV tax credits until the end of 2026 for automakers that sold less than 200,000 EVs in the U.S. between 2010 and 2025.
California and 16 other states filed a lawsuit over the Trump administration’s suspension of the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The U.S. House on May 1 passed the third of three Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal Clean Air Act waivers issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for California’s vehicle emissions programs. A Senate vote related to the proposals has not yet been scheduled.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell cautioned the U.S. “may be entering a period of more frequent, and potentially more persistent, supply shocks” due to economic and trade policy uncertainty.
OEMs/Suppliers
First-quarter 2025 profitability dropped by 2.3% for Hyundai, 6.6% for GM, nearly 40% for Volkswagen, and over 60% for Ford.
Automakers that include Ford, Volvo, Stellantis and Mercedes recently suspended 2025 financial guidance due to tariff-related uncertainty.
Magna estimated its annual direct tariff costs will reach $250 million for 2025.
Nissan reported a net loss equivalent to $4.55 billion for its fiscal year ended March 31, 2025 due in part to restructuring charges. The automaker intends to cut 15% of its global workforce, and consolidate its global production base to 10 assembly plants from 17.
Ford plans to raise prices by as much as $2,000 on certain Mexico-produced models in response to U.S. import tariffs.
GM plans to eliminate a shift at its Oshawa Assembly plant in Ontario in response to “forecasted demand and the evolving trade environment.”
Aptiv plans to establish two new plants in China in the second half of this year that will produce high-voltage connectors and active safety products.
Stellantis plans to launch a lower-priced version of its U.S.-made Ram pickup truck later this year to boost sales and mitigate tariff exposure. The automaker previously shifted pickup truck production for certain models from Michigan to Mexico.
Market Trends and Regulatory
AlixPartners predicts Chinese brands will account for 30% of the global auto market by 2030, compared with 21% in 2024.
BYD has a goal to achieve 50% of its sales outside of China by 2030.
Congress voted to repeal an Environmental Protection Agency rule on National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants related to rubber tire manufacturing.
According to a Gartner survey of 126 supply chain executives, 47% of respondents were renegotiating contracts with suppliers to mitigate the impact of tariffs.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
Automotive News provided an overview of recent developments in autonomous driving.
Ford plans to cut 350 connected-vehicle software jobs in the U.S. and Canada, and the reductions account for roughly 5% of the total team, according to a report in The Detroit News.
Waymo will partner with Toyota to develop robotaxi technology for personally-owned vehicles. Waymo’s self-driving partnerships include Hyundai and China’s Geely.
Electric Vehicles and Low-Emissions Technology
U.S. EV sales declined by roughly 5% in April, amid a 10% YOY increase in overall new-vehicle sales. Global EV sales in April were up by an estimated 29% YOY, led by a 35% increase in China.
Honda will postpone a planned $11 billion investment in new EV factories in Ontario, Canada due to slowing demand in North America.
GM’s Orion Assembly Plant in Michigan may not operate as a fully electric vehicle factory as originally planned, according to unnamed sources in Crain’s Detroit.
The American and Chinese car markets are likely to diverge further due to differences in supply chain costs and consumer preferences, as well as the nations’ ongoing trade conflicts.
GM suspended a project with Piston Automotive to establish a $55 million hydrogen fuel cell plant in Detroit.
Stellantis delayed production of its first battery-electric Ram pickup truck until 2027.
Hyundai plans to launch a hydrogen production and dispensing facility for heavy-duty trucks in Georgia.
Toronto-based battery recycler Li-cycle is pursuing a sale of its business or assets.
Canadian electric truck and bus maker Lion Electric faces a “very high” likelihood of liquidation after the Quebec government decided not to support a public bailout.
Trump Administration Announces New Executive Order to Promote Domestic Production of Biopharmaceuticals
Key Takeaways
Regulatory Relief for U.S. Manufacturing: The EO streamlines FDA and EPA processes to encourage domestic pharmaceutical production.
Increased Scrutiny of Foreign Facilities: Foreign manufacturers face higher inspection standards and potential tariffs, raising supply chain risks.
Piece of the Puzzle: Manufacturing EO is paired with other executive orders on trade and bilateral trade agreements.
Uncertain Policy Landscape: Shifting regulations and trade policies create both opportunities and challenges for biopharma investment decisions.
On May 5, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) titled “Regulatory Relief to Promote Domestic Production of Critical Medicines.” The order’s goal is to strengthen the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain by streamlining regulatory processes, encouraging domestic manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and their inputs, and intensifying the inspection of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities located outside of the United States.
The May 5 order is the carrot to accompany an expected tariff “stick” on pharmaceutical importations, which President Trump signaled would be forthcoming and appears to have materialized in the form of a just-announced most-favored-nation pharmaceutical pricing executive order. In addition, last month, the Trump Administration initiated a Section 232 investigation of pharmaceutical imports to determine whether imports of pharmaceuticals threaten to impair U.S. national security and therefore should be subject to tariffs or other measures. Taken together, the EO and proposed tariffs will make pharmaceuticals sourced outside the United States more expensive and, perhaps, subject to increased FDA-inspection scrutiny and potential supply disruptions.
The administration’s goal is to accelerate investment in U.S.-based manufacturing and thus onshore some of the manufacturing. This update provides a brief overview of the EO and discusses its potential short- and longer-term implications.
Key Provisions of the EO:
1. Streamlining FDA Regulations:
The EO tasks the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with reviewing and eliminating duplicative or unnecessary regulations that hinder domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing.
The EO directs the FDA to maximize the timeliness and predictability of FDA review with the stated goal of accelerating the development of domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing of “pharmaceutical products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, key starting materials and associated raw materials.”
The EO instructs the FDA to work on expanding programs and guidance to provide early technical advice to domestic facilities before they are operational and to work to ensure domestic inspections “are prompt, efficient, and limited to what is necessary to ensure compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and other Federal law.”
2. Enhancing Inspection of Foreign Manufacturing Facilities:
The EO directs the FDA to “develop and advance improvements to the risk-based inspection regime that ensures routine reviews of overseas manufacturing facilities involved in the supply of United States medicines.” The EO states that the increased inspections should be funded by increased fees on foreign manufacturing facilities.
The EO also directs the FDA to negotiate with countries to increase site inspections and increase the number of unannounced inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities that make pharmaceuticals or inputs to pharmaceuticals.
3. Environmental and Construction Permitting:
The EO instructs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers to review and streamline requirements and guidance documents related to permitting and building domestic manufacturing facilities, including by accelerating siting and permitting approvals.
Implications for Biopharma Leaders and Their Advisors
Go… But Ready and Steady? For leaders and lawyers considering investment in domestic manufacturing capabilities, the EO presents an opportunity, particularly if it offers a smoother, faster and more predictable route from investment to operation for domestic biopharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. However, even if the EO shortens the timeline from investment to commissioning of pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, the timeline for developing and launching manufacturing facilities measures in years, not months. The Trump Administration’s policy framework, the EO and tariffs, have the benefit of quick implementation, but the drawback that they could be modified or undone by a stroke of the pen by this or another administration during the long lead time necessary to permit, build, inspect and commission new manufacturing facilities.
Good News for Biotech Investors Amidst Broader Uncertainty for Biopharmaceutical Investments. As our Polsinelli colleagues have noted, the HHS in general and the FDA in particular have been transformed in the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. The FDA has seen a reduction of approximately 3,500 employees to accompany a significant change in leadership and priorities. While the changes may create some new opportunities, there is a concern that the changes will bring delays in review and approval of new biopharmaceuticals, increase uncertainty and perhaps lead to executive oversight and prioritization that differs markedly from the past for certain types of therapies (e.g., vaccines). Some observers have correlated the policy changes to a decrease in venture-based funding to the biotech industry. This new EO may create incentives towards investment in manufacturing, but biotech companies and investors will be making decisions on manufacturing amidst broader uncertainty about whether new therapies that could be manufactured in new U.S. facilities will be approved on a timely basis.
Potential for Supply Chain Disruptions. The global supply chain for biopharmaceuticals is exceedingly complicated. Particularly for biologic medicines, the drug substance (i.e., Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, or API) for any given drug might be made in a bioreactor in Country A. The drug product (i.e., excipients) might be made at a facility in Country B. Syringes or subcutaneous injection devices might be manufactured in Country C. Filling and finishing the drug into vials, syringes, or subcutaneous injection devices might occur in Country D. Moreover, due to the limited tight supply of manufacturing capacity and the limited shelf life of pharmaceuticals, biotech companies may schedule slots in third-party manufacturing facilities over a year in advance. If, as the EO contemplates, the FDA increases the frequency and intensity of manufacturing facility inspections outside the United States, there is a real chance for supply chain disruptions that could lead to stock-outs of pharmaceuticals. For instance, data from the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) suggests that only 13% of API is manufactured in the U.S., meaning that the U.S. is heavily reliant on ex-U.S. suppliers. For instance, 40% of finished doses are made in the U.S., including from APIs produced outside the U.S. See AAM Testimony on the Generic Global Supply Chain. Biotech executives and their counsel will do well to fortify their supply chains and seek reassurance from manufacturing partners that their foreign facilities are ready for enhanced FDA inspection.
Which Nations Find Favor? As we prepared this update on manufacturing, the Trump Administration announced a most-favored nation executive order on pharmaceutical pricing on May 12, 2025. “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” (MFN EO). The MFN EO authorizes the HHS to communicate price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers within 30 days, to facilitate programs to allow U.S. patients to purchase medications directly from manufacturers, and to expand drug reimportation programs. Industry reactions have been swift, with Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) CEO Stephen J. Ubl stating that “Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers.” It is reasonable to expect that the MFN EO will be subject to litigation.
The MFN EO appears to be another layer in a multi-layered approach to tariffs on pharmaceuticals and biologics. On May 8, the Trump Administration announced a bilateral trade agreement with Great Britain. The ink is barely dry, but the White House’s fact sheet states that the agreement will “create a secure supply chain for pharmaceutical products.” May 8, 2025, White House Fact Sheet. In contrast, tariffs on Chinese imports remain high, and passage of the BIOSECURE Act, a bill pending in Congress, remains possible. The BIOSECURE Act would erect further barriers to biopharmaceuticals manufactured in China. In short, the Trump Administration’s policy on ex-U.S. foreign pharmaceutical manufacturing may become more complicated still, with certain countries granted more favorable tariff treatment and others disfavored or barred entirely.
Future Outlook and Industry Response
This EO intends to promote U.S.-based pharmaceutical manufacturing in the name of improving public health and protecting national security. The policy presents an opportunity for the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry over the medium and long term, but its implementation and effects, particularly amidst other policy changes, are hard to discern today. Change has been a constant in the Trump Administration. In the short term, stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry should closely monitor regulatory developments and assess their supply chains to ensure that they are well-positioned to continuously meet the needs of patients and healthcare providers.
Virginia Will Add to Patchwork of Laws Governing Social Media and Children (For Now?)
Virginia’s governor recently signed into law a bill that amends the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act. As revised, the law will include specific provisions impacting children’s use of social media. Unless contested, the changes will take effect January 1, 2026. Courts have struck down similar laws in other states (see our posts about those in Arkansas, California, and Utah) and thus opposition seems likely here as well. Of note, the social media laws that have been struck down in other states attempted to require parental consent before minors could use social media platforms. This law is different, as it allows account creation without parental consent. Instead, it places restrictions on account use for both minors and social media platforms.
As amended, the Virginia law will require social media companies to use “commercially reasonable” means to determine if a user is under 16. An example given in the law is a neutral age gate. The age verification is similar to those proposed other states’ social media laws. (And it was that requirement that was central to the court’s decision when striking down Arkansas’ law.) Use of social media by under-16s will default to one hour per day, per app. Parents can increase or decrease these time limits. That said, the bill expressly states that there is no obligation for social media companies to give those parents who give their consent “additional or special access” or control over their children’s accounts or data.
The law will limit use of age verification information to only that purpose. An exception is if the social media company is using the information to provide “age-appropriate experiences” – thought the bill does not explain what such experiences entail. Finally of note, even though these provisions may increase costs on companies, the bill specifically prohibits increasing costs or decreasing services for minor accounts.
Putting it Into Practice: We will be monitoring this law to see if the Virginia legislature has success in regulating children’s use of social media. This modification reflects not only a focus on children’s use of social media, but also continued changes to US State “comprehensive” privacy laws.
James O’Reilly contributed to this article
In the Fight Against Noncompete Agreements, Florida Chooses Employers
The Florida Legislature passed the “Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality, and Economic Growth (CHOICE) Act” last month to provide employers two new outlets for protecting confidential information and client relationships from departing employees. Notably, the CHOICE Act does not change or limit Florida’s existing restrictive covenant law but rather expands it to provide a covered garden leave agreement and a covered noncompete agreement. If signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, the law will go into effect on July 1, 2025.
Key Highlights
The act creates a presumption that garden leave agreements and noncompete agreements adhering to its “covered” guidelines are enforceable and do not violate public policy.
The act requires courts to issue a preliminary injunction against employees who seek to violate a “covered” agreement.
To have the injunction dissolved or modified, the “covered” employee must establish either:
The employee will not perform similar work during the covered period or use the confidential information or customer relationships of the covered employer.
The employee will not engage in the same business or activity as the covered employer within the restricted area.
The employer has failed to pay the covered employee the compensation contemplated under the covered agreement and has had a reasonable amount of time to cure the deficiency.
Who Is Covered?
A “covered employee” is defined as an employee or individual who earns or is reasonably expected to earn a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage of either: (1) the county in which the employer has its principal place of business or (2) if the employer’s principal place of business is not in Florida, the county in which the individual resides. However, the law will not apply to healthcare practitioners licensed under Florida law.
A “covered employer” is defined as an entity or individual who employs or engages a covered employee.
What Are the Requirements?
Covered Garden Leave Agreement
A garden leave agreement allows an employer to prevent a departing employee from engaging in other employment provided the employee is still being paid. The period between the employee’s resignation and dissolution from the employer’s payroll is known as the “notice period.” Under the CHOICE Act, a garden leave agreement is enforceable if:
The employee was provided the agreement seven days before the agreement or offer of employment expired and was advised in writing of their right to seek counsel.
The employee acknowledges in writing they will receive confidential information or customer relationships during their employment.
The agreement provides:
The employee cannot be required to provide services to their employer after the first 90 days of the notice period.
The employee may engage in nonwork activities at any time, including during normal business hours, during the remainder of the notice period.
The employee may work for another employer while still employed by the covered employer with the covered employer’s permission.
The employer will pay the employee their regular base salary plus benefits for the duration of the notice period.
The notice period will not extend beyond four years. However, an employer may choose to shorten the notice period at its discretion by providing the employee with 30 days advance written notice.
Covered Noncompete Agreements
Noncompete agreements prohibit an employee from providing services similar to the services provided to their employer for a period of time within a specific geographic region after the end of their employment. Under the CHOICE Act, a noncompete agreement is enforceable if:
The employee was provided the agreement seven days before the agreement or offer of employment expired and was advised in writing of their right to seek counsel.
The employee acknowledges in writing they will receive confidential information or customer relationships during their employment.
The noncompete period does not exceed four years.
The noncompete period is reduced for the duration of any non-working portion of the notice period of any applicable garden leave agreement between the covered employee and covered employer.
What Should Employers Do?
Review existing agreements for compliance with the act and consider revisions.
Remember these agreements may be introduced during the course of employment provided the employee still has seven days to consider signing the agreement before the offer expires.
Listen to this post