Podcasts about simpson thacher

Rebecca Bloom is a former employee benefits and executive compensation attorney who spent more than 25 years helping women navigate cancer, work, insurance, disability coverage, and financial survival. She is the founder and author of When Women Get Sick, a book built from decades inside the legal, workplace, and patient advocacy systems most people only discover after diagnosis.Bloom started in Big Law at Simpson Thacher handling employee benefits and compensation work she originally chose to pay off student loans. Then her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. Suddenly the language she used in corporate law offices became the language of survival at home. Explanation of benefits forms. Coverage disputes. Second opinions. Disability protections. Medical leave. Bills no one could explain.That collision changed the direction of her life.In this episode, Bloom explains how serious illness quietly turns patients into unpaid administrators managing paperwork, logistics, financial risk, and emotional labor while trying to survive treatment. She breaks down how employer based health insurance shapes nearly every aspect of cancer care in America and why women often carry the invisible burden of protecting everyone else from discomfort while they themselves fall apart.The conversation digs into workplace power, the illusion of the healthcare “safety net,” caregiver exhaustion, and the class divide hiding underneath patient empowerment culture. Bloom explains why educated, insured women with resources still struggle to navigate healthcare bureaucracy and what happens to patients without those advantages.This episode explores cancer care, health insurance, employee benefits, patient advocacy, workplace protections, caregiving, and the structural incentives that force sick people to become project managers of their own survival.RELATED LINKSRebecca BloomWhen Women Get SickBay Area Cancer ConnectionsSimpson Thacher & BartlettFEEDBACKLike this episode? Rate and review Out of Patients on your favorite podcast platform. For guest suggestions or sponsorship email podcasts@matthewzachary.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: The Scopes “Monkey Trial” OpensOn July 10, 1925, the trial of John T. Scopes opened in the sweltering courthouse of Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes, a young high school teacher, stood accused of violating the state's Butler Act, which made it a crime to teach human evolution in public schools. The case became one of the most famous trials in American history—less because of what happened to Scopes, who was a willing test defendant recruited by the ACLU, than because of the collision it staged between two national figures and two worldviews.On one side was William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate and champion of the anti-evolution cause, who argued for the prosecution. On the other was Clarence Darrow, the era's most celebrated defense attorney, who took the case to defend academic freedom and the teaching of science. The trial's most dramatic moment came when Darrow called Bryan himself to the stand as an expert on the Bible and cross-examined him mercilessly on its literal interpretation. Scopes was convicted and fined $100—a verdict later overturned on a technicality—so in the narrow legal sense, the anti-evolution side won.But the significance of Scopes lies elsewhere. It was one of the first trials broadcast live on national radio, a spectacle that turned a local misdemeanor into a referendum on faith, science, education, and the reach of the state into the classroom. It sharpened the enduring constitutional questions—about what government may compel or forbid teachers to teach—that would return decades later in cases like Epperson v. Arkansas, which finally struck down anti-evolution laws under the First Amendment. Scopes is a reminder that some trials matter less for their judgments than for the arguments they force a country to have out loud.The Justice Department has sued Maryland, alleging that the state's sanctuary policies unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement. The suit targets Maryland's Community Trust Act, which limits how state and local officials may cooperate with federal immigration authorities—for example, by declining to honor routine detainer requests to hand people over. The government's core theory is preemption: it argues that under the Supremacy Clause, states can't erect policies that interfere with federal immigration law. Maryland and Attorney General Anthony Brown will counter that states have no obligation to affirmatively help enforce federal law—a principle known as anti-commandeering. This is the twenty-first such suit the administration has filed against sanctuary jurisdictions, part of a coordinated campaign, and it teed up the recurring constitutional question of where federal supremacy ends and a state's right to withhold its own resources begins.DOJ sues Maryland, alleges state policies interfere with immigration crackdown | ReutersProposed rule changes would require greater public disclosure when federal grand juries refuse to indict—an unusually pointed reform prompted by a string of rejected charges. Grand juries almost never decline to indict; the old line is that a prosecutor could get one to “indict a ham sandwich.” Yet over the past year, grand juries in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington rejected charges in politically sensitive cases, including a failed effort to indict six sitting members of Congress. In response, the federal court in Chicago adopted a rule filing a redacted version of the foreperson's rejection form on the public docket, and D.C.'s chief judge ordered that the judiciary be notified whenever a grand jury turns the administration down. Because grand jury proceedings are ordinarily secret, “no true bill” outcomes usually vanish without a trace. The significance is transparency: these measures would let the public see how often the government tries to charge people and fails—turning the grand jury's quiet power to say no into something visible.Proposed rules call for DOJ disclosure when grand juries reject indictments | ReutersThe elite law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett is heading into a rare legal-malpractice trial in Florida next week, defending against claims seeking more than $200 million. The case comes from former Patriot National CEO Steven Mariano, who alleges the firm botched its legal work on a corporate stock transaction more than a decade ago; Simpson Thacher denies liability and argues that market forces, not its advice, caused the losses. What makes this notable is simply that it's going to a jury at all. Malpractice claims against top-tier firms are almost always settled quietly or dismissed before trial, because both sides have strong incentives to avoid airing the details of a soured client relationship in open court. A verdict here could ripple outward—shaping how firms handle risk, how professional-liability insurers price transactional work, and how future clients frame malpractice claims against their own lawyers.Simpson Thacher prepares for rare malpractice trial in Florida next week | ReutersAnd finally, President Trump has removed the last sitting members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the bipartisan federal agency that helps states administer elections. All three commissioners were pushed out at once—the two Democratic members fired by email, the Republican member asked by phone to resign—leaving the four-seat commission entirely empty. That vacancy is the whole point: with no commissioners, the EAC cannot take official action, and because replacements require Senate confirmation, the agency could be sidelined for months heading into the midterms. The EAC isn't a powerhouse—it sets voluntary voting-system guidelines and distributes election funding—but it's a piece of the federal election infrastructure, and emptying it entirely is unprecedented. Voter-advocacy groups and Democratic election officials called the move reckless, and it raises the same structural question running through this week's news: how much a president may reshape or disable the machinery that oversees elections in the run-up to a vote.Trump terminates Election Assistance Commission members | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Abraham taught German and European history at Princeton University from 1977 to 1985. After transitioning to law, he clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1989 to 1990 and then worked as an associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York City. In 1991, he joined the faculty at the University of Miami School of Law, becoming a full Professor in 1996 and later Professor Emeritus. He has taught courses in Labor and Employment Law, Property Law, Immigration Law, and Jurisprudence and Political Theory. He has also lectured internationally at institutions such as the University of Tübingen, Deakin University, the Jena Center for 20th Century History, and the University of Ulster.

This Day in Legal History: Bush v. GoreOn December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Bush v. Gore, effectively ending the Florida recount and resolving the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. The per curiam opinion held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for ordering a manual recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment due to inconsistent standards across counties. The Court also ruled that there was not enough time to implement a constitutionally valid recount before the deadline for certifying electors.The decision was one of the most controversial in the Court's history. It was split 5-4 along ideological lines, with the majority—led by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor—arguing that allowing the recount to continue would irreparably harm Bush. The dissent, written by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter, criticized the majority for intervening in a state election process and undermining public confidence in judicial neutrality.The ruling effectively awarded Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush, giving him 271 electoral votes—one more than needed to win the presidency—despite losing the national popular vote to Al Gore. The case remains a flashpoint in debates over judicial activism, the politicization of the courts, and the role of federal courts in state election matters. It also raised enduring questions about election integrity and the limits of judicial power in resolving political disputes.The watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Commerce and Justice Departments, demanding records of legal arrangements between the Trump administration and nine major law firms. The group had submitted eight Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in October seeking details about agreements in which the firms pledged to provide nearly $940 million in pro bono or discounted legal services to the federal government. After receiving inadequate responses, the group took legal action to compel the release of any related contracts, communications, or internal legal analyses.The agreements were announced by Trump earlier in the year on social media, shortly after he issued executive orders targeting law firms for their previous political and diversity-related work. American Oversight is particularly concerned about whether the deals were transparent and whether they might have influenced government policy or enforcement decisions. Several firms—Kirkland & Ellis, Paul Weiss, Simpson Thacher, and Skadden Arps—were reported to have been involved in trade matters or other projects with the administration. None of the firms or the agencies responded to requests for comment.This lawsuit follows a similar legal action by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which alleged in October that related federal record requests had been improperly denied. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers have also asked several of the firms to explain their government work, but the firms declined, citing client confidentiality and discretion in matter selection.Trump administration sued for records of law firm deals | ReutersA federal judge blocked a renewed attempt by immigration authorities to detain Kilmar Abrego, just one day after his court-ordered release from ICE custody in Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had previously ordered Abrego's temporary release, but an immigration judge quickly issued a new directive requiring him to report back to detention by the following morning. In response, Abrego's attorneys filed an emergency request to stop the re-detention, which Xinis granted.In her ruling, Judge Xinis emphasized that judicial decisions must be respected and cannot be reversed hastily without due process. Abrego's case has drawn national attention, serving as a high-profile example of what critics view as the Trump administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics. Originally deported in March to El Salvador under disputed circumstances, Abrego was returned to the U.S. in June to face charges related to human smuggling.Supporters argue his case reflects serious due process violations, while administration officials have maintained he poses a public safety risk. The legal tug-of-war over Abrego's detention has become emblematic of broader legal and political conflicts surrounding immigration enforcement and civil liberties under the Trump administration.Judge blocks new effort to detain Kilmar Abrego | ReutersA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it attempted to terminate a FEMA program designed to help states prepare for natural disasters. U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns sided with a coalition of 20 mostly Democratic-led states, finding that the administration overstepped its authority by trying to cancel the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and redirect its funds elsewhere without congressional approval.The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, had labeled the program wasteful and politically driven when it moved to end it in April. Judge Stearns rejected that rationale, emphasizing that Congress—not the executive branch—has the power to decide how federal funds are spent. He previously issued an order in August blocking FEMA from diverting more than $4 billion in BRIC funding. In this latest decision, he ordered the program reinstated and required FEMA to take immediate steps to undo its termination.Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell praised the ruling, stating it would save lives by preserving funding for critical infrastructure improvements meant to prevent disaster-related harm. The Department of Homeland Security, in contrast, denied that it had ended BRIC and accused the court of siding with a politicized narrative, claiming the program had been misused by the Biden administration.Since its launch, BRIC has approved over $4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 disaster mitigation projects, many located in vulnerable coastal states. The lawsuit, led by states like Washington and Massachusetts, argued that canceling the program delayed or canceled hundreds of vital community projects aimed at reducing disaster risk.Trump administration unlawfully canceled disaster prevention program, US judge rules | ReutersPresident Trump announced an executive order threatening to withhold federal broadband funding from states with AI regulations deemed obstructive to national technological dominance. The order targets state-level laws that the administration argues create a fragmented, burdensome environment for AI innovation, particularly for startups. Trump emphasized the need for a single, centralized regulatory system, positioning the U.S. to compete more aggressively with China in the AI sector.The order authorizes the Commerce Department to review state AI laws and restrict access to the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment fund for non-compliant states. It also criticizes anti-discrimination measures in states like Colorado, claiming such laws inject “ideological bias” into AI development. While the administration supports certain safeguards, such as child protection, it aims to dismantle what it sees as excessive oversight.Critics argue the move undermines state authority and risks public safety. Representative Don Beyer warned the order violates the 10th Amendment and discourages meaningful congressional action. State leaders from both parties have defended their right to regulate AI, citing the federal government's inaction on tech legislation. States like New York, California, and Florida have already enacted laws addressing AI's risks, from data transparency to deepfake bans.Trump threatens funding for states over AI regulations | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Abigail Leahey and her classmates.This week, we are proud to present a performance of singular clarity, youthful ambition, and the product of more than a little bit of dedicated practice: The First Scale March, recorded live on December 10th at a school Winter Concert. Its thematic simplicity belies its pedagogical complexity: it is equal parts warm-up and war cry. The holidays are upon us.The featured artist, Abigail, is one of several violins. She was born in New Jersey in 2014 and has been defying expectations and delighting her family ever since. A gifted writer, illustrator, softball player, and—crucially—violinist, she began studying the instrument in earnest in early 2025. In a bold display of ambidextrous courage, she agreed to learn the instrument right-handed.Abigail's musical sensibility combines the raw urgency of a student recital with the unmistakable rhythmic intensity of a group trying very hard to play the same tempo at the same time. Her phrasing evokes a deep respect for the discipline of practice; she has come a long way—and is still going.We are honored to showcase this piece as a representative work from a performer at the dawn of her musical journey, backed by a supporting cast of equally determined string players. With hearts full and bows raised, they march forward—one note at a time. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Few people understand the intersection of legal practice, data analytics, and diversity like Catherine Krow, Managing Director of Diversity and Impact Analytics at BigHand. In this episode of The Geek in Review, hosts Greg Lambert and Marlene Gebauer sit down with Krow to trace her journey from a high-powered trial lawyer to an influential legal tech leader. After seventeen years at firms like Orrick and Simpson Thacher, Krow's turning point came when a client challenged her team's billing after a major courtroom victory—a moment that sparked her mission to fix what she calls the “business of law.”That single moment led to the creation of Digitory Legal, a company designed to give law firms the data and transparency they desperately needed but didn't yet value. Krow describes how her framework—plan, measure, refine—became the basis for improving cost predictability and strengthening client trust. When BigHand acquired Digitory Legal in 2022, Krow's vision found a larger stage. Now, her “data refinery” powers better pricing, resource allocation, and even equity within firms. As she explains, clean data doesn't only improve profitability, it reveals hidden inequities in work allocation and helps firms retain their most promising talent.Krow also digs into one of her favorite topics: “data debt.” Law firms are drowning in data but starved for information. She explains how poor data hygiene—like inconsistent time codes and messy narratives—has left firms unable to use their most valuable resource. BigHand's impact analytics tools attack this problem head-on, transforming raw billing data into usable intelligence that drives decision-making across finance, staffing, and diversity efforts. And while the technology is powerful, Krow is clear that solving data debt is as much a cultural challenge as it is a technical one.Another major theme is the evolving role of business professionals within law firms. Krow argues that lawyers' traditional discomfort with financial forecasting and project management is holding firms back. Her solution? Combine legal expertise with the commercial acumen of allied professionals. Together, they can meet client demands for budgets, accountability, and measurable value—especially as AI begins to reshape how legal services are delivered and priced.The episode closes with Krow's broader reflection on the next decade of legal innovation. She warns that the biggest shift ahead isn't about AI or analytics—it's about mindset. Firms that embrace data-driven decision-making now will define the future of law; those that don't will be left behind. Through her work at BigHand, Krow is helping to ensure that future is both more efficient and more equitable.Links:Impact Analytics Software | BigHandLaw Firms: Nail Pricing at the Buying Moment to Win Work and Safeguard Your MarginsThe Million Dollar Problem Law Firms Can No Longer IgnoreBigHand 2025 Annual Legal Pricing and Budgeting Trends AnalysisNavigating The Million Dollar Problem: Resource Management for Profitability, Client and Talent RetentionListen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[Special Thanks to ⁠Legal Technology Hub⁠ for their sponsoring this episode.] ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Transcript:

This episode delves into the SEC's current Commission, now a 3-1 majority, its application of regulations in rulemaking and exam priorities, and its approach to exam remediation. We examine impacts of new directors, recent asset management enforcement actions and overall trends, what we are seeing in exams within the context of registered funds and private funds, and the meteoric rise of retail access to alternative funds which we expect to be the SEC's focus in the future. Episode Resources:09.04.25 Simpson Thacher SEC Watch: Monthly Takeaways for Asset Managers - September 202508.12.25 Simpson Thacher Partners Author Bloomberg Law Article on Potential Enforcement Changes to SEC Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-807.15.25 SEC Drops First Ever Liquidity Rule Suit Against Mutual Fund Adviser and Officers and TrusteesMeet Your Episode Hosts:Adam S. Aderton, Simpson ThacherPartner, Asset Management Regulatory and Enforcement; former Co-Chief of the SEC's Asset Management UnitJustin L. Browder, Simpson ThacherPartner, Asset Management Regulatory and EnforcementMichael J. Osnato, Jr., Simpson ThacherPartner and Head of the Firm's Asset Management Regulatory and Enforcement Practice; former Chief of the SEC's Complex Financial Instruments UnitContact UsTo learn more, visit us at www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com. If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com. This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher expressly disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher makes no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher.

Elizabeth Cooper, the head of private equity at Simpson Thacher, talks about transitioning from M&A to PE as a young partner and how advising Blackstone on the Refinitiv deal transformed her career.  

Craig Callahan, chief executive officer at ICON Advisers, says that his calculations on the stock market show that despite being near record-high levels, the market is "slightly underpriced relative to fair value," meaning it has room to move higher from here. Callahan says that a small-cap rally and market changes that started to surface a year ago were disrupted by the tariff tantrum but should return in the next year. Moreover, he sees continued economic growth, fueled by strong earnings and growth of the money supply rather than reduction in interest rates, which he says should be enough to support gains even while investors worry about downdrafts, corrections and recessions that he does not think are on the immediate horizon.  Dave Sekera, chief U.S. market strategist for Morningstar, brings the firm's bottoms-up fundamentals-focused, discounted-cash-flow analysis system to the Market Call. Kenneth Burdon, an attorney with Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, discusses a court case between a closed-end fund activist investor and four fund sponsors that has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court and that could change the face of activism and the ability for investors to force a fund's board to take steps to narrow discounts and improve its investment prospects. Because investors often buy closed-end funds at a discount hoping to profit when that pricing discrepancy corrects, the suit could impact the way investors view discounts and a fund's prospects for future gains.

Kenneth Burdon, an attorney with Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, discusses the court case between Saba Capital and four closed-end fund sponsors that has wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and that is expected to force a change in the tactics of the industry's most prominent activist investor or in the way management companies protect themselves against aggressive shareholder actions. Saba challenged the four companies' actions in adopting a Maryland law that makes it more difficult for outside investors to gain control through a proxy fight.  Burdon says Saba is the only company to challenge closed-end fund governance in federal court, and that the company could lose that tactic without significantly reducing its ability to pursue activist actions, just taking more common and traditional tactics used by others. Burdon says, based on precedents, that he expects the decision to come down in favor of the fund sponsors

Brian Dean Abramson, Adjunct Professor of Vaccine Law, Florida International University College of Law and University of Houston Law Center, speaks with Vanessa Burrows, Partner, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and Dr. René Najera, Director of Public Health, College of Physicians of Philadelphia, about the rapidly changing environment of vaccine law and regulation. They discuss current availability, recommendations, and funding of vaccines at the federal level; implications for companies involved in vaccine testing, development, distribution, and administration; the future of employer mandates; changes at the state level; and developments related to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Brian is the author of AHLA's Vaccine, Vaccination, and Immunization Law, Third Edition.Watch this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLaXvbvZ7cQLearn more about the book: https://store.lexisnexis.com/ahla/products/ahla-vaccine-vaccination-and-immunization-law-ahla-members-grpussku5628107m.htmlEssential Legal Updates, Now in Audio AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast. Stay At the Forefront of Health Legal Education Learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community at https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/.

Charles Clinton is the CEO and co-founder of EquityMultiple, an online platform that enables individuals to invest in institutional-grade commercial real estate. Before launching EquityMultiple in 2015, Charles was a real estate attorney at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York City, where he advised major private equity clients such as Blackstone and KKR on transactions exceeding $10 billion, including Blackstone's acquisitions of the Cosmopolitan Hotel and Motel 6, and Hilton's restructuring ahead of its IPO. Charles earned his JD and Business Law Certificate from Berkeley Law and holds a BA from Amherst College, where he captained the swimming and water polo teams. He is FINRA Series 7 and 66 certified and resides in New York City with his wife and two daughters.

Show Notes: Dan Tabak, a lawyer and treasurer of Harvard Hillel, spent three years at Columbia Law School, he then worked as a litigator at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, but took a year off to clerk for a federal judge in Brooklyn. He went back to work at Simpson Thacher before moving on to his current firm, Cohen & Gresser which operates primarily in New York City but has offices in London, Paris, Dubai, and Washington, D.C. He currently lives in Scarsdale, New York with his wife and two kids. On the Board of Harvard Hillel Dan joined the board of Harvard Hillel during the pandemic, which allowed him to participate more actively. He explains why he joined the board and supporting the Jewish community was an important part of his decision. In response to the fact that Harvard has been in the news in connection with  anti-semitism, Dan states that the board has a diverse board with diverse viewpoints. He also mentions a 311 page study on anti-semitism at Harvard and notes that there are problems at Harvard that were different from what his class perceived, and that students today interact differently than when Dan was a student, specifically the inability to disagree with civility and respect for diversity of opinions.  The Decline of Jewish Students at HarvardDan discusses the decline in Jewish students at Harvard and similar institutions, noting that he believes it has not emerged from a top-down decision, but traces back to the Immigration Act of 1965. He notes that there was a high likelihood of having a Jewish roommate or blockmate in the class of 1992 and a lower chance now, which has led to fewer people understanding Jews and Jewish life at these institutions. He attributes the decline to the emphasis on more diversity on identities within admissions and how students feel a responsibility to represent their specific background as well as the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened doors to different communities, particularly immigrant families, who tend to value education highly and are now more represented at Harvard.  A Career in Law and Improving the Public School Systems Dan talks about his career at Simpson Thacher, one of the world's largest firms. His senior thesis in college involved a school funding decision in New Jersey. From his first week as a summer associate at Simpson Thacher to his departure years later, he worked with a group bringing a similar case in New York, Campaign For Fiscal Equity against the state of New York. The case involved school kids in New York City suing the state for a sound basic education under the New York State Constitution. The trial went nine months, and the students won the trial.  He summarizes the process from determining there is a right to finding the remedy.  The remedy involved resources and money, and the case went through another set of hearings to determine the appropriate resolution. Dan also discusses what the research revealed about class sizes, funding, and how the family situation impacts the education of a student.  A Focus on Financial Service CompaniesThe conversation turns to Dan's legal work, focusing on commercial litigation, with a focus on financial services companies, and bankruptcy and bankruptcy-related litigation. He talks about his involvement in a case involving Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan, in the bankruptcy of Gawker and Gawker's founder. He also touches on how this case helped lead to a change in how the public views the publication of sex tapes. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal landscape and the impact of cases like this on the legal landscape. Skills and Superpowers in LawDan believes that his strengths in law are the strategizing of how to get from here to there, listening to the client, and having a goal in mind. He also mentions being a good writer, which helps convey his thoughts. He initially was less strong at oral arguments but has since improved his skills and persuaded judges to change course and decide for his clients. One example of a successful legal strategy involves listening to clients and helping them figure out what they really want. For example, he has worked with pro bono clients who are more interested in justice than achieving a result. They often get a settlement offer and he explains the consequences if they don't take it. He explains that the lawyer must work through the emotional aspects and consider the implications of suing them and going to court. With corporate clients, Dan emphasizes the importance of listening to clients' goals and working relationships with the other party. A settlement can be a win-win situation for everyone involved, as long as they can continue doing business together. This is a different function of listening to what the client is trying to get out of the case. The Limitations of  Legal EducationDan believes that a course he took from Roger Fisher with the Harvard Negotiation project was more helpful in negotiation and negotiation strategy than anything he learned in law school. He also mentions that law school was more about hearing the cases and understanding the law, rather than emotional intelligence and negotiating strategies. He also mentions that law schools did not teach how to manage junior attorneys and paralegals, which he believes is essential for success in law firms. He talks about the many small inflection points in a lawyer's career, such as meeting the right people and introducing them to potential clients that change or shape direction and offer opportunities. Influential Harvard Professors and CoursesDan mentions the Negotiation course and a Constitutional Law class with H.W. Perry, where he learned how to read legal cases and understand constitutional law. Dan shares a memorable experience while he was taking the Constitutional Law course where he argued a case in front of classmates, including "Chief Justice" Ketanji Brown Jackson, and also mentions learning in an Intro to Psychology course about the concept of idiosyncrasy credits.  

This week, Olivia welcomes Joint Managing Director Michael Evans for a discussion on how law firms are responding to Trump's impact on the legal industry, the revenue growth of Orrick and Simpson Thacher, the Legal Services Board's criticism of the SRA, and the BBC's latest legal drama. Thank you for Listening!

President Donald Trump has targeted major law firms in his second term in unprecedented ways. He hit three Big Law firms with executive orders that pose potentially existential threats to those firms. Then on March 21, the Trump administration issued a broad memo targeting any lawyer who files “frivolous, unreasonable, and even vexatious litigation against the United States.” On this podcast episode we're talking about yet another way the administration is going after firms. Andrea Lucas, the acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sent a letter to 20 major firms such as Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, and Simpson Thacher requesting extensive documentation to investigate whether their Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs are discriminatory. The EEOC is asking for names, gender, race, law school and GPA information for all who have applied to be hired since 2019. Joining the podcast are two Bloomberg Law reporters who are following this story, Business & Practice reporter Tatyana Monnay and EEOC reporter Rebecca Klar. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cartel enforcement remains a priority for agencies around the world, but in recent years enforcers have continued to focus on domestic cases. With political and personnel changes in the U.S. and across the globe, what can we expect in 2025 and beyond? John Terzaken, Partner and Global Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher's Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice, joins James Hunsberger and Jaclyn Phillips to discuss his latest cartel enforcement forecast and what has changed since his 2022 forecast. Listen to this episode to learn more about likely enforcement priorities from the Trump DOJ and global agencies, including AI, ESG, labor markets, and public procurement. With special guest: John Terzaken, Partner, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Related Links: Simpson Thacher's 2025 Global Cartel Forecast Our Curious Amalgam #160: What in the World Is Happening With Antitrust Enforcement? Antitrust Cartel Enforcement's Return to Global Scale in 2022 Hosted by: James Hunsberger, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP and Jaclyn Phillips, White & Case LLP

Houston's legal market wasn't always one of the most competitive arenas in Big Law. But today, 14 of the 15 largest law firms by revenue have an office in Space City. The market's growth has mirrored the explosion of the country's energy industry over the past decade or so. And the competition among law firms continues to evolve, as the biggest firms fight for their share of a market once dominated by local firms. On this episode of On the Merits, Bloomberg Law's Roy Strom spoke with Nick Dhesi, the managing partner of Latham & Watkins' Houston office, which is credited as the first to truly crack the once-insular market. Latham in February celebrated its 15th year in Houston. The firm has more than 120 lawyers in the city, the fifth-largest presence among the 100 largest firms by revenue, according to Leopard Solutions. Other firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis, Sidley Austin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, have piled into the market, lured by its dominant oil and gas scene. Just last year, Paul Weiss made an unsuccessful effort to open in Houston, Bloomberg Law reported, which included an attempt to poach from Latham. Latham, the second-largest firm by revenue, now has a roughly $2 billion energy and infrastructure practice, led by Houston partner Justin Stolte. In the podcast, Dhesi talks about Latham's main competitors now, what a "dirt lawyer" is, and how the Texas legal market will respond to an economy that's branching out of the traditional oil and gas deals that powered its growth. He also discusses how the Houston and Dallas legal markets are different, and what Texas law schools have been doing to supply more high-caliber lawyers to all the top firms clamoring for talent in the state. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Mary Ellen Stanek, chief investment officer at Baird Advisors — president of the Baird Funds — says that the need to slow interest rate cuts has been building for a while, but that it's a sign of a strong economy and it's good for bond investors, without taking all of the starch out of the stock market. She says this week's news from the Federal Reserve about slowing cuts doesn't change Baird's forecast for 2025, noting that they expected good values in bonds through the new year and that those yields only got better with the latest announcement from the central bank. Amanda Agati, chief investment officer at PNC Financial Services Group, discusses the wild rate of inflation seen in the firm's 41st annual Christmas Price Index, which this year showed that the cost of buying your true love the gifts from the 12 Days of Christmas would set you back nearly $50,000. Bryan Piccirillo discusses an Edward Jones survey which showed that 81 percent of Americans are confident in their ability to keep their financial resolutions — the big ones being building a savings account, paying off credit card debt and increasing income — despite the terrible success rate that resolutions normally have. Plus, Ken Burdon, a partner in the registered funds practice at Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, discusses how the return of President Donald Trump might benefit closed-end funds. 

Ken Burdon, a partner in the registered funds practice at Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, discusses how the return of President Donald Trump might benefit closed-end funds. One key development he will be looking for is for the approval of new investment vehicles that give retail investors more access to private credit markets and other alternative assets that have been until now the domain of affluent investors and institutions. He notes that the first Trump Administration was generally in favor of making more investment opportunities available, and he thinks that will pick up in the new term, especially with the selection of Paul Atkins as a potential new SEC chairman. Burdon also talks about how activist investors might be impacted by the regime change.

We interview William Clayton on the SEC's private funds rulemaking and related litigation.  Professor Clayton lays out his views on agency conflicts in the high-end private funds securities contracting market, discusses the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in National Association of Private Fund Managers v. SEC (5th Cir. 2024), and offers some thoughts looking forward beyond the presidential election. A bit about William Clayton: William W. Clayton is Professor of Law at The J. Reuben Clark Law School of Brigham Young University, where he co-directs the Global Business Law Program and teaches courses on contracts, business organizations, and corporate finance.  He is a leading researcher on private markets and private equity funds contracting and governance, whose work has been cited extensively in agency rulemaking and litigation amicus briefs, as well as published in other journals such as the Yale Journal on Regulation and Vanderbilt Law Review.  Before joining the BYU Law faculty, Professor Clayton worked as a corporate lawyer at Wachtell-Lipton, and as a private funds lawyer at Simpson-Thacher in New York, and was Executive Director of the Yale Law School center for the study of Corporate Law.  Professor Clayton holds a J.D. from Yale Law School, and an M.B.A. and B.A. from Stanford University.  We were pleased to publish Professor Clayton's article High-End Securities Regulation: Reflections on the SEC's 2022-23 Private Funds Rulemaking in the Harvard Business Law Review last fall.  Now, given subsequent litigation and regulatory updates including National Association of Private Fund Managers v. SEC (5th Cir. 2024), we are thrilled to welcome him to the Harvard Business Law Review Podcast to discuss current events. 

How is AI going to change the practice of law? How is one of the most forward looking law firms adapting? And will the billable hour go away? Joe Green, Chief Innovation Officer at Gunderson Dettmer and Cofounder & Director of the Open Cap Table Coalition, steered a law career starting at major Wall Street firm Simpson Thacher towards the worlds of tech and product management, with stop-offs in academia and legal publishing along the way. Ultimately, he found that his legal mindset guided him in his technical work, and his understanding of business and innovation strengthened his legal abilities. Listen as Joe discusses strategies to shift your careers towards your passion through pro bono work, stepping into board advisory roles, parsing the influx of investment into legal tech, and whether the billable hour will really go away in our lifetime. Read detailed summary: https://www.spotdraft.com/podcast/episode-48 Topics: Introduction: 0:00Moving into a tech advisor role at Gunderson Dettmer after a career start at Simpson Thacher: 2:11Moving away from the standard legal path at Thompson Reuters: 5:38Taking on side hustles that pull you towards tech and product: 8:43Founding the Open Cap Table Coalition: 11:59Rejoining Gunderson Dettmer and moving into the CIO role: 18:04Challenging the billable hour model: 20:56Leading and launching innovative projects: 30:06Shifting from a legal to a technical mindset: 33:44Discussing the influx of investment into legal tech: 37:20Predicting the future of legal services: 41:06Book Recommendations: 43:41What you wish you'd known as a young lawyer: 45:40 Connect with us: Joe Green - https://www.linkedin.com/in/joegreen1/ Tyler Finn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/tylerhfinn SpotDraft - https://www.linkedin.com/company/spotdraft SpotDraft is a leading CLM platform that solves your end-to-end contract management issues. Visit https://www.spotdraft.com to learn more.

In the latest episode of the Cross Examiner podcast, we delve into a contentious legal battle that has significant implications for the separation of church and state in the United States. Our host, an attorney and atheist, interviews Sam Grover, Senior Counsel for Litigation at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), to discuss their lawsuit challenging Louisiana's newly enacted law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom.The episode opens with a strong statement from the host, highlighting the alarming rise of Christian nationalism and the misinformation fueling it. This sets the stage for a deep dive into the legal intricacies of the case. Sam Grover, who has been with FFRF for over a decade, provides a comprehensive overview of the coalition formed to challenge the law. This coalition includes heavyweights like the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, along with the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, which is offering pro bono services.Grover explains the mechanics of how such a coalition operates, from vetting potential plaintiffs to drafting the complaint. He emphasizes the overwhelming response from Louisiana residents who are concerned about the law's implications, highlighting that the coalition's plaintiffs include not just atheists and agnostics but also Christians and members of minority religions.One of the most compelling parts of the episode is the discussion about the real-world implications for plaintiffs. Grover recounts the harassment and threats faced by individuals who stand up against such unconstitutional laws, emphasizing the bravery of the plaintiffs involved in this case.The discussion then shifts to the legal arguments against the law. Grover breaks down the claims under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. He argues that the Louisiana law is a blatant constitutional violation, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Stone v. Graham, which struck down a similar law in Kentucky in 1980. Despite the Supreme Court's recent shift away from the Lemon test, which was used in Stone v. Graham, Grover remains confident that the coercive nature of the law will render it unconstitutional.The episode also touches on the broader implications of the Supreme Court's recent decisions, particularly the move towards a "history and tradition" test for Establishment Clause cases. Grover expresses concern about this shift but remains hopeful that the clear lack of historical precedent for such a law in public schools will work in their favor.The interview concludes with a call to action for listeners to support FFRF and other organizations fighting for the separation of church and state. Grover encourages listeners to become members, highlighting the importance of collective action in safeguarding constitutional rights.This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in constitutional law, religious freedom, and the ongoing battle against Christian nationalism. Grover's insights provide a clear understanding of the stakes involved and the legal strategies being employed to protect the First Amendment.Introduction 00:00:00Interview with Sam Grover 00:02:00Background on FFRF and Legal Career 00:04:00Details of the Louisiana Case 00:10:00Legal Strategies and Challenges 00:20:00Historical Context and Legal Precedents 00:30:00Potential Outcomes and Future Implications 00:45:00Closing Remarks 00:58:00For more information about the Freedom from Religion Foundation and to support their efforts, visit their website at https://www.ffrf.org. To stay updated on future episodes and content, visit our website at https://www.thecrossexaminer.net.If you enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing, liking, and sharing the podcast. Your support helps us reach more

This Day in Legal History: Flag Statutes in Public SchoolsOn this day in legal history, June 14, 1943, the US Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, profoundly impacting the rights of individuals in public schools. The case arose when Jehovah's Witnesses challenged a West Virginia mandate requiring students to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, actions contrary to their religious convictions. The Court ruled that forcing students to participate in patriotic rituals violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the majority, asserted that compelling students to salute the flag was a form of coerced speech that infringed upon their individual liberties. The decision overturned the 1940 ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which had upheld mandatory flag salutes. Jackson famously stated, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official... can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion."This ruling reinforced the principle that the government cannot force individuals to express beliefs they do not hold. It underscored the protection of individual freedoms against state-imposed conformity, significantly shaping the interpretation of First Amendment rights in the educational context. The Barnette decision remains a cornerstone in American constitutional law, symbolizing the enduring protection of individual liberties in the face of governmental authority.Large national law firms are increasingly establishing offices in Boston, potentially overshadowing local firms that have operated regionally for decades. This year, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Paul Hastings, and Blank Rome announced new Boston offices, while Covington & Burling, Arnold & Porter, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld did so last year. In a notable move, Goodwin Procter recently recruited a five-partner tech and life sciences team from Cooley in Boston, signaling a consolidation trend in legal services within these sectors. The health and energy industries have remained strong in a sluggish deals market, bolstered by the financial strength of health care giants and incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act.The number of law firm openings in Boston has surged over the past decade, with over 40 firms establishing a presence since 2016. This influx includes regulatory-focused firms like Covington and UK-based Magic Circle firms such as Allen & Overy. As large firms move in, regional firms face the risk of losing talent and clients.Despite these developments, the efforts of new Big Law entrants in Boston remain in their early stages, with firms like Simpson Thacher planning deliberate growth to tap into the city's talent pool.Big Law Firms Eye Boston to Tap Hot Tech, Health Care MarketsThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has three new commissioners, which could influence the review process for natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Industry advocates argue these projects are essential to meet rising electricity demand, while environmental groups push for rejection due to the long-term climate impacts of fossil fuels. The newly confirmed commissioners—Democrats David Rosner and Judy Chang, and Republican Lindsay See—join FERC at a critical time. With Commissioner Allison Clements' upcoming departure, FERC will regain a 3-2 Democratic majority for the first time in 18 months.Historically, FERC's decisions on natural gas have been contentious, with a 2022 policy to scrutinize gas projects leading to the end of former Chairman Richard Glick's tenure. The new commissioners have indicated a focus on gas infrastructure, despite past environmental concerns. Chang, for example, moderated her previous stance against new gas pipelines during her confirmation hearing.FERC's decisions are crucial amid growing electricity demands, driven by factors like artificial intelligence and increased manufacturing. Natural gas consumption is at record highs, and new power generation, particularly from gas, is necessary to meet future needs. However, permitting reviews and litigation have slowed the expansion of pipeline capacity. Industry experts stress the need for regulatory certainty to align infrastructure with demand, a sentiment echoed by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. The new FERC commissioners face the challenge of balancing these competing interests as they begin their terms.Divisive Gas Reviews Pose Early Test for New FERC CommissionersOn June 13, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee advanced bipartisan legislation to create 66 new judgeships in federal district courts across states like California, Delaware, and Texas. This marks the first major judiciary expansion in over three decades. The committee's unanimous 20-0 vote moves the JUDGES Act to the full Senate for consideration. If enacted, it will be the first comprehensive authorization of new judges since 1990, addressing longstanding requests to manage rising caseloads in 25 district courts nationwide.The last time new judgeships were created was in 2003, but efforts to expand the federal bench have since stalled due to partisan concerns. The current bill mitigates these concerns by incrementally adding the new judicial seats over ten years, starting in January 2025, after the 2024 presidential election. This phased approach aims to prevent any single party or president from gaining an advantage.Democratic Senator Chris Coons, a co-sponsor of the bill, emphasized the urgency of expanding the federal bench to address the growing backlog of court filings since 1990. The JUDGES Act aligns with recommendations from the Judicial Conference, seeking to add judges in districts facing a "genuine crisis of workload."U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad expressed the judiciary's appreciation for the Senate's efforts. The judiciary currently has 677 authorized district court seats and 10 temporary ones, which another Senate-passed bill aims to make permanent.Initially opposed to adding more judges, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley supported the bill after amendments spread the additions over time. The JUDGES Act now plans to introduce the 66 new judgeships in five stages through 2035, with three temporary judgeships in Oklahoma.A companion bill is pending in the Republican-led House of Representatives, backed by Representative Darrell Issa, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's panel on courts.US Senate panel advances bipartisan bill to create new judgeships | ReutersThe proposed $30 billion antitrust settlement between Visa and Mastercard to limit credit and debit card fees for merchants is in jeopardy. U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie in Brooklyn indicated she is likely to reject the settlement, citing her intent to write an opinion detailing her decision. Both Visa and Mastercard expressed disappointment, describing the settlement as a fair and appropriate resolution to the nearly 19-year-old litigation.Announced on March 26, the settlement aimed to address most claims from nationwide litigation, with small businesses making up over 90% of the settling merchants. Businesses have long argued that Visa and Mastercard's swipe fees, which totaled $172 billion in 2023, are excessive and that the card networks illegally prevent them from steering customers to cheaper payment methods. The settlement proposed reducing swipe fees by at least 0.04 percentage points for three years, capping rates for five years, and removing anti-steering provisions.However, objectors, including the National Retail Federation, criticized the settlement as insufficient, arguing that it would still allow Visa and Mastercard to control swipe fees and prevent future claims by merchants. The case, known as In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.Visa, Mastercard $30 billion fee settlement in peril | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by John David Davis.John David Davis (22 October 1867 – 20 November 1942), often known as J. D. Davis, was an English composer born in Edgbaston, near Birmingham. Although he was born into a musical family, Davis was initially sent to Frankfurt to prepare for a commercial career. However, his passion for music led him to study under Hans von Bülow. Davis completed his education in Germany before furthering his studies in Brussels with Léopold Wallner, Arthur De Greef, and Maurice Kufferath.Upon returning to Birmingham in 1889, Davis began teaching music, notably at the Birmingham and Midland Institute from 1893 to 1904. In 1905, he joined the Guildhall School of Music as a professor of harmony and composition and also served as Professor of Solfège at the International Conservatoire in London.In 1919, Davis married Helen Winifred Juta, the daughter of South African judge Henry Juta. The couple lived in Earls Court, London, before moving to Lisbon in 1936. Davis passed away in Estoril, Portugal, in 1942, and his wife later returned to South Africa, where she died in 1952.This week's closing theme is John David Davis' evocative piece, "Summer's Eve at Cookham Lock, Op. 50." Composed in 1916 for the London String Quartet, this work captures the serene beauty of a summer evening at Cookham Lock. Known for its lyrical quality and gentle atmosphere, "Summer's Eve at Cookham Lock" offers a tranquil auditory experience.The piece, also known as an Idyl for string quartet, demonstrates Davis' ability to paint a vivid picture through music. Its delicate melodies and harmonies reflect the calm and reflective mood of a summer evening by the water. This composition stands as a testament to Davis' skill in creating evocative and picturesque musical landscapes, making it a fitting and soothing choice for this week's closing theme. Enjoy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the latest episode of The Regulatory Roundtable, co-produced with Simpson Thacher's The Funds Channel, we discuss the SEC's focus on artificial intelligence, including in exams and the recent settlements with two investment advisers in connection with their statements regarding their use of artificial intelligence, and considerations for looking ahead.Episode Resources:5/2/24 SEC Examination Lessons Learned During the Biden/Gensler Era and Looking Ahead4/18/24 Compliance Policies Update Hot Topics3/19/24 SEC Fines Two Investment Advisers for “AI Washing” 11/1/23 White House Issues Landmark Executive Order on Artificial IntelligenceMeet Your Episode Hosts:Shannon M. O'SullivanPartner; host and moderator of The Funds Channel; concentrates on the formation and operation of a diverse platform of private fundsMeaghan A. Kelly, Simpson ThacherPartner; specializes in advising fund managers with respect to SEC examinations, compliance and disclosure questions, and SEC enforcement investigations Contact UsTo learn more, visit us at www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com. If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com. This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher expressly disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher makes no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher.

John Howlett, Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer, Clearwater, speaks with Carolyn V. Metnick, Partner, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, and Vanessa K. Burrows, Partner, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, about the current regulatory and legal landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care. They discuss some of the most compelling ways health care organizations are using AI; the legal, ethical, privacy, and data security considerations around AI; enforcement activity and consumer lawsuits; and what health care organizations should be doing when getting ready to deploy AI. Carolyn and Vanessa spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2024 Advising Providers: Legal Strategies for AMCs, Physicians, and Hospitals, in New Orleans, LA. Sponsored by Clearwater.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

This week on Movers, Shakers & Rainmakers, we sit down with Katherine Allen, CEO and Co-Founder of Flo Recruit, a company making waves in the way both law schools and law firms orchestrate their recruitment processes. Katherine tells us the story of how she started innovating in the legal industry before graduating from college. We then discuss how the company strives to tackle some of the more complex operational challenges faced by law firms in their never-ending efforts to recruit the top talent. For his move of the week, Zach covers Javad Asghari's move to Simpson Thacher, while David dives into a string of recent high-profile antitrust hires.

Alfred de Zayas discusses how democracy and media and institutions in the West have become fake and are morphing into Orwellian totalitarianism. However, the world is changing, we are no longer the unipolar world of Washington and Brussels, we are a multipolar world...the global majority is not anymore with the West. NATO is a criminal organization with a history of violence and violation of the UN Charter. The EU is a scam. We are living the totalitarian dystopia that George Orwell predicted. He explains the true history behind the Russia-Ukraine War. With the support of the U.S., Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Julian Assange's fate does not look good. He doesn't think the West has it in them to start WW3. He never gives up hope and is optimistic in the long-term. Watch On BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · Alfred de Zayas: The West Has Become a Totalitarian Dystopia, The World Has Become Multipolar #404 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.comDonate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donationsConsult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopoliticseasyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.comEscape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopoliticsPassVult https://passvult.comSociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.comWise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Alfred de Zayas' Human Rights Corner https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com Website http://alfreddezayas.com X https://twitter.com/alfreddezayas Books https://www.claritypress.com/book-author/alfred-de-zayas CounterPunch https://www.counterpunch.org/author/alfred-de-zayas Geneva School of Diplomacy https://genevadiplomacy.ch OHCHR Bio http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/IntOrder/Pages/AlfredDeZayas.aspx About Alfred de Zayas Alfred-Maurice de Zayas studied history and law at Harvard, where he obtained his J.D. He practiced corporate law with the New York law firm Simpson Thacher and Bartlett and is a retired member of the New York and Florida Bar. He obtained a doctorate in history for the University of Göttingen in Germany. Mr. de Zayas has been visiting professor of law at numerous universities including the University of British Columbia in Canada, the Graduate Institute of the University of Geneva, the DePaul University Law School (Chicago), the Human Rights Institute at the Irish National University (Galway)and the University of Trier (Germany). At present he teaches international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy. In 2009 de Zayas was a member of the UN workshop that drafted a report on the human right to peace, which was subsequently discussed and further elaborated by the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Council. He is also a signatory of the Declaración de Bilbao and Declaración de Santiago de Compostela on the Human Right to Peace. He served as a consultant to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the issue of mercenaries. De Zayas is an expert for civil and political rights and has published nine books on a variety of legal and historical issues, including “United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law” (together with Jakob th. Möller, N.P. Engel 2009), and has been co-author and co-editor of numerous other books, including "International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms" (together with Gudmundur Alfredsson and Bertrand Ramcharan). His scholarly articles in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford Encyclopedia of Human Rights and Macmillan Encyclopedia of Genocide, encompass the prohibition of aggression, universal jurisdiction, the right to the homeland, mass population transfers, minority rights,

Welcome back to another episode of the How I Lawyer Podcast, where Professor Jonah Perlin interviews lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. Today's guest is Michelle Kallen, who is a Partner in Jenner & Block's Supreme Court and Appellate practice and previously served as the seventh Solicitor General for the Commonwealth of Virginia.  After graduating from Vanderbilt University Law School, Michelle clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and then worked as a Litigation Associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, before moving to the public sector.  Following her service as the first woman Solicitor General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Michelle represented the Select Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. In this episode, Michelle shares valuable insights about the legal profession including:

On this day in legal history, November 17, 1973, 50 years ago, President Richard Nixon declared he was not a crook. On November 17, 1973, a significant event unfolded in the annals of American legal and political history and carried with it major cultural significance. President Richard Nixon, amidst the escalating Watergate scandal, delivered a televised Q&A session with Associated Press managing editors at Disney's Contemporary Resort near Orlando, Florida. In this session, Nixon adamantly declared, "I'm not a crook," in response to mounting allegations concerning his involvement in the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up.Of course, no one was accusing him of being a crook – he was accused of abusing and misusing his power as president. So it was a bit like Hannibal Lecter vehemently denying having ever been a tax evader.This statement quickly became one of the most infamous quotes in American political discourse, symbolizing Nixon's defensive posture amid the scandal. The Watergate scandal itself, which began with a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in June 1972, had by late 1973 evolved into a major political crisis. Nixon's administration was accused of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, leading to an erosion of public trust in the presidency.Nixon's emphatic denial on November 17 was part of his broader strategy to maintain political support and manage the narrative surrounding the investigation. However, the statement did little to quell the suspicions and investigative efforts surrounding him. In fact, it heightened public interest and media scrutiny, as it contrasted sharply with the growing evidence of wrongdoing within his administration.This moment marked a turning point in the Watergate scandal. Following Nixon's declaration, the investigation intensified, eventually leading to the revelation of the Nixon White House's involvement in the scandal. The event underscored the complex interplay between legal proceedings, political power, and public perception.The significance of Nixon's statement in the context of legal history is profound. It serves as a reminder of the importance of integrity and accountability in public office and highlights the role of the legal system in upholding these principles. The fallout from this declaration and the subsequent unravelling of the Watergate scandal ultimately led to Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974, making him the only U.S. president to resign from office.In retrospect, Nixon's "I'm not a crook" assertion remains a pivotal moment that continues to influence American political and legal discourse. It serves as a case study in legal ethics, presidential power, and the pivotal role of the media in uncovering truth. This event, thus, stands as a landmark in legal history, exemplifying the intricate relationship between law, politics, and the pursuit of justice in American society.Following the Supreme Court's ban on affirmative action in college admissions, Wall Street law firms like Simpson Thacher and Paul Weiss have established new practices focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These practices emerged in response to client demands for guidance on racial equity audits and the legal sustainability of DEI initiatives post the Supreme Court decision. Loretta Lynch, a leader of the new practice at Paul Weiss, noted the increase in client inquiries about the effectiveness of DEI programs.This trend represents a second wave of DEI practice development, spurred initially by the aftermath of George Floyd's killing in 2020. Now, corporations seek to defend their DEI programs against conservative challenges, highlighted by the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard, which disallowed race-based criteria in college admissions. Conservative groups, like America First Legal and Do No Harm, have been actively challenging corporate DEI initiatives, leading more law firms to form specialized DEI practices.Key figures like former US Attorney General Lynch have been involved in defending such programs, including Pfizer's recruitment initiative. Paul Weiss, for example, recently announced its DEI strategic advisory practice with high-profile members, reflecting a continued corporate interest in maintaining diverse workforces amidst legal and social debates.Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and McGuireWoods have also established their DEI practices, recognizing the growing legal complexities surrounding DEI in corporate environments. Bonnie Levine, a founder of Verse Legal, emphasized the need for legal advice as businesses continue to prioritize DEI.The rise of DEI practices in law firms mirrors the broader legal and corporate landscape's evolving dynamics, where firms not only offer specialized DEI services but also face similar DEI-related legal challenges as their clients. Despite the potential for conflicts of interest, there is a general consensus on the necessity of these services, highlighting the importance of multiple avenues of legal counsel in the ever-changing legal field of DEI.Wall Street Firms Build Diversity Practices After Court DecisionA mistrial was declared in the federal civil rights trial of Brett Hankison, a former Louisville, Kentucky, police officer charged in connection with the 2020 death of Breonna Taylor. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, leading U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings to declare the mistrial. Hankison faced charges of using excessive force during the raid on Taylor's apartment, where he allegedly fired 10 bullets without striking anyone.Previously, Hankison was acquitted in a state court trial on charges of endangering Taylor's neighbors during the same raid. He was the only one among the three officers who fired their weapons to face criminal charges. The other two officers were not indicted by a Kentucky grand jury, as Kentucky's Attorney General Daniel Cameron did not recommend charges against them.Breonna Taylor's death, along with the deaths of George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery, triggered widespread protests and a call for racial justice in 2020. Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency medical technician, was asleep in her apartment during a no-knock raid by police, who were investigating a drug case involving her ex-boyfriend.During the raid, Taylor's boyfriend, thinking it was a break-in and claiming he did not hear the police identify themselves, fired a shot that wounded an officer. The police returned fire, fatally shooting Taylor. In addition to Hankison, three other former Louisville police officers were charged with including false information in the affidavit for the raid warrant. One of these officers, Kelly Goodlett, has pleaded guilty, while Joshua Jaynes and Sergeant Kyle Meany are awaiting trial.The Department of Justice is now considering its options regarding a potential retrial for Hankison.Mistrial declared for Kentucky officer charged in Breonna Taylor killing | ReutersThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is revisiting the issue of arbitration in cases involving California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which permits employees to file lawsuits on behalf of the state for labor law violations. The case at hand involves a subsidiary of Macy's Inc., contesting a lower court's decision to send both individual and representative claims for alleged unpaid overtime and wage violations to arbitration. This follows a similar case involving a Lowe's Home Centers LLC worker, where individual claims were arbitrated and representative claims dismissed.The core issue is whether PAGA allows workers to pursue class-like representative claims in court despite agreements to arbitrate individual disputes. PAGA authorizes employees to enforce California Labor Code provisions and bring claims on behalf of other workers.The U.S. Supreme Court, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022), ruled that individual PAGA claims can be subject to arbitration, but dismissed representative claims in such scenarios. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that the interpretation of this matter should be left to California's courts.Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's stance, many California courts have opposed the notion of dismissing representative PAGA claims when individual claims are arbitrated. The California Supreme Court's ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. further supported this view, asserting that workers retain the right to litigate representative claims even if their individual claims are arbitrated.In the current case, Macy's argues that the lower court's decision to send both individual and representative claims to arbitration contradicts the Viking River ruling. However, Yuriria Diaz, the employee, contends that such an arbitration order isn't immediately appealable. The impact of the Adolph decision by the California Supreme Court on this case is yet to be fully assessed, as the Ninth Circuit has not ordered additional briefings on it.The case, Diaz v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., will be heard by a panel including Ninth Circuit Judges Jay Bybee, Kenneth Lee, and Third Circuit Judge Michael Fisher. Both parties' lawyers have refrained from commenting ahead of the oral arguments scheduled for November 17, 2023. This case has the potential to radically upset the current status quo vis a vis labor and management. Macy's Case Brings PAGA Arbitration Issue Back to Ninth CircuitThe California Bar has set new guidelines for lawyers using artificial intelligence, positioning the state as a leader in ethical guidance for AI in legal practice. According to Erika Doherty, program director for the bar's Office of Professional Competence, this initiative is the first AI-specific regulation approved by a legal regulatory agency. The guidelines advise lawyers to disclose their use of generative AI to clients and to avoid charging hourly fees for time saved using AI tools. They also emphasize the need for human oversight of AI-generated content to prevent inaccuracies and bias. This step is seen as an interim measure while more comprehensive rules are developed, including potential revisions to the definition of unauthorized legal practice in the context of AI. The committee highlighted AI's potential to bridge the justice access gap, but cautioned against the risks of false information from AI outputs for self-represented individuals. Similarly, the Florida Bar's ethics committee has proposed guidelines regarding client consent and oversight for AI use, with these recommendations open for public comment until January.California Bar Passes Disclosure and Billing Guidelines for AI Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Judges, journalists, attorneys, and law enforcement officials discussed the rights, responsibilities, and liability of the media, courts, and law enforcement in a fictional criminal trial during the Fair Trial/Free Press Conference: Gag Orders, Anonymous Juries, and the Media, on Friday, November 3, 2023, at Albany Law School.   The program explored the legal, political, and ethical issues that could arise in a hypothetical scenario in which a fictional gubernatorial candidate was indicted on federal financial fraud charges and a turbulent trial ensued. Panelists discussed the interplay of the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and First Amendment rights to attend and report on trials, including social media, gag orders, anonymous juries, police conduct, and protection of the press and its sources. The full scenario is here: https://www.albanylaw.edu/media/20391/download   Panelists included: •    Rosemary Armao — Investigative reporter, news editor, and Adjunct Professor at the SUNY University at Albany •    Martin Bell, Esq. — Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York •    Natalie Brocklebank, Esq. — Deputy Director of the New York State Defenders Association •    John M. Czajka, Esq. '04 — Division Counsel for the New York State Police •    Hon. Mae D'Agostino — United States District Judge for the Northern District of New York •    Carla DiRienzo  — New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Field Command Office •    John J. Flynn, Esq. — Erie County District Attorney and President of the District Attorneys' Association of the State of New York •    Prof. Roy Gutterman — Director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and Professor of Communications, Magazine, News, and Digital Journalism at the Syracuse University Newhouse School of Public Communications •    Mark Mahoney —Journalist and Editorial Page Editor at the Schenectady Gazette The discussion was moderated by: •    Hon. Albert Rosenblatt – Retired Judge on the New York Court of Appeals •    Rex Smith – Former Editor of the Albany Times-Union   The program was presented by the Government Law Center at Albany Law School and the New York Fair Trial/Free Press Conference.

This episode focuses on the SEC's new and amended rules targeting private fund advisers, which were adopted on August 23. In addition to reviewing the rules' requirements—including some significant modifications from the rules that were proposed in February 2022—we discuss our expectations for fund advisers under the new rules and the ongoing litigation challenging them, as well as exam and enforcement observations.Episode Resources:9/12/23 SEC Marketing Rule Settlements Total 10 Before One Year Anniversary of Compliance Date9/11/23 SEC Division of Examinations Releases Process-Focused Risk Alert—Exam Selection and Typical Categories of Document Requests8/24/23 The Day Has Come: The SEC Adopts Private Fund Adviser RulesMeet Your Episode Hosts:Meaghan A. Kelly, Simpson ThacherPartner; specializes in advising fund managers with respect to SEC examinations, compliance and disclosure questions, and SEC enforcement investigations David W. Blass, Simpson ThacherPartner; formerly served as General Counsel of the Investment Company Institute and also held senior roles for over a decade at the SECContact UsTo learn more, visit us at www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com. If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com. This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher expressly disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher makes no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher.

In the latest episode of The Regulatory Roundtable, join us as we take a bird's eye view of the current SEC private funds environment and what's to come. Outlining policy and rulemaking, the increasingly challenging exam program, and the state of play on enforcement, we discuss the return to private funds as a marquee exam and enforcement priority.Meet Your Episode Hosts:Marc P. Berger, Simpson ThacherPartner; former Acting Director and Deputy Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division and Director of the SEC's New York Office; former Chief of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY David W. Blass, Simpson ThacherPartner; formerly served as General Counsel of the Investment Company Institute and also held senior roles for over a decade at the SECMeaghan A. Kelly, Simpson ThacherPartner; specializes in advising fund managers with respect to SEC examinations, compliance and disclosure questions, and SEC enforcement investigations Michael J. Osnato, Jr., Simpson ThacherPartner and Head of the Firm's Funds Regulatory and Investigations group; former Chief of the SEC's Complex Financial Instruments UnitContact UsTo learn more, visit us at www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com. If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com. This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher expressly disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher makes no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher.

Jon Moore, Chief Risk Officer and Senior Vice President of Consulting Services, Clearwater, speaks with Vanessa Burrows, Counsel, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, and Wendi Wright, Senior Director of Privacy & Data Protection, Intuitive Surgical, about why HIPAA must be considered within the scope of M&A due diligence and what the diligence process looks like. They discuss documentation, the use of external data sources, the diligence call, and practices to review such as de-identified Protected Health Information and web tracking technologies. Vanessa and Wendi spoke on an AHLA webinar last year related to this topic. Sponsored by Clearwater.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

We have another Andrew Johnson-related “this day in legal history” for today – on May 26 in 1868, the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson concluded without conviction. In 1868, President Johnson faced impeachment, and his fate rested on a single vote in the Senate trial. Johnson had become president after Abraham Lincoln's assassination and had a strained relationship with Republican leaders, particularly the Radical Republicans. The House of Representatives impeached Johnson on charges of violating the Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without approval. The Senate trial required a two-thirds majority to convict Johnson.Senator Edmund Ross of Kansas, a Republican, cast the deciding vote. It was expected that Ross would vote against Johnson, but to the surprise of many, he voted "Not guilty." The Radical Republicans requested an adjournment, and the trial concluded on May 26 with failed votes on two more articles.The controversy surrounding Ross's vote centers on why he changed his mind. Some speculate that he may have been influenced by a $150,000 slush fund set up by Johnson's supporters. However, there is evidence that Ross's vote may not have been crucial, as at least four other senators were prepared to oppose conviction if necessary.Skadden, one of the largest law firms in the US, has announced a new policy requiring lawyers to work in the office four days a week. Previously, attorneys were required to be in the office only on Tuesdays through Thursdays. The firm stated that the modified hybrid work model aims to leverage the benefits of remote work while fostering innovation and professional development through increased in-person collaboration. Other prestigious law firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Milbank, and Simpson Thacher have already implemented similar office attendance policies. Some firms, such as Simpson Thacher and Sidley Austin, have even threatened to withhold bonus money from associates who do not comply with the office attendance requirements. The shift in policies reflects a power shift in the legal industry, with employers holding more sway due to economic conditions and cost-cutting measures. Younger lawyers, in particular, prefer flexible work arrangements, and a significant number would consider leaving their current jobs for opportunities with greater remote work options. Hybrid work arrangements have become prevalent across industries, with companies like Starbucks, Amazon, and Walt Disney implementing similar policies. However, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has expressed skepticism about remote work, stating that it doesn't work well for younger staff and management roles.Skadden Forces Lawyers Back to Offices Four Days Per Week (1)Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers, has been sentenced to 18 years in prison for his involvement in a plot to keep former President Donald Trump in power after losing the 2020 election. Another member of the Oath Keepers, Kelly Meggs, the leader of the Florida contingent, received a 12-year prison sentence. These are the first sentences for seditious conspiracy in over a decade. The judge emphasized that Rhodes' actions posed a threat to democracy and the fabric of the country, and he expressed concerns about future election-related violence. Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy by a Washington, DC, jury in November, and the judge ruled that his actions amounted to domestic terrorism. Prosecutors had requested a 25-year prison sentence for Rhodes, while Meggs showed contrition and received a lesser sentence due to his lesser role in the conspiracy. Rhodes, before his sentencing, claimed to be a political prisoner and repeated false allegations about the 2020 election. The sentencing is seen as having a chilling effect on extremist groups, and Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn stated that he hopes former President Trump will be held accountable next.Stewart Rhodes: Oath Keepers leader sentenced to 18 years in prison for plot to keep Trump in power | CNN PoliticsThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has announced plans to restrict the growth of large banks and potentially force them to sell assets if they fail to address ongoing issues. The decision follows concerns raised by acting Comptroller Michael Hsu that certain banks are becoming "too big to manage." The OCC intends to use various measures against banks that receive poor management grades, fail to address problems identified in enforcement actions, or face multiple enforcement actions over three years. These measures could include increasing capital and liquidity levels, limiting expansion plans, or canceling dividend payments. In severe cases, the OCC may consider mandating banks to reduce their asset size, divest subsidiaries or business lines, or exit certain markets. The policy aims to ensure that deficiencies are identified and that banks are given opportunities to rectify them. The new enforcement policy comes at a time when U.S. regulators are sending mixed signals regarding allowing further consolidation in the banking industry. Some regulators, such as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra, argue for dismantling large banks that pose risks to the economy, while others, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, suggest that increased merger activity may be necessary to strengthen the financial system.Big Banks With ‘Persistent Weaknesses' Targeted for BreakupHouse Republicans are preparing to introduce a tax package that reveals divisions within the caucus and provides insights into the policy approach of the new Ways and Means Committee chairman. The economic package, set to be unveiled in early June, is expected to include measures such as research and development tax breaks, full bonus depreciation, and interest expense deductions. Lawmakers are vying to ensure their priorities are included in the package, with potential measures including lifting the state and local tax deduction cap and changes to the Child Tax Credit. Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith has shown interest in the Child Tax Credit, and the bill will provide an indication of his stance on various tax issues. The package will need to garner enough votes from the caucus to pass the House. Republican lawmakers have been discussing potential provisions, including individual tax relief and increasing the 1099-K tax reporting threshold. There is also support for a version of the Child Tax Credit to be included, as it expired in 2021. The inclusion of some Child Tax Credit provisions would signal willingness to collaborate with Democrats. Additionally, Republican lawmakers from high-tax states are meeting with Smith to address the cap on state and local tax deductions. The caucus has not decided on its position if the package does not address the SALT cap, but it remains an important issue for them.SALT Cap Tweak, Child Tax Credit in the Mix for GOP Tax Package Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We have a regretful this day in legal history today, which is the flipside of yesterday's anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. Plessy v. Ferguson, widely regarded as a low watermark for the court and the origin of the “separate but equal” doctrine overturned in Brown was decided on this date in 1896. The case involved a Louisiana state law that permitted segregation by race, providing for "equal but separate accommodations" for white and colored individuals. The ruling upheld the constitutionality of the law, with Justice Henry Brown arguing that the separation did not imply inferiority, but rather was an interpretation chosen to be taken up by the “colored race.” Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, considering the law to be inconsistent with personal liberties and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. The decision reinforced the doctrine of "separate but equal" and allowed for the continued enforcement of racial segregation laws. It was not until the aforementioned landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s and subsequent civil rights legislation that state-enforced segregation was officially dismantled.The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments regarding a challenge to a New York City law that requires just cause for terminating fast-food workers. The law, enacted in 2021, limits the authority of fast-food companies to fire employees without valid reasons. If upheld, this law could have broader implications for exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine in other industries and regions. The New York City Council is also considering extending just-cause protections to all industries, and similar legislation is pending in Illinois. The case has attracted numerous amicus briefs from both business groups and worker advocacy organizations. The at-will employment doctrine, which allows companies to terminate workers for any reason except for discriminatory ones, is uncommon among industrialized democracies. Exceptions to this doctrine exist in the form of anti-discrimination laws and specific employment agreements. New York City's law applies to fast-food chains with a minimum of 30 locations and includes requirements for progressive discipline and written explanations for terminations. A US District Judge previously rejected the challenge to the law, ruling that it does not infringe on the collective bargaining process. The arguments in the Second Circuit will further determine the fate of the law.NYC's Protections for Fast-Food Workers Get Second Circuit TestThe EPA's $27 billion clean energy fund is driving the establishment of green banks in various states, irrespective of their political affiliation. Over the past two years, several states, including California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, have launched green banks, while others are moving closer to implementing them. The Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the $27 billion fund, has encouraged states to embrace green banks as a means of generating job opportunities and investment in renewable energy. Typically associated with blue states, green banks are now gaining traction in red states like Alaska, Florida, and Texas. The EPA's funding could mobilize over $250 billion in total investment, addressing a significant portion of the emissions reductions required to achieve President Biden's net zero emissions goal by 2050. Local green banks, such as Maryland's Montgomery County Green Bank, are well-positioned to leverage federal funding and have a track record of aligning with environmental equity objectives. However, advocates express concerns that Republican-led efforts to rescind climate provisions could undermine the benefits for disadvantaged communities. Despite the establishment of green banks, some Southern states still have policies that discourage residential solar projects, posing additional challenges to clean energy adoption.Green Banks Spring Up in States, Spurred by $27 Billion FundSimpson Thacher, a prominent Big Law firm, has implemented a policy stating that associates must be present in the office at least three days a week to be eligible for annual and discretionary bonuses. The firm recently updated its employee handbook, warning that associates who fail to comply may have their bonuses reduced or become ineligible. As the pandemic subsides, in reality or in practice, law firms are grappling with how to encourage lawyers, particularly junior associates who, the logic goes, benefit from in-person training, to return to the office. Simpson Thacher's move follows a similar announcement by Sidley Austin, another major Big Law firm, which emphasized that attendance would be a factor in bonus considerations. The adjustment in firm policies is attributed to the decrease in leverage for associates due to a slowdown in demand and cost-cutting measures. Simpson Thacher, a top performer in the mergers and acquisitions space, reported substantial gross revenue of nearly $2.2 billion last year. However, some associates express dissatisfaction with the requirement to work in the office while partners often work remotely, leading to challenges in communication and collaboration. Still others see it as a generational difference in work style.Simpson Thacher Tells Associates to Hit Office or Risk BonusesA little bit of tax talk. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced increased contribution limits for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) in 2024. Individuals with self-only coverage under a high-deductible health plan can save up to $4,150, compared to $3,850 in 2023. For family plans, the contribution limit has risen to $8,300 from $7,750. To qualify, individuals must have a high-deductible health plan with a minimum annual deductible of $1,600 for self-only coverage or $3,200 for family coverage. These adjustments allow individuals to deposit more tax-free money into their HSAs.IRS Increases Contribution Limits for Health Savings AccountsMontana Governor Greg Gianforte has signed legislation to ban Chinese-owned TikTok from operating in the state, making it the first U.S. state to ban the popular short video app. The ban, which takes effect on January 1, 2024, prohibits Google and Apple's app stores from offering TikTok within the state. However, there will be no penalties imposed on individuals using the app. TikTok, owned by ByteDance, responded by stating that the new law infringes on First Amendment rights and that it will continue to defend the rights of its users. The app has faced concerns about potential Chinese government influence and has over 150 million American users, mostly teenagers. The ban is likely to face legal challenges, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has criticized it as unconstitutional. Former President Donald Trump's attempt to ban TikTok and WeChat in 2020 was blocked by multiple courts. If the ban is effective, users of TikTok will have to get their Big Sky content from neighboring North Dakota which has, at best, a solid Medium Sky.  Montana to become first US state to ban TikTok | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode we discuss global ESG trends and evolving regulatory frameworks, including the recent increase of proposed legislation in the U.S. concerning ESG investments; the SEC climate disclosure rule proposed on March 21, 2022; and the scope of reporting obligations under the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and U.K. Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).Meet Your Episode Four Hosts:Leah Malone, Simpson ThacherPartner and leader of the Firm's Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability Practice; advises boards, management teams and investors on ESG and sustainability matters from conception through strategic implementation, oversight and reportingMatt Feehily, Simpson ThacherCounsel, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability; advises private equity firms, project sponsors, portfolio companies and corporations on the EU and U.K. regulatory frameworks for sustainable finance and ESG disclosures at product, firm and company levelsEmily B. Holland, Simpson ThacherCounsel, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Sustainability; advises sponsors, companies and financial institutions on policy and business decisions relating to an evolving scope of ESG requirements and expectations in the U.S. and worldwideCarolyn S. Houston, Simpson ThacherCounsel, Private Funds; focuses on a wide array of asset classes, including ESG/impact investing and internal arrangements, as well as infrastructure, buyout, secondaries and co-investmentContact UsTo learn more, visit us at www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com. If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com. This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher expressly disclaims all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher makes no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher.

Topic: An Unstoppable Drive   Guest: Adam Neuman    Bio:   Adam Neuman serves the Big Ten Conference as Chief of Staff, Strategy and Operations & Deputy General Counsel as a member of the conference's Senior Leadership Team. Neuman serves as a strategic aide to both the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors (COP/C) and the Big Ten Conference Commissioner in creating a movement of leadership in sports, academics and social responsibility throughout intercollegiate sports. Neuman joined the Big Ten Conference in January 2020 and played a strategic role in helping the conference navigate the most complex times in its 125-year history by assuming a leadership role in helping the conference navigate a global health pandemic. Neuman helped establish the Taskforce for Emerging Infectious Diseases and played a key role in the negotiations and implementation of a comprehensive COVID-19 testing program to help student-athletes, coaches and staff return to competition safely. His previous legal experience was with Simpson Thacher and Bartlett LLP as a corporate associate in their capital markets division. Prior, Neuman served as the lead speechwriter for the president of Yeshiva University. Neuman earned a joint juris doctorate and master's degree in public administration from the University of Pennsylvania. He graduated magna cum laude from Yeshiva University with a bachelor's degree in political science, receiving both the Phillip Lieberman Award for character and service, and an award for excellence in political science.   1)  Vision & Ambition   2)  Outworking Everyone in the Room   3)  Sensitivity to the environment around you   4)  Mental Health as a Priority on Campus   5)  Minnesota Vikings   6)  Young Israel of the West Side   and so much more!

More about Roofstock onChain and Sanjay Raghavan and Geoff ThompsonRoofstock onChain is the web3 subsidiary of Roofstock, the leading digital real estate investing platform for the $4 trillion single-family rental home sector. Using blockchain technology, Roofstock onChain provides investors the ability to purchase tokenized single family rental properties with one click, and to transact with crypto, cutting the time and cost incurred by legacy systems. Roofstock provides extensive resources for investors to actively participate in the SFR space, including data analytics, connections to property management companies and contractors, and other management tools. Founded in 2015, Roofstock has facilitated more than $5 billion in investment transactions to date.Sanjay is the Head of Web3 Initiatives of Roofstock onChain where he leads the real estate investing platform's blockchain initiative. After being accepted into Cypher Accelerator, the first-of-its-kind Wharton-backed program for blockchain startups, Sanjay continues to build connections between real estate investing and blockchain. Sanjay is also an Advisor at Pudgy Penguins NFTs. With over 20 years of finance and product experience, Sanjay has an extensive background consulting, developing, and founding several financial companies. Prior to Sanjay's current role at Roofstock, he was the Co-creator and GM of Roofstock One, an innovative, transparent rental investment platform that allows accredited investors to get targeted exposure to the economics of curated SFR properties. Before joining Roofstock, Sanjay served as a Product Manager at Renew Financial and Director of Carolina Financial Group LLC. He also co-founded LCAP Advisors which provides Wall Street caliber portfolio analysis and risk assessment solutions to small banks and credit unions for their on-balance sheet loans. Sanjay has a Masters in Business Administration from The Wharton School. Geoff is the Chief Blockchain Officer of Roofstock onChain where he leads the real estate investing platform's foray into web3. After being accepted into Cypher Accelerator, the first-of-its-kind Wharton-backed program for blockchain startups, Geoff continues to push the blockchain ecosystem forward through real estate investing. Geoff built his career at top tier law firms practicing in the areas of capital markets, banking and credit, structured finance, private equity and cross-border transactions. Geoff's prior role at Roofstock was as General Counsel where he advised on partnerships, product innovation, fundraising, deal structuring, real estate matters, securities law, international expansion, and all other legal and compliance matters. Before joining Roofstock, Geoff served as General Counsel at ApplePie Capital, where he was instrumental in helping the company originate over $500 million in small business loans in 3 years. He previously practiced law at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, White & Case and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Prior to attending law school, Geoff was an associate at McKinsey & Company. Geoff has an undergraduate degree from The American University of Paris and a Masters in International Economics from SDA Bocconi in Milan. He earned a JD and LLM from the Duke University School of Law.  Follow Sanjay on Twitter Follow Geoff on Twitter Follow Roofstock onChain on Twitter Connect with Sanjay on LinkedIn Connect with Geoff on LinkedIn Check out Roofstock onChain

Vertical mergers present unique doctrinal and economic issues and are rarely challenged in court, so when two vertical merger opinions are issued in a short period of time, it is a great opportunity to check in on this area of antitrust law. What are the facts and legal arguments that led to defense victories in the recently litigated UnitedHealth Group – Change Healthcare and Illumina – Grail mergers (currently under appeal)? Sara Razi, Partner at Simpson Thacher and counsel for Change, joins Sergei Zaslavsky and Jaclyn Phillips to discuss these important cases. Listen to this episode to learn more about these two cases and the important lessons they hold for merger litigation practitioners. With special guest: Sara Razi, Partner, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Related Links: UnitedHealth Group - Change Healthcare district court opinion Illumina - Grail administrative law judge opinion Hosted by: Sergei Zaslavsky, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Jaclyn Phillips, Associate, White & Case LLP

In this episode we discuss the emergence of new ESMA marketing guidelines; compliance with the SEC's new marketing rule coming into effect November 4, 2022; and key takeaways of interest for sponsors operating in the EU and the U.S.  Meet Your Episode Three Hosts:David W. Blass, Simpson Thacher Partner; formerly served as General Counsel of the Investment Company Institute and also held senior roles for over a decade at the SEC   Meaghan A. Kelly, Simpson Thacher Partner; specializes in advising fund managers with respect to SEC examinations, compliance and disclosure questions, and SEC enforcement investigations Owen Lysak, Simpson Thacher Partner; leads the Firm's European financial services and funds regulatory practice, advising private funds and alternative asset managers on complex U.K. and EU financial regulatory matters Contact UsTo learn more, visit us at http://www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com/ (www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com) and https://www.acaglobal.com/regulatory-roundtable-podcast (www.acaglobal.com/regulatory-roundtable-podcast). If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com.  This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher and ACA Group for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher and ACA expressly disclaim all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher and ACA make no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher or ACA Group.

Host Gary J. Ross discusses broker-dealer issues with David Blass, partner in Simpson Thacher's Investment Funds Practice and the former Chief Counsel of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets. Gary and David chat about the outsize role that transaction-based compensation plays in determining whether someone is functioning as a broker, the Paul Anka and M&A broker no-action letters, the process of registering as a broker, and finally, whether David sees himself ever going back into public service.

On the latest podcast, Patrick Ryan, the global head of finance and credit at Simpson Thacher, discusses the evolution of the lending markets over the course of his career and the rise of direct lending. 

Jessica Shillito has been in Big Law since she graduated from Harvard in 2006, but not as a lawyer. She is one of a number of lawyers who've made the hop from the legal side to a non-legal function in a law firm.After one year of practicing as a labor and employment attorney, Jessica jumped to a recruiting function and built a career as a recruiting and diversity leader at  leading law firms. She now serves as Associate Director of Legal Recruiting and Diversity at Simpson Thacher. Her career arc is a great example of the many non-legal opportunities that exist within Big Law. In this episode you'll hear about: Making the shift from attorney to recruiter inside a large law firm Recruiting for BigLaw in the midst of the 2008 recession The important efforts large law firms are making to improve diversity among their associates and partners This was an eye-opening and timely discussion. We hope you enjoy!Aaron & Joseph

On March 21, the SEC published a widely anticipated proposal to enhance companies' climate-related disclosures. In addition to details regarding how management identifies, assesses and manages climate-related risks and the related impact on financial metrics, the proposal calls for companies to provide information about how their boards provide oversight of climate-related matters.In this episode, Heather Horn was joined by PwC's Stephen Parker and Jamie Gamble, along with John White, a partner in the law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore and former Director of the Division of Corporation Finance at the SEC, to focus on the governance aspects of the SEC's climate disclosure proposal.In this episode, you will hear:2:46 - Potential timelines for final rule adoption and effective dates7:16 - The intent of the governance requirements in the climate disclosure proposal15:24 - If the governance provisions represent a trend for future SEC proposals25:45 - Reactions in the marketplace and how companies are navigating the “learning curve” around climate and governance28:29 - Perspectives on where responsibility for climate governance and oversight should reside41:42 - How board oversight of a well-defined ESG strategy allows companies to manage risks and drive success47:32 - Final advice on where boards and companies should focus as they continue to prepare for a final ruleWant to learn more? Listen to our previous podcasts that provide an overview of the proposal, related investor perspectives, and legal and regulatory perspectives on the proposal. Stephen Parker is a partner in PwC's Governance Insights Center, which strives to strengthen the connection between directors, executive teams, and investors by helping them navigate the evolving governance landscape. With more than 30 years of experience, Stephen has advised boards of directors on a variety of complex financial reporting matters. Stephen's client service experience has included energy and utility companies, financial services companies, and nonprofits.Jamie Gamble is a managing director in PwC's Trust Solutions practice with over 25 years of experience focused on corporate governance, cybersecurity, workforce, and ESG-related issues. Before joining PwC, he was a litigation partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.John White is a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, and chair of that firm's Corporate Governance and Board Advisory practice. He represents public companies on a variety of disclosure matters, including corporate governance, reporting, financings, and restatements. With over 50 years of experience, he previously served as the Director of the Division of Corporation Finance at the SEC and on the board of Financial Executives International. John is a current member of FASAC, and member of the Board of Trustees of the Practicing Law Institute where he also serves as chair of the audit committee.Transcripts available upon request for individuals who may need a disability-related accommodation. Please send requests to us_podcast@pwc.com.

Brent chats with Deborah Plum about techniques to maximize wealth transfers in a low market, low interest environment. They talk about GRATs, sales to IDGTs, intrafamily loans, and CLATs. They also speculate about market volatility and other things. Deborah is an attorney at Rimon, P.C. Deborah is an experienced trusts and estates associate with a background in corporate tax.  Deborah has extensive knowledge of charitable foundations and not-for-profit organizations.  Prior to joining Rimon, Deborah worked as a tax associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, where she worked on matters involving private equity funds, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), and other investment vehicles, in the context of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and tax-free reorganizations.   After gaining additional experience in tax controversy while working at Kostelanetz & Fink LLP, Deborah joined the trusts and estates group at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.  In shifting her focus to individual and family business tax planning, Deborah has advised clients on a variety of estate and gift tax questions, charitable endeavors, and succession planning. While not practicing law, Deborah works as the CEO of BaseCamp for Veterans, Inc. (“BCI”).  BCI is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization serving veterans and their families, which Deborah co-founded in 2018. BCI offers the veteran community a variety of reintegration services, with a particular focus on equine therapy with mustangs (wild horses that have had little to no human contact). For more information about BCI please visit www.bcampinc.com. If you are enjoying the podcast please SUBSCRIBE and leave a REVIEW, and if you want to learn more about Brent go to https://wealthandlaw.com/team/.

In this episode I speak with Sara Y. Razi who is the Global Co-Chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice at Simpson Thacher. She joined the firm's Washington D.C. office in 2013 after serving as a senior official at the Federal Trade Commission for nearly a decade. Sara has been recognized as a Leading Lawyer by the Legal 500 and was ranked one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation in the United States by Benchmark Litigation. In addition to advising clients in antitrust investigations and litigation as well as mergers, she serves co-chair of the Firm's Pro Bono Committee. She started her career as an Associate at Jones Day. In our conversation we discussed her path from horse trainer & molecular biology major to antitrust lawyer; how she became interested in antitrust law; the varied daily life of an antitrust lawyer; the differences between practicing as a government lawyer and as a Big Law lawyer (as well as how those experiences informed one another); how junior lawyers can stand out in a technical practice area like antitrust; how law students can prepare for on campus interviews; how she makes time (and helps others make time) to do pro bono work; and more. If you enjoy this episode, please make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode is sponsored, edited, and engineered by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys.

Anirudh Singh sits down with Katherine Salisbury, Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Qapital. The two discuss Katherine's early career, co-founding not one but two companies with her partner, Katherine's views on the fintech industry overall, and much more. Hope you enjoy the show! Katherine Salisbury: Ten years ago, Katherine set out to find a solution to her family's money management headaches - one that actually aligned with their motivations, goals and lifestyle. A few years later, Qapital was born. Today, Katherine serves as co-founder and co-CEO of Qapital – an app that empowers users by putting their personal goals at the core of the product, and then supercharging their savings, investing, and budgeting efforts with clever tips and tools rooted in behavioral psychology. Katherine brings 20 years of finance, legal, and business experience to Qapital. She graduated from the University of Chicago with honors, studied international business law at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, and graduated from Cornell Law School. She began her career as a bank finance attorney at the top-tier international law firms White & Case and Simpson Thacher. From there, she was tapped to serve as VP and Counsel at Jefferies Finance, steering Jefferies Finance through the early days of the joint venture between Jefferies and MassMutual. She then founded an international full-service sports management agency based in Stockholm & New York City, where she specialized in brokering international transfers. In her current role at Qapital, Katherine focuses on product, growth, and business strategy. Under her leadership, Qapital has helped users save almost $3 billion collectively for their goals. Currently, Katherine lives in Stockholm with her partner, co-founder, and co-CEO, George Friedman, and their four daughters. Qapital: https://www.qapital.com/?campaign=wharton_fintech_podcast&tt=j8e3x13_g6rptk3 For more FinTech insights, follow us below: Medium: medium.com/wharton-fintech LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/wharton-fintech-club/ WFT Twitter: twitter.com/whartonfintech Anirudh's Twitter: twitter.com/avsingh_24

Global cartel enforcement saw a resurgence in 2021, but throughout the globe, we saw a continued focus on domestic matters. Do last year's developments tell us anything about the areas that are likely to come into focus in 2022? John Terzaken, Partner and Global Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher's Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice, joins Matthew Hall and Jaclyn Phillips to discuss the rise in cartel enforcement activity and what trends to look out for in 2022. Listen to this episode to learn more about enforcement priorities that may be on the rise and whether we can expect to see the growing globalization of enforcement in 2022. Related Links: Simpson Thacher's 2022 Global Cartel Forecast Hosted by: Matthew Hall, Partner, McGuireWoods London LLP and Jaclyn Phillips, Associate, White & Case LLP

This episode focuses on the SEC's February 9 proposed rules targeting private equity and private funds; the SEC's January 26 proposed amendments to Form PF; and the Division of Examinations risk alert published January 27. Meet Your Episode Two HostsDavid W. Blass, Simpson Thacher Partner; formerly served as General Counsel of the Investment Company Institute and also held senior roles for over a decade at the SEC Meaghan A. Kelly, Simpson Thacher Partner; specializes in advising fund managers with respect to SEC examinations, compliance and disclosure questions, and SEC enforcement investigations Michael J. Osnato, Jr., Simpson Thacher Partner and Head of the Firm's Funds Regulatory and Investigations group; former Chief of the SEC's Complex Financial Instruments Unit Robert Ingwer, ACA Group Principal Consultant, Investment Adviser Division; compliance executive offering over 10 years' experience building, supporting and leading advisory businesses in both private equity and fixed income Contact UsTo learn more, visit us at http://www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com/ (www.regulatoryroundtablepodcast.com) and https://www.acaglobal.com/regulatory-roundtable-podcast (www.acaglobal.com/regulatory-roundtable-podcast). If you have any questions or any topics you would like to hear covered, contact us at regulatoryroundtable@stblaw.com.  This podcast was recorded and is being made available by Simpson Thacher and ACA Group for general informational purposes only. Listeners should not consider the information available via this podcast to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on the information provided during the podcast as legal advice for any purpose, and should always seek the legal advice of competent counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. Listeners should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information made available via this podcast, and Simpson Thacher and ACA expressly disclaim all liability in respect of actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this podcast. By accessing this podcast you acknowledge that Simpson Thacher and ACA make no warranty, guaranty, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information featured in the podcast. The views, information, or opinions expressed during this podcast series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect those of Simpson Thacher or ACA Group.

For the final episode of Movers, Shakers, and Rainmakers in 2021, our hosts tackle a topic that has made its way to the forefront for firms across the nation: culture. What are the actual differences when it comes to law firm culture? How are cultures shifting in a remote environment? Can a firm actually take steps to alter its culture? Also, David highlights the recent hiring by Cravath of former FTC Assistant Director, Daniel K. Zach, while Zach discusses the hiring of former Simpson Thacher's Emerging Growth Practice Head, Jean Park, by Cooley. Tune in!

Dr. Diane Kunz is the Executive Director of the Center for Adoption Policy. She has also taught diplomatic history at Yale, Columbia, and Duke. Prior to her diplomatic history work, Dr. Kunz was a corporate lawyer, working at White & Case and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. She is the author of numerous books including Butter and Guns: The Economic Diplomacy of the Cold War and a forthcoming work on the diplomatic, economic, and social history of US international adoption. The following are books and articles pertinent to our conversation today: Butter and Guns: America's Cold War Economic Diplomacy The Economic Diplomacy of the Suez Crisis The Battle for Britain's Gold Standard in 1931 Center for Adoption Policy Henry Kissinger and American Power: A Political Biography The Republic of Vietnam, 1955–1975: Vietnamese Perspectives on Nation Building