Andrew J. Ehrlich

Sep 19, 2024 | lexology.com | H. Christopher Boehning |Jessica Carey |John Carlin |Andrew J. Ehrlich |Roberto González |Brad S. Karp | +7 more

On August 28, 2024, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued a rule (the “Final Rule”) imposing new anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) standards on certain investment advisers (“Covered Investment Advisers”).[1] The Final Rule finalizes a draft that FinCEN proposed in its February 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), with certain changes as discussed below.[2] Although the Final Rule does not take...

Aug 21, 2024 | lexology.com | Robert Atkins |Joseph J. Bial |Rebecca Coccaro |Lina Dagnew |Andrew J. Ehrlich |Reuven Falik | +19 more

A federal district court in Texas ruled on the merits that the FTC does not have statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Clause Rule and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. As a consequence, the court set aside the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and ordered that it “shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect.” The order is nationwide in scope and not party-specific. Two other challenges to the rule are pending in other district courts.

Jul 24, 2024 | lexology.com | Robert Atkins |Joseph J. Bial |Rebecca Coccaro |Lina Dagnew |Andrew J. Ehrlich |Reuven Falik | +16 more

Current state of affairsTwo different federal district courts have now issued two different rulings in similar challenges to the same FTC Non-Compete Clause Rule. In the first, Ryan, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 24-cv-986 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024), the court granted plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and stayed the effective date of the rule pending a ruling on the merits. In the second, ATS Tree Services, LLC v.

May 24, 2024 | lexology.com | H. Christopher Boehning |Walter Brown |Geoffrey R. Chepiga |Andrew J. Ehrlich |Andrew Gordon |Gregory F. Laufer | +2 more

On May 16, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218, 601 U.S. __ (May 16, 2024), that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires district courts to stay litigation subject to a potential arbitration, rather than dismiss such claims. The decision requires district courts to retain jurisdiction over a matter that is subject to arbitration, which has important implications for which court will ultimately supervise and/or confirm or vacate an arbitration award.

Apr 23, 2024 | lexology.com | Geoffrey R. Chepiga |Andrew J. Ehrlich |David Friedman |Jaren Janghorbani |Brad S. Karp |Daniel Kramer | +3 more

On April 15, 2024, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion written by Judge Frank H. Easterbrook in Alcarez v.