Thomas Lee

Nov 13, 2024 | mondaq.com | Thomas Lee |Bryan Keyt |Merrit Jones |John Kindschuh

Summary PFAS in Children's Products is a major focus for state regulators across the country, prompting some of the most stringent PFAS restrictions in consumer products. Thus far, eleven (11) states have enacted regulations concerning PFAS substances in Children's or Juvenile Products (“Children's Products”). Six (6) additional states have proposed Children's Products regulations, and many of these are expected to continue to move through the legislative process in future months.

Nov 5, 2024 | mondaq.com | Thomas Lee |Merrit Jones |Nora Faris |John Kindschuh

On September 29, 2024, Governor Newsom approved AB 347 which, among other things, finally answers the question of which California agency will be tasked with enforcing and interpreting at least some of California's PFAS in consumer products laws.

Sep 18, 2024 | lexology.com | Thomas Lee |Bryan Keyt |Erin Brooks |John Kindschuh

SummaryThe regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) in drinking water remains one of the primary focuses for legislatures and agencies at both the state and federal levels. In April 2024, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCLs”) and Maximum Concentration Level Goals (“MCLGs”) for certain PFAS, establishing limits as low as 4 parts per trillion (“ppt”).

Jan 30, 2024 | lexology.com | Liza Andrews |Bret T. Chrisope |Adam Cohen |Andrew J. Colosimo |Steven Epstein |Christopher Ewan | +26 more

In Cantor Fitzgerald v. Ainslie (Jan. 29, 2024), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s decision that a “forfeiture-for-competition” provision in a limited partnership agreement was unenforceable because it was unreasonable. More importantly, the Supreme Court held that forfeiture-for-competition provisions in partnership agreements—which condition receipt of future payments on non-competition—are not subject to review for reasonableness at all.

Jan 30, 2024 | lexology.com | Liza Andrews |Bret T. Chrisope |Adam Cohen |Andrew J. Colosimo |Steven Epstein |Christopher Ewan | +26 more

In Cantor Fitzgerald v. Ainslie (Jan. 29, 2024), the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Court of Chancery’s decision that a “forfeiture-for-competition” provision in a limited partnership agreement was unenforceable because it was unreasonable. More importantly, the Supreme Court held that forfeiture-for-competition provisions in partnership agreements—which condition receipt of future payments on non-competition—are not subject to review for reasonableness at all.