Our team of Administrative Law practitioners has the experience to help you and your business navigate the most challenging, complicated and adversarial regulatory problems at the federal, state, or local level. Our depth of experience allows us to focus on working with government agencies to avoid problems before they arise at the agency level and, if problems do arise, remedy or minimize them quickly and efficiently. In those situations in which it is necessary to turn to the courts to correct governmental action, our litigators have the experience and understanding to protect your interests through all phases of the litigation and appeals process.
Our team has a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles governing how agencies make rules and regulations and the processes they use to resolve disputes with businesses and individuals. Such understanding is critical not only when representing a client in a proceeding before a government agency, but also when mounting a challenge to an adverse agency decision in court or defending a favorable agency decision against a challenge in court by others. Our team’s depth of experience gives our clients the benefit of going to an administrative proceeding or court with lawyers who are knowledgeable about the industries and fields in which our clients do business, the substantive regulatory laws affecting our clients and a full understanding of the legal doctrines that apply to the agency decision-making process -- each of which is essential to success.
On February 24, 2026, the SEC released a sweeping overhaul of its Enforcement Manual, the internal guide that dictates how the Division of Enforcement conducts an investigation from initial contact through the Wells process and resolution. Manual revisions rarely make news. This one deserves it. Together with the Commission’s March 2025 decision to reclaim control over formal investigative orders, the new Manual changes the practical rules of engagement for any broker-dealer, investment adviser or associated person who receives a call, a letter or a subpoena from the staff. The majority of these changes tilt in favor of the defense, but only for those who recognize the opportunity and act on it.
Who should read this: Registered investment companies and business development companies (BDCs), fund boards and independent directors, fund counsel, chief compliance officers, investment advisers and fund managers, and BDC management teams and boards responsible for governance and compliance oversight.
Executive Summary
This update supplements our April 29, 2026, client alert on Virginia’s data center tax reform. On June 22, 2026, the Virginia General Assembly passed budget legislation (HB 30) that resolved the sales tax exemption dispute that had deadlocked the two chambers since March. The compromise preserves the existing sales tax exemption but imposes a first-of-its-kind energy consumption tax of $0.011 per kilowatt-hour on data center electricity usage, expected to generate up to $600 million annually. Governor Spanberger signed the budget into law on June 30, 2026, ahead of the June 30 constitutional deadline, and the new tax took effect July 1, 2026.
While the retention of the sales tax exemption provides near-term certainty for developers who relied on it, the new energy consumption tax introduces a material operating cost that must be incorporated into financial models. Critically, the tax expires at the end of the two-year budget cycle, and the legislation creates a joint legislative subcommittee to study the broader data center tax issue, signaling that this compromise is a waystation, not a final resolution. In the days following the budget signing, Governor Spanberger also signed a broader package of energy affordability legislation, including new restrictions on data center backup generator emissions, new tools for localities to assess data center impacts, ratepayer protections and legislation to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
Executive Summary
This update supplements our April 29, 2026, client alert on Virginia’s data center tax reform. On June 22, 2026, the Virginia General Assembly passed budget legislation (HB 30) that resolved the sales tax exemption dispute that had deadlocked the two chambers since March. The compromise preserves the existing sales tax exemption but imposes a first-of-its-kind energy consumption tax of $0.011 per kilowatt-hour on data center electricity usage, expected to generate up to $600 million annually. Governor Spanberger signed the budget into law on June 30, 2026, ahead of the June 30 constitutional deadline, and the new tax took effect July 1, 2026.
While the retention of the sales tax exemption provides near-term certainty for developers who relied on it, the new energy consumption tax introduces a material operating cost that must be incorporated into financial models. Critically, the tax expires at the end of the two-year budget cycle, and the legislation creates a joint legislative subcommittee to study the broader data center tax issue, signaling that this compromise is a waystation, not a final resolution. In the days following the budget signing, Governor Spanberger also signed a broader package of energy affordability legislation, including new restrictions on data center backup generator emissions, new tools for localities to assess data center impacts, ratepayer protections and legislation to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
THE HIGHLIGHTS FOR NONPROFITS RECEIVING DOJ LETTERS
On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia announced civil False Claims Act settlements with two nonprofits over PPP loans they were not eligible to receive, totaling more than $450,000.
The Department of Justice (DOJ)'s new National Fraud Enforcement Division, announced April 7, 2026, signals that pandemic-relief recoveries against nonprofits are accelerating, not winding down.
A nonprofit that received a DOJ letter, a civil investigative demand or an SBA inquiry about PPP eligibility faces civil exposure of up to treble damages plus a per-claim penalty.
THE HIGHLIGHTS FOR NONPROFITS RECEIVING DOJ LETTERS
On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia announced civil False Claims Act settlements with two nonprofits over PPP loans they were not eligible to receive, totaling more than $450,000.
The Department of Justice (DOJ)'s new National Fraud Enforcement Division, announced April 7, 2026, signals that pandemic-relief recoveries against nonprofits are accelerating, not winding down.
A nonprofit that received a DOJ letter, a civil investigative demand or an SBA inquiry about PPP eligibility faces civil exposure of up to treble damages plus a per-claim penalty.
On June 23, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which it described as the largest coordinated health care fraud enforcement action in its history. The aggregate figures are substantial: charges against 455 defendants, including roughly 90 doctors and other licensed professionals, tied to more than $6.5 billion in allegedly false claims. The action spanned 56 federal districts and 45 states and territories and, notably, drew the participation of 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, which is the most the Department has ever assembled for a single takedown.
On June 23, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which it described as the largest coordinated health care fraud enforcement action in its history. The aggregate figures are substantial: charges against 455 defendants, including roughly 90 doctors and other licensed professionals, tied to more than $6.5 billion in allegedly false claims. The action spanned 56 federal districts and 45 states and territories and, notably, drew the participation of 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, which is the most the Department has ever assembled for a single takedown.
Edward D. Jones & Co. agreed to a $125,000 fine and a censure to settle FINRA charges that it had failed to report approximately 2.7 million fractional-share liquidations to a FINRA trade reporting facility. The matter resolved through a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent, the negotiated procedure by which a firm consents to FINRA’s findings to resolve a disciplinary action without litigating it. The firm also paid the regulatory transaction fees owed on the unreported trades.
Edward D. Jones & Co. agreed to a $125,000 fine and a censure to settle FINRA charges that it had failed to report approximately 2.7 million fractional-share liquidations to a FINRA trade reporting facility. The matter resolved through a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent, the negotiated procedure by which a firm consents to FINRA’s findings to resolve a disciplinary action without litigating it. The firm also paid the regulatory transaction fees owed on the unreported trades.
On May 4, residents of Bristow gathered to tell Dominion Energy no. Their target was a single substation, expanded to push more electricity toward the data centers spreading across Northern Virginia. They called the rally “People Over Power.” Two weeks later, the utility they had come to protest agreed to be sold.
On May 4, residents of Bristow gathered to tell Dominion Energy no. Their target was a single substation, expanded to push more electricity toward the data centers spreading across Northern Virginia. They called the rally “People Over Power.” Two weeks later, the utility they had come to protest agreed to be sold.
Parties do not usually surrender after they win. On May 18, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission did.
For fifty-four years, the SEC conditioned nearly every enforcement settlement on one promise: the defendant would never publicly deny the agency’s allegations. Settle, pay the penalty and move on. Never tell the public the case was wrong. Critics called it the gag rule. [1]
Parties do not usually surrender after they win. On May 18, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission did.
For fifty-four years, the SEC conditioned nearly every enforcement settlement on one promise: the defendant would never publicly deny the agency’s allegations. Settle, pay the penalty and move on. Never tell the public the case was wrong. Critics called it the gag rule. [1]
This Term, the Supreme Court will decide whether a farmer, applicator or homeowner who develops cancer after using a federally registered pesticide may hold the manufacturer liable under state law for failing to warn of that risk — or whether federal law forecloses the claim. The question in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S. argued Apr. 27, 2026), is narrow on its face and consequential in fact. Tens of thousands of Roundup claims are pending in state and federal courts. The answer will recalibrate the litigation exposure of every pesticide registrant and the regulatory latitude of every state. It will also leave a surprising amount unresolved — a point that matters as much for planning as the holding itself.
This Term, the Supreme Court will decide whether a farmer, applicator or homeowner who develops cancer after using a federally registered pesticide may hold the manufacturer liable under state law for failing to warn of that risk — or whether federal law forecloses the claim. The question in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 (U.S. argued Apr. 27, 2026), is narrow on its face and consequential in fact. Tens of thousands of Roundup claims are pending in state and federal courts. The answer will recalibrate the litigation exposure of every pesticide registrant and the regulatory latitude of every state. It will also leave a surprising amount unresolved — a point that matters as much for planning as the holding itself.
Virginia’s rooftop solar economics just changed in Dominion territory in ways that matter for capital planning and project design.
Last week, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) approved Dominion’s “NEM 2.0” tariff and set a new export credit rate of 5.829¢/kWh for customers who send more electricity back to the grid than they use over the annual netting period. That figure combines a 4.829¢/kWh avoided-cost rate with an additional 1¢/kWh to reflect avoided Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance costs—explicit recognition that customer-owned solar reduces Dominion’s need to procure renewable energy to meet statutory targets.
Virginia’s rooftop solar economics just changed in Dominion territory in ways that matter for capital planning and project design.
Last week, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) approved Dominion’s “NEM 2.0” tariff and set a new export credit rate of 5.829¢/kWh for customers who send more electricity back to the grid than they use over the annual netting period. That figure combines a 4.829¢/kWh avoided-cost rate with an additional 1¢/kWh to reflect avoided Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) compliance costs—explicit recognition that customer-owned solar reduces Dominion’s need to procure renewable energy to meet statutory targets.
In an unpublished opinion issued April 24, 2026, a divided Fourth Circuit panel reversed two convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, holding that evidence of a generally questionable billing practice could not, on its own, establish that the specific claims charged in the indictment were false.
In an unpublished opinion issued April 24, 2026, a divided Fourth Circuit panel reversed two convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1347, holding that evidence of a generally questionable billing practice could not, on its own, establish that the specific claims charged in the indictment were false.
Federal immigration enforcement is not theoretical. It is operational. Employers across Virginia, DC, Maryland, Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Florida and Kentucky should assume that Form I-9 inspections are occurring now and without warning.
A standard inspection starts quietly. A written Notice of Inspection arrives. It triggers a fixed response window. Three business days.
Federal immigration enforcement is not theoretical. It is operational. Employers across Virginia, DC, Maryland, Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Florida and Kentucky should assume that Form I-9 inspections are occurring now and without warning.
A standard inspection starts quietly. A written Notice of Inspection arrives. It triggers a fixed response window. Three business days.
In the last ten days, the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have moved from geopolitical risk to operational crisis. QatarEnergy has declared force majeure on LNG deliveries. Major oil and gas producers have suspended shipments. Tankers have been struck or stranded. For companies holding supply, delivery, and commercial contracts with Middle East delivery obligations touching upon the Strait of Hormuz, the question is no longer whether to engage force majeure — it is whether your clause will hold under scrutiny, and whether you have already missed the window to invoke it.
In the last ten days, the Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have moved from geopolitical risk to operational crisis. QatarEnergy has declared force majeure on LNG deliveries. Major oil and gas producers have suspended shipments. Tankers have been struck or stranded. For companies holding supply, delivery, and commercial contracts with Middle East delivery obligations touching upon the Strait of Hormuz, the question is no longer whether to engage force majeure — it is whether your clause will hold under scrutiny, and whether you have already missed the window to invoke it.
The Paycheck Protection Program was a lifeline for small businesses struggling to keep their employees paid during the COVID-19 pandemic. But for business owners who failed to include all applicable employees in their size determination for First Draw and Second Draw PPP Loan applications, the PPP lifeline that once saved their business could turn into a costly federal False Claims Act investigation.
The Paycheck Protection Program was a lifeline for small businesses struggling to keep their employees paid during the COVID-19 pandemic. But for business owners who failed to include all applicable employees in their size determination for First Draw and Second Draw PPP Loan applications, the PPP lifeline that once saved their business could turn into a costly federal False Claims Act investigation.
The next 12 months will separate leaders from laggards in U.S. digital finance. Congress’s passage of the GENIUS Act and rapid advancement of the CLARITY Act signal a turning point for stablecoin issuers, DeFi platforms, exchanges, and digital asset service providers. As federal agencies move quickly to draft implementing rules, businesses face pressing calls to prepare for “regulation-by-rulebook.”
The next 12 months will separate leaders from laggards in U.S. digital finance. Congress’s passage of the GENIUS Act and rapid advancement of the CLARITY Act signal a turning point for stablecoin issuers, DeFi platforms, exchanges, and digital asset service providers. As federal agencies move quickly to draft implementing rules, businesses face pressing calls to prepare for “regulation-by-rulebook.”
The Department of Energy (DOE) has recently terminated or suspended a number of high-profile energy grants, withdrawing more than $3.7 billion in commitments for projects involving carbon capture, decarbonization, and hydrogen production. While some of these awards were only partially funded at the time of cancellation, the decisions have immediate implications for recipients’ ongoing work, contractual obligations, and long-term planning.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has recently terminated or suspended a number of high-profile energy grants, withdrawing more than $3.7 billion in commitments for projects involving carbon capture, decarbonization, and hydrogen production. While some of these awards were only partially funded at the time of cancellation, the decisions have immediate implications for recipients’ ongoing work, contractual obligations, and long-term planning.
On August 5, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals addressed the finality of court orders and the limits of its appellate jurisdiction. While the decision was made in the context of a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”) dispute, it has broader application, especially to those cases in which attorney fees are sought.
On August 5, 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals addressed the finality of court orders and the limits of its appellate jurisdiction. While the decision was made in the context of a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (“VFOIA”) dispute, it has broader application, especially to those cases in which attorney fees are sought.
The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) set aside an Emergency Cease Order issued by the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) against Billionico Academy, Auratus, and related respondents in Texas State Securities Board v. Billionico Academy et al. (SOAH Docket No. 312-25-18829). The decision, based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, underscores robust protections for nonresident entities and individuals operating in the cryptocurrency and global business sectors.
The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) set aside an Emergency Cease Order issued by the Texas State Securities Board (TSSB) against Billionico Academy, Auratus, and related respondents in Texas State Securities Board v. Billionico Academy et al. (SOAH Docket No. 312-25-18829). The decision, based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, underscores robust protections for nonresident entities and individuals operating in the cryptocurrency and global business sectors.
The U.S. crypto landscape is transforming, with new regulations poised to redefine how digital asset businesses operate. We previously explored stablecoin rules under the GENIUS Act (read more here), which recently passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 68-30. Now, we are focusing on the Crypto Market Structure Bill—known as the CLARITY Act—and the SEC’s proposed “Innovation Exemption” for DeFi, which together offer a roadmap for navigating the broader crypto ecosystem.
The U.S. crypto landscape is transforming, with new regulations poised to redefine how digital asset businesses operate. We previously explored stablecoin rules under the GENIUS Act (read more here), which recently passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 68-30. Now, we are focusing on the Crypto Market Structure Bill—known as the CLARITY Act—and the SEC’s proposed “Innovation Exemption” for DeFi, which together offer a roadmap for navigating the broader crypto ecosystem.
In April 2025, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a landmark bill introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty to regulate the $180 billion stablecoin market. With bipartisan support and a full Senate vote expected by Q3 2025, the Act signals the end of regulatory ambiguity for digital assets like USDC, Tether, and Binance USD. Coupled with broader cryptocurrency market reforms under discussion, these changes are reshaping the landscape for issuers, DeFi platforms, and investors.
In April 2025, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, a landmark bill introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty to regulate the $180 billion stablecoin market. With bipartisan support and a full Senate vote expected by Q3 2025, the Act signals the end of regulatory ambiguity for digital assets like USDC, Tether, and Binance USD. Coupled with broader cryptocurrency market reforms under discussion, these changes are reshaping the landscape for issuers, DeFi platforms, and investors.
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has intensified civil fraud investigations aimed at borrowers who obtained Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans despite falling outside the class of entities Congress meant to assist. Many non-profit organizations are alleged to have falsely certified PPP eligibility and, as a result, face treble-damages liability under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) as well as potential criminal exposure for wire- and mail-fraud. The DOJ’s focus on pandemic relief fraud is part of a broader government initiative to recover misallocated federal funds and deter future misconduct. This situation is a reminder that every organization that received—or is contemplating forgiveness of—a PPP loan should reassess its eligibility and the accuracy of the certifications it made to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).
The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has intensified civil fraud investigations aimed at borrowers who obtained Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans despite falling outside the class of entities Congress meant to assist. Many non-profit organizations are alleged to have falsely certified PPP eligibility and, as a result, face treble-damages liability under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) as well as potential criminal exposure for wire- and mail-fraud. The DOJ’s focus on pandemic relief fraud is part of a broader government initiative to recover misallocated federal funds and deter future misconduct. This situation is a reminder that every organization that received—or is contemplating forgiveness of—a PPP loan should reassess its eligibility and the accuracy of the certifications it made to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) released Information Notice 5000-866746, announcing the issuance of SOP 50 10 8 (“SOP”) (found here), which introduces significant changes to the SBA 7(a) loan program. Effective June 1, 2025, these revisions largely reinstate pre-2021 underwriting criteria by adjusting loan size limits, clarifying eligibility requirements, and restoring several longstanding SBA policies.
On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) released Information Notice 5000-866746, announcing the issuance of SOP 50 10 8 (“SOP”) (found here), which introduces significant changes to the SBA 7(a) loan program. Effective June 1, 2025, these revisions largely reinstate pre-2021 underwriting criteria by adjusting loan size limits, clarifying eligibility requirements, and restoring several longstanding SBA policies.
Since January, multiple fundamental developments have dramatically altered the Title IX landscape, signaling a seismic shift in its interpretation and enforcement. These developments include a rapidly escalating and public feud between the Trump administration and the Maine Department of Education over Maine’s refusal to ban transgender girls from participating in school athletic competitions designated exclusively for girls. These interpretation and enforcement developments implicate issues of constitutional law, states’ rights and practical politics, and it is critical for those working in education and receiving federal funding to understand and navigate the changes.
Since January, multiple fundamental developments have dramatically altered the Title IX landscape, signaling a seismic shift in its interpretation and enforcement. These developments include a rapidly escalating and public feud between the Trump administration and the Maine Department of Education over Maine’s refusal to ban transgender girls from participating in school athletic competitions designated exclusively for girls. These interpretation and enforcement developments implicate issues of constitutional law, states’ rights and practical politics, and it is critical for those working in education and receiving federal funding to understand and navigate the changes.
On her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced several changes to the standards governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, charging decisions, plea negotiations and sentencing recommendations.
On her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced several changes to the standards governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, charging decisions, plea negotiations and sentencing recommendations.
On January 23, 2025, the Fourth Circuit upheld an Advisory Opinion issued by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) that found a proposed drug subsidization program could violate the Anti-Kickback Statute.
On January 23, 2025, the Fourth Circuit upheld an Advisory Opinion issued by the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) that found a proposed drug subsidization program could violate the Anti-Kickback Statute.
For companies whose operations are subject to strict federal regulations – and particularly those that are facing or may be facing enforcement actions – take note. The U.S. Supreme Court may have just leveled the playing field. On Friday, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing legal precedent that instructed courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws they administer. Instead, federal laws will be interpreted by the courts. Federal agencies will need to prove their cases, including enforcement actions where an arguably ambiguous statute is at issue. This is good news for businesses in the U.S.
For companies whose operations are subject to strict federal regulations – and particularly those that are facing or may be facing enforcement actions – take note. The U.S. Supreme Court may have just leveled the playing field. On Friday, June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing legal precedent that instructed courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws they administer. Instead, federal laws will be interpreted by the courts. Federal agencies will need to prove their cases, including enforcement actions where an arguably ambiguous statute is at issue. This is good news for businesses in the U.S.
On December 22, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”). FEPA is aimed at the “demand” side of foreign corruption and bribery, making it unlawful for any foreign official to demand a bribe from a U.S. issuer or domestic concern or to make such a demand within the United States. FEPA is intended to serve as a complement to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which for decades has made it unlawful for a U.S. issuer to offer a bribe to a foreign official in order to obtain an improper business advantage. While the FCPA already addressed the payment of bribes to foreign officials, FEPA now criminalizes the request from foreign officials as well.
On December 22, 2023, President Biden signed into law the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (“FEPA”). FEPA is aimed at the “demand” side of foreign corruption and bribery, making it unlawful for any foreign official to demand a bribe from a U.S. issuer or domestic concern or to make such a demand within the United States. FEPA is intended to serve as a complement to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), which for decades has made it unlawful for a U.S. issuer to offer a bribe to a foreign official in order to obtain an improper business advantage. While the FCPA already addressed the payment of bribes to foreign officials, FEPA now criminalizes the request from foreign officials as well.
As one of the authors noted in a previous alert, “the CARES Act provided that the forgiven amounts of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans would not be includable in a PPP borrower’s gross income at the federal level, and subsequent legislation provided that expenses paid with PPP funds would still be tax deductible.” Recent non-precedential guidance from the IRS’s Office of Associate Chief Counsel, however, has concluded that only properly forgiven amounts will not be treated as gross income by the IRS. In short, the IRS intends to reach its own determination regarding the propriety of the decision of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to forgive PPP loan amounts.
As one of the authors noted in a previous alert, “the CARES Act provided that the forgiven amounts of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans would not be includable in a PPP borrower’s gross income at the federal level, and subsequent legislation provided that expenses paid with PPP funds would still be tax deductible.” Recent non-precedential guidance from the IRS’s Office of Associate Chief Counsel, however, has concluded that only properly forgiven amounts will not be treated as gross income by the IRS. In short, the IRS intends to reach its own determination regarding the propriety of the decision of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to forgive PPP loan amounts.
Recently, we’ve been hearing from clients that their Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans are being reviewed by the Small Business Administration ("SBA") and we are here to help respond to SBA inquiries and requests for information. This Client Alert discusses the Interim Final Rule (“IFR”), effective September 14, 2021, promulgated by the SBA detailing the procedures for appealing adverse PPP forgiveness determinations. Note that these will only become relevant if the SBA formally denies (in whole or in part) a PPP forgiveness application by the delivery of a final SBA loan review decision document.
Recently, we’ve been hearing from clients that their Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans are being reviewed by the Small Business Administration ("SBA") and we are here to help respond to SBA inquiries and requests for information. This Client Alert discusses the Interim Final Rule (“IFR”), effective September 14, 2021, promulgated by the SBA detailing the procedures for appealing adverse PPP forgiveness determinations. Note that these will only become relevant if the SBA formally denies (in whole or in part) a PPP forgiveness application by the delivery of a final SBA loan review decision document.
At a time when contractors are attempting to implement shifting and unclear cybersecurity requirements, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is now promising to wield the False Claims Act when it – in its sole discretion – finds contract performance wanting.
At a time when contractors are attempting to implement shifting and unclear cybersecurity requirements, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) is now promising to wield the False Claims Act when it – in its sole discretion – finds contract performance wanting.
Although few attorneys are likely to get excited over litigating an issue involving “standing,” this is often an important and outcome-determinative hurdle that challengers to a zoning reclassification must overcome. In early 2013, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Ray v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, re-examined and distilled the caselaw on this issue in the context of a decision by the Baltimore City Council’s approval of a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) which would bring a Wal-Mart to Baltimore’s Remington and Charles Village neighborhoods. As explained below, Ray is a critically important opinion for zoning and land-use attorneys, because, although purporting to peg standing as an issue “that it is based on a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis,” the Court of Appeals – intentionally or not – may have created a bright-line test for proximity that challengers to a zoning reclassification must pass.
Although few attorneys are likely to get excited over litigating an issue involving “standing,” this is often an important and outcome-determinative hurdle that challengers to a zoning reclassification must overcome. In early 2013, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Ray v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, re-examined and distilled the caselaw on this issue in the context of a decision by the Baltimore City Council’s approval of a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) which would bring a Wal-Mart to Baltimore’s Remington and Charles Village neighborhoods. As explained below, Ray is a critically important opinion for zoning and land-use attorneys, because, although purporting to peg standing as an issue “that it is based on a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis,” the Court of Appeals – intentionally or not – may have created a bright-line test for proximity that challengers to a zoning reclassification must pass.
On June 25, 2012 -- while Constitutional Law wonks waited with bated breath for the Supreme Court’s decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which came just three days later -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered an interesting opinion on the relationship between the U.S. government and the States, which basically went unnoticed.
On June 25, 2012 -- while Constitutional Law wonks waited with bated breath for the Supreme Court’s decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which came just three days later -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered an interesting opinion on the relationship between the U.S. government and the States, which basically went unnoticed.
The doctrines of double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and res judicata, "are different; they apply in different circumstances and they prevent different things." Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Cmty. Assoc., Inc., 361 Md. 371, 390, 761 A.2d 899, 909 (2000). Although they may not sleep in the same bed, they should at least be thought of as residing on the same floor in the dormitory, as collateral estoppel and res judicata are two "branches of a doctrine known as estoppel by judgment," Klein v. Whitehead, 40 Md. App. 1, 13, 389 A.2d 374, 381 (1978), and both res judicata and collateral estoppel are "two of the individual members of a larger doctrinal family, known collectively as the law of double jeopardy."2Burkett v. State, 98 Md. App. 459, 463, 633 A.2d 902, 904 (1993) (internal citation omitted); see Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) ("A primary purpose of [double jeopardy] is akin to that served by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel -- to preserve the finality of judgments."). Further, collateral estoppel and res judicata are based on "the sound and obvious principle of judicial policy that a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered . . . on an issue identical in substance to the one he subsequently seeks to raise." Astoria Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991). Because the policies underlying the three doctrines are similar, it is not uncommon for litigants to argue more than one of them concurrently.
The doctrines of double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, and res judicata, "are different; they apply in different circumstances and they prevent different things." Colandrea v. Wilde Lake Cmty. Assoc., Inc., 361 Md. 371, 390, 761 A.2d 899, 909 (2000). Although they may not sleep in the same bed, they should at least be thought of as residing on the same floor in the dormitory, as collateral estoppel and res judicata are two "branches of a doctrine known as estoppel by judgment," Klein v. Whitehead, 40 Md. App. 1, 13, 389 A.2d 374, 381 (1978), and both res judicata and collateral estoppel are "two of the individual members of a larger doctrinal family, known collectively as the law of double jeopardy."2Burkett v. State, 98 Md. App. 459, 463, 633 A.2d 902, 904 (1993) (internal citation omitted); see Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) ("A primary purpose of [double jeopardy] is akin to that served by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel -- to preserve the finality of judgments."). Further, collateral estoppel and res judicata are based on "the sound and obvious principle of judicial policy that a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered . . . on an issue identical in substance to the one he subsequently seeks to raise." Astoria Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991). Because the policies underlying the three doctrines are similar, it is not uncommon for litigants to argue more than one of them concurrently.
87 lawyers from Whiteford have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2027. The attorneys selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Owen P. McEvoy has joined the firm as a Partner in Baltimore. Having served three governors and a county executive, he brings more than 13 years of experience in state and local government.
Whiteford is pleased to announce that Owen P. McEvoy has joined the firm as a Partner in Baltimore. Having served three governors and a county executive, he brings more than 13 years of experience in state and local government.
Eric Atkinson represents healthcare providers in regulatory, civil and criminal litigation, with a particular focus on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.
Eric Atkinson represents healthcare providers in regulatory, civil and criminal litigation, with a particular focus on Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse.
As Co-Chair of Whiteford's Corporate & Securities Law Section, Dale Mullen leads a team that includes former attorneys general, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, regulatory board veterans and federal law clerks.
As Co-Chair of Whiteford's Corporate & Securities Law Section, Dale Mullen leads a team that includes former attorneys general, Special Assistant United States Attorneys, regulatory board veterans and federal law clerks.
83 lawyers from Whiteford have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
83 lawyers from Whiteford have been selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026. The lawyers selected are based in the firm’s Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Virginia and Washington, DC offices. Client comments are posted on the Best Lawyers website, at bestlawfirms.com.
Whiteford announced today that Robert E. Maclin, III has joined the firm as a Partner in its Lexington, Kentucky, office. Rob has over 30 years of practice throughout the Commonwealth and nationally, and is widely recognized as a leading Kentucky lawyer.
Whiteford announced today that Robert E. Maclin, III has joined the firm as a Partner in its Lexington, Kentucky, office. Rob has over 30 years of practice throughout the Commonwealth and nationally, and is widely recognized as a leading Kentucky lawyer.
Dale G. Mullen, a partner in Whiteford’s Richmond office, has been appointed to the Virginia Board of Accountancy by Governor Glenn Youngkin. He was sworn in by Secretary of the Commonwealth Kay Coles James on March 15. The mission of the VBOA is to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth through a regulatory program of licensure and compliance of CPAs and CPA firms. “It is a tremendous honor to serve in this capacity,” Mr. Mullen said.
Dale G. Mullen, a partner in Whiteford’s Richmond office, has been appointed to the Virginia Board of Accountancy by Governor Glenn Youngkin. He was sworn in by Secretary of the Commonwealth Kay Coles James on March 15. The mission of the VBOA is to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth through a regulatory program of licensure and compliance of CPAs and CPA firms. “It is a tremendous honor to serve in this capacity,” Mr. Mullen said.
