Massachusetts' recently filed False Claims Act suit alleging UnitedHealthcare misrepresented the health status of enrollees in a Medicaid senior care organization plan it managed pushes forward a new phase of state-level scrutiny of managed care data and Medicaid payment mechanisms, say Li Yu at Bernstein Litowitz, Ellen London at London & Naor and Gwendolyn Stamper at Vogel Slade.

Attorneys at Patterson Belknap provide an overview of the increased risk of antitrust enforcement for health insurance companies using algorithmic price models, including in the form of multidistrict private litigation, new state and federal bills, and potential federal enforcement.

In light of a series of judgments from a German regional court and the Unified Patent Court, U.S. entities and their counsel should keep pace with the willing licensee standard developing abroad, as standard essential patent and fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing disputes have become cross-border campaigns, say attorneys at Fish & Richardson.

Recently revised guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will operationalize a framework permitting drug developers to share product information with insurance companies, giving psychedelic therapeutics developers a road map for building a successful payor infrastructure before approval, says Kimberly Chew at Husch Blackwell.

A recent California federal court order in TEEC Angel Management v. Tsingyuan Ventures allowing Lanham Act claims to proceed confirms that the question of who gets to tell the story of a shared win is now being litigated as false advertising instead of industry professional etiquette, says Ben Dubin at VC Expert Services.

A Texas bankruptcy court's recent remand ruling, which disallowed Serta Simmons Bedding’s uptier debt exchange and awarded $400 million to the minority lenders, demonstrates why deal counsel negotiating similar agreements should clearly define exceptions and lien subordination, while litigators should lean on express terms, says Jamie Aycock at Yetter Coleman.

With the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, property owners' right to recover attorney fees for appropriations under the Natural Gas Act is at stake, potentially leading to a choice between a depressed land valuation or court costs that could exceed any rewards, says attorney Sophia Holley.

Following a recently issued immigration-related executive order, financial institutions should expect and prepare for increased scrutiny of customer due diligence and identification, suspicious activity monitoring, and consumer lending, as well as accompanying supervisory shifts and rising fair lending risks, says Douglas Weissinger at Butler Snow.

In Huey v. Anavex, the Second Circuit recently appeared to increase the burden on securities fraud plaintiffs in pleading loss causation where no immediate share price decline follows the corrective disclosure, generating new questions that district courts must grapple with, say attorneys at Skadden.

A recent Office of Foreign Assets Control guide signals that its 50% ownership rule can determine not only sanctions compliance but also whether a company can sponsor multinational executives for immigration, highlighting an often overlooked interaction between sanctions and immigration law, says Xuan Zhang at Reid & Wise.

Intellectual property attorneys should consider what several significant developments in 2026 thus far mean for how they protect, litigate and value trade secrets, focusing on new state noncompete bans, cases scrutinizing how plaintiffs identify trade secrets and federal rulings on damages doctrines, say attorneys at Faegre Drinker.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's recently proposed overhaul of foreign landholder reporting obligations would expand covered agricultural uses, mandate more detailed online disclosures and toughen penalties, so organizations must proactively reassess U.S. land interests and prepare for a more stringent compliance regime, say attorneys at Skadden.

A Delaware federal court's recent upholding of a bankruptcy court's disallowance of unions' federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act claims against Yellow underscores that fact-specific notices and thoughtful timing are essential for distressed companies implementing layoffs, say attorneys at King & Spalding.

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook mark major turning points in the law of independent agencies and in how regulated companies should think about federal enforcement, rulemaking and agency-facing strategy, say attorneys at Holtzman Vogel.

CME Group's recent lawsuit over the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's approval of a Kalshi application to offer a bitcoin perpetual contract as a futures product could have cascading consequences for crypto derivatives regulation, highlighting why policy ambitions do not override statutory text or substitute for reasoned decision-making, says attorney Tamara de Silva.

Recent National Environmental Policy Act reforms, in tandem with a Senate bill proposing faster permitting reviews and greater agency coordination, mark a long overdue move toward more efficient energy and infrastructure permitting that does not sacrifice environmental assessment, say attorneys at GableGotwals.

In delayed generic-drug entry cases that have generated substantial settlements in recent years, damages are often measured by profits lost during the delay window, but this model can fail to account for potentially significant economic harm that occurs after that window, say analysts at Kroll.

A pending federal court case and investigation focusing on Microsoft's allegedly anticompetitive conduct in the deployment of artificial intelligence tools are testing whether antitrust law can distinguish ordinary competition to supply the AI ecosystem from conduct that distorts how that competition unfolds, says Kylie Kim at Massey & Gail.

The Delaware Chancery Court's recent decision that JPMorgan Chase must cover more than $21 million in disputed legal fees for two former executives of the startup Frank illustrates the reality that companies, not the courts, are responsible for ongoing supervision of legal spending, says Theodore Edelman at GCE Advisors.