McGuireWoods partner and host Geoff Cockrell invites colleague Amy Cassalia — whose practice is heavily weighted on life sciences transactions — to share insights about the post-closing period of these complex deals. The wide-ranging conversation covers the dynamics of “contingent consideration,” investor risk and buyers’ leverage.

Amy explains why she sees high-level use of…

On June 4, 2026, Representatives Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan released a discussion draft of the Great American Artificial Intelligence Act (GAAIA). The proposal has generated significant attention, but many organizations may be overestimating its practical significance for their day-to-day operations. The bill is directed primarily at developers of “frontier” AI models, so for most companies using AI models in their daily operations, these requirements will not apply. Nonetheless, the bill has sparked conversation—it incorporates multiple bipartisan bills on AI, its drafters wrote an op-ed calling on the U.S. to create a national framework covering AI, and the U.S. House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy released a statement that the draft “does not meet the enormity of the moment.”

Key Takeaways

  • The bill is primarily aimed at the biggest AI developers with more than $500 million in revenue that are building cutting-edge AI models rather than most typical businesses developing in-house AI or deploying commercial AI models.
  • The proposed preemption provision would leave many state-law obligations governing AI deployment intact, including employment, privacy, consumer protection, healthcare, financial services, and common-law claims.
  • The draft would increase fraud-related penalties and reflects a broader enforcement trend toward applying existing fraud and misconduct frameworks to AI-enabled conduct.
  • If this bill passes, many of the legal risks businesses face when using AI will remain unchanged.

Parallel proceedings in two U.S. Court of International Trade cases, Euro-Notions Florida, Inc. v. United States (No. 25-00595) and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States (No. 25-00066), are rapidly converging on what may be the central unresolved question in the IEEPA tariff refund process: must the government refund duties on entries that have liquidated and become final, even for importers who have not filed suit?

Key Takeaways

  • The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed sweeping revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards that, among other changes, would prohibit the use of federal funds to support DEI policies that violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
  • The proposed rule introduces a broad discretionary termination provision, modeled after the FAR’s termination-for-convenience clause, that would allow agencies to terminate awards that no longer advance “agency priorities or the national interest.”
  • New oversight measures include mandatory E-Verify participation, expanded conflict-of-interest disclosures, pre-issuance review criteria under which the government will evaluate applicants’ civil-rights compliance and foreign affiliations, and enhanced subaward reporting on SAM.gov.
  • Comments are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register July 13, 2026, with OMB targeting an ultimate effective date of October 1, 2026.
  • Organizations receiving federal funding should continue to review DEI-related programs and policies, assess internal controls, and evaluate the impact of the expanded termination authority on current and future awards.

McGuireWoods has released its “HCPE 2026 White Paper: Private Equity in Healthcare and Life Sciences — An Updated Review of 20+ Select Subsector Investment Areas.”

The white paper examines investment trends, opportunities, and challenges across more than 20 healthcare and life sciences subsectors, including behavioral health, cardiology, women’s health, revenue cycle management, ancillary…

Salt Creek Capital has announced the acquisition of MML Diagnostics Packaging.

MML, founded in 1964 and headquartered in Troutdale, Oregon, is a contract manufacturer and packager of in-vitro diagnostic devices and single-use medical devices.

Salt Creek, founded in 2009 and based in Woodside, California, is a private equity firm that invests in the…

On May 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement under the False Claims Act (FCA) with two Canada-based steel companies, Farjess Inc. and Royal Canadian Steel Inc., and their part-owner and president, Feroz Jessani, pursuant to which the companies and Jessani agreed to pay $19 million to resolve allegations that they knowingly and improperly misrepresented the country of origin and failed to pay duties owed on flat-rolled steel manufactured in Europe and Asia. The settlement underscores the government’s continued and aggressive use of the FCA to pursue Trump Administration policy priorities, including the active implementation of tariffs and customs duties, and reinforces the importance of accurate country-of-origin declarations when importing foreign materials and products.