Media RSS Feed

Cooley Signs Lease for New State‑of‑the‑Art Redwood City Office

Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:13:00 Z

Palo Alto – April 28, 2026 – Cooley has signed a lease to relocate its Palo Alto office to Redwood City, in the heart of Silicon Valley, with an expected move-in date in early 2030. The firm’s new high‑tech workspace will encompass 145,000 square feet across the top four floors of a premier, custom‑built office building at 1900 Broadway.

“This new space marks an exciting next chapter as we continue to grow and adapt alongside the clients and communities we serve,” said Cooley partner and CEO Rachel Proffitt. “The space will be designed to reflect Cooley’s innovative and collaborative culture and will offer a dynamic atmosphere for our people and clients alike.”

The new Redwood City office will feature a range of top‑tier amenities, including a centralized conference center, flexible team and client collaboration spaces, 19,000 square feet of private outdoor terraces for events, and a full‑service, made‑to‑order café. Designed for both productivity and connection, the space reflects the firm’s continued commitment to a modern workplace experience.

“Our new space positions us for continued growth, with state‑of‑the‑art facilities designed to support how our teams work together to serve our clients,” said Shannon Eagan, partner in charge of Palo Alto. “Its downtown Redwood City location offers meaningful benefits for our lawyers and business professionals – from easy Caltrain access to a vibrant mix of restaurants, services and entertainment – reflecting the energy of our people and the work we do every day.”

Cooley opened its first Silicon Valley office in 1980 and has been deeply embedded in the region’s growth at the center of the innovation ecosystem. Today, with 19 offices around the world, the firm supports many of the companies driving the global modern economy.

Cooley Advises BioMarin on $4.25 Billion Financing in Connection With Amicus Therapeutics Acquisition

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 22:10:00 Z

Washington, DC – April 27, 2026 – Cooley advised BioMarin Pharmaceutical, a leading global rare disease biotechnology company focused on delivering medicines for people living with genetically defined conditions, on $4.25 billion in financings in connection with the completion of its acquisition of Amicus Therapeutics. The financing consisted of an offering of $850 million of 5.5% senior unsecured notes due 2034, $2.8 billion in senior secured term loans, and $600 million in revolving loan commitments.

The Cooley team advising BioMarin on the financing was led by partners Michael Tollini and Addison Pierce and included partners Chadwick Mills, Julia Boesch and Evan Leitner, of counsel Siana Lowrey and associate Charles Watkins.

Cooley has represented BioMarin for 10+ years, including in an approximately $3.7 billion bridge financing commitment in connection with its acquisition of Amicus Therapeutics in December 2025, its definitive agreement to acquire Inozyme Pharma in May 2025, its $600 million revolving credit facility in August 2024, a securities class action win before the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in February 2024, its $550 million offering of 1.25% senior subordinated convertible notes due 2027 in May 2020, its licensing agreement with Allievex in October 2019, its $720 million follow-on offering in July 2018, its $450 million offering of 0.599% senior subordinated convertible notes due 2024 in August 2017, and its $720 million follow-on offering in September 2016.

Settlements Slump and Activists Take Fewer Board Seats in First Quarter

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:05:52 Z

Cooley partner Sean Brownridge, chair of the firm’s activism defense group, was quoted in FT Agenda about the complexity of the current investor engagement landscape. He noted the changes to 13D and 13G reporting and how boards may earn more credibility with investors through consistency.

Read the article (subscription required)

Ineffable Intelligence Announces $1.1 Billion Seed Financing

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 14:21:10 Z

London – April 27, 2026 – Cooley advised Ineffable Intelligence, a London-based frontier artificial intelligence lab founded by David Silver, on its $1.1 billion seed financing led by Sequoia Capital and Lightspeed Venture Partners at a $5.1 billion post-money valuation, Europe’s largest ever seed financing to date.

Ineffable Intelligence’s mission is to make first contact with superintelligence by creating a superlearner that discovers all knowledge from its own experience.

The Cooley team was led by London-based partner Eric Davison and included Kristy Hart, Chris Stack, Kafeel Azher, Tom Connors, Leo Spicer-Phelps, Olivia Anderson, Paula Holland and Bethan Chalmers.

Ajax Therapeutics Acquired By Eli Lilly for $2.3 Billion

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 11:52:48 Z

Cooley advised Ajax Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company developing next generation JAK inhibitors for patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), on its agreement to be acquired by Eli Lilly for up to $2.3 billion.

The transaction was announced publicly in the following press release, which can be viewed here.

Lead Team: Kevin Cooper, Sangitha Palaniappa, Brandon Fenn, Kenneth Krisko and Stephanie Palmer led the Cooley team advising Ajax Therapeutics.

Supporting Team: Megan Browdie, Sarah Buchik, Navya Dasari, Alex Fullman, Jenny Ge, Stephanie Gentile, Tony Guan, Josh Holtzman, Nicollette Kirby, Natasha Leskovsek, Sarah Miller, Phil Mitchell, Ryan Montgomery, Morgan Perna, Joe Perry, Breanna Qin, Carly Robinson, Patrick Sharma, Daniel Tsai, Karen Tsai, Ryan Vann and Bo Yaghmaie provided invaluable support.

Cooley previously advised Ajax Therapeutics on its $40 million Series B financing (2021) and its $95 million Series C financing (2024), as well as other general corporate matters.

Vinted Completes Secondary Share Transaction at €8B Equity Valuation

Sun, 26 Apr 2026 21:04:00 Z

London – April 26, 2026 – Cooley advised Vinted, the C2C second-hand marketplace, on the completion of a secondary share transaction of €880 million, at an equity valuation of €8 billion. The transaction included a mix of new and existing investors, led by EQT, Schroders Capital, and Teachers’ Venture Growth (TVG).

Lawyers Harry Calkin, Ryan Naftulin, Ella Donegan, Angus Miln, William Duval, Mo Swart and Rebecca Wright led the Cooley team advising Vinted.

Four Cooley Partners Honored Among Elite in Data Breach Response

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:38:00 Z

April 24, 2026 – Washington, DC Four Cooley partners were named to Cybersecurity Docket’s Incident Response Elite for 2026, a prestigious annual list recognizing the top data breach response lawyers worldwide.

The honorees include Travis LeBlanc, DC-based co-chair of Cooley’s cyber/data/privacy practice; Patrick Van Eecke, co-chair and head of the cyber/data/privacy practice in Cooley’s Brussels office; Guadalupe Sampedro, head of the cyber/data/privacy practice in Cooley’s London office; and New York-based partner Kristen Mathews. The 2026 list marks LeBlanc’s ninth, Van Eecke’s third, Sampedro’s fourth and Mathews’ first recognition by Cybersecurity Docket.

Based on input from numerous senior lawyers and other professionals in the field, as well as extensive research, the IR Elite identifies lawyers who can manage large data breach responses with professionalism and urgency.

Cooley’s cyber/data/privacy practice is a cross-functional, integrated team of lawyers in the United States, Europe and Asia, spanning the full spectrum of advisory, transactional, regulatory and litigation matters involving privacy, cybersecurity and data governance. The firm’s c/d/p lawyers have handled hundreds of data breaches since 2003, including complex international incidents spanning multiple jurisdictions. The team leverages that experience – and the insights gained from it – to help clients respond effectively to security incidents and mitigate legal, reputational, operational and regulatory risk.

Cooley’s c/d/p practice works with clients on breach preparedness and response, including incident response planning, proactive strategy development, response playbook development, training and tabletop exercises, incident investigation, mitigation and remediation, and engagement with key vendors.

The practice group’s blog – cyber/data/privacy insights – provides proactive legal insight and analysis on the full range of cybersecurity, data protection and privacy issues. Cooley’s data incident and breach response team can be reached 24/7 via incident.response@cooley.com, or at +1 844 476 1248 or +44 (0) 20 7556 4567.

Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:26:44 Z

A Cooley appellate team earned a shout-out on The American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs list for securing a unanimous ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court, overturning a decision of the Delaware Chancery Court and eliminating a potential personal exposure of about $40 million in damages and interest against client Michael Patterson, the former CEO of Romeo Systems.

The Cooley team was led by partners Ephraim McDowell, Brian Klein and Brian French and associate Anna Mohan.

Read the article (subscription required)

How Niche Specialist Managers Are Winning LP Capital

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 18:21:34 Z

Cooley partner Jaclyn Rabin was quoted in a PitchBook article discussing how successful mid-market firms are winning LP capital through a specialized focus, rather than a generalist strategy, helping investors better understand a manager’s competitive edge and value-creation approach.

Read the article

Caihong Secures Decisive Victory at ITC

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 17:08:34 Z

Washington, DC, – April 24, 2026 – A Cooley team secured a decisive victory for its client Caihong Display Devices (Caihong), a leading manufacturer of liquid-crystal display (LCD) glass used in the manufacture of televisions, in a high-stakes competitor-versus-competitor dispute before the US International Trade Commission (ITC).

Caihong and its customers were sued in the ITC by competitor Corning for infringing two patents impacting the global LCD market. Corning accused Caihong of selling the 615 glass and the 616 glass to its customers, and the primary dispute was whether the 616 glass infringed and could continue to be imported into the US.

On April 8, Administrative Law Judge Bryan Moore issued an initial determination that the 616 glass did not infringe Corning’s patents, allowing Caihong’s customers to continue importing and selling televisions containing that glass. Corning is not petitioning the decision to the full ITC.

Read the order

The Cooley intellectual property litigation team representing Caihong was led by Stephen Smith, alongside Matthew Brigham, Adam Pivovar, Sam Whitt, Cole Merritt, and Matthew Ritter.

The case is Certain Glass Substrates for Liquid Crystal Displays, Products Containing the Same, and Methods for Manufacturing the Same II (Case No. 337-TA-1441).

Scrip M&A Podcast With Cooley Attorneys Kevin Cooper and Bill Roegge

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 14:18:52 Z

Cooley partners Kevin Cooper and Bill Roegge spoke on a Scrip M&A podcast analyzing the current biopharmaceutical M&A trends, competitive deal dynamics and the ride of platform-technology acquisitions. Cooper also offered tips for smaller companies to get favorable outcomes when dealing with larger pharmaceutical firms. Roegge discussed whether 2026 is a year for competing bids in this space.

Listen on Apple

Listen on Spotify

State AI Laws – Where Are They Now?

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

The US artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory landscape is at an inflection point. With accelerating pace starting in the 2020s, hundreds of proposed state measures signaled a fast-developing state-level regulatory AI landscape. However, as compliance deadlines in 2026 approached, many of these state AI laws that initially passed just a few years ago have undergone significant changes or delays since their passage. At the same time, federal action is potentially threatening to reshape or constrain state-level initiatives. In this alert, we check in on the current status of some of the major state AI laws.

As we discussed on March 25, the White House recently released its National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, urging Congress to enact sweeping AI legislation to preempt certain state AI laws, with a focus on state laws that risk stifling innovation and avoiding “undue burdens.” States like California are also leveraging executive action. For example, on March 30, 2026, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-5-26, directing state agencies to draft recommendations for AI safety requirements – including related to illegal content, bias, and civil rights and free speech – for companies doing business with state agencies. In parallel, other states are reconsidering or delaying their AI laws. Below we outline the key AI laws where companies should watch for potential changes over the coming months.

Colorado: SB 205

In May 2024, Colorado SB 205 created one of the first comprehensive state AI regimes, regulating “high-risk artificial intelligence systems” used in “consequential decisions.” The law imposes broad obligations on developers and deployers related to risk management, impact assessments, consumer disclosures and reporting to the Colorado attorney general.

Since its enactment, SB 205 has been subject to significant debate and criticism, particularly from the tech industry, with concerns raised over its scope and feasibility. These concerns prompted a special legislative session in August 2025 that led to the postponement of the initial enforcement date, from February 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026.

Now, with the delayed effective date, Colorado is considering a more substantive revision. The March 2026 working group draft would repeal and reenact the newly focused law on automated decision-making technology (ADMT) and reset the effective date to January 1, 2027. The group is led by the Colorado governor’s office and is composed of legislators, industry representatives, consumers and school district representatives, among others. The group was tasked with evaluating whether the original framework was workable in practice, with the ultimate goal of protecting consumers.

Key proposed changes by the working group include:

Replacing “high-risk AI” with “covered ADMT” that must “materially influence” a consequential decision, excluding incidental or low-stakes uses.¹
Clarifying and narrowing what constitutes a “consequential decision” – specifically, limiting “consequential decisions” to high-impact decisions affecting access to education, employment, housing, financial services, insurance, healthcare or government services, where the outcome materially influences eligibility, access or opportunity.
Carving out routine business processes, marketing and other low-risk uses (e.g., advertising and marketing tools, recommendation and search systems, content moderation, and summarization and presentation assistance).
Substantially scaling back governance obligations for both developers and deployers, including eliminating requirements to implement formal risk-management programs, impact assessments, annual reviews and Colorado attorney general incident reporting. Instead, it shifts to a more targeted framework that still requires developers and deployers to maintain records and documentation regarding covered ADMT, provide consumer-facing disclosures, and implement processes for requests to correct inaccurate information and seek human review or reconsideration of certain decisions, where commercially reasonable.
Replacing the pre-decision notice framework with a point-of-interaction requirement (meaning at the specific moment a user engages with the system) that may be satisfied via a prominent public posting, and adding a separate post-adverse disclosure that explains the decision, the role of ADMT and available recourse options.
Retaining Colorado attorney general-only enforcement but adding a 90-day notice-and-cure period and clarifying developer versus deployer liability.
Removing the stand-alone affirmative duty to “avoid algorithmic discrimination” that appeared as an explicit, independent requirement in the original SB 205.

These proposed, significant changes signal state action moving away from a broad “high-risk AI” framework toward a narrower, decision-focused model. With the effective date of June 30, 2026, approaching, it remains unclear whether and when the proposed amendments will be enacted. As such, companies should continue preparing for compliance under the current framework, while maintaining a watchful eye on legislative developments that could reshape obligations in the near term.

California: AB 2013, SB 942 and AB 853

California enacted 18 AI-related laws across 2023 and 2024, some of which we discussed at the time. Many of these laws impose transparency, disclosure and governance requirements on AI systems and digital services.

Given many compliance effective dates now start in 2026 and beyond, these laws have not yet seen enforcement activity or further interpretive guidance to aid in compliance; however, that may change as the year progresses.

Key California AI laws that have recently come into effect or been amended include AB 2013, SB 942 and AB 853:

AB 2013 (training data transparency) requires developers to disclose information regarding training datasets. It was enacted on September 28, 2024, and became effective on January 1, 2026, with limited implementation guidance beyond the law’s original provisions. The law requires a “high-level summary of the datasets used in the development of the generative artificial intelligence system or service,” and identifies certain information for inclusion in said summary, as well as certain security-related exceptions to the disclosure requirement. Industry stakeholders have raised concerns regarding feasibility and scope, and clear patterns around the form of compliance (such as the format or level of detail for the summary) have not yet emerged. In addition, the lack of guidance or action from the California attorney general has contributed to some uncertainty on the regulatory compliance obligations.
SB 942 (AI disclosure requirements), enacted September 19, 2024, requires providers of generative AI image, video and audio tools with more than one million monthly visitors or users to provide an AI detection tool, “manifest” disclosures (a watermarking option) and “latent” disclosures, enabling individuals to detect whether content was generated by the provider’s tool. Its effective date was delayed from January 1 to August 2, 2026, via AB 853, which also added new obligations on large online platforms with an operative date of January 1, 2027, and capture device manufacturers with an operative date of January 1, 2028.
AB 853 (California AI Transparency Act) introduces the phased implementation for SB 942 discussed above and also expands SB 942, including to add requirements applicable to large online platforms (public-facing social media platforms) and capture device manufacturers (persons producing capture devices for sale in California). These obligations include ensuring that content is appropriately labeled or identifiable as AI-generated, as well as implementing mechanisms to enable detection of such content.

Utah: SB 149

Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149), enacted on March 13, 2024, and effective on May 1, 2024, is widely viewed, together with other laws discussed in this article, as one of the first state AI governance frameworks. Rather than creating a stand-alone regulatory regime, the law primarily extends existing consumer protection principles to AI by making companies liable where AI-driven conduct would otherwise violate deceptive or unfair practices laws. The law also introduced targeted disclosure requirements, such as requiring businesses in regulated professions to proactively disclose when consumers are interacting with AI.

Utah narrowed this framework through multiple bills in 2025, a reflection of early implementation concerns raised by state legislators and industry stakeholders. SB 226 and SB 332 narrowed the scope of disclosure obligations, limiting these obligations to “clear and unambiguous” consumer requests or “high-risk” interactions involving sensitive data and consequential advice, and narrowing the definition of covered AI systems to exclude routine uses (such as technologies that do not simulate human communication or generate human-like, nonscripted outputs). The Utah Division of Consumer Protection has authority to enforce SB 149, though enforcement remains limited to date.

New York: RAISE Act

California’s Transparency in Frontier AI Act (TFAIA) was one of the first state regulatory frameworks for developers of frontier models. As we discussed in this April 1 alert, New York has since revised its frontier AI framework to align more closely with California’s law. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act in December 2025 with the expectation that legislators would amend the law to mirror TFAIA. Hochul signed those amendments on March 27, 2026, shifting the RAISE Act toward a transparency and reporting-based framework.

As revised, the RAISE Act imposes:

Model-level obligations, including transparency and reporting on training, deployment, safety protocols and incidents.
A shift away from deployment restrictions, removing earlier prohibitions on models posing an “unreasonable risk of critical harm.”
Alignment with California’s framework, emphasizing safety testing, documentation and reporting.
Key differences from TFAIA include:

Higher civil penalties (up to $1 million for a first violation and up to $3 million for subsequent violations).
Shorter incident reporting timeline (72 hours versus TFAIA’s 15-day window). Other states, including Utah and Illinois, are considering similar frontier model regulation.

Key takeaways for companies

The evolution of AI laws is not limited to the US. The European Union AI Act – one of the earliest and most comprehensive cross-sector AI laws, imposing obligations on AI models based on risk tiers and categories of models – is also now being reconsidered by EU lawmakers for revision. While the AI Act entered into force on August 1, 2024, key obligations were set to phase in over time, with the main requirements starting in 2026, and certain obligations extending into 2027. However, the European Commission’s November 2025 “Digital Omnibus” proposal, now advancing through the legislative process, would delay application of certain high-risk AI requirements and make targeted changes to exemptions, governance and implementation. As of April 2026, EU institutions are actively considering pushing key compliance deadlines to 2027 – 2028, reflecting implementation challenges and concerns about regulatory burden. The EU’s AI regulatory framework continues to be refined and tailored in real time.

In combination, these developments underscore a broader shift: Even the most comprehensive AI regulatory regimes are being recalibrated as implementation approaches. Given the pace of change to these regulations, companies may benefit from a phased approach to compliance that accounts for evolving requirements and still emerging enforcement priorities. As such, companies should consider the following:

Reassessing compliance strategies: Several key state AI laws have upcoming deadlines, but some requirements are subject to amendment or delay. While enforcement currently has been minimal, regulators may begin issuing guidance and early enforcement actions as compliance dates approach.
Monitoring federal action: With the recent release of its AI legislative recommendations, the White House outlined an innovation-oriented federal approach to AI, recommending Congress preempt state laws that relate to AI development, “unduly burden” lawful activity assisted by AI or “penalize AI developers” for unlawful third-party conduct. Even if Congress does not act, or does so slowly, the administration is positioned to move through executive and enforcement channels. The Department of Justice’s AI Litigation Task Force is expected to identify and potentially challenge state AI laws in court, and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, may target certain states regulating AI by restricting federal funds. As such, companies should monitor both congressional developments and near-term federal activity, as the administration considers multiple pathways to shape the AI regulatory landscape.
Tracking state-level changes: As state AI regulation evolves, key areas to watch include the revisions to Colorado SB 205, further changes to California’s AI laws, and the continued development of frontier regulations, including in New York and potentially Illinois, Washington and Utah.

Note

ADMT is defined as an automated decision-making technology that processes personal data to generate outputs (including predictions, scores and classifications) and is used to materially influence a consequential decision. The definition excludes (i) basic web infrastructure (such as web hosting and caching) that require human analysis and do not use machine learning; (ii) tools that solely summarize, organize or present information for human review; and (iii) general-purpose technology that provides information or recommendations.

Capital Markets Lawyers Wait for Windows of War Calm to Pounce

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 20:36:42 Z

Cooley partner David Peinsipp, co-chair of the firm’s global capital markets practice group, was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article about how the US initial public offering (IPO) market is reopening in bursts, during a period of instability due to the war in Iran. Peinsipp noted that a few strong, early deals are helping maintain momentum in the IPO market, and once conditions open, many companies are already prepared to go public.

Read the article (subscription required)

Sight Sciences Secures Order on Post-Trial Motions

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 15:01:52 Z

PALO ALTO – April 23, 2026 – Cooley represented Sight Sciences (Nasdaq: SGHT), an eyecare technology company focused on developing and commercializing innovative, interventional technologies that elevate the standard of care, in defeating post-trial motions to reverse its jury trial patent infringement verdict.

Cooley secured a jury trial patent infringement victory on behalf of Sight Sciences on April 26, 2024. The jury found that Alcon’s and Ivantis’ sale of the infringing Hydrus Microstent caused Sight Sciences to lose sales of its OMNI Surgical System device and awarded lost profits damages and royalty damages totaling $34 million.

On April 20, 2026, the US District Court for the District of Delaware preserved the jury’s verdict of willful infringement, denied Alcon’s request for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, and awarded total damages of $55.4 million, plus an ongoing royalty of 10% of Hydrus revenue through the date of expiration of Sight Sciences’ last asserted patent. The value of the court’s final judgment is expected to increase significantly with the payment of ongoing royalties over the next two and a half years.

The patents at issue are US Patent Nos. 8,287,482, 9,370,443 and 11,389,328.

Read the final judgment

The Cooley litigation team was led by intellectual property litigation partner Orion Armon with partners Mika Reiner Mayer, Joanna Liebes Hubberts and Eamonn Gardner; senior counsel Michelle Rhyu ; and associates Joseph Van Tassel, Dustin Knight, Lauren Strosnick, Juan Pablo Gonzalez and Angela Madrigal.

Cooley’s London Lawyers Again Recognised for Pro Bono Work

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:02:16 Z

London – 23 April 2026 Fifty-six London-based Cooley lawyers, including 12 partners, were recognised on the 2026 Pro Bono Recognition List of England & Wales.

The annual list recognises lawyers who contributed at least 25 pro bono hours over the last year. The initiative is supported by the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and all major pro bono organisations under the aegis of the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee.

Core Scientific Prices $3.3 Billion Senior Secured Notes Offering

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:49:00 Z

Washington, DC – April 22, 2026 – Cooley advised Core Scientific (Nasdaq: CORZ), a leader in digital infrastructure for high-density colocation, in connection with an offering of $3.3 billion aggregate principal amount of 7.750% senior secured notes due 2031 issued by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Core Scientific Finance I LLC, at an issue price equal to 99.250% of the principal amount thereof. The offering is expected to close on May 6, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions.

Lawyers Daniel Peale, Darah Protas, Richard Segal, Logan Tiari, Eric Blanchard, Michael Tollini, Adam Longenbach, John Goldman and Alanna Zuchelli led the Cooley team advising Core Scientific.

Cooley previously advised Core Scientific on its $1 billion loan facility with Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase Bank in March 2026, $625 million convertible senior notes in December 2024, $460 million convertible senior notes in August 2024 and merger with SPAC Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp. in August 2021.

Manycore Announces HK$1.24 Billion IPO

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 19:46:00 Z

Hong Kong – April 20, 2026 – Cooley advised Manycore Tech, a global leading provider of spatial intelligence services, on its HK$1.24 billion initial public offering (IPO). Manycore offered 160,619,000 shares globally priced at HK$7.62 per share. The 15% over-allotment option was exercised in full on April 20, 2026. The company’s shares began trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on April 17, 2026, under stock code 00068. This marks the first initial public offering among the Six Little Dragons, a group of tech startups based in Hangzhou, China.

J.P. Morgan and CCB International acted as joint sponsors, overall coordinators, joint global coordinators, joint bookrunners and joint lead managers for the offering. ABCI and BOCI acted as joint global coordinators, joint bookrunners and joint lead managers. FUTU Securities International and Tiger Brokers acted as joint bookrunners and joint lead managers.

Lawyers Will Cai, Michael Yu, Jie Zhang and Brian Lau and international legal project manager Jocelyn Gao led the Cooley team advising Manycore.

Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:58:09 Z

A Cooley team earned a shout-out on The American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs list as defense counsel for Bell Textron Inc., alongside The Boeing Co. and Universal Stainless & Alloy Productions Inc., the makers of the V-22 Osprey military aircraft, that was involved in the 2023 crash off the coast of Japan, in which eight airmen tragically perished. US District Judge John Murphy dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims, finding they were preempted by the Death on the High Seas Act, which applies to wrongful death claims in incidents occurring more than three miles from US shore.

The Cooley team was led by partners William O’Connor and Koji Fukumura with associates Chip Harrison, Rachael Heller, Mike Tetreault, and Harris McLeod.

Read the article (subscription required)

Alamar Biosciences Announces Upsized $219.9 Million IPO

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 13:42:00 Z

San Francisco – April 20, 2026 – Cooley advised Alamar Biosciences, a leader in precision proteomics dedicated to advancing the early detection of disease, on its $219.9 million initial public offering (IPO). Alamar offered and sold 12,937,500 shares of its common stock priced at $17 per share, which includes the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase up to 1,687,500 additional shares. Alamar began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on April 17, 2026, under the ticker symbol ALMR.

Partners Kristin VanderPas, Charlie Kim and David Peinsipp led the Cooley team advising Alamar.

Michael Patterson Wins Delaware Supreme Court Appeal, Overturning $40 Million Judgment

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:33:00 Z

Los Angeles – April 17, 2026 – Cooley secured a unanimous ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court for client Michael Patterson, overturning a decision of the Delaware Court of Chancery and eliminating a potential personal exposure of $40 million in damages for alleged conversion.

The dispute arose from a $20,000 loan Patterson, former CEO of Romeo Systems, made to Lady Benjamin Cannon, a technology consultant, to hire a criminal defense lawyer. To secure the loan, Cannon executed an agreement pledging a warrant for one million shares of Romeo. Cannon signed off on the pledge agreement’s collateral description, represented she owned the pledged assets and reaffirmed over email that she intended “to pledge her ‘Romeo shares.’”

After Cannon defaulted, Patterson transferred the shares to his name. The corporation later entered into an agreement to be acquired by a public company in a stock-for-stock merger. Upon reading the announcement, Cannon filed a complaint for declaratory relief, noncompliance with Article 9 of the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, conversion and breach of contract against Patterson. In October 2025, after a short trial (for which Cooley was not trial counsel), the Delaware Chancery Court ruled that Patterson had wrongly converted the warrant, and Cannon was entitled to damages and interest amounting to approximately $40 million.

In January 2026, Cooley was retained to help with the appeal and filed an appeal for Patterson to the Supreme Court of Delaware challenging the Chancery Court’s decision.

On April 17, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Delaware Chancery Court decision holding Patterson liable for $40 million in damages for alleged conversion.

Read the order

The Cooley team advising Patterson was led by partners Brian Klein, Ephraim McDowell and Brian French, and also included associate Anna Mohan.

The case is Patterson v. Cannon.

New Ex Parte Reexamination Procedure at USPTO: What Patent Owners and Challengers Need to Know

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 16:38:00 Z

USPTO announces new reexamination procedure in response to increased filings

Under 35 USC § 303(a), the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must determine within three months of the filing of a reexamination request whether the request raises a substantial new question of patentability. A substantial new question exists when the cited prior art presents a noncumulative teaching that a reasonable examiner would consider important in assessing patentability, and the same question has not already been decided by the USPTO or a federal court. Until now, the USPTO made this determination based solely on the reexamination request, without any input from the patent owner.

On April 1, 2026, the USPTO published an Official Gazette Notice establishing a new pre-order procedure in ex parte reexamination proceedings. For the first time, patent owners will have a formal opportunity to submit arguments to the USPTO before the agency decides whether a reexamination request raises a substantial new question of patentability – the statutory threshold for ordering reexamination. The new procedure applies to all ex parte reexamination requests filed on or after April 5, 2026.

The change comes amid a significant increase in ex parte reexamination filings since October 2025. According to the USPTO website, the agency recorded 223 filings in Q1 FY2026 alone (October – December 2025) – an annualized rate of nearly 900, compared to 407 filings in FY2024 and 495 in FY2025. The director expressly cited this surge as a basis for the new procedure, invoking the need to obtain information from patent owners before deciding whether to order reexamination in the face of a rapidly growing caseload.

What patent owners and challengers need to know

Patent owners may now file a “pre-order paper” without a petition or fee within 30 days of service of the reexamination request, arguing that the cited references do not raise a substantial new question of patentability. The paper is limited to 30 pages and should focus squarely on why the teachings in the request are insufficient to warrant reexamination of some or all of the challenged claims. The paper should not address 35 USC § 325(d) discretionary denial arguments, nor should it include arguments about whether a teaching is truly new or noncumulative. Patent owners may support their paper with a declaration, but the USPTO will rely on the arguments in the paper itself, and incorporation by reference is not permitted.

Patent challengers should factor this dynamic into their overall reexamination strategy. It is more important than ever that the initial request be as comprehensive and well-supported as possible – and anticipate potential patent owner arguments that may now be filed before the order decision. If the patent owner does file a pre-order paper, the requester may petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to file a responsive paper of up to 10 pages to address misrepresentations of fact or law, or other improper arguments that materially impede the determination of a substantial new question. Any such responsive paper must be filed within 15 calendar days of service of the patent owner’s pre-order paper and must be accompanied by the applicable fee.

Conclusion

The USPTO’s new pre-order procedure marks a significant shift in ex parte reexamination practice. By giving patent owners an opportunity to weigh in before the order decision, and giving challengers a limited right to respond, the procedure introduces new strategic considerations for both sides.

If you have questions about the new pre-order procedure, or about navigating the evolving post-grant proceedings landscape, Cooley’s experienced patent litigation team is available to help.

Reverse Mergers in Biotech: A Strategic Path to Public Markets

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:16:45 Z

Cooley partners Carlos Ramirez and Rama Padmanabhan were featured in a BioXconomy Q&A about dynamics, trends and the future of reverse mergers in the life sciences industry. They discussed the key advantages and challenges of reverse mergers compared to traditional initial public offerings, as well as other strategies for capital formation.

Read the Q&A

Cooley Named Finalist as Growth Capital Team of the Year in The Lawyer 2026 Awards

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:40:55 Z

London – April 17, 2026 – Cooley was shortlisted by The Lawyer in the publication’s annual awards series, which celebrate legal excellence in the United Kingdom and the European continent.

Specifically, Cooley is shortlisted as Team of the Year for Growth Capital – a category reserved for law firm practices advising companies and investors with respect to growth, venture capital, seed funding, and angel investment.

Over 18 months, the firm’s strategic lateral hires and promotions have accelerated the simultaneous growth and success of the firm’s London-based emerging companies and venture capital practice. The Cooley team is a true destination practice and entails one of the largest dedicated ECVC teams.

The shortlisting is based in part on the team’s representation on several of Europe’s largest and most high-profile deals over the last 12 months including PhysicsX on its $155 million financing, OLIX on its $220 million financing, Swap on its $100 million financing and Uber’s Investment into Wayve’s $1.5 billion financing.

As London co-managing partner Claire Keast-Butler noted in an interview with The Lawyer, “2025 was a transformational year for Cooley in London, and this included the strategic expansion of our emerging companies and venture capital practice, which makes it the City’s go-to destination in the space. The team had a stellar year, working on some of Europe’s landmark venture deals.”

Read the full shortlist

The awards will be presented in June during the annual awards ceremony in London.

Fluidstack Joint Venture to Issue $5.7 Billion in Senior Secured Notes

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:21:00 Z

Reston – April 16, 2026 – Cooley advised Fluidstack, a premier artificial intelligence (AI) cloud platform, in connection with the $5.7 billion offering of five‑year senior secured notes issued by Meridian Arc HoldCo LLC, a joint venture owned by Next Frontier and Fluidstack. Proceeds will fund the construction of two new data centers in Sullivan County, Indiana, which will be leased to Fluidstack.

Lawyers Richard Segal, Darah Protas, Jon Avina, David Peinsipp, Michael Tollini, Adam Longenbach, Michelle Schulman, Adam S. Bloom and Mark Looney led the Cooley team advising Fluidstack.

HKSTP Leads Five High-Potential Biotech Startups to Explore Global Collaboration and Financing at Premier Biopharma Summit in Seoul

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:09:16 Z

Yiming Liu, partner in charge of Cooley’s Shanghai’s office, was quoted in The Standard during his participation in Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation’s (HKSTP) 2026 BioCentury-BayHelix East-West Summit in Seoul, South Korea. He highlighted how Hong Kong’s legal system supports cross-border transactions and underpins market confidence.

Read the article

MAHA Push Accelerates Reformulation, But Leaves Food Industry in Limbo

Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:01:07 Z

Laura Akowuah, Cooley special counsel and former FDA attorney, was quoted in a Food Navigator USA article about how the Administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement is pushing the food industry to reformulate rapidly based on policy announcements, creating significant uncertainty for the industry. Akowuah also highlighted potential risks to companies relying on the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) pathway and urged the food industry to engage with FDA when it seeks input on changes to the regulatory landscape.

Read the article

Terremoto Biosciences Closes $108 Million Series C

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:27:15 Z

San Diego – April 15, 2026 – Cooley advised Terremoto Biosciences, a biotechnology company developing highly targeted, small molecule medicines, on its $108 million Series C financing round. The round includes new investors RA Capital Management, Deep Track Capital, Osage University Partners, and BeOne Medicines, and participation from existing investors OrbiMed, Third Rock Ventures, Novo Holdings, and Cormorant Asset Management.

Lawyers Ken Rollins, Edmond Lay and Rachel Lydon led the Cooley team advising Terremoto.

Cooley Shortlisted for Four Awards at ALB SE Asia Law Awards 2026

Wed, 15 Apr 2026 11:49:25 Z

Singapore – April 15, 2026 – Cooley was shortlisted by Asian Legal Business (ALB) in its annual SE Asia Law Awards series, which honours outstanding performance by private practitioners and in-house legal teams in Southeast (SE) Asia.

Cooley was shortlisted as International Deal Firm of the Year, Private Equity and Venture Capital Law Firm of the Year, and SE Asia Law Firm of the Year.

Additionally, the firm was noted for its work representing AvePoint on the company's SG$260 million underwritten public offering and SGX listing – a deal which is shortlisted as Equity Market Deal of the Year.

Read the full shortlist

The awards will be presented in May during the annual awards ceremony in Singapore.

Cooley Receives Three Managing IP Americas Awards

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 19:33:10 Z

New York – April 14, 2026 – Cooley received three Managing IP Americas Awards in the latest edition of the publication’s annual awards series.

The firm’s 2026 honors were:

Firm of the Year: Trademark Disputes (West)
Practitioner of the Year: Trademark Litigator (West) – Bobby Ghajar
Impact Case of the Year: Kadrey v. Meta (N.D. Cal.)

These recognitions of Cooley’s intellectual property practice follow the firm’s trademark, copyright and advertising (TCA) practice’s receipt in February of multiple honors from Managing IP’s sister publication, World Trademark Review.

With more than 25 TCA lawyers and paralegals across the US and UK, Cooley has one of the largest dedicated TCA practice groups among Am Law 50 firms. As a fully integrated, full-service practice, the group represents clients in complex infringement suits where core products and brands are at stake while also providing prosecution and strategic counseling services that allow clients to maximize their trademark value globally. Cooley’s TCA team also plays a critical role in thousands of high-value financings, M&A deals, capital markets offerings and other transactions.

CargoSense Announces Strategic Investment and Partnership With MegaChips

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 17:04:00 Z

Reston – April 14, 2026 – Cooley advised CargoSense, the provider of the world's first "Agentic (Autonomous) Supply Chain Execution Platform," on its strategic investment from MegaChips Corporation and partnership aimed at the execution and automation of next-generation supply chains.

Through this partnership, MegaChips will leverage CargoSense's platform to accelerate its entry into new markets requiring precise real-time management, such as the rapidly growing data center construction and pharmaceutical sectors.

Lawyers Mike Lincoln, Edward Sniezek, Arjan Ganji and Jason Shefferman led the Cooley team advising CargoSense.

European Commission Proposes EU Industrial Accelerator Act Including ‘Made in EU’ and Low-Carbon Requirements, Stricter Rules for FDI in Strategic Sectors

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:11:20 Z

On 4 March 2026, the European Commission published a proposal for an EU Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA). The proposal will now be negotiated in the European Parliament and by EU Member States in the Council. If adopted as proposed, the IAA would introduce several measures aimed at making the EU more competitive and resilient, increasing manufacturing in the EU and contributing to the EU’s climate goals.

The IAA could have broad implications for non-EU investors, businesses taking part in public tenders in the EU, and any companies operating manufacturing sites in strategic sectors in the EU, such as steel, cement, aluminium, automotive, batteries, solar, wind and heat pumps.

Background

The IAA aims to increase manufacturing activity in the EU generally, with the European Commission targeting the manufacturing sector reaching 20% of the EU’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035 by including this objective in the IAA. This follows a decline of manufacturing in the EU from 17.4% to 14.3% of GDP between 2000 and 2024.

The IAA is being proposed against the background of the EU striving for greater strategic autonomy and security. The recitals of the proposal expressly refer to the IAA being a response to factors such as hostile economic actions, cyberattacks, foreign interference, the weaponisation of EU economic dependencies, the arbitrary deployment of trade measures, the increasing effects of climate change and rising geopolitical tensions. While there is a general consensus among Member States that the EU’s vulnerabilities and dependencies need to be addressed, there is some disagreement on how to do this. Ahead of publication of this final proposal, a debate had already started. This will continue as the IAA makes its way through the legislative procedure.

The measures of the proposed IAA can be divided into four broad categories:

1.‘Made in EU’ and low-carbon requirements

‘Made in EU’ requirements

The proposed IAA introduces “Made in EU” requirements in public procurement and other forms of public intervention, such as government schemes supporting individuals or businesses purchasing electric vehicles or renovating buildings. These new EU-origin requirements would apply to sectors that are considered strategic, including steel, cement and aluminium, as well as technologies included in the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA), such as battery energy storage systems, solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies, heat pumps, onshore and offshore wind technologies, electrolysers and nuclear fission energy technologies. For example, for solar PV technologies, from three years after entry into force of the IAA, the PV inverter and the PV cells purchased by a public body would need to be of “EU origin”.

The concept of “EU origin” is broad and would include content originating in third countries with which the EU has an agreement establishing a free trade area or a customs union, or that are parties to the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement, including the US.

However, the European Commission would have the power to adopt delegated acts to exclude countries from this broad approach where:
(a) The country failed to give EU products and entities access under the relevant agreement on terms no less favourable than to their domestic entities or products (national treatment).
(b) The exclusion is justified to avoid dependencies or a threat to the security of supply in the EU.
(c) The exclusion is justified under any other exception under the relevant agreement.

Low-carbon requirements

For public procurement and other forms of public intervention benefiting households or companies in the EU, the proposed IAA would also introduce low-carbon requirements in relation to steel, cement and aluminium used in buildings, infrastructure and motor vehicles. These sectors were selected as they are some of the most energy-intensive sectors, and the European Commission aims to create demand for low-carbon versions of these products.

The European Commission would also be empowered to adopt delegated acts laying down additional EU-level demand-side measures for products from the chemical industry.

2. Foreign direct investment in strategic sectors subject to prior authorisation requirement

With the IAA, the European Commission proposes a new mandatory foreign direct investment (FDI) regime for “emerging strategic sectors”. This supplements Member States’ existing, broader FDI approval systems and the updated EU FDI Screening Regulation.

The new review system would apply to investments that afford investors “control” (defined as 30% or more of share capital/voting rights/ownership) over an EU target where:

The value of the investment exceeds €100 million.
More than 40% of global manufacturing capacity in the target’s sector is held by a third country of which the foreign investor is a national or undertaking.

The relevant “emerging strategic sectors” are battery technologies, electric vehicles, and solar PV technologies, and extraction, processing and recycling of critical raw materials. The European Commission would have powers to extend this list of emerging strategic sectors by adopting delegated acts, but such acts could not cover digital technologies, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies or semiconductors.

Investors and investments covered by economic partnership agreements or free trade agreements concluded by the EU, and investments targeted at providing services and portfolio investments, are not subject to this pre-approval requirement.

Notifications under the new system should be made to the national investment authority designated by the Member State where the target is based (or to all relevant authorities and the European Commission, in parallel, where the target is located in more than one Member State). Although reviews are conducted nationally, the substantive standard for approval is set at the EU level and common to all Member States. Departing from the traditional approach to FDI in the EU, focused on security and public order criteria, approval under the IAA would only be granted to investments that meet at least four out of the following six conditions:

Ownership requirement: The ownership interest to be acquired, held or exercised is no more than 49%.

JV requirement: The investment is a joint venture (JV) with an EU entity meeting relevant conditions.

Technology transfer requirement: The investor licensed intellectual property and know-how to benefit the EU target to help carry out its economic activities in the context of the investment.

R&D requirement: The foreign investor annually directs at least 1% of gross annual revenue of the EU target, or generated by the EU asset, to research and development (R&D) spending in the EU as applied in proportion to the foreign investor’s share of control.

Workforce requirement: At least 50% of the workforce at implementation and throughout the operation of the investment is made up of EU workers across all levels of the workforce.

Input requirement: The foreign investor publishes a strategy for enhancing EU value chains and endeavours to source at least 30% of inputs for products placed on the EU market from the EU.

Although Member State authorities would be responsible for the review and retain the last word on approvals, the IAA envisages central oversight and coordinating roles for the European Commission.

Investments that qualify for review under the IAA would be subject to a mandatory standstill requirement and must not be implemented unless and until approval has been granted. This could result in potential delays, with review taking up to 75 days (which can be extended by 30 days) from receipt of the application. However, many of these investments, particularly in Member States which already have sophisticated FDI screening mechanisms in place, would likely already have been covered by national screening requirements and would therefore already have to undergo screening even without the IAA.

Even after approval, foreign investors would need to report regularly to the investment authority on the ongoing compliance with the conditions.

Penalties for failure to notify are high at no less than 5% of the average daily aggregate turnover of the foreign investor undertaking.

3. Boosting sustainable manufacturing through creation of industrial manufacturing acceleration areas

Within one year of the IAA’s entry into force, each Member State is required to designate at least one “industrial manufacturing acceleration area” within its territory for projects in one or more of the strategic sectors listed in an annex to the proposed IAA. This includes energy-intensive industries like paper manufacturing, the automotive industry and net-zero technologies listed in the NZIA, such as heat pumps, battery and energy storage technologies, and biotech climate and energy solutions. These areas are intended to make it easier for industrial activities to cluster in one geographical zone with the aim of promoting favourable conditions for the industries established there.

Once established, industrial manufacturing acceleration areas would benefit from a range of measures. For example, Member States would be required to facilitate financing of projects, promote research and innovation investments, analyse the energy needs and identify the required energy infrastructure, and support the development of a highly skilled workforce.

Member States also need to issue an aggregated baseline permit authorising industrial activities within the industrial manufacturing acceleration area. This would be a single permit that covers all necessary permits generally needed for industrial manufacturing projects in that area.

4. Easier permitting via digital one-stop shop at national level

To facilitate the development of industrial manufacturing projects, the proposed IAA requires processes to be streamlined and digitalised. It requires Member States to set up a single access point at the national level where project promoters can submit one single application to obtain all necessary permits for an industrial manufacturing project. An authority designated by the Member State then coordinates the permitting processes via a single permit-granting procedure. They should be able to pass on the applications to relevant authorities and provide information, all via the digital European Business Wallet.

Energy-intensive decarbonisation projects will moreover be subject to the streamlined administrative and permit-granting procedures under the NZIA and benefit from the measures in the proposed regulation to speed up environmental assessments once it is adopted.

Next steps

The IAA proposal is now being scrutinised by the European Parliament and the representatives of the 27 EU Member States in the Council. The Council and the European Parliament can each propose amendments and will enter into negotiations to reach a compromise on a final text. This process usually takes around one to one-and-a-half years. We do not expect the IAA to be adopted before 2027. Given the intensity of debate around this proposal even before it was published, the text as it now stands is likely to undergo considerable amendments before it is adopted.

CrossBridge Bio Acquired by Eli Lilly and Co. for up to $300 Million

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 12:12:00 Z

Cooley advised CrossBridge Bio, a pre-clinical biotechnology company pioneering the development of next-generation dual-payload antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), on its agreement to be acquired by Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) for up to $300 million in cash, inclusive of an upfront payment and a subsequent payment upon achieving a specified development milestone.

The transaction was announced publicly in the following press release, which can be viewed here.

Lead Team: Rowook Park, Caitlin Cunningham, Nathan Baum, Allie Pilmer and John DelMastro led the Cooley team advising CrossBridge Bio.

Supporting Team: Ryan Sansom, Christophe Beauduin, John Forrest, Paul Holmer, Jeff Tolin, Patrick Sharma, Ali Murata, Tony Guan, Christian Lee and Ross Eberly provided invaluable support.

Cooley previously advised CrossBridge Bio on its $10 million seed financing in November 2024 as well as other general corporate matters.

Cooley Partner Named to India International A-List

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:40:26 Z

Cooley partner Rishab Kumar has been named to India Business Journal’s International A-List for the third consecutive year. Kumar was praised for his work on M&A technology transactions.

View the full list

The list recognizes lawyers outside of India who distinguished themselves as the top practice area experts for India-related legal matters.

Cooley Strengthens Fund Formation Practice With Private Equity Partner in New York

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 16:19:00 Z

New York – April 13, 2026 – Derek Pease has joined Cooley’s New York office as a partner in the firm’s fund formation practice. Pease joins Cooley from Silver Lake, one of the world’s largest private equity firms, and brings more than two decades of industry experience from several in-house and external advisory roles. With Pease’s addition, Cooley expands its private equity team, advancing its service to its sophisticated clients and its ongoing commitment to the sector.

“Derek brings the rare combination of elite in-house leadership and top-tier private practice experience at the highest level,” said John Clendenin, partner and chair of Cooley’s global fund formation practice. “Having led multibillion-dollar fundraises and coordinated global compliance and operational frameworks, he understands the full life cycle of modern investment platforms. His addition to our strong bench in New York reinforces Cooley’s position as a premier destination for sophisticated private equity sponsors.”

At Silver Lake, Pease most recently served as legal director of fund formation, working on a series of investment funds that raised billions of dollars from institutional investors and structured global technology investments. He has a substantial background in leading all aspects of fund formation through every step of the fundraising process and overseeing multifaceted fund operations.

Before joining Silver Lake, Pease was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, where he represented leading domestic and international sponsors in fund development and operations and advised on fund-related transactions – including minority-stake sales, co-investments and joint ventures – and legal and regulatory issues.

“I’m energized to return to private practice at a collaborative and well-regarded global firm that serves many of the world’s leading and most innovative sponsors,” said Pease. “Cooley’s impressive momentum in the private equity space, along with its industry presence and strengths in fund formation, provides an exceptional platform for serving clients across multiple geographies and asset classes.”

Cooley’s fund formation practice provides primary counsel to more than 950 investment fund organizations. The practice’s deep bench of 60+ lawyers has helped collate $120 billion+ in committed capital in closings over the past five years. Its client investments span the US, China, Europe, India, Vietnam, Singapore, Israel, South America and elsewhere. The group formed the first venture capital limited partnership in the western US and has been active in China for four decades and in India for three decades. The team advises on every type of fund formation, including private equity, venture capital, fund of funds, evergreen, growth equity and other managers at all states and sizes, from individual angel funds to billion-dollar investment funds.

Cooley Shortlisted for Nine Life Sciences EMEA Awards

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

London – April 13, 2026 – Cooley and its lawyers have been shortlisted for nine honors at the annual awards presented by LBG Life Sciences EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa). Specifically, the firm has been nominated as:

International Firm of the Year
Cross-border M&A Firm of the Year
Equity Capital Markets Firm of the Year
Licensing & Collaboration Firm of the Year
Venture Capital Firm of the Year

Moreover, four Cooley lawyers are shortlisted individually, including Simon Amies as M&A Lawyer of the Year; Frances Stocks Allen as Licensing & Collaboration Lawyer of the Year; Alexandra Paterson as M&A Rising Star, and Philip Whitehead as Banking and Capital Markets Rising Star

View the full shortlists

An awards ceremony will be held in London on June 4. In 2025, the publication recognized Cooley as Licensing and Collaboration Firm of the Year for EMEA.

Connected Cars: Privacy Compliance Guidance

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 17:03:15 Z

Cooley special counsel Claire Gibbs was quoted in a Cybersecurity Law Report article outlining the privacy and compliance challenges that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) face as connected vehicles collect and share sensitive data, emphasizing that OEMs must provide clear, timely notice and obtain meaningful consent so consumers understand how their information will be collected, used, and shared before any processing occurs.

Read the article (subscription required) >

GreenSpark and ReMatter Combine to Form ReSpark

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 16:23:00 Z

New York – April 10, 2026 – Cooley advised GreenSpark Software, a cloud-native, AI-first platform for the metal recycling industry, on its combination with ReMatter, creating a single company known as ReSpark. The combined entity brings together two of the most advanced purpose-built software platforms in the metal recycling and scrap yard industry, unifying their products, teams and customer bases to serve operators across the United States, Canada and internationally.

Lawyers Roy Moran, Izzy Lubarsky, Kathryn Benvenuti, Norris Kadet, Joy Chow, Melanie Simon-Giblin, Paula Fleckenstein, Chris Chynoweth, Ryan Montgomery and Patrick Sharma led the Cooley team advising GreenSpark.

AI Hype, Hard Lessons: Where SEA’s Startup Capital Is Really Going

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 19:26:05 Z

Cooley partner David He was quoted in an e27 article about Southeast Asia’s (SEA) startup ecosystem, analyzing how capital, expectations and behavior have fundamentally changed in the past few years. He also highlighted the trend of increased investments in artificial intelligence (AI) and the four areas in which investors are scrutinizing startups.

Read the full article on e27 here.

FCC Proposes Sweeping Rules on Foreign Call Centers: Onshoring Mandates, Consumer Protections and Robocall Deterrence

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 17:27:00 Z

FCC Proposes Sweeping Rules on Foreign Call Centers: Onshoring Mandates, Consumer Protections and Robocall Deterrence

On March 27, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Call Center NPRM) seeking comment on a broad package of rules governing foreign call centers. The rulemaking addresses three distinct objectives: encouraging the onshoring of call center operations to the United States; establishing quality and security standards for foreign call center operations that remain; and deterring unlawful robocalls originating from foreign countries through financial mechanisms, such as bonds and fees.

The proposed rules would apply to providers of telecommunications services, commercial mobile radio services (CMRS), interconnected voice over internet protocol (VoIP), cable television, and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services, as well as their affiliates that provide internet access service. The FCC also seeks comment on extending some or all of these rules more broadly, including all calls covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which could subject a range of commercial entities to new FCC requirements. Companies that use or rely on foreign call centers for customer service, sales or telemarketing should evaluate these proposals and consider participating in the comment process.

Key proposals

Cap on foreign-handled calls

The FCC proposes to limit the percentage of customer service calls that providers may route to or answer at foreign call centers. The NPRM uses 30% as an illustrative threshold and seeks comment on whether this cap should apply separately to inbound and outbound calls or on a combined basis. The FCC asks about the appropriate measurement period (annual, quarterly, monthly or daily) and whether to phase in the cap over time to allow providers to build domestic capacity.

English proficiency requirements

The proposed rules would require providers using offshore call centers to ensure that all calling staff are proficient in both spoken and written American Standard English. The FCC emphasizes that proficiency must extend beyond vocabulary to include understanding of tone, idioms and cultural context. The NPRM seeks comment on which testing regime should apply (referencing the OET, TOEFL and TOEIC as potential models) and whether the FCC should assess compliance per employee or on an aggregate basis. The FCC also asks how these requirements would apply to call centers serving non-English-speaking US customers.

Consumer right to transfer to a US-based representative

Upon consumer request, the proposed rules would require providers to transfer any call that a foreign call center is handling to a representative located in the US. Providers would need to ensure that wait times for transferred calls are no longer than for calls they initially route domestically.

Mandatory disclosure of foreign call center use

The proposed rules would require providers to inform customers at the beginning of each call that a representative outside the US is handling the call. The FCC proposes specific disclosure language that would include the name of the country where the call center operates and notification of the consumer’s right to request transfer to a US-based representative. The disclosure requirement would apply to both inbound and outbound calls.

Sensitive transactions: Domestic-only requirement

The FCC proposes to require that US-based call centers exclusively handle customer interactions involving sensitive data like passwords, multifactor authentication information, Social Security numbers, and bank account or credit card numbers. This requirement would apply regardless of the communication channel used (voice, chat, email or text) and proposes to exclude calls handling sensitive data from any percentage-cap calculation.

Prohibition on call centers in foreign adversary nations

The NPRM proposes to prohibit covered providers from using call centers located in “foreign adversary” nations, as defined under existing Commerce Department regulations. Foreign adversary nations include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela. The FCC further seeks comment on an even broader prohibition –barring the use of any call center, wherever located, that employs citizens or residents of a foreign adversary nation. This is a hard prohibition, not a cap.

Broadband label and transparency disclosures

The FCC proposes to amend its broadband consumer label rules to require display of the percentage of customer service calls handled by US-based representatives. For providers of non-broadband services covered by the proposed rules, the FCC asks whether providers should publish comparable information on their websites.

Compliance tracking and reporting

The proposed rules would require providers to track and report to the FCC their compliance with all adopted rules. Reports would cover English proficiency testing results, call volumes by location (domestic versus foreign), transfer rates, wait times and dropped call data. The FCC seeks comment on reporting frequency (monthly, quarterly or annually) and whether the FCC should make compliance reports public.

Extension to nonvoice channels

Beyond the sensitive-transaction requirement (which already extends to all channels), the FCC asks whether all of the proposed rules should apply to nonvoice customer communications, including online chat, text messages, email and video conferencing.

Bond and fee requirements for robocall deterrence

In a separate but related set of proposals, the FCC seeks comment on requiring providers that transmit calls from foreign countries to the US, particularly international gateway providers, to post bonds. The FCC asks detailed questions about bond amounts, drawdown triggers, due process safeguards, replenishment obligations and administration. As an alternative, the FCC also asks about government-imposed fees on unlawful traffic.

Comment dates will be set after publication in the Federal Register. If you have questions about this proceeding or are considering submitting comments, please contact one of the Cooley lawyers listed below.

Cooley Partner Again Named Among Hollywood’s Top Attorneys

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 13:41:18 Z

For the second consecutive year, Los Angeles-based Cooley partner Bobby Ghajar was named to Variety’s Legal Impact Report. The prestigious annual report profiles Hollywood’s leading entertainment lawyers, and includes the litigators, deal lawyers and in-house counsel behind some of the industry’s biggest stories.

Ghajar’s profile highlighted his representation of Meta, for which his team secured a partial summary judgment victory in the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) copyright case. In June 2025, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims when it ruled that Meta’s use of copyrighted books to train its Llama AI was “highly transformative” and that the books’ authors failed to prove it harmed the market for their works.

Ghajar was also noted for his ongoing defense of Midjourney in a suit brought by Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. challenging his client’s ability to generate images of iconic Hollywood characters.

Read Ghajar’s profile ›

Washington State Expands Personality Rights Law to Cover AI-Generated Deepfakes

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

Washington state expanded its existing property rights law to address use of a person’s “forged digital likeness” without the person’s consent. Substitute Senate Bill 5886 (SSB 5886), signed into law by Gov. Bob Ferguson on March 16, 2026, amends Washington’s Personality Rights Law to address the growing use of artificial intelligence to create realistic but deceptive audio and video, and impacts those that rely on such technology to create content. The law takes effect on June 11, 2026.

What changed?

The Personality Rights Law already prohibited the use of an individual’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness without their consent. The amended law expands that list to include a person’s “forged digital likeness,” defined as:

A visual representation which is either persistent or transmitted in real-time of an actual and identifiable individual, or an audio recording which is either persistent or transmitted in real-time of an actual and identifiable individual’s voice, which: (a) has been digitally created, adapted, altered, or modified to be indistinguishable from a genuine visual representation or audio recording of the individual; (b) misrepresents the appearance, speech, or conduct of the individual; and (c) is likely to deceive a reasonable person into believing that the visual representation or audio recording is genuine.

This property right applies to both living and certain deceased individuals.

Strengthened remedies

In addition to the potential for injunctive relief, actual damages and recovery of attributable profits and reasonable attorneys’ fees, the law significantly increases the potential consequences violators face:

Doubled civil penalty: Under the prior law, violators could be subject to financial penalties of $1,500 or actual damages, whichever was greater. The amended law raises the potential civil penalty to $3,000. There remains the potential recovery of actual damages and any attributable profits.
Noneconomic damages for deepfake violations: Where the violation involves a forged digital likeness, the violator is also responsible for noneconomic damages, such as mental or physical pain and suffering, or injury to reputation and humiliation.

Broader legal landscape

SSB 5886 is part of a broader national trend. Washington had already passed a law extending the state’s criminal impersonation statute to cover the distribution of someone’s forged digital likeness with the intent to defraud, harass or threaten them. Other states, such as California, New York and Tennessee, have passed legislation regulating digital likenesses.

Key takeaways and next steps

Businesses and content creators should act now to prepare for the June 11, 2026, effective date. In particular:

Review content workflows. Any use of AI tools to generate, alter or reproduce audio or visual representations of real individuals should be audited for compliance.
Update consent frameworks. Existing consent language in contracts, talent agreements and terms of service may not be sufficient to cover AI-generated digital likenesses under the new statutory definition.
Assess liability exposure. The expanded civil penalty and the addition of noneconomic damages for deepfake-specific infringements substantially raise the stakes of noncompliance.

Areas requiring further clarification include how courts will interpret the “likely to deceive a reasonable person” standard in practice, and how the law will interact with First Amendment protections for satire, parody and commentary.

FDA Guidance May Move Goalposts For Form 483 Responses

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

Cooley lawyers Sonia Nath, Laura Akowuah and Auguste Humphries co-authored an article for Law360 analyzing the US Food and Drug Administration’s new draft guidance on Form 483 responses, which provides a clearer structure for drug manufacturers to document, assess and correct any underlying systemic issues, but may also create timing issues and disadvantage many small and midsize companies.

Read the article

State Laws About Pay Transparency in Job Ads are Gaining Popularity, Lawyers Say

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:24:35 Z

Cooley partner Lyndsey Kruzer was quoted in an ABA Journal article about how pay transparency laws are expanding quickly as part of a broader push to increase salary equity, noting that compliance could become complicated for remote roles that may need to meet multiple states’ disclosure requirements.

Read the article (subscription required)

Cooley Shortlisted for Three Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Asia-Pacific Awards

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 16:00:00 Z

April 8, 2026 –Cooley was shortlisted for three honors in the Financial Times’ annual Innovative Lawyers Asia-Pacific awards. The series recognizes outstanding firms and individuals delivering exceptional value to their clients while bringing innovation to the practice of law.

The firm was shortlisted as Most Innovative Law Firm in Asia-Pacific, in the category specific to global law firms headquartered outside the region.

Additionally, a global Cooley team was shortlisted for Innovative Lawyers in Deal Making, based on its representation of Hengrui Pharma in its licensing agreement with GSK, valued up to $12.5 billion, to develop medicines complementing GSK’s extensive respiratory, immunology, inflammation and oncology pipeline.

Hong Kong partner Pang Lee was also shortlisted as an Innovative Practitioner, based in part on his leading role in supporting initiatives positioning Hong Kong as a global hub for innovation and entrepreneurship – including his contributions to the launch of the Hong Kong Venture Capital and Private Equity Association’s set of model legal documents designed to empower the local startup and investment community.

The awards will be presented in May during a ceremony at the Asia Society in Hong Kong.

Cooley Secures Three #1 Vault Practice Rankings

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 15:44:49 Z

Palo Alto – April 8, 2026For the ninth consecutive year, Cooley earned at least one market-leading ranking based on Vault’s annual nationwide survey of thousands of law firm associates. Each Spring, Vault publishes an industrywide report ranking law firms based on overall prestige, practice area prestige, quality of life and other factors.

Cooley earned a #1 ranking in three practice areas on Vault’s 2026 – 2027 report:

Emerging Companies & Venture Capital
Life Sciences
Privacy & Data Security

The firm’s first overall ranking for life sciences is based on Vault’s inaugural survey regarding this industry sector.

For the sixth consecutive year, Cooley earned a top spot on Vault’s Privacy & Data Security rankings. Additionally, Cooley maintained its #1 ranking for Emerging Companies & Venture Capital, a position the firm has held for nine consecutive years. The firm also maintained its fourth-place ranking for Intellectual Property.

On the Vault Law 100 list, Cooley remained in the #22 position for overall prestige. In Vault’s regional rankings, Cooley maintained its #1 ranking in Northern California, maintained its top five rankings in the Mountain States and Pacific Northwest, and also ranked in Boston, Chicago, New York and Washington, DC, as well as Southern California.

Read Cooley’s Vault profile >

Cooley’s cyber/data/privacy practice is a cross-functional, integrated team of lawyers in the US, Europe and Asia spanning the spectrum of advisory, transactional, regulatory and litigation matters involving privacy, cybersecurity and data governance.

Cooley’s emerging companies group works closely with startups and venture capital firms as they launch dynamic new ventures – to take them forward and beyond. The firm advises 7,000+ innovative, high-growth companies, from preformation founder teams to many of the most sophisticated tech companies in the world. Cooley serves as primary fund counsel to more than 800 investment fund organizations and represents venture funds or corporate investors in 2,100+ private financings each year.

Cooley’s market-leading life sciences practice has represented leading global life sciences companies for 40+ years and advises entities across the industry landscape – currently serving as trusted counsel to 2,500+ public and private life sciences company clients worldwide. The practice spans the gamut of regulatory, corporate and litigation services provided by lawyers who have extensive US and global experience counseling on a range of complex regulatory matters, advising on intricate deals, conducting investigations, and representing clients in litigation involving these issues.

UK Competition and Consumer Regulator Sets Key Regulatory Priorities for 2026 – 2027

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 14:02:22 Z

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its Annual Plan for 2026 to 2027 on 23 March 2026 setting out its strategic priorities for the coming year. This is the first detailed plan for implementation under its 2026 – 2029 Strategy, which seeks to put into practice some of the regulator’s longer-term objectives of protecting consumers and promoting competition in the wake of its mandate to help drive economic growth and improve household prosperity.

The plan was published against the backdrop of a government consultation on refining the UK competition regime, which seeks to speed up and streamline market investigations, provide clarity on merger control thresholds and implement a new decision-making model for in-depth mergers (see our February alert). It further embeds the CMA’s framework for acting with pace, predictability, proportionality and process (the 4Ps) in order to make the UK economy a more business-friendly environment and to “put money back” in people’s pockets.

In terms of key initiatives, the plan is notable for a strong shift in the CMA prioritising its enforcement of UK consumer protection laws, potentially to a greater extent than its competition law enforcement, a focus on encouraging innovation by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and startups, policing public procurement markets for signs of anticompetitive conduct, and aligning its interventions to support the UK government’s eight Industrial Strategy sectors.

Key objectives

The plan reiterates the CMA’s key objectives from its 2026 – 2029 Strategy, namely:

Remaining a strong advocate for, and independent enforcer of, effective competition across the UK economy.
Championing consumers.
Helping government deploy tailored pro-competition interventions to support growth, innovation and investment-related policies.
Contributing to a UK regulatory landscape which instils business confidence and acts as a magnet for investment.
Delivering tangible benefits for the UK economy, citizens and businesses.

These key objectives contrast with those set out in previous annual plans, which had a stronger focus on competition in digital and fast-growing markets, complex (often digital) merger review, and sustainability. This shift has arisen not only from the Strategic Steer received from the government in 2025, but also from the coming into force of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act (DMCCA), which bolstered the CMA’s consumer protection enforcement powers. Under this regime, the CMA can act more quickly and investigate and impose fines directly, without having to go through lengthy UK court procedures.

We set out the CMA’s key areas of focus for the year ahead and what this means for businesses below.

1. Consumer protection

Under the DMCCA, the CMA received new enforcement powers to protect consumers against unfair commercial practices (see our April 2025 alert). The plan states that implementing the enhanced consumer protection regime under the DMCCA is a core priority, combining support for business compliance with enforcement action. The CMA highlights that this approach is intended to “put money back in people’s pockets” and strengthen consumer confidence.

The plan explains that the CMA will continue to prioritise areas of essential spend to help people struggling with pressure on household budgets, focusing in particular on the following behaviours:

Providing objectively false information to consumers
Fake reviews
Hidden fees
Aggressive sales practices
Imbalanced and unfair contract terms

In addition, the plan also sets out that the CMA will drive at behavioural change in businesses and across sectors through the use of advisory letters, noting that this approach has already driven behavioural change without the CMA needing to deploy a full case team to an enforcement investigation.

Takeaways

The CMA is clearly prioritising its enforcement of UK consumer protection laws. This is a continuation of the CMA’s 2025 strategy, which saw the agency send more than 100 advisory letters to businesses that it considered to be out of compliance with their consumer law obligations. It also launched its first investigations under the regime. For the remainder of 2026, we expect to see further enforcement of consumer issues, with the CMA seeking decisive resolutions for consumers.

In addition to the enforcement priorities named above, the DMCCA also sets out new obligations on businesses in relation to subscriptions, which we expect to come into force during the course of 2026. Businesses are advised to review their existing subscription offers to check if these fall within the remit of the DMCCA, and if so, put in place a compliance plan.

2. Competition enforcement

The plan sets out the CMA’s targeted focus for competition enforcement as follows:

Tackling anticompetitive conduct in key growth sectors and areas that may help to improve household prosperity; as part of this, the CMA will actively target anticompetitive activity which prevents startups and scale-ups from growing
Facilitating pro-growth, legitimate business collaboration, particularly in the eight Industrial Strategy priority sectors – advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, creative industries, defence, digital and technologies, financial services, life sciences, and professional and business services – and in relation to sustainability agreements
Prioritising action against bid-rigging in the public sector and using AI and data science tools to support evidence gathering
Ensuring that AI is not used to impede competition in the UK, including through algorithmic collusion; in this context, the CMA is also making further investments into its detection tools, including AI, to scan public data and identify suspicious activity in all areas of focus, and the CMA’s recent guidance on Complying with Consumer Law When Using AI Agents supports this as a key area of focus in the consumer space as well (see our March 2026 alert).

Takeaways

The CMA’s competition enforcement focus is clearly targeted to support the government’s growth agenda. Notable is the emphasis both in the plan and in public statements currently being made by the CMA with regards to identifying how the CMA can support startups to scale up in the UK. These reflect a wider programme of work commenced in Autumn 2025 in which the CMA looked at the role of competition policy to encourage startup growth and investment in the UK, including tackling sector-specific barriers, such as public-sector procurement and regulation, the role of data and interoperability in scaling in the UK and from a merger control perspective, and the role of consolidation to achieve scale. Now, more than ever, the CMA is likely to be receptive to complaints by SMEs regarding market structures or the behaviours of competitors.

Also notable are how AI developments are now shaping the CMA’s workplan – both with regards to new tools that it is using to monitor market behaviour, such as in public-sector markets and to detect cartels, but also with regards to the use of algorithms and AI where these tools enable market collusion. Whilst to date the CMA has confined itself to issuing guidance on the use of AI and algorithms, and decisions are awaited, companies that use pricing algorithms and other AI tools to gather information are strongly recommended to review the compliance position of these.

3. Markets

With regard to the CMA’s markets work, while the agency has the ability to investigate entire markets, even in the absence of consumer or competition law breaches, the plan confirms a continued focus on those markets that are consumer facing. The plan specifically calls out the progression of the CMA’s market study into the private dentistry sector, along with implementation of remedies that result from its veterinary services market investigation, which concluded on 24 March 2026 and resulted in, amongst others, a price cap on prescriptions.

The plan further provides that the CMA will use its market function to support the government’s Industrial Strategy to help reduce cross-economy barriers to growth, supporting interoperability and access to data. The UK government’s proposed reforms to the competition regime also include changes to the CMA’s markets regime, which seek to replace the existing market study and market investigation model with a new single-phase market review tool and ensure market remedies remain necessary and proportionate. In implementing these aims, the plan seeks to be mindful of not placing more burden on business than necessary – for example, by focusing on light-touch and fast interventions, being guided by proportionality, and ensuring an effective monitoring of remedies, including removing remedies that are no longer needed.

Takeaways

The CMA continues to focus its market function on key areas of consumer need and spend, and we expect to see extensive use of this tool in the coming year. For example, on 20 March 2026, the CMA launched a market study into the supply of heating oil as an area of essential spend following the sudden rise in oil prices caused by the current conflict in the Middle East. On 24 March 2026, the Chancellor set out a plan to help protect households from unfair price increases set for profiteering during the crisis. As part of this, the government may act to give time-limited, targeted powers to the CMA so it can clamp down on “price gouging”.

4. Digital markets

In the digital realm, the plan sets out the CMA’s priorities in implementing its digital market regulation powers, including its work on its first designations of strategic market status (SMS) under the DMCCA in relation to search and mobile platforms. The CMA has recently indicated that it will open its next SMS investigation in May 2026.

Takeaways

We expect the CMA to focus on delivering a pragmatic approach to the regulation of digital markets with a focus on ensuring a level playing field for startups and scale-ups across the UK tech sector, particularly in areas like fintech and digital wallets, browsers, and platforms, with a particular focus on choice architecture, data access and interoperability. Commitments in the current designation process came into force on 1 April, and we expect at least one further designation to land in 2026. We therefore do not expect the regulator to put its current focus on digital regulation on the backburner just yet, particularly in areas where technology intersects with essential consumer spend, such as banking and finance.

5. Merger control

The CMA plans to apply its merger control powers in a targeted way, emphasising that most mergers do not raise competition concerns, but that it wants to be a strong advocate for effective competition across the UK economy. As part of this, the CMA will continue implementing its wait-and-see approach to global mergers.

Takeaways

On 20 January 2026, the UK government opened a consultation on legislative changes to the UK merger control regime aimed at enhancing predictability for businesses in support of economic growth which we wrote about in February. This came on the heels of a number of reforms and significant shifts in the CMA’s enforcement and merger review priorities, emphasising its alignment with the UK government’s pro-growth, pro-business agenda. As part of this, we expect:

Mergers involving global markets, but with only peripheral UK-specific overlaps, to be less likely to attract scrutiny, with more concentration on those transactions with a clear UK nexus.
More deals to continue to be cleared through the briefing-paper route with less full Phase 1 reviews.
A more flexible approach to remedies following the removal of the presumption against behavioural remedies at Phase 1 review.

The government consultation proposes to refine this further, with more streamlined investigations, greater certainty on notification thresholds and more time for businesses to agree remedies following a Phase 1 merger investigation.

What’s next?

Overall, the draft Annual Plan highlights the CMA’s ambition to be a consumer champion and enabler of economic growth in the UK. It also reinforces the CMA’s role in shaping markets – not just policing them – offering both risks and opportunities for businesses with UK operations.

In particular, while much of the commentary focuses on increased enforcement, the plan also presents strategic opportunities. The CMA is explicitly seeking to facilitate investment, sustainability initiatives and pro‑growth collaboration, including in the government’s priority sectors. Firms that understand how to operate within this framework can gain an advantage, particularly where regulatory clarity or market opening measures create new avenues for innovation.

If you would like to discuss what this means for your business, please do not hesitate to get in touch with a member of the Cooley team listed below.

Cooley Shortlisted for Three Awards by Chambers USA 2026

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 13:55:09 Z

April 8, 2026Cooley has been named a Finalist for three awards at the annual Chambers USA awards, which honors excellence in client service, exceptional leadership, and innovative and strategic impact on the legal profession.

Cooley is shortlisted in the following categories:

Artificial Intelligence
Healthcare & Life Sciences
Intellectual Property

Read the shortlists ›

The winners will be announced at Chambers’ award event June in New York City.

CFTC Issues No-Action Relief to Self-Custodial Crypto-Wallet Application

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:00:00 Z

On March 17, 2026, the Market Participants Division (MPD) of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a no-action letter to Phantom Technologies, a self-custodial crypto-wallet software company, recommending that the CFTC should not take enforcement action against Phantom for failing to register as an introducing broker (IB) under Section 4d(g) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), or for certain of its personnel failing to register as associated persons (APs) under Section 4k of the CEA (no-action relief).

Phantom’s proposed activities

Phantom has developed one of the most popular self-custodial crypto-wallets for use on Solana and several other major blockchains. Phantom’s software enables users to generate and manage cryptographic credentials for viewing, storing and conducting self-directed crypto transactions. In a request letter to the CFTC, Phantom proposed to offer a front-end interface that enables users to access trading in CFTC-regulated derivatives, including event contracts, perpetual contracts, on registered designated contract markets (DCMs) or through registered futures commission merchants (FCMs) or IBs (collectively, collaborators). Phantom does not hold, control or custody user assets, generate express “buy” or “sell” signals, or exercise discretion with respect to the routing or execution of user orders. It merely provides software on the user’s mobile device or via a browser extension to enable users to transmit their orders directly to the collaborators. Phantom may receive a portion of the revenue of the collaborators and may also charge a transaction-based fee to users.

Registration requirement for introducing brokers

Under Section 4d(g) of the CEA, any person that, for compensation or profit, is engaged in soliciting or accepting orders for the purchase or sale of, among other financial products, any commodity for future delivery, is required to be registered as an IB with the CFTC. The phrase “soliciting or accepting orders” has been interpreted broadly to encompass solicitation of customers or acceptance of their orders for referral to FCMs for the execution of those orders. In addition, any individual associated with an IB as a partner, officer, employee or agent (or similar status) involved in solicitation or acceptance of customers’ orders (other than in a clerical capacity) or the supervision of persons so engaged is required to be registered as an associated person of the IB.

Prior CFTC staff letters had established that certain independent software vendors (ISVs) need not register as IBs, subject to specified requirements. Phantom’s proposed activities satisfy most of the conditions set out in those prior letters but depart in two key respects. First, Phantom would recommend, propose or encourage its users to use particular collaborators; and second, Phantom might contract with those collaborators to share a specified portion of their relevant revenues in exchange for Phantom providing its software to the collaborators’ users. Phantom therefore sought no-action relief.

Conditions for no-action relief

The CFTC granted the no-action relief to Phantom subject to the following conditions:

Collaborator liability undertaking

Phantom and each collaborator execute a written undertaking to be jointly and severally liable for any violations of the CEA or CFTC regulations in connection with Phantom’s proposed activities and to consent to the jurisdiction of the CFTC for relevant enforcement actions. Such undertakings shall be filed with the MPD.

User onboarding and disclosures

Phantom provides and each user acknowledges receipt of:
- Disclosures regarding Phantom’s relationship with the collaborators, addressing potential conflicts of interest (including fees).
- A risk disclosure statement meeting specific requirements for the relevant trading activities, unless such risk disclosure statement has been provided by the collaborator.
Users are onboarded with the collaborator and retain the ability to access the collaborator independently of Phantom.

Business conduct and notifications to the CFTC

Phantom adopts and enforces policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with applicable CFTC and National Futures Association (NFA) rules regarding communications with the public and marketing as if Phantom were registered as an IB.
Phantom does not engage in advertising or promotions that would require preapproval by NFA if Phantom were registered as an IB.
Phantom, its principals and any individual engaged in soliciting users as part of the proposed activities are not subject to certain statutory disqualifications under the CEA. Phantom shall promptly notify the MPD of the relevant facts should any such person become subject to statutory disqualification.
Phantom provides notice to the MPD if it becomes insolvent or enters a bankruptcy proceeding.
Phantom maintains records regarding its compliance with these conditions and its business involving CFTC-regulated activity.
Phantom files a notice with the MPD agreeing to satisfy these conditions and consenting to be subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction for related enforcement actions.

Key takeaways

The no-action relief opens the door for the development of “super apps” that allow users to access multiple trading venues through a single software application. For noncustodial crypto-wallet providers considering entry into CFTC-regulated derivatives markets, the no-action relief provides a useful pathway of entry without being subject to IB registration and ongoing compliance obligations. The CFTC’s relief builds on the reasoning in SEC v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 23 Civ. 4738 (KPF) (SDNY Mar. 27, 2024), in which Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s claim that Coinbase acted as an unregistered securities broker through its self-custodial Coinbase Wallet application. Judge Failla found that the factual allegations concerning Coinbase Wallet were insufficient to support the plausible inference that Coinbase “engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others” through its wallet application, noting in particular that Coinbase does not maintain custody over user assets and does not exercise discretion over the routing or execution of transactions, and that the provision of pricing comparisons and access to third-party decentralized exchanges does not rise to the level of brokerage activity. Taken together with the CFTC’s no-action relief, noncustodial wallet providers now have meaningful guidance under both the commodities and securities regulatory frameworks that the provision of self-custodial software infrastructure facilitating user-directed access to trading venues may not, without more, constitute broker activity requiring registration.
In granting the no-action relief, the CFTC emphasized Phantom’s passive involvement in order submission. Noncustodial software providers seeking similar relief should ensure that their platforms do not generate express “buy” or “sell” signals or exercise discretion with respect to the routing or execution of user orders, and that users will continue to have direct access to collaborating DCMs, FCMs or IBs.
In addition, noncustodial software providers seeking similar relief should proactively update user agreements and conflict-of-interest and risk disclosures, implement internal policies regarding marketing and public communications, and include appropriate liability undertakings when negotiating collaboration arrangements with DCMs, FCMs and IBs.
Lastly, it is worth noting that, in addition to a transaction-based fee to be paid by users, the no-action relief allows Phantom to receive a portion of the revenue from the collaborators, so long as Phantom’s relationship with the collaborators, potential conflicts of interest and fees are adequately disclosed.

Cooley Special Counsel Receives Two Community Service Honors

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 17:15:58 Z

San Diego – April 7, 2026 –Cooley special counsel Kate Lee Carey has been named a 2026 Community Service Award honoree by both the San Diego County Bar Association and Lawyers Club of San Diego.

Kate was selected by the San Diego County Bar Association awards committee and board of directors as the 2026 Community Service Award recipient and will be recognized at the organization’s Annual Awards Ceremony & Celebration of Community Service luncheon on May 14.

In addition, Kate was named the 2026 recipient of the Lawyers Club of San Diego’s Community Service Award. Established in 1985, the award honors a Lawyers Club member whose community service has contributed to improving the status of women and promoting equality.

These recognitions acknowledge Kate’s sustained service and leadership within the broader legal community as well as the education and edtech sectors.

Stricter Chinese Scrutiny of Offshore Vehicles a Blow for Tech and Biotech IPO Candidates

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 16:05:00 Z

Michael Yu, partner in charge of Cooley’s Hong Kong office, was quoted in a South China Morning Post article about tightened Chinese regulatory scrutiny of offshore listing structures, explaining how such vehicles have historically helped attract US dollar‑denominated funds to Chinese companies. He also highlighted the additional regulatory procedures some funds may face when investing directly into entities incorporated in China versus the Cayman Islands.

Read the full article on the South China Morning Post.