Since the 2022 overhaul of Colorado’s restrictive covenant statute, C.R.S. § 8-2-113, the Colorado legislature has made ongoing amendments to the law which continue the trend of limiting the effectiveness of restrictive covenants in the state. Most recently, the 2025 General Assembly took aim at the provisions of the statute regarding restrictive covenants’ applicability to select healthcare providers as well as buyers and sellers of a business.
Audit preparedness is essential for every clinical research site. By operationalizing compliance in your daily procedures, you can effectively mitigate risk and ensure smooth inspections. Start by thoroughly educating key personnel on current regulations and any changes, and involve them in risk identification and mitigation strategies. Foster a culture of shared responsibility through ongoing training and open communication. Keep detailed documentation of the reasoning behind your procedures and policies, and store all standard operating procedures (SOPs) in a central, easily accessible location. Finally, implement a robust system for managing data and documents to ensure that all necessary information is readily available for internal and external monitors, as well as regulatory agencies.
Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi purportedly issued an internal memorandum in response to Executive Order 14187 (“Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”) concerning the treatment of transgender minors by medical practitioners, hospitals, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies. The memo set forth guidance for all Department of Justice (DOJ) employees to investigate individuals and entities who provide gender-affirming care to minor patients. To be clear, the memorandum—which has been posted in various locations on the internet and widely reported on by various media outlets but has not been verified as authentic by Husch Blackwell—is an internal policy statement directed to DOJ personnel and is not law. While it purports to issue “guidelines” pursuant to an executive order from the President, that executive order is itself under scrutiny (and has been partially enjoined).
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to dominate headlines—not just for its technological leaps, but also for the policies shaping its future. In a major development, a new Republican-backed tax bill, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 11, 2025, seeks to preempt states from regulating AI models for the next decade. If passed, this bill would prevent state laws governing AI systems, allowing only limited exceptions for measures that simply facilitate or streamline AI development and deployment. Laws attempting to regulate artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decisions systems would be disallowed during the 10 year period.
This proposed federal approach aligns with the current administration’s emphasis on AI innovation over regulation, reflecting a belief that a unified, national policy will spur American competitiveness in this rapidly evolving field.
On March 19, 2025, Wyoming passed a new law, SF 107, broadly circumscribing employers’ use of noncompete agreements. Generally, SF 107 broadly prohibits covenants that restrict the right of “any person” to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor. The law will take effect on July 1, 2025, and only impacts
A recent False Claims Act (FCA) litigation—Jensen ex rel. United States of America v. Genesis Laboratory—highlights critical compliance risks for laboratories. This case reinforces the need for laboratories to ensure adherence to federal regulations governing medical necessity, lab requisition practices, and the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).
On February 20, 2025, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) announced that its legal counsel submitted a letter to the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury, requesting a stay of enforcement of the September 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) Final Rule. In the letter, ERIC urged the Departments to exercise their authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 to postpone the effective date of the Final Rule while litigation challenging its validity is ongoing. This request marks a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding mental health parity laws and could have far-reaching implications for employers, health plans, and other stakeholders in the health insurance industry.
Throughout this series, we’ve explored the key elements of successful life sciences transactions—from structuring collaborations and securing funding to protecting intellectual property and navigating regulatory complexities.
Yet, even when companies understand these fundamentals, transactions don’t always go as planned. In our work with biotech, medtech, digital health, and research-driven companies, we’ve seen common missteps that can slow deals down, create compliance risks, or weaken long-term business outcomes.
Clinical research agreements (CRAs) and developing a regulatory strategy—particularly in connection with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—are crucial for a company’s ability to bring innovative life sciences products to market. CRAs, which govern the conduct of clinical trials, are essential for detailing which party will comply with the regulatory requirements while facilitating the commercialization of new drugs, devices, and digital health solutions.
Taxpayers may encounter a variety of challenges as the IRS is facing one of its smallest (and least experienced) workforces since the 1970s. Continuing the theme of our previous article authored by Robert Romashko, the following discussion highlights some specific tax diligence areas of concern in the healthcare space. The problems of a very outdated IT system still exist – the IRS still uses fax machines in communications with taxpayers.