Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.
Search
Portrait of Kim Herman
Portrait of Kim Herman

Biography

Kim is a corporate attorney with a focus on contract negotiation and intellectual property. She leads Sullivan's Intellectual Property, Technology and Media & Entertainment Groups. Her practice spans the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Kim’s practice is varied and extensive and includes advising clients on numerous issues relating to licensing, copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets. She also has specialized expertise in business strategy and negotiating in-bound and out-bound transactions and drafting related agreements for a wide range of commercial deals and litigation settlements in the media and entertainment, software (including open source, SaaS and business software platforms) and life sciences industries.

Kim is also well-versed in providing legal advice concerning the ever-changing state and federal laws applicable to online sports betting, online gambling and fantasy sports including the representation of a billion-dollar multi-national gaming and lottery services company in connection with its licensed content deals. Kim’s gaming clients include IGT, Bally’s Corporation and Novomatic.

On any given day, Kim may go from working on a film production agreement for a streaming platform in the morning to a clinical trial agreement for a life sciences or medical device company in the afternoon to evaluating state gaming regulations in the evening.

In the last few years, Kim has acted as the General Counsel for a Series D funded technology company Hydration Labs (Bevi, the bottle-less water dispenser that delivers personalized flavor) and most recently as the VP and Deputy General Counsel for Bally’s digital entertainment and technology division Bally’s Interactive, where she managed the legal function for Bally’s North American online sports betting business. At Bally's, Kim provided legal counsel concerning all regulatory and legal issues involving the company’s licensed and regulated product offerings, including supporting the company's compliance team on interpreting regulatory and licensing guidelines and communications with state regulators. Kim also managed a wide range of litigation and transactional matters for Bally's involving patents, copyrights, trademarks and brand content and was across many major league sports partnerships with the likes of the NBA, MLB, MiLB and the NHL. As a result, Kim has become well-versed in juggling the multitude of legal issues that GCs and other in-house counsel face on a daily basis. This experience has reinforced her ability to provide innovative and efficient solutions to her clients.

Kim currently serves as outside general counsel and main point of contact for Skillsright, Inc., a nonprofit coalition of the country’s top employers and their CEOs with a mission of driving a skills-first movement for a more equitable and inclusive future workforce. In 2020, Kim was a member of the Sullivan team that advised, along with longtime Sullivan client Bain & Company, on the non-profit’s formation, branding and launch.

In particular, Kim’s practice focuses on structuring and negotiating complex commercial transactions dealing with media and entertainment (including representation of clients in the news, documentary, motion picture and cable network industries), First Amendment and privacy issues, gaming, sanctioned gambling and e-sports, software, music and art on behalf of leading media, entertainment, technology and consumer-products companies, as well as filmmakers, project financiers, artists, museums and art galleries. This representation extends to Kim assisting her clients in exploiting their brands, content and programming into different markets and entertainment distribution platforms through a variety of licensing, merchandising, publishing, sponsorship, agency and endorsement deals.

With respect to Kim’s work in the media and entertainment space, she reviews film and other content for distribution on all types of platforms including premium cable, streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu, film festivals, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, websites and native video platforms. Kim works collaboratively with clients to provide tailored recommendations to reduce risk and overcome obstacles to publication. She drafts and reviews releases, licenses and permissions, and she issues copyright fair use opinions for insureds and others.

Kim also advises companies, content creators, advertising agencies, and technology platforms on the development, training, commercialization and governance of artificial intelligence systems, including AI-enabled recommendation engines, generative AI applications, data licensing, intellectual property ownership, copyright and trade secret protection, confidentiality, AI training datasets, and the use of historical creative and business intelligence to develop proprietary AI products.  

In addition to her broad media and entertainment practice, Kim provides strategic legal counsel tailored specifically to the music industry. She guides musicians and music publishers through complex licensing negotiations, master and sync agreements, publishing contracts, and royalty arrangements. Drawing on her deep expertise in intellectual property law, Kim helps clients safeguard their creative works, maximize revenue opportunities across formats and territories and navigate the interplay between rights, contracts and evolving distribution platforms.

Kim advises Sundial Media Group LLC, Refinery29 and its affiliates on pre-production review of online content, including social media posts, digital marketing campaigns and website materials.

Kim works with Sundial Media Group LLC in connection with its advertising campaigns in sectors from tech to tacos. Kim ensures compliance with intellectual property laws, advertising regulations and platform-specific guidelines, helping this client mitigate risks and safeguard its brand reputation.

Kim works closely with social media influencers and brands, providing guidance on influencer agreements, disclosures and compliance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines. Her practice spans industries such as technology, entertainment, consumer goods and healthcare, where she provides practical solutions to navigate complex legal and regulatory landscapes in the fast-paced digital space.

Kim conducts audits and provides strategic counseling to assist clients in identifying, protecting and exploiting key intellectual property assets and represents clients in a wide variety of trademark and copyright enforcement and defense matters. In addition, she advises clients in responding to claims of infringement of adversely held trademarks and copyrights, prepares and responds to cease and desist letters regarding the same, and provides advice on litigation, litigation settlements and mediation.

Kim is experienced in the unique challenges posed by Government Contracts that federal agencies routinely award such as Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) and Technology Transfer Agreements. She has significant experience negotiating these agreements and advising contracting companies on the risks involved and how to protect intellectual property. Selecting the right agreement isn’t a simple endeavor because it involves many factors including the nature of what the contracting party is supplying and how the Government will use it.

Kim also provides comprehensive guidance on managing cyber breach events, from preparation and response to recovery. She advises clients on navigating state, federal, and international breach notification requirements, regulatory reporting obligations, privacy compliance, and contractual reviews. Kim helps clients mitigate litigation risks and enhance compliance frameworks to recover and strengthen their resilience after an incident.

Kim has been ranked in World Trademark Review 1000, The World's Leading Trademark Professionals each year since 2015. Clients describe her as "incredibly responsive" and "always looking out for your company's interest." She has also been recognized in the WTR's Global Leaders Guide, which identifies the "best of the best" in trademark practice. In 2021, Kim was named a “Go To IP Lawyer” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Kim is a guest speaker at Northeastern University in Boston, where she speaks on developments in intellectual property law, copyright, fair use and First Amendment issues. She completed the courses "Museums and the Law;" "Museum Exhibition Content Development;" "History of Museums;" and "Collections Management: Issues and Solutions" at Harvard University.

Education
  • Western New England College School of Law (J.D.)
  • Northeastern University (B.A., cum laude)
Bar & Court Admissions
  • Massachusetts
  • U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Professional Qualifications
  • Executive Committee, Riverside Community Care
  • Member, International Masters of Gaming Law
  • International Trademark Association
  • Computer Law Association
  • Massachusetts Bar Association
  • Boston Bar Association
  • Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc.
  • International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP)
  • Academic Committee, International Trademark Association, 2010-2011
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
Awards & Honors
  • World Trademark Review Global Leader (2024)
  • World Trademark Review 1000, The World's Leading Trademark Professionals (2015-2026)
  • Best Lawyers in America® (2024)
  • Boston Magazine Top Lawyers, Corporate Law (2021)
  • Boston Magazine Top Lawyers, Intellectual Property Rights (2025)
  • Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, "Go To" Lawyer, Intellectual Property (2021)
  • World Trademark Review, Global Leaders Guide (2021)
Community Engagement
  • Board Member, Needham Steps Up
  • Executive Committee Board Member, Riverside Community Care, Inc.
Client Highlights
All Client Highlights
Nonprofit Network Drives Skills-First Movement for a More Equitable and Inclusive Future Workforce
Sullivan acts as outside general counsel for Skillsright, Inc., a nonprofit coalition of the country’s top employers and their CEOs with a mission of driving a skills-first movement to unlock career opportunities for talent without four-year degrees, for a more equitable and inclusive future workforce. Sullivan handles a wide range of matters including obtaining the organization’s nonprofit (Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)) status, advising on a variety of legal issues associated with the organization’s work, negotiating intellectual property rights, drafting employment offers and dealing with related employment and benefits issues, overseeing all contracting issues and advising on corporate governance.
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Companies Turn to Trade Secret, Patent, Copyright to Mitigate Risks from FTC Non-Compete Ban
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission narrowly approved a rule banning most non-competition agreements. The rule, set to go into effect on September 4, 2024, prohibits employers from including non-compete provisions in new employment contracts. It also renders all existing non-competes unenforceable against employees except for those applying to “senior executives,” defined in the rule as workers who are in a “policy-making position” and earning more than $151,164 per year. As many expected, though, the rule promptly faced legal challenges. On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the rule from going into effect in the pending case of Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. However, as of now, the injunction only applies to the plaintiffs in that case. This means, barring further developments, the rule is still set to take effect for all other businesses, posing a significant risk that intellectual property theft will increase. Furthermore, aside from the FTC’s rule, non-competes face other threats to their legitimacy. For example, the National Labor Relations Board takes the position that non-competes are violative of the National Labor Relations Act for non-managerial employees. Certain states have also taken actions to curtail non-competes. Intellectual property owners should act now to minimize the risk that their IP will be misappropriated once the FTC’s rule, or another restriction, goes into effect. Employers can do so by capitalizing on protections offered by trade secret, patent and copyright laws. Trade Secrets The FTC’s primary recommendation to combat the risk of intellectual property theft is for employers to take advantage of trade secret laws in combination with confidentiality agreements. Most states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), and claims can also be made at the federal level under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) enacted by Congress in 2016.  To prove a case against a competitor under either Act, an employer must (1) clearly identify the company’s trade secret or confidential information and show it is and was secret; (2) demonstrate that an ex-employee now working for the competitor had access to that information; and (3) show that the competitor is both using that technology and did not develop it on their own. Though proving each of these elements poses a challenge, employers can set up internal systems that may make these claims easier to pursue. For example, employers can have employees sign more detailed confidentiality agreements to protect economically vital trade secrets. Combining this with a review of an ex-employee’s search activity and interviews with the ex-employee’s coworkers, employers can more thoroughly demonstrate that the ex-employee had concrete knowledge of specific key secrets, as opposed to more broad and ill-defined information. Additionally, if possible, employers might well benefit from further limiting employee access to trade secrets to only those who truly need to know them. This can be reinforced by restricting physical access to sensitive areas and requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements before entering. By having such detailed records of which employees know what, employers can better protect their critical internal information and enforce claims against competitors if ex-employees misappropriate that information. Beyond this primary recommendation from the Commission, employers have additional options to protect themselves from intellectual property theft, including patents and copyrights. Patents Patents accord stronger protection than trade secret law, providing both an effective avenue for shielding important intellectual property from misappropriation by competitors as well as a remedy for infringement. Proving patent infringement is much easier than trying to show a theft of trade secrets: employers do not need to describe its technology, nor do they need to show that the ex-employee either knew of the patent or had an intent to infringe. Although not all intellectual property is eligible for patent protections, employers can put procedures in place to identify and gather new potentially patentable inventions. Employers can start by ensuring that employees assign all IP rights arising from their work. This can be done by having all employees execute an invention assignment agreement (which may be bundled with a confidentiality agreement). Additionally, employers may affirm or create new processes encouraging employees to err on the side of disclosing their inventions to their employers. Doing so makes it much more likely that these inventions can be protected if patentable. Furthermore, even if the IP cannot be patented, it might still be considered a trade secret or confidential information.  Patents also have the added benefit, akin to that found in noncompete agreements, of encouraging employee retention. If an inventor puts an idea into motion and has already assigned their IP rights to their employer, they have a more distinctly vested interest in sticking around to be a part of the development process. When employees leave for a new company, companies should notify the new employers of all patents—active or pending—that related to the ex-employees’ work. Copyright Particularly in the technology space, employers should ensure that they register copyrights for any artistic work or software with the U.S. Copyright Office. While copyright rights arise at the moment of creation, the copyright must be registered before the owner can bring an action for copyright infringement in the United States. Therefore, companies should have a system in place to routinely register their copyrights. Software code and AI processes can often be copyrightable, and cementing their protection through registration can help companies rest assured that their valued IP is safe. This is especially true as the tech industry continues to accelerate development year after year. Similar to the process for patents, companies should have their employees assign their rights to copyrightable information as a condition of employment. Other Considerations Companies should also review the laws in their states for idiosyncrasies that complicate any of these aforementioned steps, namely with respect to non-disclosure agreements. For example, in some states, non-disclosure agreements may be considered de facto non-competes and be held unenforceable if they sweep too broadly. Some states also have different standards for how long a non-compete agreement can last before it is considered unreasonable. Additionally, state laws differ toward how courts may resolve enforceability issues with non-disclosure or noncompete agreements. Courts in some states will hold the entire agreement to be unenforceable while others will “blue pencil” the agreement to strike out only the unenforceable provisions. Next Steps for Employers Trade secret, patent and copyright are unlikely to provide the same protection as non-competes on their own. However, when used in combination, they can help employers significantly in their efforts to protect their intellectual property investments while also not being afraid to invest in the development of their workforce.  Companies should review all of the options mentioned above and deploy internal practices that will allow them the best safeguards against misappropriation of their most critical intellectual property. They should also keep an eye out for further legal developments on the current challenge to the FTC’s rule, as well as other developments that may arise in the weeks and months to come. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact Kim Herman at kherman@sullivanlaw.com or 617 338 2943.
The CASE Act Promises Copyright Infringement Remedies for Content Creators: But Will It Deliver?
On December 27, 2020, Congress passed the CASE Act, which provides a "small claims" procedure, administered by the U.S. Copyright Office, for handling copyright infringement claims. The idea of a copyright small claims court has been discussed in Congress since at least 2006, but it finally passed, without fanfare, hidden in the 5,500-page Consolidated Appropriations Act (the recent Covid-19 stimulus bill). The promise of the CASE Act is that it will provide a much needed, low-budget remedy for content creators and copyright owners to protect their copyrights without resort to expensive and time-consuming court litigation. Will the CASE Act deliver on its promise? Perhaps, for a select number of disputes. But various loopholes and limitations of the CASE Act process pose possibly significant limitations on its future effectiveness. Overview of the CASE Act Small Claims Procedure Ordinarily, copyright infringement claims must be filed in a federal court. The CASE Act creates an alternative forum, the Copyright Claims Board ("Claims Board"), which will resolve copyright infringement disputes. Proceedings before the Claims Board are voluntary—a party served with a claim can opt out of the proceeding within 60 days and choose to resolve the dispute in federal court. The Claims Board, which will be part of the Copyright Office, will consist of three Copyright Claims Officers who will function as hearing officers and issue rulings. Proceedings under the CASE Act will be more streamlined than in federal court. For example, parties to a CASE Act action will waive the right to formal motion practice and to trial by jury. Also, the discovery permitted in a CASE Act proceeding will be more limited than in federal litigation, which should substantially reduce litigation costs and duration. A tradeoff for engaging in streamlined procedure, however, will be a limitation on available recoveries. The Claims Board is limited to awarding damages of $15,000 per work and a maximum of $30,000 in damages per case. Claims Board decisions will be subject to limited judicial review. The losing party may request a reconsideration by the Claims Board and, if the request is denied, a review by the Register of Copyrights. The review is limited to consideration of whether the Claims Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration of its decision. A review and order by a federal court is only available in very limited circumstances, if i) the decision was the result of fraud, corruption, misrepresentation or other misconduct; ii) the Claims Board exceeded its authority or failed to render a final decision; or iii) the decision was based on a default or failure to prosecute due to excusable neglect. Will the CASE Act Deliver on its Promise? The intent behind the CASE Act is commendable. Content creators with limited financial resources should have a means of protecting their copyrights that is effective, inexpensive, and not too time consuming. There are issues with the CASE Act, however, that threaten to undermine its effectiveness The Process is Voluntary. Because either party can opt out of a CASE Act claim, anyone who derives a tactical advantage from having the dispute proceed in federal court likely will not consent to proceeding before the Claims Board. This would include well-funded defendants who would want to make costs of enforcement prohibitively expensive for less well-funded plaintiffs. It also would include copyright plaintiffs who wish to use the threat of a large damages recovery, including potential recovery of their reasonable attorney’s fees, in a federal litigation to leverage an early settlement. Likewise, a defendant asserting a legally or factually complex claim or defense, such as fair use, may opt for more experienced federal judges to rule on this issue, in particular because the limited judicial review of Claims Board decisions does not necessarily permit a federal court to vacate a Claims Board decision for an error of law. As a result, the number of cases that proceed before the Claims Board may be far fewer than the number of claims filed. The Process is New and Unpredictable. One hope for the CASE Act is that content creators can resolve their disputes without needing the assistance of counsel. The concern here is that individuals may not understand all the procedures and deadlines involved in a dispute before the Claims Board. Notably, there may be an increased risk of default judgments as defendants who are unfamiliar with the CASE Act process may not understand the significance of the notices they receive from the Claims Board, and may not realize that their time to opt out of the CASE Act is limited to 60 days from the date of service of the notice and claim. Presumably, this is a problem that will mitigate over time as procedural questions are ironed out and more information becomes available to the public.  It will be incumbent on the Copyright Office, however, to have the necessary information available on its website in a format that is easy to navigate and understand. Claims Board Decisions Are Not Precedent. Decisions of the Claims Board, much like a decision in arbitration, are binding only with respect to the parties to the action and may not be relied upon as legal precedent, even in future proceedings before the Board. Thus, a participant involved in multiple Claims Board disputes will have to prove each element of its claim or affirmative defense for each proceeding, thus increasing the time and costs involved in prosecuting or protecting against multiple claims of infringement. The Claims Board Process Could Be Subject to Constitutional Challenge. Although it is common to have federal agencies issue rulings subject to review by federal courts, the narrow scope of review afforded the federal courts for Claims Board decisions could be subject to constitutional challenge, particularly if the standard of review does not allow the federal courts to correct for errors of law. Although we still have some time before we see the CASE Act procedures implemented and operational at the Copyright Office, initial indicators are that it may work well for disputes between individuals and entities without the resources to resolve copyright infringement disputes in federal court. The incentives for well-funded litigants and plaintiffs with claims for substantial damages recovery, however, will still lie in federal court, thereby raising a question as to whether the CASE Act will live up to its promise.
News
All News
Intellectual Property Group Earns Repeat Recognition in WTR 1000 Rankings
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester LLP is pleased to announce that its Intellectual Property Group has once again been recognized in the 2026 edition of the World Trademark Review 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals (WTR 1000), a leading global directory that highlights top trademark practitioners and firms worldwide. Sullivan & Worcester earned a Bronze Band ranking for trademark prosecution and strategy. Individually, Kimberly Herman was recognized with a Gold Band ranking for prosecution and strategy in Massachusetts, and Michael Palmisciano received a Bronze Band ranking for prosecution and strategy in New York. Editorial Comments from WTR 1000 "A safe pair of hands for clients seeking high-level trademark strategy, Sullivan & Worcester delivers sharp guidance across all aspects of brand management, helping businesses confidently navigate domestic and international challenges." “'Superstar' Kimberly Herman is celebrated as 'a recognised expert in the field. She combines deep knowledge and practical skill with a client-friendly approach. She is flexible, strategic, and unafraid to be tough when the situation calls for it. Her presence offers clients confidence and clarity, making her a valuable member of this community.'" "Michael Palmisciano is a sought-after name housed at Sullivan & Worcester. 'Mike is very experienced and knowledgeable in trademark practice and is great at finding pragmatic solutions to achieve the best possible outcome for the client. His responsiveness and commercially strategic approach make him one of the best in the business.'” About Sullivan & Worcester Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.
Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Named to 2025 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine
Boston, MA – Sullivan is proud to announce that 20 of its attorneys were selected for inclusion in Boston magazine's 2025 Top Lawyers list. To compile the list, area lawyers were invited to nominate up to three of their peers in a select number of specialties. Those who received the most votes in each specialty were then reviewed by an advisory board of select lawyers, chosen for their credentials and the high number of votes they received. The Sullivan attorneys, recognized by specialty, are: Attorneys for Non-Profits Judith Edington Bankruptcy and Workout Patrick Dinardo Amy Zuccarello Civil Law Litigation Ryan Rosenblatt Commercial Real Estate Ashley Brooks Louis Monti John Steiner Spencer Stone Corporate Law Benjamin Armour Lewis Segall Intellectual Property Rights Kimberly Herman Labor and Employment Erika Todd Land Use/Environmental Gregory Sampson Securities Law Howard Berkenblit Tax Law Joel Carpenter Richard Jones David Nagle Ameek Ashok Ponda Trusts and Estates Maura Carney Steven Cunningham About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.

Kimberly Herman

Kim is a corporate attorney with a focus on contract negotiation and intellectual property. She leads Sullivan's Intellectual Property, Technology and Media & Entertainment Groups. Her practice spans the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Kim’s practice is varied and extensive and includes advising clients on numerous issues relating to licensing, copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets. She also has specialized expertise in business strategy and negotiating in-bound and out-bound transactions and drafting related agreements for a wide range of commercial deals and litigation settlements in the media and entertainment, software (including open source, SaaS and business software platforms) and life sciences industries.

Kim is also well-versed in providing legal advice concerning the ever-changing state and federal laws applicable to online sports betting, online gambling and fantasy sports including the representation of a billion-dollar multi-national gaming and lottery services company in connection with its licensed content deals. Kim’s gaming clients include IGT, Bally’s Corporation and Novomatic.

On any given day, Kim may go from working on a film production agreement for a streaming platform in the morning to a clinical trial agreement for a life sciences or medical device company in the afternoon to evaluating state gaming regulations in the evening.

In the last few years, Kim has acted as the General Counsel for a Series D funded technology company Hydration Labs (Bevi, the bottle-less water dispenser that delivers personalized flavor) and most recently as the VP and Deputy General Counsel for Bally’s digital entertainment and technology division Bally’s Interactive, where she managed the legal function for Bally’s North American online sports betting business. At Bally's, Kim provided legal counsel concerning all regulatory and legal issues involving the company’s licensed and regulated product offerings, including supporting the company's compliance team on interpreting regulatory and licensing guidelines and communications with state regulators. Kim also managed a wide range of litigation and transactional matters for Bally's involving patents, copyrights, trademarks and brand content and was across many major league sports partnerships with the likes of the NBA, MLB, MiLB and the NHL. As a result, Kim has become well-versed in juggling the multitude of legal issues that GCs and other in-house counsel face on a daily basis. This experience has reinforced her ability to provide innovative and efficient solutions to her clients.

Kim currently serves as outside general counsel and main point of contact for Skillsright, Inc., a nonprofit coalition of the country’s top employers and their CEOs with a mission of driving a skills-first movement for a more equitable and inclusive future workforce. In 2020, Kim was a member of the Sullivan team that advised, along with longtime Sullivan client Bain & Company, on the non-profit’s formation, branding and launch.

In particular, Kim’s practice focuses on structuring and negotiating complex commercial transactions dealing with media and entertainment (including representation of clients in the news, documentary, motion picture and cable network industries), First Amendment and privacy issues, gaming, sanctioned gambling and e-sports, software, music and art on behalf of leading media, entertainment, technology and consumer-products companies, as well as filmmakers, project financiers, artists, museums and art galleries. This representation extends to Kim assisting her clients in exploiting their brands, content and programming into different markets and entertainment distribution platforms through a variety of licensing, merchandising, publishing, sponsorship, agency and endorsement deals.

With respect to Kim’s work in the media and entertainment space, she reviews film and other content for distribution on all types of platforms including premium cable, streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu, film festivals, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, websites and native video platforms. Kim works collaboratively with clients to provide tailored recommendations to reduce risk and overcome obstacles to publication. She drafts and reviews releases, licenses and permissions, and she issues copyright fair use opinions for insureds and others.

Kim also advises companies, content creators, advertising agencies, and technology platforms on the development, training, commercialization and governance of artificial intelligence systems, including AI-enabled recommendation engines, generative AI applications, data licensing, intellectual property ownership, copyright and trade secret protection, confidentiality, AI training datasets, and the use of historical creative and business intelligence to develop proprietary AI products.  

In addition to her broad media and entertainment practice, Kim provides strategic legal counsel tailored specifically to the music industry. She guides musicians and music publishers through complex licensing negotiations, master and sync agreements, publishing contracts, and royalty arrangements. Drawing on her deep expertise in intellectual property law, Kim helps clients safeguard their creative works, maximize revenue opportunities across formats and territories and navigate the interplay between rights, contracts and evolving distribution platforms.

Kim advises Sundial Media Group LLC, Refinery29 and its affiliates on pre-production review of online content, including social media posts, digital marketing campaigns and website materials.

Kim works with Sundial Media Group LLC in connection with its advertising campaigns in sectors from tech to tacos. Kim ensures compliance with intellectual property laws, advertising regulations and platform-specific guidelines, helping this client mitigate risks and safeguard its brand reputation.

Kim works closely with social media influencers and brands, providing guidance on influencer agreements, disclosures and compliance with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines. Her practice spans industries such as technology, entertainment, consumer goods and healthcare, where she provides practical solutions to navigate complex legal and regulatory landscapes in the fast-paced digital space.

Kim conducts audits and provides strategic counseling to assist clients in identifying, protecting and exploiting key intellectual property assets and represents clients in a wide variety of trademark and copyright enforcement and defense matters. In addition, she advises clients in responding to claims of infringement of adversely held trademarks and copyrights, prepares and responds to cease and desist letters regarding the same, and provides advice on litigation, litigation settlements and mediation.

Kim is experienced in the unique challenges posed by Government Contracts that federal agencies routinely award such as Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) and Technology Transfer Agreements. She has significant experience negotiating these agreements and advising contracting companies on the risks involved and how to protect intellectual property. Selecting the right agreement isn’t a simple endeavor because it involves many factors including the nature of what the contracting party is supplying and how the Government will use it.

Kim also provides comprehensive guidance on managing cyber breach events, from preparation and response to recovery. She advises clients on navigating state, federal, and international breach notification requirements, regulatory reporting obligations, privacy compliance, and contractual reviews. Kim helps clients mitigate litigation risks and enhance compliance frameworks to recover and strengthen their resilience after an incident.

Kim has been ranked in World Trademark Review 1000, The World's Leading Trademark Professionals each year since 2015. Clients describe her as "incredibly responsive" and "always looking out for your company's interest." She has also been recognized in the WTR's Global Leaders Guide, which identifies the "best of the best" in trademark practice. In 2021, Kim was named a “Go To IP Lawyer” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Kim is a guest speaker at Northeastern University in Boston, where she speaks on developments in intellectual property law, copyright, fair use and First Amendment issues. She completed the courses "Museums and the Law;" "Museum Exhibition Content Development;" "History of Museums;" and "Collections Management: Issues and Solutions" at Harvard University.

Client Highlights
All Client Highlights
Nonprofit Network Drives Skills-First Movement for a More Equitable and Inclusive Future Workforce
Sullivan acts as outside general counsel for Skillsright, Inc., a nonprofit coalition of the country’s top employers and their CEOs with a mission of driving a skills-first movement to unlock career opportunities for talent without four-year degrees, for a more equitable and inclusive future workforce. Sullivan handles a wide range of matters including obtaining the organization’s nonprofit (Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)) status, advising on a variety of legal issues associated with the organization’s work, negotiating intellectual property rights, drafting employment offers and dealing with related employment and benefits issues, overseeing all contracting issues and advising on corporate governance.
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Companies Turn to Trade Secret, Patent, Copyright to Mitigate Risks from FTC Non-Compete Ban
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission narrowly approved a rule banning most non-competition agreements. The rule, set to go into effect on September 4, 2024, prohibits employers from including non-compete provisions in new employment contracts. It also renders all existing non-competes unenforceable against employees except for those applying to “senior executives,” defined in the rule as workers who are in a “policy-making position” and earning more than $151,164 per year. As many expected, though, the rule promptly faced legal challenges. On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the rule from going into effect in the pending case of Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. However, as of now, the injunction only applies to the plaintiffs in that case. This means, barring further developments, the rule is still set to take effect for all other businesses, posing a significant risk that intellectual property theft will increase. Furthermore, aside from the FTC’s rule, non-competes face other threats to their legitimacy. For example, the National Labor Relations Board takes the position that non-competes are violative of the National Labor Relations Act for non-managerial employees. Certain states have also taken actions to curtail non-competes. Intellectual property owners should act now to minimize the risk that their IP will be misappropriated once the FTC’s rule, or another restriction, goes into effect. Employers can do so by capitalizing on protections offered by trade secret, patent and copyright laws. Trade Secrets The FTC’s primary recommendation to combat the risk of intellectual property theft is for employers to take advantage of trade secret laws in combination with confidentiality agreements. Most states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), and claims can also be made at the federal level under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) enacted by Congress in 2016.  To prove a case against a competitor under either Act, an employer must (1) clearly identify the company’s trade secret or confidential information and show it is and was secret; (2) demonstrate that an ex-employee now working for the competitor had access to that information; and (3) show that the competitor is both using that technology and did not develop it on their own. Though proving each of these elements poses a challenge, employers can set up internal systems that may make these claims easier to pursue. For example, employers can have employees sign more detailed confidentiality agreements to protect economically vital trade secrets. Combining this with a review of an ex-employee’s search activity and interviews with the ex-employee’s coworkers, employers can more thoroughly demonstrate that the ex-employee had concrete knowledge of specific key secrets, as opposed to more broad and ill-defined information. Additionally, if possible, employers might well benefit from further limiting employee access to trade secrets to only those who truly need to know them. This can be reinforced by restricting physical access to sensitive areas and requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements before entering. By having such detailed records of which employees know what, employers can better protect their critical internal information and enforce claims against competitors if ex-employees misappropriate that information. Beyond this primary recommendation from the Commission, employers have additional options to protect themselves from intellectual property theft, including patents and copyrights. Patents Patents accord stronger protection than trade secret law, providing both an effective avenue for shielding important intellectual property from misappropriation by competitors as well as a remedy for infringement. Proving patent infringement is much easier than trying to show a theft of trade secrets: employers do not need to describe its technology, nor do they need to show that the ex-employee either knew of the patent or had an intent to infringe. Although not all intellectual property is eligible for patent protections, employers can put procedures in place to identify and gather new potentially patentable inventions. Employers can start by ensuring that employees assign all IP rights arising from their work. This can be done by having all employees execute an invention assignment agreement (which may be bundled with a confidentiality agreement). Additionally, employers may affirm or create new processes encouraging employees to err on the side of disclosing their inventions to their employers. Doing so makes it much more likely that these inventions can be protected if patentable. Furthermore, even if the IP cannot be patented, it might still be considered a trade secret or confidential information.  Patents also have the added benefit, akin to that found in noncompete agreements, of encouraging employee retention. If an inventor puts an idea into motion and has already assigned their IP rights to their employer, they have a more distinctly vested interest in sticking around to be a part of the development process. When employees leave for a new company, companies should notify the new employers of all patents—active or pending—that related to the ex-employees’ work. Copyright Particularly in the technology space, employers should ensure that they register copyrights for any artistic work or software with the U.S. Copyright Office. While copyright rights arise at the moment of creation, the copyright must be registered before the owner can bring an action for copyright infringement in the United States. Therefore, companies should have a system in place to routinely register their copyrights. Software code and AI processes can often be copyrightable, and cementing their protection through registration can help companies rest assured that their valued IP is safe. This is especially true as the tech industry continues to accelerate development year after year. Similar to the process for patents, companies should have their employees assign their rights to copyrightable information as a condition of employment. Other Considerations Companies should also review the laws in their states for idiosyncrasies that complicate any of these aforementioned steps, namely with respect to non-disclosure agreements. For example, in some states, non-disclosure agreements may be considered de facto non-competes and be held unenforceable if they sweep too broadly. Some states also have different standards for how long a non-compete agreement can last before it is considered unreasonable. Additionally, state laws differ toward how courts may resolve enforceability issues with non-disclosure or noncompete agreements. Courts in some states will hold the entire agreement to be unenforceable while others will “blue pencil” the agreement to strike out only the unenforceable provisions. Next Steps for Employers Trade secret, patent and copyright are unlikely to provide the same protection as non-competes on their own. However, when used in combination, they can help employers significantly in their efforts to protect their intellectual property investments while also not being afraid to invest in the development of their workforce.  Companies should review all of the options mentioned above and deploy internal practices that will allow them the best safeguards against misappropriation of their most critical intellectual property. They should also keep an eye out for further legal developments on the current challenge to the FTC’s rule, as well as other developments that may arise in the weeks and months to come. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact Kim Herman at kherman@sullivanlaw.com or 617 338 2943.
The CASE Act Promises Copyright Infringement Remedies for Content Creators: But Will It Deliver?
On December 27, 2020, Congress passed the CASE Act, which provides a "small claims" procedure, administered by the U.S. Copyright Office, for handling copyright infringement claims. The idea of a copyright small claims court has been discussed in Congress since at least 2006, but it finally passed, without fanfare, hidden in the 5,500-page Consolidated Appropriations Act (the recent Covid-19 stimulus bill). The promise of the CASE Act is that it will provide a much needed, low-budget remedy for content creators and copyright owners to protect their copyrights without resort to expensive and time-consuming court litigation. Will the CASE Act deliver on its promise? Perhaps, for a select number of disputes. But various loopholes and limitations of the CASE Act process pose possibly significant limitations on its future effectiveness. Overview of the CASE Act Small Claims Procedure Ordinarily, copyright infringement claims must be filed in a federal court. The CASE Act creates an alternative forum, the Copyright Claims Board ("Claims Board"), which will resolve copyright infringement disputes. Proceedings before the Claims Board are voluntary—a party served with a claim can opt out of the proceeding within 60 days and choose to resolve the dispute in federal court. The Claims Board, which will be part of the Copyright Office, will consist of three Copyright Claims Officers who will function as hearing officers and issue rulings. Proceedings under the CASE Act will be more streamlined than in federal court. For example, parties to a CASE Act action will waive the right to formal motion practice and to trial by jury. Also, the discovery permitted in a CASE Act proceeding will be more limited than in federal litigation, which should substantially reduce litigation costs and duration. A tradeoff for engaging in streamlined procedure, however, will be a limitation on available recoveries. The Claims Board is limited to awarding damages of $15,000 per work and a maximum of $30,000 in damages per case. Claims Board decisions will be subject to limited judicial review. The losing party may request a reconsideration by the Claims Board and, if the request is denied, a review by the Register of Copyrights. The review is limited to consideration of whether the Claims Board abused its discretion in denying reconsideration of its decision. A review and order by a federal court is only available in very limited circumstances, if i) the decision was the result of fraud, corruption, misrepresentation or other misconduct; ii) the Claims Board exceeded its authority or failed to render a final decision; or iii) the decision was based on a default or failure to prosecute due to excusable neglect. Will the CASE Act Deliver on its Promise? The intent behind the CASE Act is commendable. Content creators with limited financial resources should have a means of protecting their copyrights that is effective, inexpensive, and not too time consuming. There are issues with the CASE Act, however, that threaten to undermine its effectiveness The Process is Voluntary. Because either party can opt out of a CASE Act claim, anyone who derives a tactical advantage from having the dispute proceed in federal court likely will not consent to proceeding before the Claims Board. This would include well-funded defendants who would want to make costs of enforcement prohibitively expensive for less well-funded plaintiffs. It also would include copyright plaintiffs who wish to use the threat of a large damages recovery, including potential recovery of their reasonable attorney’s fees, in a federal litigation to leverage an early settlement. Likewise, a defendant asserting a legally or factually complex claim or defense, such as fair use, may opt for more experienced federal judges to rule on this issue, in particular because the limited judicial review of Claims Board decisions does not necessarily permit a federal court to vacate a Claims Board decision for an error of law. As a result, the number of cases that proceed before the Claims Board may be far fewer than the number of claims filed. The Process is New and Unpredictable. One hope for the CASE Act is that content creators can resolve their disputes without needing the assistance of counsel. The concern here is that individuals may not understand all the procedures and deadlines involved in a dispute before the Claims Board. Notably, there may be an increased risk of default judgments as defendants who are unfamiliar with the CASE Act process may not understand the significance of the notices they receive from the Claims Board, and may not realize that their time to opt out of the CASE Act is limited to 60 days from the date of service of the notice and claim. Presumably, this is a problem that will mitigate over time as procedural questions are ironed out and more information becomes available to the public.  It will be incumbent on the Copyright Office, however, to have the necessary information available on its website in a format that is easy to navigate and understand. Claims Board Decisions Are Not Precedent. Decisions of the Claims Board, much like a decision in arbitration, are binding only with respect to the parties to the action and may not be relied upon as legal precedent, even in future proceedings before the Board. Thus, a participant involved in multiple Claims Board disputes will have to prove each element of its claim or affirmative defense for each proceeding, thus increasing the time and costs involved in prosecuting or protecting against multiple claims of infringement. The Claims Board Process Could Be Subject to Constitutional Challenge. Although it is common to have federal agencies issue rulings subject to review by federal courts, the narrow scope of review afforded the federal courts for Claims Board decisions could be subject to constitutional challenge, particularly if the standard of review does not allow the federal courts to correct for errors of law. Although we still have some time before we see the CASE Act procedures implemented and operational at the Copyright Office, initial indicators are that it may work well for disputes between individuals and entities without the resources to resolve copyright infringement disputes in federal court. The incentives for well-funded litigants and plaintiffs with claims for substantial damages recovery, however, will still lie in federal court, thereby raising a question as to whether the CASE Act will live up to its promise.
News
All News
Intellectual Property Group Earns Repeat Recognition in WTR 1000 Rankings
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester LLP is pleased to announce that its Intellectual Property Group has once again been recognized in the 2026 edition of the World Trademark Review 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals (WTR 1000), a leading global directory that highlights top trademark practitioners and firms worldwide. Sullivan & Worcester earned a Bronze Band ranking for trademark prosecution and strategy. Individually, Kimberly Herman was recognized with a Gold Band ranking for prosecution and strategy in Massachusetts, and Michael Palmisciano received a Bronze Band ranking for prosecution and strategy in New York. Editorial Comments from WTR 1000 "A safe pair of hands for clients seeking high-level trademark strategy, Sullivan & Worcester delivers sharp guidance across all aspects of brand management, helping businesses confidently navigate domestic and international challenges." “'Superstar' Kimberly Herman is celebrated as 'a recognised expert in the field. She combines deep knowledge and practical skill with a client-friendly approach. She is flexible, strategic, and unafraid to be tough when the situation calls for it. Her presence offers clients confidence and clarity, making her a valuable member of this community.'" "Michael Palmisciano is a sought-after name housed at Sullivan & Worcester. 'Mike is very experienced and knowledgeable in trademark practice and is great at finding pragmatic solutions to achieve the best possible outcome for the client. His responsiveness and commercially strategic approach make him one of the best in the business.'” About Sullivan & Worcester Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.
Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Named to 2025 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine
Boston, MA – Sullivan is proud to announce that 20 of its attorneys were selected for inclusion in Boston magazine's 2025 Top Lawyers list. To compile the list, area lawyers were invited to nominate up to three of their peers in a select number of specialties. Those who received the most votes in each specialty were then reviewed by an advisory board of select lawyers, chosen for their credentials and the high number of votes they received. The Sullivan attorneys, recognized by specialty, are: Attorneys for Non-Profits Judith Edington Bankruptcy and Workout Patrick Dinardo Amy Zuccarello Civil Law Litigation Ryan Rosenblatt Commercial Real Estate Ashley Brooks Louis Monti John Steiner Spencer Stone Corporate Law Benjamin Armour Lewis Segall Intellectual Property Rights Kimberly Herman Labor and Employment Erika Todd Land Use/Environmental Gregory Sampson Securities Law Howard Berkenblit Tax Law Joel Carpenter Richard Jones David Nagle Ameek Ashok Ponda Trusts and Estates Maura Carney Steven Cunningham About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best‑in‑class client service.

Kimberly Herman

Nonprofit Network Drives Skills-First Movement for a More Equitable and Inclusive Future Workforce

Sullivan acts as outside general counsel for Skillsright, Inc., a nonprofit coalition of the country’s top employers and their CEOs with a mission of driving a skills-first movement to unlock career opportunities for talent without four-year degrees, for a more equitable and inclusive future workforce. Sullivan handles a wide range of matters including obtaining the organization’s nonprofit (Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)) status, advising on a variety of legal issues associated with the organization’s work, negotiating intellectual property rights, drafting employment offers and dealing with related employment and benefits issues, overseeing all contracting issues and advising on corporate governance.

Kimberly Herman, David A. Guadagnoli, Judith G.H. Edington, Erika L. Todd and Michael S. Palmisciano

Kimberly Herman

February 2, 2026

–Press Release

Intellectual Property Group Earns Repeat Recognition in WTR 1000 Rankings

November 25, 2025

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Named to 2025 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

Boston Magazine

January 30, 2025

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester’s Intellectual Property Group Honored in WTR 1000 2025 Rankings

December 19, 2024

–Press Release

Kimberly Herman Selected to Join The IP Lawyers as the Exclusively Recommended Attorney in Massachusetts

June 5, 2024

–Press Release

Sullivan's Kimberly Herman Recognized as Global Leader by World Trademark Review

May 28, 2024

–Quoted

How to Protect Your Clients From New Scams Targeting US Trademark Applicants

World Trademark Review

May 16, 2024

–News

Kimberly Herman: Crafting Tailored Solutions for Client Success

Vanguard Law Magazine

February 7, 2024

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester's Intellectual Property Group Ranked in WTR 1000 2024

August 17, 2023

–Press Release

43 Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Listed in Best Lawyers in America® 2024 Edition

The Best Lawyers in America®

February 7, 2023

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester's Intellectual Property Group Ranked in WTR 1000

March 1, 2022

–Press Release

Kimberly Herman and IP Practice Ranked in World Trademark Review 1000

November 24, 2021

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Named to 2021 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

September 27, 2021

–Press Release

Kimberly Herman Recognized as a 2021 "Go To Lawyer" by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

July 28, 2021

–Press Release

Kimberly Herman Recognized as World Trademark Review Global Leader 2021

World Trademark Review

February 15, 2021

–Press Release

Sullivan Ranked in World Trademark Review 1000

World Trademark Review 1000 (WTR 1000)

September 18, 2020

–Quoted

How to Handle Endorser Outrage – Lessons From Kanye’s Twitter Dispute

World Trademark Review

August 11, 2020

–News

Fed. Circ. Asks Amazon, Customers To Answer Rehearing Bid

Law360

June 17, 2020

–News

Amazon's IP Win Shields Customers From Follow-Up Suits

Law360

March 25, 2020

–Quoted

Copyright sublicense need not be express, 1st Circuit rules

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

February 14, 2020

–Press Release

Kimberly Herman Ranked in World Trademark Review 1000

September 24, 2018

–Press Release

IP Partner, Kimberly Herman, Ranked in World Trademark Review 1000

March 20, 2018

–News

Sullivan & Worcester’s Kim Herman Leads New Software Anti-Piracy Practice

The WILEF Tribune

Biography Matters Client Highlights Viewpoints News Events

Featured

Events
NASBTS 47th Annual Meeting

Richard Jones will participate in a panel discussion titled "Noteworthy Developments in State and Local Taxation" on October 16, 2026, at the National Association of State Bar Tax Sections' (NASBTS) 47th Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Rich will be joined on the panel by Richard D. Pomp, Alva P. Loiselle Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, and James G. Busby, Jr., of The Cavanagh Law Firm

Events
Trade Finance: Lessons from First Brands and Other Situations

Geoffrey Wynne will join a panel discussion: “Trade Finance: Lessons from First Brands and Other Situations” at the ELFA Annual Conference 2026 on October 13 in London. The panel will examine how investors can learn from recent high-profile situations and adapt their credit analysis to address emerging risks in trade finance. Topics will include the essential role of trade finance and its separate institutional frameworks, cohabitation on issuer balance sheets, structural

News
Sullivan’s Trade Finance and Venture Capital Practices Recognised by The Legal 500 UK, 2027
Viewpoints
Massachusetts SJC Upholds MBTA Communities Act Multifamily Zoning Mandate

On Friday, September 18, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) affirmed the dismissal of the Town of Marshfield’s challenge to the MBTA Communities Act (the “Act” or “Section 3A”).[1] The decision confirms that covered municipalities must adopt and maintain zoning that permits multifamily housing as of right in at least one district. It also rejects Marshfield’s four principal theories for avoiding that obligation, which are explored in more

Viewpoints
SEC Proposes to Rescind the Shareholder Proposal Rule and Modernize the Proxy Solicitation Process

On September 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued two proposals that, if adopted, would represent significant changes to the federal proxy rules for U.S. public companies. The first proposal would eliminate Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Rule 14a-8 currently requires companies to include qualifying shareholder proposals in their proxy materials and has been part of the federal proxy rules for more than

News
When the Price Is High and There’s Limited Supply

Geoffrey Wynne was quoted in the article "When the Price Is High and There’s Limited Supply," published in Financial World [sub. req'd], the monthly digital magazine of Walbrook Institute London, in October 2026. The article discusses growing concerns over access to critical raw materials and other essential goods, and how those concerns are reshaping global supply chains. It also explores how trade finance can be used to support supply chain resilience and help

Viewpoints
SEC Proposes New Crypto Custody Framework for Registered Investment Advisers and Regulated Funds

On October 1, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") proposed a comprehensive new custody framework for crypto assets. Subject to significant conditions, the proposal would permit SEC-registered investment advisers to self-custody certain client crypto assets when no qualified custodian is reasonably available for the particular asset. It also would permit registered investment companies and business development companies ("BDCs," and together with registered investment companies, "regulated funds") to

News
Sullivan Expands London Trade & Export Finance Practice with Addition of Veronika Koroleva as Counsel

Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) has welcomed Veronika Koroleva as counsel in its market-leading Trade & Export Finance practice in London. Joining from Hill Dickinson, where she was Head of Trade Finance, Veronika brings extensive experience in trade and commodity finance, including structured trade, receivables and supply chain finance. Veronika’s arrival builds on the expansion of the practice following the additions of Robert Parson and Matthew Cox as partners in 2025 and

Events
Looking ahead or back to basics? ECA reform priorities to remain competitive

Partner Mark Norris⁠ will participate in GTR Africa 2026 London, hosted by Global Trade Review (GTR) on November 12, the theme for which is “Charting Africa’s trade and export trajectory.” Mark will join the panel discussing “Looking ahead or back to basics? ECA reform priorities to remain competitive”, which will be moderated by Chris Mitman at Acre Impact Capital and include Ram Shalita at Bluebird Finance & Projects and Anders Vium

Viewpoints
SEC Staff Issues No-Action Relief Permitting Fund Directed Voting Programs

On September 29, 2026, the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) Division of Investment Management (the “Staff”) issued a no-action letter to the Mutual Fund Directors Forum stating that it would not recommend enforcement action under Rules 14a-3(a), 14a-4(d)(2), 14a-4(d)(3), 14a-4(f), 14a-6(o), 14a-10, and 14a-12(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), if an investment company registered under the Investment Company

Events
NASBTS 47th Annual Meeting

Richard Jones will participate in a panel discussion titled "Noteworthy Developments in State and Local Taxation" on October 16, 2026, at the National Association of State Bar Tax Sections' (NASBTS) 47th Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Rich will be joined on the panel by Richard D. Pomp, Alva P. Loiselle Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, and James G. Busby, Jr., of The Cavanagh Law Firm

Events
Trade Finance: Lessons from First Brands and Other Situations

Geoffrey Wynne will join a panel discussion: “Trade Finance: Lessons from First Brands and Other Situations” at the ELFA Annual Conference 2026 on October 13 in London. The panel will examine how investors can learn from recent high-profile situations and adapt their credit analysis to address emerging risks in trade finance. Topics will include the essential role of trade finance and its separate institutional frameworks, cohabitation on issuer balance sheets, structural

News
Sullivan’s Trade Finance and Venture Capital Practices Recognised by The Legal 500 UK, 2027
Viewpoints
Massachusetts SJC Upholds MBTA Communities Act Multifamily Zoning Mandate

On Friday, September 18, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) affirmed the dismissal of the Town of Marshfield’s challenge to the MBTA Communities Act (the “Act” or “Section 3A”).[1] The decision confirms that covered municipalities must adopt and maintain zoning that permits multifamily housing as of right in at least one district. It also rejects Marshfield’s four principal theories for avoiding that obligation, which are explored in more

Viewpoints
SEC Proposes to Rescind the Shareholder Proposal Rule and Modernize the Proxy Solicitation Process

On September 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued two proposals that, if adopted, would represent significant changes to the federal proxy rules for U.S. public companies. The first proposal would eliminate Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Rule 14a-8 currently requires companies to include qualifying shareholder proposals in their proxy materials and has been part of the federal proxy rules for more than

News
When the Price Is High and There’s Limited Supply

Geoffrey Wynne was quoted in the article "When the Price Is High and There’s Limited Supply," published in Financial World [sub. req'd], the monthly digital magazine of Walbrook Institute London, in October 2026. The article discusses growing concerns over access to critical raw materials and other essential goods, and how those concerns are reshaping global supply chains. It also explores how trade finance can be used to support supply chain resilience and help

Contact Us
Boston, MA
New York, NY
London, UK
Washington, DC
Tel Aviv, Israel
1251 Avenue of the Americas
19th Floor
New York, NY 10020
212 660 3000
More
brand-overlay
This website does not track your personal or demographic information, only anonymous usage statistics. To ensure that you are not tracked, we have blocked all embedded content from third party sources like YouTube and SlideShare. Click "Accept Cookies" to enable third-party content. To learn more about our cookie policy, click here.
Accept CookiesNo Thanks