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 Erika L. Todd
Portrait of Erika L. Todd

Biography

Erika is a litigator and employment advisor.

Erika represents individual and institutional clients at each stage of the litigation process, from pre-suit negotiations to trial and appeal. She has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and represented clients at the Supreme Court of the United States. Her litigation experience includes complex, commercial, art, and employment matters.

Erika advises both employers and individuals on employment and other workplace matters. She negotiates employment contracts and separation agreements, prepares incentive compensation plans and workplace policies, and guides clients on legal compliance issues. She collaborates closely with colleagues, particularly those in Sullivan’s tax and corporate departments, to provide solutions from multiple angles.

When Erika helps clients to navigate workplace disputes and fraught separations, she uses her legal knowledge and experience to craft an appropriate strategy for the client’s priorities and goals. An individual client commented, “I wanted to take the time to thank you once again for helping me manage this incredibly stressful event and helping me achieve such a positive outcome. I could not be more grateful. You are patient, strategic, incredibly knowledgeable and such a pleasure to work with.” A corporate client wrote, about Erika and a Sullivan colleague, “We are very grateful for all your wisdom helping us go through this sad, emotional episode. We have ended it all on good terms with the employee in question, and we couldn’t have done that without your amazing help, knowing we as a company would be safe.”

Erika also serves as the co-chair of Sullivan's Women's Initiative.

She is a director of the Harvard Law School Association of Massachusetts, where she has led a mentoring program and coordinated other initiatives. Prior to joining the firm, Erika was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in Boston.

Education
  • Harvard Law School (J.D.)
  • University of Virginia (B.A., High Distinction)
Bar & Court Admissions
  • Massachusetts
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Supreme Court
Professional Qualifications
  • Boston Bar Association
  • Director, Harvard Law School Association of Massachusetts
Awards & Honors
  • "Rising Star," Massachusetts Super Lawyers (2020-2023)
  • Boston Magazine Top Lawyers, Labor and Employment (2023-2025)
  • Boston Magazine Top Lawyers, Civil Law Litigation (2022)
  • Recommended by The Legal 500 U.S. (2025-2026)
Community Engagement
  • Former Co-Chair Boston Ballet School, Boston Ballet Young Partners Council
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.
Environmental Technology Company Acquires a Leading Industrial Air Filtration Company
The environmental technology company, Nederman Holding AB, represented by Sullivan, recently acquired a leading industrial air filtration company RoboVent, significantly strengthening its North American position by becoming the number one player within the U.S. weld fume extraction segment. Sullivan has provided acquisition advice to Nederman since 2017. Sullivan’s Environment & Natural Resources group handled preparation of environmental provisions of the purchase agreement and disclosure schedules and advised as to regulatory compliance at the target company.
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
How Bonuses and Commissions Go Wrong
Any contractual commitment involves risk, but for bonuses and commission plans, wage and tax laws multiply that risk through statutory penalties and, in some cases, automatic multiple damages. A carefully designed compensation plan encourages strong performance while protecting against an expensive surprise. Automatic Penalties for Wage Violations If the description of an incentive compensation plan arrangement does not match what the business intended, or it was drafted casually or was not reviewed for compliance with state wage laws, the risk is not just a possible disagreement with an employee. Under federal and state laws, employers face automatic penalties for unpaid wages—and sometimes, incentive compensation counts as a “wage” for these purposes. For example, in Massachusetts, if a commission is paid even one day later than it was due, the business automatically owes the employee the original amount of the commission plus twice that amount as a penalty. With such significant downside risk, it is crucial to ensure wage law compliance. Drafting Assumptions and Ambiguities Employees often have the right to enforce incentive compensation arrangements. Clear rules become especially important since courts often interpret an ambiguous contract against the side that prepared it—which, for incentive compensation, is almost always the employer. This section discusses just a few of the issues that can easily arise without tight drafting. We advise working with counsel to make sure that the written document matches the company’s intention (and minimizes ambiguities) and protects the company against unexpected outcomes. When is a former employee entitled to commissions or bonuses? Employers (sometimes) assume that an incentive compensation plan ends when the employment relationship ends. But it doesn’t always work that way. If an annual bonus plan does not require current employment at the time of payment, an employee who resigns on January 1 might claim a bonus for the year that just ended. Similarly, if a commission plan is silent on what happens post-employment, an employee might be entitled to a commission on a deal that closes after the employee has left. Employers often want to limit the compensation paid to employees who are already out the door. For example, an annual, discretionary bonus might have an “in-seat” requirement (that is, the employee must still be working at the time that annual bonuses are paid in order to receive one). A commission plan might specify that a commission is not “earned” until a customer signs a purchase order or until the business receives payment—and that workers do not earn any further commissions after departure. Whether or not conditions to payment work is often a function of applicable state law, as discussed below. What if two employees earn the same commission? In a strong, collaborative workplace, multiple employees might work on the same deal. That’s great—until the business discovers that multiple employees have earned the same commission, costing the business double or triple the incentive compensation for just one sale. A clear commission plan avoids this problem. There is no mandatory approach, and a business has flexibility to create the right incentive for its workforce. One company may decide that just one, designated deal leader receives the commission; another may divide the commission among a team. Businesses can also choose whether to apply a firm rule to all situations or retain discretion in how they apportion credit. But without any rules—even flexible ones—a company could be stuck paying multiple commissions and potentially losing its profit margin on the deal. Is the bonus really discretionary? When a company establishes annual bonus criteria in advance, it tells people how to build toward success for mutual benefit. This can be a valuable tool for company growth. However, if the factors are too rigid, the business might have painted itself into a corner. For example, an executive could be contractually entitled to a seven-figure bonus because revenue was up or a new office opened—even if that executive mishandled a crisis or the stock price is tanking. Sometimes, a non-discretionary bonus payable upon achievement of clear, well-thought-out metrics, really is the right move. But when the business wants to preserve flexibility, it should bake that right into the language from the beginning. Legal Limits on Incentive Compensation Rules Businesses have substantial leeway to design incentive structures that work best for their own goals, but only to a point. As noted earlier, state laws often govern when companies must pay their employees. For example, Illinois requires that commissions are paid on a monthly basis. Even states without a similar requirement may require that commissions or bonuses are paid within a certain amount of time after they are earned. If commissions are fully earned once the customer pays, but commissions are only paid once a quarter, the company might accidentally violate state law. (And as discussed above, that could result in automatic multiple damages.) A written policy that clearly defines when a commission or bonus is earned, and that creates a legally-compliant window for payment, reduces the risk of an accidental violation. When there is a risk that customers will return products or cancel services, a company often considers a commission clawback and will deduct the amount of a paid commission from a future salary or later commission. This can seem like a simple solution, but it raises numerous legal issues. For example, some states have strict rules about deductions from wages and do not allow companies to subtract a prior commission from a later salary or commission payment. Additionally, paying an employee a commission in one calendar year and then recouping it in a later year can cause significant tax complications for the employee. A misstep could result in the employee’s entitlement under state law to a return of the clawback plus multiple damages as a wage penalty. Companies may be able to achieve a similar result in another way, such as through meticulously-defined conditions that must be met before a commission is earned, but especially careful drafting is necessary for such an approach, and it raises additional tax complications. Avoiding Tax Penalties Deferred compensation (including commissions and bonuses) must either be exempt from or comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. A deferred compensation arrangement that violates Section 409A can result in imputed income (without payment of any cash), a 20% excise tax penalty and a premium interest charge penalty. Additional information on Section 409A can be found here. When Section 409A applies is not always obvious.  For example, if an employee is entitled to an annual bonus as long as she is employed on the date the bonus is paid, the bonus is exempt from Section 409A. However, if the employee is entitled to an annual bonus as long as she was employed on December 31 (but the bonus is paid after year-end), the bonus is potentially subject to Section 409A’s requirements. Making matters more complex, violations can arise under the controlling document (such as an employment agreement or commission plan) or with how the company handles incentive compensation in practice. Employers generally do not face monetary penalties in the event of a Section 409A violation (the entire liability is on the employee), but failures to report and withhold a Section 409A violation can trigger tax penalties on the employer. Because a faulty document cannot be fixed by correct behavior in the future, it is crucial to work with counsel on Section 409A compliant documents at the outset. Whether an existing arrangement violates Section 409A and how to fix it is a complex matter that should be addressed sooner rather than later. Conclusion Incentive compensation is a field for business creativity and customization, all within barbed-wire boundaries that can result in unintended consequences for the employer and employee alike. By working with counsel to navigate wage and tax law requirements, companies can create incentive compensation plans that reflect their vision for the future, align their best interest and their employees’, and steer clear of wage or tax penalties. This article is not legal advice. If you are interested in discussing any of these topics further, please contact a member of the Employment & Benefits Practice Group.
Hiring: Add a Colleague, Not a Liability
Hiring a new employee is typically a moment of optimism—and sometimes, the relationship really does go wonderfully for its entire length and ultimately ends on good terms. But when that hope is treated as an assumption, companies make themselves vulnerable. If a client-facing employee does not have a non-solicitation agreement, a business’s customers could be poached. A new employee, hired because of their great industry relationships, might actually have an undisclosed non-compete or non-solicit with a competitor—and suddenly, your business is being sued. Strong contracts are an essential part of protecting the business against unexpected outcomes. ​Using Contracts to Protect Business Assets By requiring upfront agreement on boundaries to protect the business—such as agreements regarding non-solicitation, non-competition, confidentiality, invention assignment, and non-disparagement—a business both discourages disloyalty in the first place and has ammunition if an employee later crosses the line. Companies often invest substantial resources into relationships, whether with employees or with business partners, but these relationships can be vulnerable to poaching. For example, an employee may look effective and helpful to customers because of institutional support that costs the business time and money, but which is invisible to the customer, who assumes the individual employee deserves all credit. A non-solicitation agreement bars a former employee from trying to ​hire the company’s employees and/or from trying to do business with the company's clients for a fixed period of time after the relationship ends. This protects the company's investment in those relationships. Most businesses depend on information that they would not want a competitor to have. If a confidentiality agreement is not written clearly enough, it might turn out to be a picket fence where barbed wire is needed. Confidential information is not just cutting-edge scientific research—it can also include hard-won insight into specific customer preferences, proprietary analysis of market trends, and much more. New hires who are likely to be given access to confidential information should generally be required to sign a confidentiality agreement that firmly protects the business’s informational assets. A confidentiality agreement needs to appropriately define the confidential information being protected and the expectations on the employee (such as not disclosing that information or using it outside non-disclosure and return of information at the end of employment). Similarly, invention assignment agreements ensure that the employee’s ideas—particularly those in line with the company’s own business, research, or development—belong to the business. This prevents employees from collecting a salary while developing ideas that would be valuable to the business—but keeping those ideas to themselves, possibly to use in competition against the business. Non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements are important, but they can be difficult to enforce in time to prevent damage. A business often will not know that confidential information was given away or misused until it is much too late to the put the horse back in the barn. A non-competition agreement prevents a former employee from competing against the business for a fixed amount of time. Especially when a former employee has had access to confidential information and to valuable business relationships, this can be a valuable for tool for avoiding misbehavior. If an employee cannot work for a competitor at all, they are less likely to be in situations where they might violate other restrictions. Finally, a non-disparagement agreement protects the company’s reputation. However, some employees may balk at agreeing to this upfront, before the relationship has even begun. Companies should consider whether a non-disparagement agreement is a term worth including as a hiring requirement. As with most employment terms, a company may decide that this term will be included for certain hires, but not all. Agreements should match the specific needs of each employment situation; to be enforced, it is essential that they also match state law. State employment laws vary substantially. One state may require that a confidentiality agreement have an exception for sexual harassment; another may require certain carve-outs to invention assignment agreements; a third may impose an annual compensation minimum for non-solicitation agreements; a fourth may require that employees are told of their right to consult with counsel before signing a non-competition agreement. An agreement that does not comply with applicable state law might not be enforceable, which means the company does not have the protection it thought it had. In some cases, a noncompliant contract raises additional issues: for example, in California, non-competition agreements are banned in most circumstances, and businesses face a penalty if they require an employee to sign one. Businesses should work with counsel on agreements that are appropriate to each circumstance and applicable state and federal law. Hiring from Competitors Conversely, businesses often hire people who have worked in the field before—perhaps even at a competitor. Even though the business didn't sign the employee’s prior employment agreement and is not a party to it, when a former employee breaches a contract to benefit a competitor, the competitor is typically sued alongside the employee.[1] Upfront preparation can reduce risks. When hiring a new employee, a business may require the employee to confirm (as a written requirement of employment) that this job will not conflict with any other contractual commitments of that employee. If the employee raises a concern about another contract, the business should review the contract with counsel. In some instances, there may be an argument that the contract is not enforceable, and the employee and the business will each need to decide whether they are willing to take a risk. In some instances, there may be a confidentiality or non-solicitation restriction but no non-compete. In those cases, although employment is allowed, the former employer will likely be suspicious and may sue. When there are confidentiality and non-solicitation restrictions, businesses should strongly consider instructing the employee not to engage in any conduct that would violate those restrictions, and it may choose to be even more proactive by keeping the employee siloed from the customers or parts of the business that raise the contractual risk. Those protections can often be time-limited, such as to the amount of time remaining on a non-solicitation agreement. ​When ​a former employee does not have any prior agreement, a company has much more flexibility, but risks still exist. For example, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act allows a business to sue for misappropriation of trade secrets, and a former employer may allege that a company misappropriated its trade secrets through the departed employee. Companies can reduce risks by providing instructions to employees that they should not use or disclose confidential information from any other business in their work. Requiring Commitment Employees sometimes engage in outside work. Guardrails set important expectations and give the business a clear exit ramp if an employee breaks the rules. For some positions, it may be appropriate to restrict all outside work. Most businesses would not want their CEO to be managing another business on the side. In those cases, requirements that an employee to devote their full business efforts to the position, and not to engage in outside work, makes the expectation both clear and firm. In other situations, outside work may be appropriate; additionally, some states have pro-moonlighting laws that protect employees’ off-hours activities. In those cases, agreements or policies create a moat of protection around the business. Businesses can set expectations around not participating in moonlighting during working hours, not using the business’s equipment for an outside venture, and similar issues. Conclusion By establishing clear rules up-front, a business encourages the right type of behavior from the beginning, and it is better able to defend itself against attacks from current and former employees—often the people who best know its vulnerabilities and its proprietary secrets. [1] Whether the former employer’s claim against the new employer is strong, or even viable at all, are different questions and depend on many factors, including specific facts and state law. But even an unsuccessful claim can force expensive defense costs and distractions from the business.   Further resource: Listen to Erika Todd discuss legal concerns for freelancers with fulltime jobs on The Freelance Mindset Studio podcast here. Coming up: The next article in this series will discuss key issues to know about creating incentive compensation plans—including the risks of a casual or ambiguous arrangements and triggers for tax penalties. This article is not legal advice. If you are interested in discussing any of these topics further, please contact a member of the Employment & Benefits Practice Group.
News
All News
Sullivan Advises Olibra LLC on Acquisition by Somfy Group
Sullivan & Worcester represented long-term client Olibra LLC, the owner of the Bond smart-home connectivity platform, in its acquisition by Somfy Group, a global leader in the motorization and automation of openings and closures for homes and buildings. Bond will continue to operate independently under its existing leadership team while benefiting from Somfy's global resources, industry expertise and long-term investment. The transaction brings together Somfy's expertise in motorization and automation with Bond's connectivity platform and interoperability capabilities, supporting the companies' shared vision of advancing connected home and smart shading solutions across North America. The Sullivan deal team included Scott Kaufman, Amy Sheridan, David Guadagnoli, Erika Todd, Joel Carpenter, Mike Palmisciano, Amit Shoval, Joonas Aho, Janice Lee and Lauren Nathan. For more information, please view the press release here.
Sullivan & Worcester Selected for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly “Empowering Women” Award
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester has been selected by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly for its "Empowering Women" award for the fourth consecutive year, recognizing the firm’s ongoing commitment to elevating, supporting, and empowering women in the legal profession. The annual recognition honors law firms that have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting women in the profession by fostering opportunities for leadership, professional development, mentorship, and career advancement. “This honor underscores Sullivan’s long-term dedication to equity and inclusion and reflects the culture and values that define us as an organization,” said Erika L. Todd, co-chair of the firm’s Women’s Initiative. “We believe that creating an environment where women can thrive professionally and personally is the right thing to do. It also strengthens our firm, enhances the service we provide our clients, and helps positively shape the future of the legal profession.” The honor reflects Sullivan’s sustained focus on cultivating an inclusive workplace where talented attorneys have the resources, support, and opportunities to build successful, fulfilling careers. “As a firm, we are dedicated to making sure that women are empowered to lead and make meaningful contributions,” said Karen J. Kepler, co-chair of the Women’s Initiative. “At Sullivan, women have a place at the table, where their voices are heard, their perspectives are valued, and their leadership helps shape our future.” Through its Women’s Initiative, the firm gives women a platform to share their career insights, brings attorneys together for enrichment and networking, and celebrates its female clients. Sullivan’s influence extends into the community through its support and involvement in numerous civic and philanthropic initiatives that combat inequality. The Women’s Initiative partners with the Boston Chamber of Commerce Women’s Network, American Bar Association Women Rainmakers Committee, and CREW Boston. About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier, AmLaw 200 international 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.

Erika L. Todd

Erika is a litigator and employment advisor.

Erika represents individual and institutional clients at each stage of the litigation process, from pre-suit negotiations to trial and appeal. She has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and represented clients at the Supreme Court of the United States. Her litigation experience includes complex, commercial, art, and employment matters.

Erika advises both employers and individuals on employment and other workplace matters. She negotiates employment contracts and separation agreements, prepares incentive compensation plans and workplace policies, and guides clients on legal compliance issues. She collaborates closely with colleagues, particularly those in Sullivan’s tax and corporate departments, to provide solutions from multiple angles.

When Erika helps clients to navigate workplace disputes and fraught separations, she uses her legal knowledge and experience to craft an appropriate strategy for the client’s priorities and goals. An individual client commented, “I wanted to take the time to thank you once again for helping me manage this incredibly stressful event and helping me achieve such a positive outcome. I could not be more grateful. You are patient, strategic, incredibly knowledgeable and such a pleasure to work with.” A corporate client wrote, about Erika and a Sullivan colleague, “We are very grateful for all your wisdom helping us go through this sad, emotional episode. We have ended it all on good terms with the employee in question, and we couldn’t have done that without your amazing help, knowing we as a company would be safe.”

Erika also serves as the co-chair of Sullivan's Women's Initiative.

She is a director of the Harvard Law School Association of Massachusetts, where she has led a mentoring program and coordinated other initiatives. Prior to joining the firm, Erika was an associate at a boutique litigation firm in Boston.

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.
Environmental Technology Company Acquires a Leading Industrial Air Filtration Company
The environmental technology company, Nederman Holding AB, represented by Sullivan, recently acquired a leading industrial air filtration company RoboVent, significantly strengthening its North American position by becoming the number one player within the U.S. weld fume extraction segment. Sullivan has provided acquisition advice to Nederman since 2017. Sullivan’s Environment & Natural Resources group handled preparation of environmental provisions of the purchase agreement and disclosure schedules and advised as to regulatory compliance at the target company.
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
How Bonuses and Commissions Go Wrong
Any contractual commitment involves risk, but for bonuses and commission plans, wage and tax laws multiply that risk through statutory penalties and, in some cases, automatic multiple damages. A carefully designed compensation plan encourages strong performance while protecting against an expensive surprise. Automatic Penalties for Wage Violations If the description of an incentive compensation plan arrangement does not match what the business intended, or it was drafted casually or was not reviewed for compliance with state wage laws, the risk is not just a possible disagreement with an employee. Under federal and state laws, employers face automatic penalties for unpaid wages—and sometimes, incentive compensation counts as a “wage” for these purposes. For example, in Massachusetts, if a commission is paid even one day later than it was due, the business automatically owes the employee the original amount of the commission plus twice that amount as a penalty. With such significant downside risk, it is crucial to ensure wage law compliance. Drafting Assumptions and Ambiguities Employees often have the right to enforce incentive compensation arrangements. Clear rules become especially important since courts often interpret an ambiguous contract against the side that prepared it—which, for incentive compensation, is almost always the employer. This section discusses just a few of the issues that can easily arise without tight drafting. We advise working with counsel to make sure that the written document matches the company’s intention (and minimizes ambiguities) and protects the company against unexpected outcomes. When is a former employee entitled to commissions or bonuses? Employers (sometimes) assume that an incentive compensation plan ends when the employment relationship ends. But it doesn’t always work that way. If an annual bonus plan does not require current employment at the time of payment, an employee who resigns on January 1 might claim a bonus for the year that just ended. Similarly, if a commission plan is silent on what happens post-employment, an employee might be entitled to a commission on a deal that closes after the employee has left. Employers often want to limit the compensation paid to employees who are already out the door. For example, an annual, discretionary bonus might have an “in-seat” requirement (that is, the employee must still be working at the time that annual bonuses are paid in order to receive one). A commission plan might specify that a commission is not “earned” until a customer signs a purchase order or until the business receives payment—and that workers do not earn any further commissions after departure. Whether or not conditions to payment work is often a function of applicable state law, as discussed below. What if two employees earn the same commission? In a strong, collaborative workplace, multiple employees might work on the same deal. That’s great—until the business discovers that multiple employees have earned the same commission, costing the business double or triple the incentive compensation for just one sale. A clear commission plan avoids this problem. There is no mandatory approach, and a business has flexibility to create the right incentive for its workforce. One company may decide that just one, designated deal leader receives the commission; another may divide the commission among a team. Businesses can also choose whether to apply a firm rule to all situations or retain discretion in how they apportion credit. But without any rules—even flexible ones—a company could be stuck paying multiple commissions and potentially losing its profit margin on the deal. Is the bonus really discretionary? When a company establishes annual bonus criteria in advance, it tells people how to build toward success for mutual benefit. This can be a valuable tool for company growth. However, if the factors are too rigid, the business might have painted itself into a corner. For example, an executive could be contractually entitled to a seven-figure bonus because revenue was up or a new office opened—even if that executive mishandled a crisis or the stock price is tanking. Sometimes, a non-discretionary bonus payable upon achievement of clear, well-thought-out metrics, really is the right move. But when the business wants to preserve flexibility, it should bake that right into the language from the beginning. Legal Limits on Incentive Compensation Rules Businesses have substantial leeway to design incentive structures that work best for their own goals, but only to a point. As noted earlier, state laws often govern when companies must pay their employees. For example, Illinois requires that commissions are paid on a monthly basis. Even states without a similar requirement may require that commissions or bonuses are paid within a certain amount of time after they are earned. If commissions are fully earned once the customer pays, but commissions are only paid once a quarter, the company might accidentally violate state law. (And as discussed above, that could result in automatic multiple damages.) A written policy that clearly defines when a commission or bonus is earned, and that creates a legally-compliant window for payment, reduces the risk of an accidental violation. When there is a risk that customers will return products or cancel services, a company often considers a commission clawback and will deduct the amount of a paid commission from a future salary or later commission. This can seem like a simple solution, but it raises numerous legal issues. For example, some states have strict rules about deductions from wages and do not allow companies to subtract a prior commission from a later salary or commission payment. Additionally, paying an employee a commission in one calendar year and then recouping it in a later year can cause significant tax complications for the employee. A misstep could result in the employee’s entitlement under state law to a return of the clawback plus multiple damages as a wage penalty. Companies may be able to achieve a similar result in another way, such as through meticulously-defined conditions that must be met before a commission is earned, but especially careful drafting is necessary for such an approach, and it raises additional tax complications. Avoiding Tax Penalties Deferred compensation (including commissions and bonuses) must either be exempt from or comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A. A deferred compensation arrangement that violates Section 409A can result in imputed income (without payment of any cash), a 20% excise tax penalty and a premium interest charge penalty. Additional information on Section 409A can be found here. When Section 409A applies is not always obvious.  For example, if an employee is entitled to an annual bonus as long as she is employed on the date the bonus is paid, the bonus is exempt from Section 409A. However, if the employee is entitled to an annual bonus as long as she was employed on December 31 (but the bonus is paid after year-end), the bonus is potentially subject to Section 409A’s requirements. Making matters more complex, violations can arise under the controlling document (such as an employment agreement or commission plan) or with how the company handles incentive compensation in practice. Employers generally do not face monetary penalties in the event of a Section 409A violation (the entire liability is on the employee), but failures to report and withhold a Section 409A violation can trigger tax penalties on the employer. Because a faulty document cannot be fixed by correct behavior in the future, it is crucial to work with counsel on Section 409A compliant documents at the outset. Whether an existing arrangement violates Section 409A and how to fix it is a complex matter that should be addressed sooner rather than later. Conclusion Incentive compensation is a field for business creativity and customization, all within barbed-wire boundaries that can result in unintended consequences for the employer and employee alike. By working with counsel to navigate wage and tax law requirements, companies can create incentive compensation plans that reflect their vision for the future, align their best interest and their employees’, and steer clear of wage or tax penalties. This article is not legal advice. If you are interested in discussing any of these topics further, please contact a member of the Employment & Benefits Practice Group.
Hiring: Add a Colleague, Not a Liability
Hiring a new employee is typically a moment of optimism—and sometimes, the relationship really does go wonderfully for its entire length and ultimately ends on good terms. But when that hope is treated as an assumption, companies make themselves vulnerable. If a client-facing employee does not have a non-solicitation agreement, a business’s customers could be poached. A new employee, hired because of their great industry relationships, might actually have an undisclosed non-compete or non-solicit with a competitor—and suddenly, your business is being sued. Strong contracts are an essential part of protecting the business against unexpected outcomes. ​Using Contracts to Protect Business Assets By requiring upfront agreement on boundaries to protect the business—such as agreements regarding non-solicitation, non-competition, confidentiality, invention assignment, and non-disparagement—a business both discourages disloyalty in the first place and has ammunition if an employee later crosses the line. Companies often invest substantial resources into relationships, whether with employees or with business partners, but these relationships can be vulnerable to poaching. For example, an employee may look effective and helpful to customers because of institutional support that costs the business time and money, but which is invisible to the customer, who assumes the individual employee deserves all credit. A non-solicitation agreement bars a former employee from trying to ​hire the company’s employees and/or from trying to do business with the company's clients for a fixed period of time after the relationship ends. This protects the company's investment in those relationships. Most businesses depend on information that they would not want a competitor to have. If a confidentiality agreement is not written clearly enough, it might turn out to be a picket fence where barbed wire is needed. Confidential information is not just cutting-edge scientific research—it can also include hard-won insight into specific customer preferences, proprietary analysis of market trends, and much more. New hires who are likely to be given access to confidential information should generally be required to sign a confidentiality agreement that firmly protects the business’s informational assets. A confidentiality agreement needs to appropriately define the confidential information being protected and the expectations on the employee (such as not disclosing that information or using it outside non-disclosure and return of information at the end of employment). Similarly, invention assignment agreements ensure that the employee’s ideas—particularly those in line with the company’s own business, research, or development—belong to the business. This prevents employees from collecting a salary while developing ideas that would be valuable to the business—but keeping those ideas to themselves, possibly to use in competition against the business. Non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements are important, but they can be difficult to enforce in time to prevent damage. A business often will not know that confidential information was given away or misused until it is much too late to the put the horse back in the barn. A non-competition agreement prevents a former employee from competing against the business for a fixed amount of time. Especially when a former employee has had access to confidential information and to valuable business relationships, this can be a valuable for tool for avoiding misbehavior. If an employee cannot work for a competitor at all, they are less likely to be in situations where they might violate other restrictions. Finally, a non-disparagement agreement protects the company’s reputation. However, some employees may balk at agreeing to this upfront, before the relationship has even begun. Companies should consider whether a non-disparagement agreement is a term worth including as a hiring requirement. As with most employment terms, a company may decide that this term will be included for certain hires, but not all. Agreements should match the specific needs of each employment situation; to be enforced, it is essential that they also match state law. State employment laws vary substantially. One state may require that a confidentiality agreement have an exception for sexual harassment; another may require certain carve-outs to invention assignment agreements; a third may impose an annual compensation minimum for non-solicitation agreements; a fourth may require that employees are told of their right to consult with counsel before signing a non-competition agreement. An agreement that does not comply with applicable state law might not be enforceable, which means the company does not have the protection it thought it had. In some cases, a noncompliant contract raises additional issues: for example, in California, non-competition agreements are banned in most circumstances, and businesses face a penalty if they require an employee to sign one. Businesses should work with counsel on agreements that are appropriate to each circumstance and applicable state and federal law. Hiring from Competitors Conversely, businesses often hire people who have worked in the field before—perhaps even at a competitor. Even though the business didn't sign the employee’s prior employment agreement and is not a party to it, when a former employee breaches a contract to benefit a competitor, the competitor is typically sued alongside the employee.[1] Upfront preparation can reduce risks. When hiring a new employee, a business may require the employee to confirm (as a written requirement of employment) that this job will not conflict with any other contractual commitments of that employee. If the employee raises a concern about another contract, the business should review the contract with counsel. In some instances, there may be an argument that the contract is not enforceable, and the employee and the business will each need to decide whether they are willing to take a risk. In some instances, there may be a confidentiality or non-solicitation restriction but no non-compete. In those cases, although employment is allowed, the former employer will likely be suspicious and may sue. When there are confidentiality and non-solicitation restrictions, businesses should strongly consider instructing the employee not to engage in any conduct that would violate those restrictions, and it may choose to be even more proactive by keeping the employee siloed from the customers or parts of the business that raise the contractual risk. Those protections can often be time-limited, such as to the amount of time remaining on a non-solicitation agreement. ​When ​a former employee does not have any prior agreement, a company has much more flexibility, but risks still exist. For example, the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act allows a business to sue for misappropriation of trade secrets, and a former employer may allege that a company misappropriated its trade secrets through the departed employee. Companies can reduce risks by providing instructions to employees that they should not use or disclose confidential information from any other business in their work. Requiring Commitment Employees sometimes engage in outside work. Guardrails set important expectations and give the business a clear exit ramp if an employee breaks the rules. For some positions, it may be appropriate to restrict all outside work. Most businesses would not want their CEO to be managing another business on the side. In those cases, requirements that an employee to devote their full business efforts to the position, and not to engage in outside work, makes the expectation both clear and firm. In other situations, outside work may be appropriate; additionally, some states have pro-moonlighting laws that protect employees’ off-hours activities. In those cases, agreements or policies create a moat of protection around the business. Businesses can set expectations around not participating in moonlighting during working hours, not using the business’s equipment for an outside venture, and similar issues. Conclusion By establishing clear rules up-front, a business encourages the right type of behavior from the beginning, and it is better able to defend itself against attacks from current and former employees—often the people who best know its vulnerabilities and its proprietary secrets. [1] Whether the former employer’s claim against the new employer is strong, or even viable at all, are different questions and depend on many factors, including specific facts and state law. But even an unsuccessful claim can force expensive defense costs and distractions from the business.   Further resource: Listen to Erika Todd discuss legal concerns for freelancers with fulltime jobs on The Freelance Mindset Studio podcast here. Coming up: The next article in this series will discuss key issues to know about creating incentive compensation plans—including the risks of a casual or ambiguous arrangements and triggers for tax penalties. This article is not legal advice. If you are interested in discussing any of these topics further, please contact a member of the Employment & Benefits Practice Group.
News
All News
Sullivan Advises Olibra LLC on Acquisition by Somfy Group
Sullivan & Worcester represented long-term client Olibra LLC, the owner of the Bond smart-home connectivity platform, in its acquisition by Somfy Group, a global leader in the motorization and automation of openings and closures for homes and buildings. Bond will continue to operate independently under its existing leadership team while benefiting from Somfy's global resources, industry expertise and long-term investment. The transaction brings together Somfy's expertise in motorization and automation with Bond's connectivity platform and interoperability capabilities, supporting the companies' shared vision of advancing connected home and smart shading solutions across North America. The Sullivan deal team included Scott Kaufman, Amy Sheridan, David Guadagnoli, Erika Todd, Joel Carpenter, Mike Palmisciano, Amit Shoval, Joonas Aho, Janice Lee and Lauren Nathan. For more information, please view the press release here.
Sullivan & Worcester Selected for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly “Empowering Women” Award
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester has been selected by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly for its "Empowering Women" award for the fourth consecutive year, recognizing the firm’s ongoing commitment to elevating, supporting, and empowering women in the legal profession. The annual recognition honors law firms that have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting women in the profession by fostering opportunities for leadership, professional development, mentorship, and career advancement. “This honor underscores Sullivan’s long-term dedication to equity and inclusion and reflects the culture and values that define us as an organization,” said Erika L. Todd, co-chair of the firm’s Women’s Initiative. “We believe that creating an environment where women can thrive professionally and personally is the right thing to do. It also strengthens our firm, enhances the service we provide our clients, and helps positively shape the future of the legal profession.” The honor reflects Sullivan’s sustained focus on cultivating an inclusive workplace where talented attorneys have the resources, support, and opportunities to build successful, fulfilling careers. “As a firm, we are dedicated to making sure that women are empowered to lead and make meaningful contributions,” said Karen J. Kepler, co-chair of the Women’s Initiative. “At Sullivan, women have a place at the table, where their voices are heard, their perspectives are valued, and their leadership helps shape our future.” Through its Women’s Initiative, the firm gives women a platform to share their career insights, brings attorneys together for enrichment and networking, and celebrates its female clients. Sullivan’s influence extends into the community through its support and involvement in numerous civic and philanthropic initiatives that combat inequality. The Women’s Initiative partners with the Boston Chamber of Commerce Women’s Network, American Bar Association Women Rainmakers Committee, and CREW Boston. About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier, AmLaw 200 international 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.

Erika L. Todd

Wonder Media Network (WMN) Acquired by the World's Largest Independent Podcast Company

Sullivan represented Wonder Media Network (WMN), a female-founded, audio-first creative studio based in New York City, in its sale to Acast, the world’s largest independent podcast company. "WMN’s mission is so tightly aligned with that of Acast - bringing important and changemaking stories to the world," said WMN CEO Jenny Kaplan. "Together, we will allow both creators and advertisers to reach new audiences, build successful businesses, and shape the future of audio."

Lewis N. Segall, Joel R. Carpenter, Amy E. Sheridan, Erika L. Todd, Johanna Colpritt and Nathan Kosik-Desmond

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

Environmental Technology Company Acquires a Leading Industrial Air Filtration Company

The environmental technology company, Nederman Holding AB, represented by Sullivan, recently acquired a leading industrial air filtration company RoboVent, significantly strengthening its North American position by becoming the number one player within the U.S. weld fume extraction segment. Sullivan has provided acquisition advice to Nederman since 2017. Sullivan’s Environment & Natural Resources group handled preparation of environmental provisions of the purchase agreement and disclosure schedules and advised as to regulatory compliance at the target company.

Michael J. Student, Avinash R. Rao, Amy E. Sheridan, Erika L. Todd, Douglas S. Stransky and Ida J. Vanto

Erika L. Todd

September 1, 2026

–Blog Post

How Bonuses and Commissions Go Wrong

What Employers Need to Know about Employment & Benefit Matters

June 24, 2026

–Blog Post

Hiring: Add a Colleague, Not a Liability

What Employers Need to Know about Employment & Benefit Matters

June 3, 2026

–Podcasts

Erika Todd Featured on Podcast Discussing the Legal Risks of Freelancing While Employed

The Freelance Mindset Studio Podcast

April 13, 2026

–Article

What Non-Celebrities Can Learn about Contract and Workplace Issues from the Lively/Baldoni Decision

January 24, 2025

–Client Alert

2025 Massachusetts Pay Transparency Requirements

August 21, 2024

–Client Alert

Texas Court Blocks Federal Non-Compete Ban, Setting Up Appellate Challenge

July 29, 2024

–Client Alert

Summer 2024 Employment and Benefits Updates

July 24, 2024

–Client Alert

Uncertainty Heightened as Two District Courts Reach Conflicting Conclusions on FTC Non-Compete Ban’s Enforceability

July 17, 2024

–Client Alert

Companies Turn to Trade Secret, Patent, Copyright to Mitigate Risks from FTC Non-Compete Ban

July 5, 2024

–Client Alert

Federal Court Blocks the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban, but Only for Named Plaintiffs

April 24, 2024

–Client Alert

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes

Sullivan Client Alert

November 22, 2023

–Client Alert

New York City Bans Discrimination Based on Height and Weight

Sullivan Client Alert

March 6, 2023

–Client Alert

Winter 2023 Employment and Benefits Updates

Sullivan Client Alert

June 1, 2022

–Publication

How I Made Partner: 'I Developed a Strong Habit of Saying "Yes" to New Opportunities,' Says Erika Todd of Sullivan & Worcester

Law.com

November 23, 2021

–Client Alert

Year-End Limit, Vaccine and Credit Updates

Sullivan Client Alert

June 24, 2020

–Client Alert

Remote But In Control: Virtual Depositions are the New Normal

Sullivan Client Alert

March 24, 2020

–Client Alert

EFMLA, PSLA, And Tax Credits….Oh My!

Sullivan Client Alert

December 4, 2019

–Publication

First Circuit Narrowly Preserves Workers’ Compensation Suit Against Canada

Law.com

Erika L. Todd

August 3, 2026

–Deal News

Sullivan Advises Olibra LLC on Acquisition by Somfy Group

July 29, 2026

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Selected for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly “Empowering Women” Award

Firm Honored for Fourth Consecutive Year for Elevating Women in Legal Industry

June 15, 2026

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition

Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026

May 4, 2026

–Deal News

Sullivan Advises Somatix in Merger with Vitalist

April 1, 2026

–Deal News

Sullivan Advises Boston Green in Recapitalization with Fort Point Capital

February 23, 2026

–Deal News

Sullivan Advises Nineteen Group on Acquisition of The Lead

February 19, 2026

–Deal News

Sullivan Advises Sounds Profitable on Merger with Podcast Movement

November 25, 2025

–Firm Announcement

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

Boston Magazine

July 28, 2025

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Selected for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly “Empowering Women” Award

Sullivan Honored for Third Consecutive Year for Supporting and Elevating Women

June 13, 2025

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2025 Edition

April 16, 2025

–News

Sullivan Represents Truliant Consulting in Acquisition by ELIQUENT Life Sciences

January 19, 2025

–Quoted

How the New Administration in Washington Could Affect Your Business

The Business Journals

November 19, 2024

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Named to 2024 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

November 6, 2024

–Quoted

From Taxes to Tariffs, Here's How Trump's Victory Could Affect Businesses

The Business Journals

July 30, 2024

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Honored for 'Empowering Women' by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Second Year in a Row Sullivan Receives Recognition for Elevating Women

June 28, 2024

–Press Release

Sullivan Ranked 6th in Law.com's LGBTQ+ Scorecard Ranking

June 13, 2024

–News

Worker Harassment Cases Get ‘Tricky’ With Mentally Ill Patients

Bloomberg Law

April 24, 2024

–Client Alert

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes

Sullivan Client Alert

December 1, 2023

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan to Support 2024 Women's Mid-Am and 2028 Women's Amateur Championships

November 21, 2023

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Named to 2023 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

Boston Magazine

November 1, 2023

–News

Greenleaf Claims Pot Law Led To Bargaining Leverage Loss

Law360

October 12, 2023

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Named 2023 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

New England Super Lawyers Magazine

August 1, 2023

–Press Release

Sullivan Recognized for 'Empowering Women' by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

July 12, 2023

–News

Greenleaf Say RI Pot Law's Union Clause Sidesteps NLRA

Law360

January 19, 2023

–Quoted

Religious Accommodation Test on Thin Ice With Justices’ New Case

Bloomberg Law

November 22, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Named to 2022 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

Inc. Magazine

October 13, 2022

–Quoted

Supreme Court Hears Case on Overtime for Highly Compensated Employees

SHRM

October 11, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Named 2022 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

New England Super Lawyers Magazine

September 26, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Receives Champion Award from Victim Rights Law Center

January 24, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Elects Four New Partners in Firm's Boston, NYC Offices

Biography Matters Client Highlights Viewpoints News Events

Featured

Events
FACC-NY Strategic Forum 2026

Sullivan will serve as one of the sponsors of the FACC-NY Strategic Forum 2026, taking place on September 10th at Scandinavia House in New York. The forum brings together leaders from business, technology, public policy and innovation to explore how Finnish companies are building competitive advantage and succeeding in the U.S. market. Michael Student, Mike Palmisciano and Joonas Aho will attend the event, which will feature discussions on leadership, innovation, public-private

News
Sullivan Advises BridgeAthletic on Acquistion by VALD

Sullivan represented BridgeAthletic, a leading strength and conditioning software platform, in its acquisition by VALD, a global provider of human performance technology. The acquisition brings together BridgeAthletic's program design and athlete management platform with VALD's objective measurement technology and performance data capabilities, creating a more comprehensive and connected platform for coaches and performance professionals. The transaction follows VALD's recent acquisition of GymAware and expands its capabilities across the full performance lifecycle,

News
Sullivan & Worcester Advances Japan-Focused Capital Markets Initiative, Building on Track Record Connecting International Companies with U.S. Markets

(Originally distributed via Access Newswire on September 3, 2026.) New York, NY – Sullivan & Worcester is expanding its international capital markets platform with a focused initiative to help Japanese companies evaluate and pursue opportunities to access U.S. investors and capital markets. As part of that initiative the firm will serve as a Gold Sponsor of the Japan Go IPO Summit, taking place on September 16, 2026, in Tokyo. Hosted by

Viewpoints
SEC Approves NYSE and NYSE American $0.25 Minimum Trading Price as Continued Listing Requirement

On August 14, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved proposed rule changes by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (NYSE) and NYSE American LLC (NYSE American) to adopt a new continued listing requirement imposing a minimum trading price of $0.25 per share. This approval follows the SEC’s recent approval of Nasdaq’s new $5 million Market Value of Listed Securities continued listing requirement and reflects a broader trend by the

Viewpoints
Untaxed at Marriage, Taxed at Divorce: Who Pays When a Cross-Border Joint Venture Ends

Douglas S. Stransky, partner and leader of the Tax Practice Group, has published the second post in his series for the LexisNexis blog, examining the U.S. tax consequences that surface when a cross-border joint venture ends. Using a hypothetical 50/50 venture between a U.S. manufacturer and a German strategic investing through a U.S. corporate blocker, the post explains how the Section 704(c) method choice buried in boilerplate moves real money between

Viewpoints
The Business Case for Litigation Avoidance

When people hear “litigation,” they usually think about trials, dramatic cross-examinations and disputes beyond repair. They do not typically think about prevention. Yet one of the most valuable things a litigator can do is help avoid litigation altogether. At first glance, the concept may seem counterintuitive. Why would litigators want to reduce litigation? The answer is straightforward: it’s often in the best interest of their clients. While litigation is sometimes necessary, it

Events
Registered Land Topics

Alexandra Wannop will moderate a virtual panel discussion hosted by the Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts (REBA) Title Insurance & National Affairs Section on September 15, 2026. The webinar will address key differences in clearing title to registered land compared with recorded land, including practical considerations for identifying and resolving title issues early in a transaction. The panel will also discuss common scenarios requiring Land Court approval and provide practical

News
Sullivan & Worcester Shortlisted for International Tax Review Awards

Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester has been shortlisted for the International Tax Review (ITR) Americas Tax Awards 2026 for Massachusetts Tax Firm of the Year. Nominees will be recognized and winners will be announced at the ITR Americas Tax Awards gala on October 29, 2026, in New York. The annual ITR Americas Tax Awards celebrate the most accomplished and distinguished tax and transfer pricing teams across 35 jurisdictions worldwide. In

Viewpoints
How Bonuses and Commissions Go Wrong

Any contractual commitment involves risk, but for bonuses and commission plans, wage and tax laws multiply that risk through statutory penalties and, in some cases, automatic multiple damages. A carefully designed compensation plan encourages strong performance while protecting against an expensive surprise. Automatic Penalties for Wage Violations If the description of an incentive compensation plan arrangement does not match what the business intended, or it was drafted casually or was not reviewed

Events
Structuring Commodity Trade Finance Deals in 2026 and Beyond

Geoffrey Wynne will moderate a panel discussion "Structuring commodity trade finance deals in 2026 and beyond" at the second 2026 Sullivan and Trade Treasury Payments’ (TTP) co-hosted Trade and Commodity Finance Breakfast Club, to be held on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 from 08.30 – 10.00 am at The Lansdowne Club in London. For the first time, the average commodity finance deal has crossed the $1 billion mark. Despite turbulence in the supply

Events
FACC-NY Strategic Forum 2026

Sullivan will serve as one of the sponsors of the FACC-NY Strategic Forum 2026, taking place on September 10th at Scandinavia House in New York. The forum brings together leaders from business, technology, public policy and innovation to explore how Finnish companies are building competitive advantage and succeeding in the U.S. market. Michael Student, Mike Palmisciano and Joonas Aho will attend the event, which will feature discussions on leadership, innovation, public-private

News
Sullivan Advises BridgeAthletic on Acquistion by VALD

Sullivan represented BridgeAthletic, a leading strength and conditioning software platform, in its acquisition by VALD, a global provider of human performance technology. The acquisition brings together BridgeAthletic's program design and athlete management platform with VALD's objective measurement technology and performance data capabilities, creating a more comprehensive and connected platform for coaches and performance professionals. The transaction follows VALD's recent acquisition of GymAware and expands its capabilities across the full performance lifecycle,

News
Sullivan & Worcester Advances Japan-Focused Capital Markets Initiative, Building on Track Record Connecting International Companies with U.S. Markets

(Originally distributed via Access Newswire on September 3, 2026.) New York, NY – Sullivan & Worcester is expanding its international capital markets platform with a focused initiative to help Japanese companies evaluate and pursue opportunities to access U.S. investors and capital markets. As part of that initiative the firm will serve as a Gold Sponsor of the Japan Go IPO Summit, taking place on September 16, 2026, in Tokyo. Hosted by

Viewpoints
SEC Approves NYSE and NYSE American $0.25 Minimum Trading Price as Continued Listing Requirement

On August 14, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved proposed rule changes by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (NYSE) and NYSE American LLC (NYSE American) to adopt a new continued listing requirement imposing a minimum trading price of $0.25 per share. This approval follows the SEC’s recent approval of Nasdaq’s new $5 million Market Value of Listed Securities continued listing requirement and reflects a broader trend by the

Viewpoints
Untaxed at Marriage, Taxed at Divorce: Who Pays When a Cross-Border Joint Venture Ends

Douglas S. Stransky, partner and leader of the Tax Practice Group, has published the second post in his series for the LexisNexis blog, examining the U.S. tax consequences that surface when a cross-border joint venture ends. Using a hypothetical 50/50 venture between a U.S. manufacturer and a German strategic investing through a U.S. corporate blocker, the post explains how the Section 704(c) method choice buried in boilerplate moves real money between

Viewpoints
The Business Case for Litigation Avoidance

When people hear “litigation,” they usually think about trials, dramatic cross-examinations and disputes beyond repair. They do not typically think about prevention. Yet one of the most valuable things a litigator can do is help avoid litigation altogether. At first glance, the concept may seem counterintuitive. Why would litigators want to reduce litigation? The answer is straightforward: it’s often in the best interest of their clients. While litigation is sometimes necessary, it

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