Publication
Lexis+ Energy: Competition law and energy
Susanna Rogers, Mark Mills and Jack Jeffries from our London antitrust and competition team have updated the Lexis+ Energy practice note on “competition law and energy”.
United States | Publication | March 2021
To encourage California employers to self-assess and correct pay disparities along racial and gender lines, the California legislature enacted Senate Bill 973 (SB 973) on September 30, 2020. SB 973 mandates that private employers of 100 or more employees, at least one of whom being in California, must report pay and hours-worked data by establishment, job category, sex, race and ethnicity to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) by March 31, 2021, and annually thereafter. In addition to providing for new pay data reporting, SB 973 authorized the DFEH to enforce the Equal Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5), which prohibits unjustified pay disparities.
This past month, the DFEH issued answers to FAQs and a template form for employers to submit their reports. The guidance clarified that an employee who regularly teleworks from a residence in California but who is assigned to an establishment outside of California must be included in the pay data report. More guidance from the DFEH is expected before the March 31 reporting deadline.
Publication
Susanna Rogers, Mark Mills and Jack Jeffries from our London antitrust and competition team have updated the Lexis+ Energy practice note on “competition law and energy”.
Publication
On November 26, 2025 the SFO published updated guidance on its evaluation of compliance programmes (the Guidance). The Guidance follows on from the updated Corporate Prosecution Guidance published in August (and which was covered in our recent horizon scan), the SFO corporate cooperation guidance published in April (see here), and the Home Office Guidance on reasonable procedures to prevent fraud.
Publication
In King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2025] UKSC 39, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal and held that the claimant sellers (the Sellers) were not entitled to claim the deposits promised under sale contracts as a debt
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025