News & Press Releases

Mintz members Daniel Guggenheim, Rebecca Lee, and Jeffrey Moerdler have been recognized by Lawdragon in its 2025 500 Leading Global Real Estate Lawyers list. The three attorneys were also recognized in last year’s inaugural edition of the list.

Mintz advised the underwriters in connection with the $230 million underwritten offering by Ondas Holdings Inc. of 46,000,000 shares of its common stock, which includes 6,000,000 shares of common stock sold pursuant to the exercise in full by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares of common stock.

Mintz received a pair of awards at LMG’s 2025 “Life Sciences Americas Awards” which recognize the region’s “most distinguished practitioners and their firms for their exemplary work in the Life Sciences legal practice over the past twelve months.”

Member Steve Osborn was quoted in a 9fin article examining compliance concerns related to AI technologies and the steps being taken by regulators and leveraged credit market participants. The article highlights differing views among companies about whether AI could introduce decision bias, particularly in areas like underwriting.

Bloomberg Law published an article written by Cross-Border Asset Recovery Practice Chair Kevin Ainsworth about Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Dev. Corp., where the DC Circuit dismissed a bid to recognize a foreign court judgment confirming a foreign arbitration award against a sovereign. The court held that US federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when such claims are filed after the three-year deadline, and rejected the petitioners’ implied waiver arguments.

World Intellectual Property Review and Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review featured insights from Intellectual Property Division Chair Michael Renaud about Masimo’s decision to sue US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the latest development in its legal battle with Apple. The article notes that it’s uncommon for a patent owner to sue CBP, which is backed by the US International Trade Commission (ITC), and that the results of this action may determine whether patent owners will still be able to rely on exclusion orders as enforcement tools in the future.