In this episode of Mintz On Air: Practical Policies, Jennifer Rubin and Ginny Johnson discuss how artificial intelligence is reshaping corporate governance and the competencies boards need to remain effective. The conversation explores modernizing board composition and director qualifications, addressing “toxic niceness” through candid board evaluations, aligning director recruitment and succession planning with long-term business strategy, and strengthening collaboration between boards and management to better oversee emerging risks and opportunities in an AI-driven environment.

In this edition of MintzTech Connect, Dan DeWolf and Sam Effron explore key developments affecting emerging companies, including a landmark Delaware court decision confirming that public benefit corporation (PBC) directors are not required to maximize shareholder value in change-of-control transactions. The newsletter examines the implications of the ruling for founders, investors, and directors, highlights Mintz’s pro bono partnership with A Good Option (AGO) to support equity-based charitable giving in the startup ecosystem, and features client Retro, a private photo-sharing platform founded by former Instagram executives that recently completed a Series A financing.

In this webinar, Jennifer B. Rubin and Emma Follansbee examine the growing use of AI-powered meeting assistants and automated note-taking tools in the workplace, highlighting the legal, compliance, and operational risks these technologies can create. The presenters discuss key considerations related to privacy, consent, attorney-client privilege, data security, and litigation exposure, as well as the distinctions between enterprise and third-party AI tools. They also offer practical guidance on developing policies, managing vendor relationships, and implementing responsible governance practices to help organizations mitigate the risks associated with AI-generated meeting records.

In this client alert, Jennifer B. Rubin and Brody Zaugg examine four California AI-related employment bills that could impose new obligations on employers using artificial intelligence and workplace monitoring technologies. The proposed legislation would regulate automated decision systems in employment decisions, require additional disclosures for AI-related workforce reductions, restrict the use of emotion-recognition and neural data technologies, and limit workplace surveillance practices. The authors outline the bills’ key requirements and offer practical guidance for employers preparing for increased oversight of AI-powered workplace tools.

In this client alert, Michael S. Arnold, Corbin Carter, and Evan M. Piercey discuss New York’s newly enacted personnel records law, which takes effect on November 8, 2026, and expands employee rights regarding access to and correction of personnel files. The law requires employers to provide personnel records upon request, notify employees when certain negative information is added to their files, allow employees to respond to disputed information, and retain personnel records for three years after separation. The authors also outline key compliance considerations and practical steps employers should take before the law becomes effective.

In this episode of Mintz On Air: Practical Policies, Jen Rubin and Tali Tuchin discuss the growing role of AI in commercial contract negotiations, highlighting both its efficiencies and limitations. They explore how AI can streamline contract review, drafting, and issue spotting, while emphasizing that human judgment remains essential for assessing legal and business risk, navigating negotiation dynamics, building trust, and crafting practical solutions. The conversation offers guidance on using AI as a tool to enhance, rather than replace, the experience and judgment that drive successful negotiations.

In this announcement, Dan DeWolf highlights Mintz’s partnership with A Good Option (AGO), a nonprofit promoting equity-based charitable giving within the startup ecosystem. Through its pro bono program, Mintz is advising AGO on governance, equity donation structures, and other legal and operational matters, while supporting efforts to encourage founders, investors, startup employees, and fund managers to incorporate philanthropy early in their entrepreneurial journeys through pre-liquidity equity pledges.

In this article, Dan DeWolf and Neelam Karamchandani discuss the Delaware Court of Chancery’s landmark Drakes Landing decision, which held that Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) directors are not required to maximize shareholder value in change-of-control transactions. Instead, PBC boards must balance shareholder interests, stakeholder impacts, and the company’s stated public benefit, while benefiting from statutory safe-harbor protections when acting on an informed and disinterested basis. The decision provides founders and directors with greater flexibility to preserve mission-driven objectives in M&A transactions, while underscoring the importance of documenting the board’s balancing process.

AI prompt injections are an emerging workplace risk that can manipulate AI-driven hiring and decision-making systems using hidden instructions embedded in otherwise ordinary documents. In this Mintz On Air podcast, employment attorneys Jen Rubin and Kevin Kim discuss how candidates can game AI tools through prompt and data injections, the security and confidentiality risks posed by unauthorized AI use, and practical steps employers can take, including human oversight, employee training, vendor diligence, and stronger AI governance.

As candidate screening becomes more complex with the rise of AI-generated applications, deepfakes, and evolving background check regulations, employers must balance effective vetting with legal compliance. This article discusses common screening pitfalls, key requirements under federal, state, and local laws, and practical strategies for designing background check processes that mitigate hiring risks while ensuring fair and individualized candidate assessments.

As states continue to expand restrictions on non-compete agreements, employers face an increasingly complex patchwork of compliance requirements. This article highlights new laws in Virginia and Tennessee that limit the enforceability of certain non-competes, introduce new employer obligations, and reflect a broader national trend toward tighter regulation of restrictive covenants. Employers, particularly those with multi-state workforces, should review existing agreements and policies to ensure compliance with evolving state laws.

As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into corporate decision-making, boards must balance the benefits of AI with their fiduciary obligations to shareholders. While AI can enhance efficiency, research, and strategic analysis, it cannot replace the human judgment, accountability, and oversight required of board members. This article explores the legal, governance, and confidentiality risks associated with AI in the boardroom and highlights practical considerations for developing policies that support responsible AI use.

You built something real. Now you want to get paid: whether through acquisition, fundraise, or IPO. But a few preventable mistakes can crater your valuation or kill a deal entirely. Here’s what to lock down before anyone runs diligence on your company. Address these items at the outset before they become obstacles, to see your efforts pay dividends at the conclusion.

Our first installment of the Contract Traps: A Field Guide series helped you spot common pitfalls in “standard” customer agreements. Now, Part 2 raises the stakes.

In this installment we walk through six more provisions that can quietly shift risk onto emerging companies, from clauses that let customers rewrite the rules mid‑contract to warranty language that turns routine service hiccups into breach claims. We also highlight how seemingly harmless terms around termination, change of control, and affiliates can surface later, often at the worst possible time, like during a financing or sale. A close read now can help you avoid costly surprises down the line.

Host Gary J. Ross talks with Daniel DeWolf, Co-chair of the VC/EC practice at Mintz and adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, about the practice of venture capital funds warehousing investments.

SAFEs (the acronym for “Simple Agreement for Future Equity”) are a widely used financing tool for companies seeking to raise capital quickly and with minimal friction—particularly early‑stage companies that are not yet ready for a priced equity round. In recent years, we have seen many early-stage companies attract M&A interest before their outstanding SAFEs have converted. This trend makes it especially timely to revisit how the standard Y Combinator forms of SAFE address investor payouts when a company is sold prior to conversion, and whether investors should demand more for their high-risk investments.