1. Locations /
Atlanta

Atlanta

Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Directions

T: +1 404 572 6600

F: +1 404 572 6999

One Atlantic Center, 14th Floor
1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30309-3471
United States

BCLP's Atlanta office was established in 1909 and has deep roots in the Atlanta legal community, operating as Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy for nearly a century before merging with Bryan Cave in 2009. The Atlanta office is now one of the firm’s largest. Our attorneys have a long history of working with large and midsize international companies based in the Southeast, with lawyers practicing in the areas of antitrust, banking, business and finance, employee benefits, employment, M&A and corporate transactions, insurance, intellectual property and trade secrets, media and advertising, real estate, tax, technology and commercial transactions, and litigation.

Our Atlanta-based attorneys are often integral to firmwide support of national and global clients owing to BCLP’s “One Firm” way of doing business. The firm is known for its relationship-driven, collaborative culture and industry-shaping innovation, with efficient resourcing and technology tools allowing Atlanta attorneys to collaborate with colleagues around the world and help clients wherever they might be.

Our lawyers and staff are active members of the Atlanta community. Outside of work, we support a variety of community initiatives, including the Atlanta Children’s Center, Atlanta Legal Aid, Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation, Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Atlanta, the Cobb Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, True Colors Theatre Company, United Way and the Woodruff Arts Center.

Meet The Team

View All Related Professionals 

Eric P. Schroeder

Office Managing Partner, Atlanta

+1 404 572 6894

View Profile 

Meet The Team

View All Related Professionals 

Eric P. Schroeder

Office Managing Partner, Atlanta

+1 404 572 6894

View Profile 

Meet The Team

Eric P. Schroeder

Office Managing Partner, Atlanta

+1 404 572 6894

View Profile 

Related Insights

View All Related Insights

Insights
May 16, 2024

Navigating the FemTech regulatory landscape

Security, scale or functionality – pick two. This computer science principle coined by the late Professor Anderson is particularly relevant to the FemTech industry. Anderson’s Rule states that for a system to provide high functionality and security, its access may need to be limited (small scale); alternatively, offering high functionality on a larger scale, may require an acceptance of risk, e.g. of inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of information. In real life systems - including FemTech - a balance must be struck. It is no surprise, then, that the regulatory landscape for FemTech is complex and fragmented. Different jurisdictions approach the question of health/medical data in diverse ways and apply different laws and standards to the protection of personal data. All these rules are ultimately intended to mitigate the risks to personal data posed by large databases of sensitive personal information while facilitating the benefits. In part two of our series, we examine the UK, EU and US regulatory privacy landscapes and enforcement priorities and how they apply to the FemTech sector. For more, read our previous article "What is femtech and how can it meet the privacy needs of its users?".
Insights
Jan 29, 2024

Navigating the Corporate Transparency Act maze: hidden pitfalls of employee structuring for the large operating company exemption

*A significant point of consideration for larger, privately held companies lies in the structuring of their employee base. Many companies opt for a structure where all employees are retained in a separate subsidiary or subsidiaries for various operational reasons, including tax benefits and employment-related efficiencies. However, under the CTA, this common practice could inadvertently expose companies to reporting requirements.With the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) now in effect, it is crucial for privately held mid-sized and large companies to look into and re-examine their corporate structures to ensure compliance with the new law. While the CTA primarily targets smaller companies in lightly regulated industries, larger companies should not automatically assume they and all of their affiliates are exempt from its reporting requirements. This is particularly true for those using common employee structures where employees are retained in separate subsidiaries or affiliates of a holding or operating company of the business. Such structures could inadvertently place the holding and operating companies, as well as their subsidiaries, under the ambit of CTA’s reporting requirements, underscoring the need for a comprehensive review of such businesses’ corporate and employment structures to ensure full compliance with the CTA. We will discuss the employee prong of the “large operating company” exemption in more detail below, with examples of how an organization’s structure might affect the analysis.
Insights
Sep 01, 2023

SEC Proposes Stringent New Conflict-of-Interest Rules Regarding Broker-Dealers’ and Investment Advisers’ Use of AI

On July 26, 2023, the majority of the Commissioners of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) voted to propose new rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to regulate the use of artificial intelligence technologies (“AI”) by broker-dealers and investment advisers registered, or required to be registered, with the SEC (collectively, “Firms”) to prevent Firms from using such technologies in ways that advance their interests ahead of those of their investor-clients. Interested parties have until October 10, 2023, to submit comments to shape any final rules that may be promulgated. The proposals implicate two central themes that the debate on emerging AI regulation commonly presents:  (1) what constitutes “AI” or other covered technology for purposes of such regulation, and (2) does existing law effectively address the perceived harms or risks to be regulated?

Related Insights

News
Jun 24, 2024
BCLP supports Ipsos in an original investment program for its managers within a listed environment
News
May 24, 2024
BCLP trial team saves client from monetary reputational damages in years-long dispute
News
May 24, 2024
BCLP’s strategic defense in herbicide dispute secures win for Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc.
Insights
May 16, 2024
Navigating the FemTech regulatory landscape
Security, scale or functionality – pick two. This computer science principle coined by the late Professor Anderson is particularly relevant to the FemTech industry. Anderson’s Rule states that for a system to provide high functionality and security, its access may need to be limited (small scale); alternatively, offering high functionality on a larger scale, may require an acceptance of risk, e.g. of inadvertent or deliberate disclosure of information. In real life systems - including FemTech - a balance must be struck. It is no surprise, then, that the regulatory landscape for FemTech is complex and fragmented. Different jurisdictions approach the question of health/medical data in diverse ways and apply different laws and standards to the protection of personal data. All these rules are ultimately intended to mitigate the risks to personal data posed by large databases of sensitive personal information while facilitating the benefits. In part two of our series, we examine the UK, EU and US regulatory privacy landscapes and enforcement priorities and how they apply to the FemTech sector. For more, read our previous article "What is femtech and how can it meet the privacy needs of its users?".
News
Apr 18, 2024
BCLP partner re-elected to Atlanta Bar Association Litigation Section Board of Directors
News
Mar 06, 2024
Berry, Glatfelter merge businesses in $3.6 billion spinoff
Insights
Jan 29, 2024
Navigating the Corporate Transparency Act maze: hidden pitfalls of employee structuring for the large operating company exemption
*A significant point of consideration for larger, privately held companies lies in the structuring of their employee base. Many companies opt for a structure where all employees are retained in a separate subsidiary or subsidiaries for various operational reasons, including tax benefits and employment-related efficiencies. However, under the CTA, this common practice could inadvertently expose companies to reporting requirements.With the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) now in effect, it is crucial for privately held mid-sized and large companies to look into and re-examine their corporate structures to ensure compliance with the new law. While the CTA primarily targets smaller companies in lightly regulated industries, larger companies should not automatically assume they and all of their affiliates are exempt from its reporting requirements. This is particularly true for those using common employee structures where employees are retained in separate subsidiaries or affiliates of a holding or operating company of the business. Such structures could inadvertently place the holding and operating companies, as well as their subsidiaries, under the ambit of CTA’s reporting requirements, underscoring the need for a comprehensive review of such businesses’ corporate and employment structures to ensure full compliance with the CTA. We will discuss the employee prong of the “large operating company” exemption in more detail below, with examples of how an organization’s structure might affect the analysis.
Webinars
Sep 01, 2023
Preparing for the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)
Insights
Sep 01, 2023
SEC Proposes Stringent New Conflict-of-Interest Rules Regarding Broker-Dealers’ and Investment Advisers’ Use of AI
On July 26, 2023, the majority of the Commissioners of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) voted to propose new rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to regulate the use of artificial intelligence technologies (“AI”) by broker-dealers and investment advisers registered, or required to be registered, with the SEC (collectively, “Firms”) to prevent Firms from using such technologies in ways that advance their interests ahead of those of their investor-clients. Interested parties have until October 10, 2023, to submit comments to shape any final rules that may be promulgated. The proposals implicate two central themes that the debate on emerging AI regulation commonly presents:  (1) what constitutes “AI” or other covered technology for purposes of such regulation, and (2) does existing law effectively address the perceived harms or risks to be regulated?