EU Regulatory Update: Deadlines Loom Under the EU REACH Legislation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.13.13
The EU REACH legislation establishes an integrated system for the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemical substances. It requires all companies (including US-based companies) which manufacture in, or import chemical substances into, the EU in quantities of one ton or more per year to register them with the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, Finland.
Companies which have pre-registered "phase-in" substances (which include those listed in the European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances) benefit from extended registration deadlines. A May 31, 2013 deadline for registration applies to substances produced or imported into the EU in volumes of between 100 and 1000 tons per year per manufacturer or importer.
The REACH legislation requires that the EU member states introduce penalties for non-compliance with its provisions. For example, in the UK, national enforcement provisions provide maximum penalties of an unlimited fine and/or up to two years' imprisonment following conviction on indictment for relevant infringements.
Downstream users of chemical substances should check to ensure that their suppliers have registered the relevant substances. Otherwise, they will be unable to use un-registered substances which will be banned after the deadline.
In order to obtain assistance for compliance with the EU REACH legislation or any other EU regulatory issues, please contact one of the professionals listed below.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25