Who Gets a Refund? Reverberations From the SCOTUS Tariffs Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States has clipped the power of the executive branch in ruling that President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs was illegal. The decision is leading thousands of companies to seek refunds, and threatening to upend trade agreements the U.S. previously struck with countries seeking lower rates. Meanwhile, the administration is vowing to implement new tariffs using different legal statutes.

Just how much does this ruling curb the will of the president? Will businesses and households get refunds? And what’s in store for the future of global trade?

Join The Sidley Podcast host and Sidley partner, Sam Gandhi, as he speaks with two of the firm’s thought leaders on these issues — Ted Murphy, co-leader of Sidley’s Global Arbitration, Trade, and Advocacy practice, and Kwaku Akowuah, co-leader of the firm’s Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. Together, they discuss the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling and its impact on executive power, the effect of the decision on businesses, consumers, and supply chains, and the prospects for those who request refunds.

 Executive Producer: John Metaxas, WallStreetNorth Communications, Inc.

Transcript

Who Gets a Refund? Reverberations From the SCOTUS Tariffs Decision

Sam Gandhi, Ted Murphy, and Kwaku Akowuah

March 2026

Sam Gandhi:

The Supreme Court of the United States has clipped the power of the executive in ruling that President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs are illegal. The decision is leading thousands of companies to seek refunds and threatening to upend trade agreements the U.S. previously struck with countries seeking lower rates. Meanwhile, the Administration is vowing to implement new tariffs using different legal statutes. 

Ted Murphy:

There’s $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs paid by over 330,000 importers and we think those importers are eligible legally for a refund.

Sam Gandhi:

That’s Ted Murphy, co-leader of Sidley’s Global Arbitration, Trade, and Advocacy practice. 

Kwaku Akowuah:

The most important thing about this decision is to tell you that the Supreme Court is totally disunified about how to think about these executive power questions. 

Sam Gandhi:

And that’s Kwaku Akowuah, a co-leader of Sidley’s Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. Just how much does this ruling curb the will of the President? Will businesses and households get refunds, and what’s in store for the future of global trade? We’ll find out in today’s podcast. 

From the international law firm Sidley Austin, this is The Sidley Podcast, where we tackle cutting-edge issues in the law and put them in perspective for business people today. I’m Sam Gandhi.

Hello, and welcome to this edition of The Sidley Podcast. Ted, Kwaku, great to welcome you to Episode 51 of the podcast.

Ted Murphy:

Thanks, Sam, it’s great to be here.

Kwaku Akowuah:

Likewise, great to be back. 

Sam Gandhi:

Last the month, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the broad tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed in a series of executive orders. In a six to three decision, the Justices ruled that the tariffs exceed the powers given to the President by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats. Kwaku, from your perspective on executive power, how monumental is this ruling as a check on the President’s authority?

Kwaku Akowuah:

Sam, I guess I have three perspectives in mind on this, each of which appeals to me at various moments of the day, and maybe some of your listeners will relate, maybe even Ted too. So, one, it’s obviously monumental, head-slappingly so, why we are talking about it? Two, it’s a big deal, but let’s not overstate it. It doesn’t change a lot of the power that the President has stacked in this area. And the third would be to say the most important thing about this decision is to tell you the Supreme Court is totally disunified about how to think about these executive power questions. 

So, as to why it is obviously monumental, and for the reasons why one would think so, we’re talking about trillions of dollars of trade while a lot of our trade partners billions of dollars of revenue. A super majority of the Supreme Court, including two members of the Court appointed by President Trump himself, telling the President that he’s gone too far. And if you take that perspective, you can sort of say, look, there’s no way around it. It’s huge, especially in the context of an Administration that’s flexing its muscles on executive power, to get that kind of rebuke from the Supreme Court matters, and matters quite a bit.

The second perspective, it’s big, but not so big, so don’t get carried away. One way to think about it is, what this is really doing is returning the law to the baseline where pretty much everyone thought we were before President Trump started his second term and asserted the power that was claimed under IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to raise and lower tariffs as much and as little, and whenever and wherever he sees fit. Okay, so the law now says, according to the Supreme Court, IEEPA doesn’t give the President unlimited authority in that way, but there’s no doubt that IEEPA continues to give the President, this President and every other President, enormous power to regulate international commerce. 

Just think about all the sanctions and licensing regimes that are in place and are very, very consequential. And even with respect to tariffs, and I know Ted will have a lot of thoughts on this, with respect to tariffs there are many other statutes that give the President significant discretion, not the kind of unlimited discretion that was claimed under IEEPA, but still significant discretion to impose and change tariff rates as a tool of economic and foreign policy. So, I think we can look at the decision as preserving a lot of executive authority, while slicing off a big claim, but not one that really changes the overall scope. 

And then I think the third perspective is to say the Supreme Court left open a lot, when it comes to how we’re going to think about, how we and they are going to think about these executive power questions. I mean, there are 170 pages of opinions from seven Justices and they really lay bare disputes among them about how to think about questions like what is the Major Questions Doctrine, which you can think of and we’ve talked about before on this podcast, as the idea if an agency claims a power big enough and grand enough, query what exactly that limit is. But big enough and grand enough, then the agency needs to look to, and be able to point to, very clear congressional authorization to exercise that power. 

The six Justices who ruled against the President split on that, that Justices, even who sided with the Chief, disagree of exactly how to think about what the Major Questions Doctrine is. Justices who dissented say we agree that the Major Questions Doctrine is important, but for various reasons it doesn’t apply here. There are even disputes about whether individual Justices have been consistent about this question across cases, and so that is going to continue to play out and will shape future disputes. 

And then you have the question that only Justice Thomas really reached in full, but is important too, which is, if you had read IEEPA, to give the President the scope of authority claimed would that be constitutional at all, and would that be too big a blank check? Would it violate, in more formal terms, the Nondelegation Doctrine? Justice Thomas said, no, it wouldn’t be unconstitutional, but behind that door is a whole range of other important questions that could arise in future circumstances. So, I think, one way to think about this case is as laying bare this whole range of disputes, among the nine most important judges in the country, about how to think about executive power claims, when power is conferred by a statute.

Sam Gandhi:

This President is not very shy about taking things all the way to the Supreme Court. 

Kwaku Akowuah:

Sure.

Sam Gandhi:

Do you think the makeup of the Court, the way it is right now, is such that we in the near future are going to have a definitive view of what the limits are on executive power, vis-à-vis Congress, in these contexts? Or do you think they’re still totally disunified and that’s not going to happen anytime soon? 

Kwaku Akowuah:

I doubt we’re going to get one unified view, both because you have these underlying disputes and because they are likely to try and take these cases one at a time as they come up, and so limit the exact scope of their ruling and the reasoning to individual disputes. So, I think we’re going to get data points along the way that we’re going to try our best to map a line from.

Sam Gandhi:

So, Ted, we talked a little bit about the limits on executive power, but this is, at the end of the day, a commercial issue. And so from a commercial standpoint, what’s the impact of this decision?

Ted Murphy:

It’s a pretty impact. I think our view is that based on the Supreme Court decision, importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs are eligible for a refund legally. So, there’s 166 billion in IEEPA tariffs paid by over 330,000 importers, according to the government, and we think those importers are eligible legally for a refund. In the Supreme Court decision, the Court struck down the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, so they struck down the tariffs from inception. They did not try to have their ruling only apply prospectively, for example, so we there’s an eligibility for a refund. How you get the refund, however, is still an open question. 

So, we’ve always been sort of advocating for a belt and suspenders approach, given that it was unclear how the refund process will shake out, and it’s still, frankly, a little bit unclear as to how the refund process will shake out. Sort of the belt, in this belt and suspenders analogy is, pursuing refunds through the administrative agency. So, our view is that while it may have been futile to go to the agency before the Supreme Court issued its decision, it is not futile to go to the agency once the Supreme Court has finally determined that the IEEPA tariffs are invalid. 

In other words, the principle here is you don’t need to ask the agency for a refund before the Supreme Court decision because at that point the agency is not empowered or equipped to decide whether the IEEPA tariffs are legal or illegal. But post-Supreme Court decision, they’re not deciding whether the IEEPA tariffs are legal or illegal, they’re just deciding whether an importer paid an already determined illegal tariff. So, we think the administrative process importers need to keep an eye on that. There are some time deadlines that matter and they need to take steps to preserve their right. 

Sort of the suspenders, in this approach, is to consider filing your own lawsuit at the U.S. Court of International Trade, which the Supreme Court determined was the right U.S. court to hear these cases. And you know as of today, March 16, there’s more than 2,800 cases pending at the Court of International Trade and it could make sense, in certain circumstances, for importers to file their own case and some circumstances it may not make sense. That’s why we’ve only seen 2,800 companyies file suit out of the 330 or so thousand who have paid the tariff. 

But interestingly, in the last week or so, the Court of International Trade rather than waiting for the test case, the VOS, or VOS selections that went up to the Supreme Court, to be returned, they have moved on. They picked a case that had been recently filed, post-Supreme Court decision, and the Court, the CIT, started issuing orders in that case ordering the government to refund the IEEPA tariffs paid basically by anyone. So, not just the tariffs paid by the plaintiff in the case the CIT chose, but instead ordered the government to refund the IEEPA tariffs to anyone and everyone who paid them. 

That is a relatively new development. The government hasn’t made clear whether it intends to appeal the CIT’s orders, but in the meantime the agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has been submitting status reports to the court explaining that they are working on an administrative process to help through their electronic system the automated commercial environment, or ACE, to effectuate the refund process. And they had told the court that they thought this process would be up and running in 45 days. So, that is a very positive development, but again, given that we don’t know whether or not the government intends to appeal for this, we’re not recommending that folks rely on that development. 

It’s a very good development. It’s sort of another something to add to belts and suspenders, but it’s not something to rely on, at least not yet, by itself. So, we’ll see what’s going on there. So, that’s sort of the refund side of the process, or the fallout from the Supreme Court decision, and you can imagine there’s a lot of commercial issues that then flow from that. In the last week or so, we’ve seen class actions be filed against a number of companies, you know, consumer class actions, basically saying if a retailer, who was an importer, is going to get a refund, we the consumer want that refund passed back to us. 

I think over a dozen of those cases have now been filed, we expect more, but the broader principle is that lots of folks these tariffs were quite significant and were imposed quite quickly, so they certainly had commercial implications, both up the chain and down the chain in terms of price increases. And there are lots of discussions going on now commercially between parties saying how are we all going to share in what is hopefully a refund process? It’s quite a large undertaking and again, as I said, it’s worth a 166 billion plus interest, so it continues to grow until the government refunds the tariffs. 

Sam Gandhi:

Who actually has standing to get a refund? You noted that there were reports of individuals coming together in class actions and suing large retailers. As an individual, can I sue the government for a refund? Who has standing to get a refund? 

Ted Murphy:

I think it’s the folks who paid the government the tariffs are the ones who are entitled to a refund from the government of the illegal tariffs, so anything beyond that is, I think, more of a commercial issue. So, again, if someone passed on a price increase, the question is, is someone who paid that price increase now commercially eligible? But the folks who are going to get refunds from the government are the folks who paid the tariffs to the government, i.e., the importers, those 330,000 companies that the government said had paid the tariffs to date. 

Sam Gandhi:

How long is this going to take? 

Ted Murphy:

That’s a very good question and the answer is we don’t know. And the main reason why we don’t know is because we don’t know if the government intends to contest the payment of refunds. So, if you listen to President Trump’s press conference, the Friday the Supreme Court decision came out, he took the position that because the Supreme Court did not say anything about refunds, he does not have to pay refunds. I think that is to call that a minority view of, you know, what the Supreme Court decision means is probably an understatement, but the point is we don’t know. We don’t know yet. 

As I mentioned, the Court of International Trade has issued an order in one case ordering the government to pay refunds to more or less everyone, but we don’t know yet whether the Department of Justice is going to appeal that decision. If they don’t appeal the decision, the refund process could be relatively quick, by that I probably mean a year or two to get through the process. If the government tries to contest the issuance of refunds, further to President Trump’s statements in his press conference, that could certainly extend it much longer. 

The government has used an analogy of a similar situation back in the late ‘90s involving a tax that was imposed on exports that went all the way up to the Supreme Court and was found to be unconstitutional. The government has said that, that process took about seven years to resolve. Again, that was a different time, that was sort of pre-computers, and there were also a number of follow-on test cases that went all the way through the court system. So, I’m not sure that’s a great analogy, or an apt analogy, but that would at least give you a sense of potentially what we’re talking about here. It would probably be measured in years, not months. 

Sam Gandhi:

If you're interested in information on the energy industry, tune into the latest episode of Sidley's Accelerating Energy podcast, hosted by our partner, Ken Irvin. Ken was joined by Terence Healey of Sidley’s Energy Practice and Todd Snitchler, President and CEO of EPSA. They discuss how regional transmission organizations are responding to large load growth, the implications of FERC’s co-location order, the White House’s intervention, and the expanding role of states in an increasingly stressed power market. 

You can subscribe to Sidley’s Accelerating Energy podcast wherever you get your podcasts. 

You’re listening to The Sidley Podcast, and we’re speaking with Ted Murphy, co-leader of Sidley’s Global Arbitration, Trade, and Advocacy practice, and Kwaku Akowuah, co-leader of the firm’s Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. We’re talking about the Supreme Court’s tariffs rulings and its impact on executive power, the effect of the decision on businesses, consumers, and supply chains, and the prospects for those who request refunds. 

So, last month during his state of the union address, President Trump publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling against his global tariffs and I quote “a very unfortunate ruling.” Several of the Justices were in attendance. So Kwaku putting this decision up against other cases in the Court’s docket involving this Administration, what do you think in terms of the direction of these other cases? And what could we learn for how the High Court may rule on other business-related decisions brought by the government? 

Kwaku Akowuah:

Well, Sam, you mentioned earlier that the Trump Administration has not exactly been shy about taking cases to the Supreme Court. I think there are three other big ticket executive power cases at the Supreme Court, right now this term. Two have already been argued, one has an argument coming up, none is exactly a business case in the dollar and cents way that the tariffs case has been, but they all go to the government’s environment, I would say. So, one is Trump vs. Cook, which has to do with whether the President can remove a federal governor, Governor Cook, for cause. 

The second is Trump vs. Slaughter, which is whether the President can remove a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission without cause for any reason or no reason. And then a third is Trump vs. Barbara, which has to do with birthright citizenship. And so, it’s not exactly clear what the tariff decision will presage about any of that. These are obviously very different issues. One thing you could suggest looking forward is that the Supreme Court is likely, in general terms, to keep giving a really broad sweep to the President to control the executive branch with some limitations and markup. But the Supreme Court may be more protective, in general, when it comes to private citizens and private rights. 

So, if you take that frame, how does that play out across these cases? Trump vs. Slaughter, this is the Federal Trade Commission case, I share the view that I think most observers of the Supreme Court share, that the Supreme Court is very likely to overrule an old case called Humphrey’s Executor. That’s really been the platform for what we call independent agencies in the United States, when you think about agencies like the Securities Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, that have these multimember bodies, they have balance in a way. 

There will be two commissioners from one party and three from the other and the composition of those bodies is generally fixed across administrations for terms because the heads of those agencies aren’t removable easily or without significant cause by the President. And that gives them a measure of independence, they just can’t be fired for making decisions that the President thinks are bad unlike, of course, the Attorney General or the Head of the Department of Homeland Security or something like that. In general, we think after Trump vs. Slaughter, that’s going to go away and the heads of those agencies will be just as responsive to the President as other high-ranking government officials. 

There are going to be some carve outs from that, the tea leaves are, and one important carve out is the Fed. So, in the Trump vs. Cook case that brings up the Fed, and there the President’s position actually isn’t I can fire for any reason or no reason. The president’s position is instead that he can fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board for cause and the president’s position is that, here, the cause is that Governor Cook likely engaged in mortgage fraud or at a minimum acted with gross negligence with respect to the submission of residential mortgage applications. And I think the tea leaves there are that the Court is likely to buttress the carve out that it’s likely to draw for the Fed, by imposing a set of procedural checks for when the President wants to remove a Fed governor for cause. And the goal there, and this came across at oral argument, is really to preserve a sphere of independence in the monetary policymaking functions of the Fed. 

So, I think what we’re going to see in the government authority side, is the President has lots of authority to structure and run the federal government with some limited carve outs where Congress insulates the President’s control. Then turning to the private rights side, we’ll see where the birthright citizenship arguments play out. That’ll be coming up a few weeks from now in early April, but I think probably the majority view is that the President’s lawyers are going to have a very hard time really persuading the Court of the President’s position. 

And just to take a step back, what’s at stake is an executive order that President Trump issued, right at the beginning of his administration, that said it’s actually the traditional view, which is that anyone born in the United States, bracketing very narrow exceptions like the children of diplomats, or whose parents are not here in a lawful status at all, those people are citizens of the United States, as a matter of right, by virtue of their birth within the United States. The view expressed in the executive order is, well, not quite. There is a carve out in the constitutional phrase, let’s people who are born in the United States in subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that carves out people who, for example, are the children of people who are here on various visa statuses that aren’t permanent. 

Someone who’s here on a tourist visa, a student visa, and has a child the child doesn’t have an automatic right to birthright citizenship under the President’s view. So, will that hold up? I think we can start testing my tentative outline. If that tentative outline is right, I think the Supreme Court will be quite hesitant to allow the President through unilateral executive action, like an executive order, to reshape the scope of birthright citizenship. One way it might play out is for the Court to avoid the constitutional question and say, look, if Congress wants to change the baseline rule the way we thought it’s been, let them write a statute. Let a President sign it into law, that will tee up the constitutional question and it can be decided then, but all we have right now is the word of one President and that’s not enough. 

Now, kind of the major question line of thinking ordered over, not just from the tariff case but from others, to the birthright citizenship context. We’ll see how all of that plays out. But I think those are at least one way to start looking for, if the various points on the scatter plot are forming lines along the lines I just described.

Sam Gandhi:

Why do you think that the majority thinks that tariffs is a major question, but birthright citizenship may or may not be? What determines that line, in your view? 

Kwaku Akowuah:

We’ll see. We don’t have an indication from the Supreme Court yet of whether they view the birthright citizenship question as a “major question” within the terms of the doctrine. The Court did hear an argument last term that came up in the birthright citizenship context, but asked, answered a different question about in general what’s the scope of authority of district courts to impose preliminary injunctions? And in that context, I mean, I think the way the argument played out did show that the Supreme Court takes this issue seriously. 

Some of the Justices invited the solicitor general, during that argument, to bring this question back. The solicitor general promised to do so and made good on that promise. So, I don’t think that they in any view the birthright citizenship question as unimportant. I think they view it as very important. Whether they will think it’s a major question, I’m not sure. 

Sam Gandhi:

Ted, I want to get back to you in terms of the commercial aspects of the tariffs. Immediately after the Supreme Court ruled against the President, the Administration sought to implement new tariffs using other statutory authorities that may or may not be more palatable to the Court. How meaningful is this decision from a tariff and a commercial standpoint, if the President already is moving on to plan B? 

Ted Murphy:

It is very consequential in a number of ways. One, the obvious one is sort of economic that, again, importers paid 166 billion dollars of tariffs under IEEPA and the Supreme Court decision is significant in that, again, we believe it provides an eligibility for a refund. I think it’s also significant in the sense that, maybe just piggybacking off of your previous question, the Constitution does bestow the power on Congress to impose tariffs and Congress can delegate that authority to the President in statutes, and it has done so in a number of statutes. 

So, the question really is whether or not IEEPA provided the power to, was one of those statutes, did IEEPA provide the President with the power to impose tariffs? And the reason why the Administration chose IEEPA is because it was a statute that comes with no restrictions or requirements. In other words, there’s no limitations whatsoever. The President can take action if a national emergency is declared, and the President is the who gets to declare the national emergency, so they chose this path sort of deliberately. 

And again if you go back to even the campaign trail before the election, President Trump was talking not just about tariffs, but was also talking about not wanting to get bogged down in process, and so he picked a statute that came with no required process. There’s no public hearings, there’s no requirement to accept public comments or any input on these decisions. It’s just something the President can do on his or her own initiative. 

The other statutes, generally the other trade statutes that allow the President to impose tariffs, they generally come with certain requirements. Either, like you mentioned, the use of Section 122 of the Trade Act, which the President used to impose a 10 percent tariff on everyone immediately following the Supreme Court decision, but that statute comes with limitations. The President can only impose a tariff of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days, so there are limitations. Or since you’ve subsequently seen the Administration initiate a number of Section 301 investigations, which are likely to lead to the imposition of tariffs, but Section 301 comes with some significant required process. 

So, again, I think the case is significant in the sense that, at least from the trade practitioner’s point of view, it’s sort of saying that there are these statutes the President can use to impose tariffs. The President just has to go through the required process or be subject to the limitations Congress has imposed in those statutes, and IEEPA doesn’t do it. It’s not the just the money, it is, as Kwaku was saying, Presidential power and whether or not there’s a blank check or not, and that’s basically what IEEPA would provide in the tariff context, if the Administration’s theory was successful. 

Sam Gandhi:

Given this decision and given all the issues that we’ve talked about, what are you telling clients?

Ted Murphy:

We’re telling clients several things. From the big picture standpoint, what we’re telling clients is the direction of travel is clear. That, in other words, tariffs are a fundamental part of President Trump’s overall sort of strategy for the United States. And whether they’re IEEPA tariffs, or Section 232, or Section 301, or some other tariff, tariffs are likely here to stay at roughly the 10 to 15 percent level, so it’s going to be a big change. Where before President Trump, we probably had an average tariff rate of around two percent, we’ll probably have an average tariff rate of around 15 percent going forward, and that’s the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future, regardless of which mechanism he uses to impose those tariffs. 

So, that’s point one, it’s sort of a new world for a lot of companies that had playbooks based on trade liberalization or the globalization of the previous trade paradigm. One of the things we say is like nobody really knows exactly what the future is going to look like, but we’re a hundred percent sure it’s not going to look like the past. So, you’ve got to be prepared for living in a higher tariff rate environment, which is oftentimes less economically efficient, so you’ve got to adjust your planning accordingly. 

In a little more picture sense is certainly for those companies who have paid the IEEPA tariffs, you know, pursue a refund. Again, we think those companies that paid the tariffs are eligible for a refund and there’s a lot of money at stake. And whether you do it on the administrative path, the litigation path, or we don’t recommend waiting solely for the orders that are being issued in this case called Atmus Filtration, but we recommend you take steps to preserve your right to that refund, and follow that case and act accordingly once the refund process becomes clear.

Sam Gandhi:

And Kwaku what are you telling clients?

Kwaku Akowuah:

Sam, a lot of the conversations I’ve been having with clients are around like, well, what do we do with the uncertainty engendered policymaking like this, both the tariffs, specifically, and then just broader shifts in decision making by the administration? What does it mean now in a world where, yes, the Supreme Court ultimately said what a lot of people thought in the beginning, which is that IEEPA didn’t give us authority and nonetheless we’re stuck unwinding this mess after it took a year for the courts to work it out. 

And I think that kind of goes to the question that the Supreme Court has been trying to deal with as executive power questions have become more and more prominent, which is when and what circumstances should the courts get in early to block the policy from taking effect? And in what circumstances should they wait, so they can get a more developed picture of what different judges think, what the facts are, and works its way all the way up? 

And I think you can see the downsides of the wait and see approach in the tariff world, where, you know, have had time to think about it and write a long opinion, but there’s a big economic mess at the end, which is something they recognized in November, but then took them several months still. So, I think there’s some disquiet, I would say, among some of our clients about how you can go to courts for remedy, when is that going to actually come to pass, how long will it take to get there, and what will things look like in the interim?

Sam Gandhi:

We’ve been speaking with Sidley thought leaders Ted Murphy and Kwaku Akowuah about the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling and what it may mean for upcoming decisions involving the government, whether the Administration has alternate legal means to reimplement its trade agenda, and how we’re advising clients in the aftermath of this tariffs case. Ted and Kwaku thanks for sharing your insights on the podcast. I appreciate it.  

Ted Murphy:

Thanks, Sam.

Kwaku Akowuah:

Thank you, Sam.

Sam Gandhi:

You’ve been listening to The Sidley Podcast. I’m Sam Gandhi. Our executive producer is John Metaxas, and our managing editor is Karen Tucker. Listen to more episodes at Sidley.com/SidleyPodcast and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.                                                         

This presentation has been prepared by Sidley Austin LLP and Affiliated Partnerships (the Firm) for informational purposes and is not legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. All views and opinions expressed in this presentation are our own and you should not act upon this information without seeking advice from a lawyer licensed in your own jurisdiction. The Firm is not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content of this presentation or for damages arising from the use or performance of this presentation under any circumstances. Do not send us confidential information until you speak with one of our lawyers and receive our authorization to send that information to us. Providing information to the Firm will not create an attorney-client relationship in the absence of an express agreement by the Firm to create such a relationship, and will not prevent the Firm from representing someone else in connection with the matter in question or a related matter. The Firm makes no warranties, representations or claims of any kind concerning the information presented on or through this presentation. Attorney Advertising - Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, +1 312 853 7000. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.