On November 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense announced a comprehensive overhaul of its procurement strategy named the “Acquisition Transformation Strategy” (ATS). The ATS envisions a wartime-oriented process that aims to prioritize rapid fielding to get equipment into the hands of warfighters, industrial-base expansion, and tighter coupling of requirements, resourcing, and acquisition execution. The accompanying directives signal a consequential restructuring of U.S. defense acquisition, requirements, and security cooperation processes as the Department aims to disestablish legacy joint requirements governance in favor of an integrated, budget-aligned model that is focused on speed, accountability, and mission outcomes. The new “Warfighting Acquisition System” will replace the existing “Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System,” creating both new opportunities and risks for federal contractors as they navigate shifting compliance expectations and material risk exposures in all aspects of the defense acquisitions process, including budget overruns, timely performance, and exportability of next-generation platforms. 

On November 13, 2025, following the end of the federal government shutdown, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance that offers much‑needed clarity to issuers, underwriters, and advisors navigating filings made during and immediately after the shutdown. With more than 900 registration statements filed during the shutdown, questions quickly mounted regarding automatic effectiveness, the treatment of missing information under Rule 430A, acceleration mechanics, and the status of filings already in the review pipeline. The staff (the Staff) of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance (the Division) addressed these topics directly through a series of Questions and Answers. This alert explains the guidance, describes the practical implications for capital markets and M&A participants, and recommends near‑term steps to adapt filing and transaction timelines.

While Google’s strategy eliminated the short-term risk of a potentially volatile jury, it exposed the company to a devastating, long-term issue preclusion risk. This article explains why Google’s bench-trial gamble backfired, and what antitrust defendants can learn from it.