Podcast appearances and mentions of quinn emanuel

John is joined by Jeffrey N. Boozell and Christopher Tayback, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss wildfire litigation as a specialized and rapidly growing area of law, driven by increasingly destructive fires in California and other western states. What began as a relatively limited practice in the 1990s evolved into a major practice area after large California wildfires generated thousands of property loss claims and billions of dollars in damages. Jeff and Chris explain how these cases are structured, the legal theories involved, and the challenges of compensating victims.Wildfire cases are generally mass torts rather than class actions. Because each homeowner suffers different losses and faces unique causation issues, claims are coordinated before a single judge but remain individual lawsuits.These cases are typically brought against utilities, governments, and private entities that plaintiffs allege bear some responsibility for the disaster. One of the most important legal doctrines in California is inverse condemnation, which imposes liability on public utilities when infrastructure serving the public causes property damage. Under this doctrine, utilities may be responsible for property losses even without proof of negligence, distinguishing California wildfire litigation from cases in many other states.Utilities are also frequently defendants because fires are often linked to power lines, equipment failures, vegetation management issues, or other infrastructure-related problems. Various ignition scenarios may occur, including power lines striking each other in high winds, trees coming into contact with power lines, and improperly maintained equipment. For example, in the Eaton Fire, evidence shows that an old, unused power line was not properly grounded, leading to sparks that ignited the fire. In the Palisades Fire, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power emptied the Santa Ynez Reservoir to carry out repairs and left it empty for an extended period. As a result, firefighting helicopters were unable to collect and drop water from the reservoir, and eventually, fire hydrants in the area ran dry. Utilities understand these risks but often fail to implement adequate preventive measures.Despite involving enormous losses and thousands of claimants, major California wildfire cases rarely reach trial. Instead, courts establish coordinated proceedings, identify bellwether cases, and encourage settlement through mediation programs or compensation funds. Insurance payments often cover only part of a homeowner's losses, leaving substantial uninsured damages and emotional distress claims to be pursued through litigation.The scale of the 2025 Los Angeles-area fires is unprecedented. Estimated damages exceed $200 billion, underscoring why wildfire litigation is likely to remain a significant area of legal practice for years to come.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

What happens when the people arguing the rules become the ones accused of breaking them? In this episode of The Valley Current®, Jack Russo examines a growing crackdown inside America's federal courts, where even elite law firms may no longer be safe. A stunning $3.09 million sanction against Quinn Emanuel highlights a new era of tougher penalties, personal liability, and public judicial rebukes. But the disruption does not stop there. As AI-generated hallucinations and verification failures spread through the legal profession, courts are increasingly punishing attorneys whose filings cross ethical lines. The consequences now reach beyond embarrassment to damaged cases, threatened careers, and potentially uninsurable losses. Are federal courts restoring accountability, or rewriting the rules of legal warfare? Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

John is joined by Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Brussels office. They discuss a major antitrust and competition law class action brought in the United Kingdom against Qualcomm, a leading developer of mobile communications technology.The case was filed as an opt-out class action on behalf of consumers and alleged that Qualcomm had abused a dominant market position by charging excessive patent royalties to smartphone manufacturers, particularly Apple and Samsung. The plaintiff claimed that Qualcomm used its strength as a supplier of mobile chipsets to pressure manufacturers into accepting licensing terms that allegedly resulted in inflated consumer prices. Remarkably, the plaintiff class withdrew the case at the end of the first phase of the trial.European competition law differs from U.S. antitrust law in that it permits claims based not only on the exclusion of rivals, but also on the alleged exploitation of customers through excessive pricing. In this case, the plaintiffs argued that Qualcomm leveraged its market power in chipsets to impose unfair licensing terms. Qualcomm maintained that its licensing model reflected legitimate compensation for decades of innovation and intellectual property development.The trial focused in detail on Qualcomm's relationships with Apple and Samsung. Evidence showed that key licensing arrangements were entered into at times when the manufacturers were not dependent on Qualcomm chipsets, undermining the claim that Qualcomm used chipset supply as leverage. Additional evidence demonstrated that royalty levels did not vary according to the volume of chipset purchases and that customers could obtain licenses independently of chipset transactions. Economic analysis likewise failed to reveal any connection between alleged dependence on Qualcomm products and the royalties ultimately negotiated.The case proceeded to a five-week trial before the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London. The first phase addressed market definition, dominance, liability, and whether the allegedly excessive royalties could nevertheless be justified as reasonable. Before the tribunal issued its ruling on the first phase, the class representative agreed to withdraw the case entirely. Qualcomm paid nothing, each side bore its own costs, and the litigation ended without a judgment.A judge reviewing the withdrawal concluded that the claim had no realistic prospect of success, making the case a rare instance in which a plaintiff abandons a major class action after trial, but before a decision was rendered.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Does your office have a blank 170.6 form ready to go for a certain judge? Stop doing that. A 170.6 peremptory challenge is no longer automatic: the California Supreme Court now authorizes courts to look behind your 170.6. The touchstone is whether your 170.6 is based on a genuine belief of prejudice—or mere grievance.But first, a $3 million sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel in a big‑pharma advertising case, where an expert obtained key clinical data before it was disclosed and the firm failed to correct the record. The Northern District of California called out firm culture, and ordering the attorneys to prepare and lead an eight‑hour ethics MCLE.How a three‑million‑dollar sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel grew out of failures to correct prior statements about expert discovery.The court's criticism of a “culture of bad ethics decisions” and the requirement for a bespoke eight‑hour ethics course.The facts in J.O. v. Superior Court, including 325 peremptory challenges aimed at removing a single judge from conservatorship matters.The new three‑step framework for challenging bad‑faith, blanket 170.6 practices and what counts as a prima facie showing.Strategic implications for lawyers who rely on peremptory challenges in small counties and specialized calendars.What is your firm's 170.6 practice like? Expect any changes after J.O.?

And the Federal Circuit's Schoolhouse Rock moment is as damning as it is embarrassing. ----- Quinn Emanuel earned $3 million in sanctions from Judge Edward Chen, who described a "deeply disturbing" culture of lawyering. But worse, the judge ordered the team involved to complete an 8-hour ethics course that the firm itself must design. The Federal Circuit decided to put together a bizarre theme song and music video for themselves. Along the way, they managed to double down on their shadow impeachment of Judge Pauline Newman by erasing the still active judge from the video. New York has a long history of abusing pregnant women in custody and now we've learned that the courts arraigned a woman while she gave birth in the courtroom -- while she may or may not have been handcuffed.

John is joined by Richard East, Senior Partner of Quinn Emanuel's London office, and Nikolas Bruce-Smith, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's London office. They discuss a major London commercial trial arising from the collapse of Greensill Capital and the resulting litigation between Credit Suisse and SoftBank. The plaintiff alleged that SoftBank sought to orchestrate, for its own ends, a complex restructuring involving the Greensill Group in late 2020, through which approximately US$440 million worth of assets were allegedly placed improperly beyond the reach of creditors while Greensill was in severe financial distress.Following a five-week trial in 2025, and one of the first major trial conclusions arising from the widely publicised Greensill collapse, Credit Suisse's claim failed. SoftBank's conduct was vindicated by the English High Court, which found that SoftBank had acted “in good faith” and “did not know or suspect” that Greensill intended to prejudice its creditors.The trial was especially unique and notable, garnering extensive press attention, because Greensill founder Lex Greensill voluntarily agreed, on the eve of trial, to appear and testify despite not being called by either side and while facing separate legal and regulatory proceedings. A development like this is almost unheard of in complex, high-stakes commercial litigation and required all parties to adapt at the last minute in response to such an extraordinary turn of events as the trial commenced.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The family of Tupac Shakur just made the most aggressive legal move in the nearly thirty-year history of this case. Mopreme Shakur filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court that names Keffe D as the primary defendant and designates up to one hundred additional unnamed individuals as co-conspirators. The filing argues that Tupac's 1996 killing was not a spontaneous act of retaliation — it was a coordinated conspiracy involving people who have never faced a single question under oath.This is the second wrongful death lawsuit connected to Tupac's case, but it bears almost no resemblance to the first. Afeni Shakur's 1997 suit targeted Orlando Anderson alone. That case died when Anderson was killed in 1998. The new lawsuit is built on an entirely different evidentiary foundation — grand jury transcripts that emerged from Keffe D's criminal proceedings and allegations aired in the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning. The complaint describes alleged pre-shooting meetings, financial incentives, and a network of individuals who the family believes helped set the killing in motion.Keffe D has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and awaits trial in August 2026. He once described the shooting in detail in a published memoir and in recorded interviews, but now claims innocence and says he regrets ever speaking publicly about the case. The prosecution is building its case largely on his own statements. The civil suit adds another layer entirely — because in civil court, the Shakur family can compel testimony from individuals who were never charged and access records the criminal case may never touch.With Afeni and Mutulu Shakur both gone, Mopreme is the last member of the immediate family actively pursuing legal accountability. He filed with Quinn Emanuel at his side — and a clear message that the family is not finished.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#TupacShakur #TrueCrimeToday #KeffeD #MopremeShakur #WrongfulDeathLawsuit #Diddy #SeanCombs #TupacMurder #JusticeForTupac #ColdCase

Forget what you think you know about the Tupac Shakur case. The narrative just shifted. Mopreme Shakur has filed a wrongful death lawsuit that treats the 1996 Las Vegas shooting not as a solved crime with a single suspect — but as a conspiracy with participants who have never been identified, never been questioned under oath, and never been held accountable.The lawsuit targets Keffe D, who faces a first-degree murder trial in August 2026 after being indicted by a Clark County grand jury for allegedly orchestrating the drive-by that took Tupac's life. But the real weight of this filing is in the one hundred unnamed John Doe defendants. Under civil litigation rules, those designations give the Shakur family access to discovery tools the criminal case does not provide — depositions, document subpoenas, financial records. The kind of evidence that follows money and communication trails, not just ballistic reports.The complaint cites two sources of new evidence: grand jury transcripts from Keffe D's criminal proceedings and the Netflix documentary Sean Combs: The Reckoning, which aired proffer session recordings and alleged details about pre-shooting meetings, financial promises, and a coordination network that — according to the family's attorneys — suggests the conspiracy extended well beyond the men in the car. Quinn Emanuel, one of the most recognized trial firms in the nation, is representing the family. That is a strategic statement on its own.This case also carries an emotional urgency the legal filings cannot fully capture. Afeni Shakur — Tupac's mother — is gone. Mutulu Shakur — his stepfather — is gone. The alleged triggerman has been dead since 1998. Mopreme is fighting a clock as much as he is fighting a legal battle, and he is doing it with every tool the civil court system can provide.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#TupacShakur #HiddenKillers #KeffeD #WrongfulDeath #TrueCrime #MopremeShakur #Diddy #ColdCaseCracked #DeathRow #TupacJustice

John is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans. The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind. The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive.Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk.One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection.A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company's financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records.The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company's digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry's work directed at one state's archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company's value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure.A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages.While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a proprietary litigation intelligence system developed inside Quinn Emanuel — built from a practicing litigator's perspective and designed to give case teams a decisive advantage from day one.The system, known internally as a "kerchbench," works by taking a case team's documents, filings, and materials and distilling them into a structured knowledge base that mirrors how experienced litigators understand and manage cases — organized around the chronology of events, key actors, claims and defenses, and critical evidence. The result is an AI that already understands the case before anyone asks it a question, so every interaction starts from genuine case knowledge rather than from scratch.By progressively building out the system's understanding as a matter develops, the AI functions as a true thought partner rather than a passive tool. Lawyers can refine strategies, identify gaps in their knowledge, and surface non-obvious connections across the record. The system doesn't just answer questions about what is known — it serves as a thought partner, flagging what additional information the team may need and what the lawyer may be overlooking.One key innovation is the creation of structured workflows and reusable "skills" that break complex legal tasks into component steps — issue identification, organization, drafting, and refinement. These routines accelerate the production of high-quality work while preserving lawyer oversight at every stage. The system also supports early case assessment: a fast-turnaround engagement that synthesizes initial case materials into a structured snapshot of claims and defenses, key risks, and strategic priorities — giving partners a clear picture of a case within 48 hours.The result is a shift in legal work from labor-intensive context assembly toward higher-value analytical thinking. By providing relevant case information on demand and reducing the cognitive burden of tracking specific evidence across a large record, the system enhances both the speed and quality of legal reasoning. This is not merely an efficiency gain — it is a meaningful improvement in lawyers' ability to think, strategize, and advocate effectively in complex litigation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Are courts the next frontier for legal AI? Shlomo Klapper, founder and CEO of the AI-driven judicial case-preparation platofrm Learned Hand, believes they are. A former litigator at Quinn Emanuel and law clerk for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Klapper is building what he calls a "reasoning engine" for judges — AI tools designed to help them manage crushing caseloads by organizing case materials, flagging when lawyers bend the truth, and drafting bench memos and orders. LawNext host Bob Ambrogi interviews Klapper on the heels of significant news: Learned Hand just announced a partnership with the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, the largest trial court in the nation, to explore how AI can support judicial officers across the full arc of a case — from filing through drafting. The company's technology  — the only AI built exclusively for the judiciary — is also used by the Michigan Supreme Court and trial courts in 10 states. In today's conversation, Klapper discusses why courts are the next frontier for legal AI, what it takes to earn the trust of judges, and how Jevons Paradox — the idea that as legal services get cheaper, demand will explode — is reshaping the justice system. They also dig into the difficult questions around how Learned Hand addresses concerns about bias and hallucinations, and how it can overcome judges' skepticism about AI and achieve broad judicial adoption.    Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out.   Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner).   If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and co-chair of the firm's Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a sixteen-year copyright dispute involving two appeals to the Second Circuit that centered on the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies that own the copyrights to some of the world's most famous songs. The defendant, represented by a Quinn Emanuel team led by Todd and Owen, was Vimeo, a popular video hosting and video sharing platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo should be held liable for copyright infringement based on users who posted videos incorporating the plaintiffs' music without permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, which shield platforms such as Vimeo from copyright liability for the acts of their users as long as they comply with certain requirements.Among those requirements are that: (1) the platform does not have “the right or ability to control” allegedly infringing activity; and (2) the platform removes user-posted videos upon receiving sufficient knowledge of infringement, for example, the receipt of a DMCA notice from the copyright holder, or “red flag” knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeo's voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled users' infringing activity. Second, although the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staff's awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeo's “red flag” knowledge, imposing a duty on Vimeo staff to remove such videos on sight. In its defense, Vimeo argued that voluntary removal of unwanted videos (for example, bullying, sexual content, or advertising) did not disqualify it from safe harbor eligibility because it is consistent with the sort of moderation that Congress encouraged in the statute. Vimeo further argued that an ordinary Vimeo employee could not reasonably know whether a video is “obviously” infringing on sight and that the plaintiffs were in fact seeking an end-run around the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime.The Second Circuit agreed with Vimeo. It first concluded in 2016 that mere awareness that a video contains a famous song is not enough to show that it is obviously infringing; it could be authorized or a fair use, which are fact-intensive determinations. As the Court noted, even judges and copyright scholars have difficulty assessing the boundaries of fair use. The Court emphasized that copyright holders were not without remedy—they could send DMCA takedown notices for expeditious removal, which is the deliberate bargain that Congress struck. In 2025, the Second Circuit further ruled that a platform does not forfeit safe harbor by voluntarily removing unwanted videos, as such activity does not rise to providing “substantial influence” in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology.These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCA's statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holder's desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to the courts.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Robert M. (“Bobby”) Schwartz, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office and co-chair of the firm's Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, and Marie M. Hayrapetian, associate in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office. They discuss recent cases testing whether large language model AI outputs may give rise to defamation claims.In one recent Georgia case, a journalist asked ChatGPT about a lawsuit and received a response stating that a company executive was an embezzler, even though the lawsuit did not involve any such allegations and he was not an embezzler. In another case, Google was sued after its AI overview tool incorrectly stated that a business was being sued by the Minnesota state attorney general for deceptive practices, an allegation that allegedly caused up to $200 million in lost sales. Other examples involve sexualized deepfake images allegedly generated from ordinary photos, creating reputational and privacy harms.Defamation law assumes a human speaker who publishes a false factual statement with some degree of fault. AI systems complicate that framework. In the case of LLM outputs, it is unclear who the speaker is. Is it the platform, the data scientists behind the platform, the user who created the prompt, or the model itself? It is also difficult to fit AI output into doctrines requiring intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard, especially in public figure cases that require proof of actual malice.In the Georgia case, the defense won a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the output would not reasonably be understood as stating actual facts because the system provided warnings about limitations and potential errors. That reasoning may be vulnerable on appeal, but it shows one approach courts may adopt to reject these claims.Republication may also result in liability. If someone republishes defamatory AI output as fact, ordinary defamation principles could apply. An unresolved issue is whether the Section 230 safe harbor protects platforms when AI output is generated through interactions between user prompts and the model.Current defamation law might ultimately be a poor fit for AI-generated speech. Assessing liability for AI-generated speech may eventually require a different legal framework, such as product liability law.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C. office. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision invalidating all tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA tariffs had generated an estimated $160 billion in revenue and were central to the administration's tariff policy.The administration justified these tariffs based on declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. The Court did not rule on whether those circumstances constituted true emergencies. Instead, the Court held that the tariffs were invalid because the Constitution assigns all taxing authority to Congress, and the IEEPA did not expressly grant the President the power to impose tariffs.In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, the administration has now turned to other statutes, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Other tools, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permit product-specific tariffs tied to national security findings, but require administrative investigations and procedural safeguards. These mechanisms provide less unilateral flexibility than IEEPA had afforded.John, Dennis, and Fritz also discuss the prospects for companies obtaining refunds through litigation. Importers who directly paid the invalidated tariffs appear to have strong claims for reimbursement, primarily through the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. A two-year statute of limitations generally applies. While companies' right to obtain refunds is viewed as legally solid, delays are anticipated through procedural defenses and litigation tactics. Additional complexity arises for downstream purchasers who indirectly bore tariff costs; their recovery prospects will likely depend heavily on contractual allocation of tariff liability and other fact-specific circumstances.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firm's National Appellate Practice. They discuss Michel's team's recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court, reinstating Elon Musk's Tesla compensation package, now valued at $139 billion, the largest compensation dispute in corporate history. The 2018 pay package required Musk to meet extremely ambitious growth milestones, including doubling Tesla's size over a ten-year period, before receiving any compensation. After that, there were a series of 12 levels of compensation corresponding to 12 further growth milestones. The Tesla Board approved the package, as did the shareholders with 70% support. He ultimately achieved all the required milestones, growing the company from $50 billion to over $1 trillion in four years. Despite that, a Tesla shareholder owning just nine shares brought a derivative suit, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the package. The Delaware Chancery Court found Musk to be a “controlling stockholder” due to his 21% ownership, close relationships with directors, and status as a “superstar CEO.”  As a result, the court applied the “entire fairness” standard, under which defendants must prove that a transaction was entirely fair to the shareholders, and found the package did not meet that standard. The court reasoned that Tesla could have obtained Musk's services for less or even for free, citing other CEOs who had worked without compensation. It also ruled that shareholder approval was invalid due to inadequate proxy disclosures, including the omission of details about Musk's social ties with board members. The court rescinded the entire compensation package and awarded the plaintiff's counsel $345 million in attorneys' fees.On appeal, the defense team focused on three main arguments: Musk was not a controlling stockholder, the package met the entire fairness standard, and even if there was a violation, rescission was not an appropriate remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that rescission was unwarranted and awarding nominal damages of $1. It reinstated the pay package, now valued at $139 billion. It also reduced the attorneys' fee award to $54 million. The case has influenced legislative changes in Delaware corporate law regarding the definition of controlling shareholders and shareholder ratification.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher and Peter H. Fountain, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's New York office.  They discuss their recent representation of Citadel Securities, one of the world's largest market makers, in connection with a case concerning Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical company forced into bankruptcy due to opioid litigation.  The central issue was whether $1.6 billion in stock share buybacks conducted between 2015 and 2018 could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate as fraudulent transfers. The legal theory advanced in the case by a litigation trust formed during the bankruptcy was unprecedented in that it sought to void Mallinckrodt share repurchases on the open market that were made in the ordinary course of business.  The trust contended that, under Irish law (Mallinckrodt was an Irish corporation), these repurchases were void because Mallinckrodt should have recognized that it was insolvent due to substantial opioid-related tort liabilities not reflected on its balance sheet. The litigation trust characterized these sales as constructive fraudulent conveyances, asserting that Mallinckrodt lacked adequate capital when executing the buybacks.  The trust sought to claw back the full $1.6 billion from ordinary market participants who had sold shares years prior, basing their argument on limited precedent from Enron-related cases from the 1980s. The defense successfully challenged these claims by invoking the Section 546(e) bankruptcy safe harbor provision. This provision is intended to preserve finality in financial markets and protect legitimate securities transactions.  The defense emphasized that Citadel and similar market makers qualified as financial participants and that the share repurchases constituted protected settlement payments and transfers pursuant to securities contracts under the safe harbor provision. Accepting the litigation trust's theory would require market makers to investigate not only the published financial statements of every traded company, but also hidden tort liabilities and the corporate laws of each jurisdiction of incorporation before facilitating any transactions.  Both the bankruptcy and district courts recognized that imposing such obligations would paralyze financial markets and defeat the purpose of the safe harbor provision and rejected the trust's novel claims.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Day in Legal History: Monkey SelfieOn January 28, 2016, a federal judge in California dismissed a highly publicized copyright lawsuit that sought to establish whether a monkey could own intellectual property rights. The case stemmed from a 2011 incident in which a crested macaque named Naruto allegedly took a series of selfies using wildlife photographer David Slater's unattended camera in Indonesia. The resulting images, particularly a striking self-portrait of the grinning primate, went viral and sparked widespread debate over authorship and ownership. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against Slater on Naruto's behalf, asserting that the monkey was the true author and copyright holder of the images under the Copyright Act.The case presented novel legal questions about the boundaries of authorship and whether non-human animals have standing to sue in federal court. U.S. District Judge William Orrick ruled that animals do not have statutory standing under the Copyright Act, which applies only to human authors. In his opinion, Orrick emphasized that Congress had not intended to grant copyright rights to animals, and that extending such rights would require legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.The ruling did not settle the matter completely, as PETA appealed the decision. However, in 2018, PETA and Slater reached a settlement in which Slater agreed to donate a portion of any future revenue from the photos to organizations protecting macaques and their habitats. The case sparked lasting discussion about animal rights, legal personhood, and the reach of copyright law in the digital age. It also underscored how existing legal frameworks may be ill-equipped to address emerging questions posed by technology and non-human agency.Several Democratic-led U.S. states are advancing legislation to allow individuals to sue federal immigration agents in state courts for alleged civil rights violations. This movement gained momentum after two fatal ICE encounters in Minneapolis and broader concerns over enforcement tactics under President Trump's immigration policies. Illinois recently became the first state to pass such a law, but the Trump administration quickly filed a legal challenge, citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives federal law precedence over state law. Other states, including California, New York, and Virginia, are considering similar measures.Supporters argue these laws would close an accountability gap, as federal agents—unlike state or local officials—are largely shielded from individual civil rights lawsuits. While Section 1983 of the U.S. Code allows such suits against state actors in federal court, no equivalent exists for federal officers. The Federal Tort Claims Act permits some claims against the U.S. government but not against agents personally, and it involves complex procedures. Legal experts say these state efforts could spark a major shift in the legal landscape, potentially giving courts a framework to hold federal agents accountable for constitutional violations.The Department of Homeland Security has defended ICE's actions and criticized the state proposals. Critics, including legal scholars, warn that parts of the Illinois law—such as those allowing punitive damages—may be unconstitutional. However, others maintain that the core idea of state-level accountability for federal misconduct is both lawful and necessary.US state lawmakers push to allow lawsuits against ICE agents | ReutersA Virginia judge blocked an attempt by state Democrats to advance a constitutional amendment that would have allowed them to redraw the state's congressional map in their favor. Judge Jack Hurley, Jr. ruled that the process used to introduce the amendment was procedurally invalid and came too close to the state's 2025 election. The decision halts a strategy that could have given Democrats control of up to 10 of Virginia's 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six they currently hold.Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Don Scott, have pledged to appeal the ruling. The blocked amendment was intended to be put before voters in a special election this spring, with a new electoral map released ahead of time for public consideration. With control of the narrowly divided U.S. House of Representatives at stake in the upcoming midterms, the decision is a significant setback for Democrats, who need only flip three seats to gain a majority.The dispute is part of a broader national struggle over redistricting, with both parties pursuing aggressive map-drawing strategies in various states. Last year, Donald Trump encouraged Texas Republicans to redraw maps targeting Democratic incumbents, prompting Democratic-led states like California to follow suit in kind.Judge blocks Virginia lawmakers' bid for pro-Democratic voting map | ReutersTop lawyers at U.S. litigation firm Susman Godfrey are now billing up to $4,000 per hour, setting a new high for hourly legal fees in 2026. The rate applies to prominent partners Neal Manne and Bill Carmody, whose hourly fees were already $3,000 last year. While most of their work is done on contingency or flat-fee arrangements, this hourly benchmark reflects growing price trends across elite law firms. Manne joked that their rate-setting process is as secretive as a papal conclave, and the firm has not disclosed how the figures were determined.Susman Godfrey, based in Houston, is known for high-end litigation on both the plaintiff and defense side and offers above-average compensation, especially to associates. The rise in billing rates is part of a broader trend—major law firms raised their hourly rates by an average of 7% in 2025, according to a report by the Thomson Reuters Institute and Georgetown Law.Other top firms are also pushing rate ceilings. Latham & Watkins reached $3,050 per hour for some partners in federal bankruptcy filings, while leading appellate lawyer Neal Katyal billed $3,250 at Milbank. Quinn Emanuel partners were billing at $3,000 an hour last year, according to court records.As lawyer rates surge, US firm charges $4,000 an hour for top partners | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Story of the Week (DR):Embattled BP replaces CEO, naming Woodside Energy chief as first-ever woman leader of a Big Oil giant MMBP names new CEO — its fourth in 6 yearsO'Neill will replace Murray Auchincloss, after less than two years in the role.BP's C-suite milestone: Women in both the CEO and CFO seatsMelody Meyer: Chair of the safety and sustainability committeeDame Amanda Blanc: Senior independent director Interim CEO Carol HowleCFO Kate ThomsonEmma Delaney: EVP, customers & productsKerry Dryburgh - EVP, people, culture & communications and chief human resources and communications officer *Emeka Emembolu: EVP, technology*William Lin - EVP, gas & low carbon energy2 of 8 white dude leadershipEven after Pamela Daley stepped down in July, still 43% female board influenceMeg O'Neill: ‘hard-nosed' outsider who will head BP's pivot away from green energyFirst female appointment to a major oil company has faced fierce resistance from climate activists as boss of Woodside43% female board influence at WoodsideCarol Howle, current executive vice president, supply, trading & shipping of bp, will serve as interim CEO until Meg joins as CEO.BP 'woke' agenda axed as it hires first female chief exec and doubles down on fossil fuelsWarner Bros Discovery board rejects rival bid from ParamountWBD's board of directors (chaired by Samuel Di Piazza Jr.) has unanimously rejected the Paramount tender as inferior and risky, urging shareholders to reject it and uphold the Netflix transaction instead.David Ellison pulled the dad card early onRight after WBD rejected one of multiple secret bids in September, David Ellison called Warner Bros. CEO David Zaslav to request that Zaslav meet with his father, Larry Ellison. The conventional wisdom was that the Oracle cofounder's billions would prevail. In the end, that didn't happen. WBD expressed concern that the bid relied on a revocable trust, whose assets or liabilities were subject to change.A zealous Paramount pulled out all the stops to woo ZaslavWe already knew Zaslav stood to make over $500 million from a Paramount deal, based mainly on his shares that would vest immediately after it closed ($567,712,631, to be exact, according to the filing). Zaslav told the WBD board that the Ellisons had "indicated to him that" if a deal went through, he would "receive a compensation package worth several hundred million dollars," per the filing. Zaslav responded that it "would be inappropriate to discuss any such arrangements at that time," he told the board.Paramount also offered Zaslav the position of co-CEO and co-chairman of the combined company, a role Netflix didn't offer, the filing said.That runs contrary to the narrative put forth in a letter Paramount's attorneys at Quinn Emanuel sent to WBD, stating they suspected the process was biased in favor of Netflix due to WBD leadership's expectations that there could be roles for them at the new company. Paramount's legal and financial advisors didn't know about the "December 3 Quinn Emanuel" letter and, in their view, the letter should not have been sent, was "not helpful," and was a "mistake," the filing says.TikTok signs agreement to create new U.S. joint ventureTikTok has signed binding agreements with investors including Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX for the sale of its US arm, creating a joint venture as part of a deal orchestrated by President Donald Trump.The U.S. joint venture will be 50% held by a consortium of new investors, including Larry Ellison's Oracle, Silver Lake and Abu Dhabi's MGX, with 15% each. Just over 30% will be held by affiliates of certain existing investors of ByteDance, and almost 20% will be retained by ByteDanceHouse Democrats release more Epstein photos, including Bill Gates and a dinner full of wealthy philanthropists Donald TrumpBill Clinton Bill Gates – Microsoft co-founderSergey Brin – Google co-founderRichard Branson – Virgin Group founderLarry Summers – Economist, Harvard President, OpenAI directorSalar Kamangar – Former YouTube CEO Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem — Emirati businessman; Chair/CEO of DP WorldLes Wexner — Founder of L BrandsLeon Black — co-founder and former CEO of Apollo Global ManagementTom Pritzker — Executive Chair Hyatt HotelsGlenn Dubin — Hedge fund manager Dubin & Co.; co-founder of Highbridge Capital Management Ron Baron — Founder & chairman of Baron Capital ManagementJosh Harris — co-founder of Apollo Global Management and managing partner of Philadelphia 76ers, New Jersey Devils, and Washington CommandersAriane de Rothschild — Wealthy banking heir; CEO of Edmond de Rothschild GroupGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Canada to Launch Sustainable Investment Taxonomy in 2026According to the government, the new taxonomy will provide a set of criteria for the identification of investments that are eligible for a “green” or “transition” investment label, enabling companies to issue green or transition bonds, and investors to evaluate the credibility of sustainable investment products.MM: Tesla's having a good time at the DMVCalifornia won the right to ban sales of Tesla vehicles in the state due to false advertising about “self driving cars”MM: Walmart's women truckers surge thanks to $115,000 starting pay and other perks bringing in nontraditional candidatesAssholiest of the Week (MM):Helge LundEmbattled BP replaces CEO, naming Woodside Energy chief as first-ever woman leader of a Big Oil giant:O'Neill is “taking over the British energy behemoth at a time when it has fallen behind the other global oil and gas supermajors and was even a potential takeover target earlier this year by rival Shell.”Is there anything glass cliff-ier than this stat:Helge Lund has now overseen BP's failed Murray Auchincloss tenure, Bernard Looney's tenure, and Bob Dudley's leaving (6 year tenure) and Novo Nordisk's incredible succession failure, the failure of Nokia in 2013… I hate having to celebrate a female first - like becoming a CEO when eminently overqualifiedSam Altman againSam Altman says he has '0%' excitement about being CEO of a public company ahead of a potential OpenAI IPOHe changed it from a non profit to a for profit in order to go public and make all the money.Also: “billionaire says”Sam Altman Sounds Alarm As ChatGPT Explodes Globally: 'Rate Of Change' Sparks AI Anxiety, Job FearsSam Altman Uses His New Image Generator to Show Himself As a Jacked Fireman With Washboard Abs… With an Absolutely Hilarious ErrorSam Altman says OpenAI has gone 'code red' multiple times; and they'll do it againThe “sound the alarm” gaslightPeter C. Earle, Ph.D, Director of Economics and Economic Freedom and Senior Research Fellow at American Institute for Economic Research DRStop Fixating on CEO Pay Ratios and Start Fixing Labor Markets“The average employee is hired under conditions of broad substitutability — many people can competently perform the role with modest training. The CEO labor market is the opposite: extremely small, specialized, global, and contingent on track records that can shift a firm's valuation by billions of dollars. The demand curve for top executive talent is steep; the supply curve is extraordinarily thin.”“Skilled executives can influence strategy, capital allocation, risk management, and organizational culture in ways that affect firm performance far more than incremental labor inputs elsewhere in the organization, even if the latter are voluminous. If a CEO's decisions add even a few percentage points to long-term returns, the economic value created dwarfs the compensation.”Translation: CEOs are worth it, regular workers are not. “Such a ratio also ignores value creation. [...] The relevant question is not “Is the ratio of worker to executive pay too large?” but rather “Does the CEO create more value than their talent costs?”Does not propose how to prove value creation of the CEO other than “stock go up”Earle had this to say about leadership in 2019: “teams (also companies, organizations, groups, and so on) which experience outstanding success inevitably cite leadership as a factor — often the decisive one, and frequently emanating from a particular individual.”“But it should come as no surprise that many successful sports teams, firms, and organizations readily identify leadership as the decisive factor in their triumphs. It's a better story than merely having incredible resources and facilities, superior performance, or as is often the case: simple, garden-variety luck.”Headliniest of the WeekDR: Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary plans to step down by 2035 & Chipotle chases the protein craze with new menu items — including meat in a cupMM: LinkedIn CEO says it's ‘outdated' to have a five-year career plan: It's a ‘little bit foolish' considering the pace AI is changing the workplaceWho Won the Week?DR: Powerful women at BPMM: 4 year career plansPredictionsDR: David Ellison cancels his Netflix subscription then hires Erika Kirk to run programming at Nickelodeon and MTVMM: Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary steps down in 2035 and become executive chair, pledging to step down as executive chair in 2057.

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a complex cross-border dispute involving a Chinese public company listed on the Shanghai Exchange. The company, which owned oil assets in Texas and was one of the largest private oil producers in the U.S., faced a governance crisis after an investor took over the company and elected a new board in China. When the new board attempted to gain control over the company's U.S. subsidiaries, it discovered that the company's former management had implemented mechanisms at the subsidiaries' holding companies that blocked the election of new directors. This control deadlock posed an existential threat, as Chinese regulators warned the company it could be delisted if control was not reestablished by the end of the year. The urgency of the situation demanded a rapid litigation strategy across three U.S. jurisdictions: Texas, Nevada, and Delaware. The client's initial effort, led by another firm, to resolve the matter in Texas failed because of the “internal affairs doctrine,” which required adjudication in Delaware, where the entities were incorporated. Fortunately, the other side initiated a Delaware proceeding allowing the Chinese parent to counterclaim and consolidate all issues under a highly expedited schedule. A key early win was securing a “status quo” order in Delaware, which froze major corporate actions and gave the new board veto power over decisions exceeding $100,000, effectively halting adverse moves by the former management. The case involved extensive discovery, much of it in Mandarin, and included WhatsApp, WeChat, and other messaging platforms. Advanced AI tools played a crucial role in accelerating document review, translating materials, and aiding strategy development. Cultural sensitivity and coordination with Chinese counsel were also essential to preparing the case. As trial approached, the opposing side sought settlement, likely due to being overwhelmed by the pace and depth of the litigation.  Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by David Proman, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Atlas Grove Partners and long-time Quinn Emanuel client.  They discuss David's extensive experience working with elite law firms, including Quinn Emanuel, on high stakes matters involving structured finance, digital assets, and complex bankruptcies.  At Atlas Grove and its subsidiary, GXD Labs, David has built an investment platform that identifies legal claims as investment opportunities.   One example of such an opportunity was David's early and aggressive pursuit of RMBS claims.  In 2010, David was at fund called Furry Partners that was the most activist fund manager in the RMBS space.  They pursued cases against the world's largest banks for breaches of warranties, which led to recovering almost $4 billion for Furry Partners' investors.  David worked with Quinn Emanuel partner Sasha Rand on many of these cases adding “we have great thanks and gratitude to Quinn Emanuel for working on this with us for over a decade against some of the world's most significant counterparties.” Another example was the Celsius bankruptcy.  Celsius was a crypto lending platform with 600,000 customers.  At its peak, it had almost $20 billion in liabilities.  Celsius's customers stored their Bitcoin, their Ethereum, or their digital tokens using deposits, similar to bank deposits.  When Bitcoin dropped dramatically in 2022, the company became insolvent and filed for bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy proceedings revealed numerous legal issues, including fraud. David's Blockchain Recovery Investment Consortium (BRIC) won the role of litigation administrator and crafted a plan focused on returning value to defrauded customers.  Working closely with Quinn Emanuel partner Ben Finestone, BRIC's strategy involved bringing claims against counterparties across the world who had harmed Celsius before it went bankrupt.  One of BRIC's biggest recoveries resulted from a $300 million settlement with Tether.  David credits Ben with bringing strong legal claims and strategies to defeat “issues that I don't think have ever been litigated before in crypto.” When working with law firms, success depends on aligning the incentives of the firm and the client, maintaining open communication, and active client involvement in developing legal strategies, especially in complex or novel sectors like cryptocurrencies.  Counsel should be both strategically creative and brutally honest about risks.  As David said, “that's part of the reason why I love you guys: because you always give me honest feedback.”  David also believes that fee structures should prioritize results over billable hours.  After the case, all parties should reflect on both wins and losses to continuously improve decision-making.   Finally, David and John discuss the evolving legal risk in AI infrastructure, where opaque contracts and fast-changing technology may spark future waves of litigation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode, Jeff and Brett sit down with Patty Tomasco, a seasoned bankruptcy and restructuring partner at Quinn Emanuel. Known for her calm command in crisis situations and her sharp instincts in high-stakes litigation, Patty brings a rare mix of courtroom experience and boardroom strategy. The conversation spans her path into law, how she became a self-taught bankruptcy lawyer, and how she's carved out a leadership role in a competitive practice area, and how Texas became a bankruptcy hotspot.   Patty also touches on her passions outside the office, the definition of grace, and more.  It's a grounded, compelling look at what it means to start and lead a practice that sits at the intersection of business, law, and urgency.Streaming on  YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally.

John is joined by Richard East and Karabeth Ovenden, partners in Quinn Emanuel's London Office. They discuss the unprecedented bankruptcy and restructuring of NMC, the largest healthcare provider in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Initially listed on the London Stock Exchange and heavily favored by the market, NMC collapsed precipitated by a report by short-seller Muddy Waters raising significant questions about the audited accounts of the company. Ultimately it was revealed that NMC had approximately $6.5 billion in debt, rather than the $2.5 billion that had been disclosed to the market. Over 100 creditors rushed to seize NMC's assets across the UAE. The absence of a comprehensive UAE bankruptcy framework posed an existential threat to the company, especially because the crisis occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when NMC facilities were treating a significant portion of the country's COVID hospitalizations.To address this crisis, a team of QE insolvency litigators initiated administration proceedings first in the UK for NMC's parent company. However, this did not protect NMC's UAE-based operating entities. To protect those assets and preserve continuity of care, the QE team adopted the novel strategy of moving 36 NMC operating companies into the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), a common-law “free zone” jurisdiction within the UAE. This required a sovereign executive order to release existing asset attachments and allow for insolvency proceedings in the ADGM—an unprecedented step in UAE restructuring history.The move faced significant jurisdictional and legal resistance across the various Emirates. Recognition of the ADGM orders in onshore courts was difficult, requiring extensive legal argumentation and government coordination. Once inside the ADGM, the companies could proceed with a complex reorganization plan, culminating in a successful arrangement which obtained support from over 90% of the creditors. The team also navigated criminal investigations, litigated against dissenting creditors, and pursued claims against parties potentially complicit in the fraud. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Alex Spiro, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York and Miami offices and one of the best-known trial lawyers in the U.S.  Alex explains that his approach to trial preparation is to immerse himself into the evidence as trial approaches. He reads every relevant document to understand even tangential details, rather than just looking for "hot docs." This deep dive helps him construct a narrative that, if all goes well, leads the jury to a collective “Eureka” moment, where the verdict becomes clear. Alex also explains that he does not rely on mock juries and external validation because his themes must resonate with his own beliefs to be compelling. Instead, he prefers to bounce ideas off colleagues who may suggest course corrections. Alex says that understanding human psychology is crucial because the motivations behind actions often matter more than the actions themselves. The discussion turns to how Alex balances the demands of multiple cases while remaining completely focused on the next upcoming trial. He credits his ability to compartmentalize and work long hours, as well as strong support from trial teams. He also explains to clients from the outset that during their “moment of truth,” he will prioritize their case entirely, but before then, he might be prioritizing the impending trials of other clients. The discussion then turns to criminal justice reform, a subject Alex is passionate about. He describes the criminal justice system as structurally biased, especially against marginalized communities. He identifies the most urgent priorities for reform as bail reform, sentencing disparities, and changing the current system's backward-looking nature, which he believes perpetuates outdated and discriminatory standards. When asked about AI's role in sentencing, Alex expresses concerns that AI could reinforce existing biases by relying on historical data, potentially leading to harsher outcomes, particularly for first-time offenders. Finally, John and Alex discuss that it has become harder for lawyers to represent controversial clients but emphasize the importance of doing so.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Rachel Frank is a senior associate at Quinn Emanuel who focuses on appellate litigation. She discusses the journey from summer associate to working on cases before the Supreme Court. Rachel explains what appellate practice actually involves, from preparing partners for oral arguments through intensive moot courts to crafting persuasive appellate briefs. She discusses how she uses AI as a thinking partner, the value of her federal appellate clerkship, and how her work has evolved over time. Rachel reflects on some of her firm's cultural quirks and why they matter to her. She also candidly discusses managing work-life balance. Rachel is a graduate of Yale Law School.This episode is hosted by Kyle McEntee.Mentioned in this episode:Colorado LawLearn more about Colorado LawAccess LawHub today!

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Salt Lake City, New York, and London Offices, Head of the firm's Sovereign Litigation practice, and Co-Head of the firm's Global Asset Recovery Practice. They discuss various kinds of litigation, arbitration, and collection actions against sovereign states. They discuss collection cases against sovereign states resulting from those states' default on debt instruments, the challenges faced by creditors who hold out after most creditors agree to a debt restructuring arrangement with the sovereign, recent proposed legislation, and any other government actions favoring sovereigns, the current sovereign debt crisis, and concerns about opportunistic funds that seek profit by collecting on devalued sovereign debt. They also discuss investor-state arbitration generally, for example, after a company has invested in a project in a country and the country fundamentally changes the terms under which the investment was made, such as radically raising taxes as Spain did with respect to renewable energy projects after 2008. They discuss the position taken by the EU that EU courts cannot enforce arbitration awards against EU nations even when the nation entered voluntarily into an arbitration treaty, and recent indications that the United States government supports the position of the EU. Finally, they discuss litigation against sovereigns unrelated to sovereign debt, such as litigation against state sponsors of terrorism, including the lawsuit Quinn Emanuel recently filed against Iran on behalf of victims of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Quinn Emanuel partners Dave Nelson and Alex Lasher.  They discuss the landmark victory Dave and Alex's team won for Samsung Display before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in a trade secrets case against Chinese competitor, BOE Technology Group.  The ITC is an independent quasi-judicial agency of the federal government that, among other duties, adjudicates claims regarding unfair trade practices, including intellectual property infringement.  Monetary damages are not available in ITC proceedings.  However, the ITC can provide powerful injunctive relief by issuing exclusion orders that stop all infringing products from entering the U.S. at the border.  These exclusion orders make the ITC a strategic venue for intellectual property disputes involving imported goods.  Although trade secret cases at the ITC are not new, they have become more prominent in the last decade. The ITC process differs significantly from federal court litigation.  Proceedings are accelerated and are led by an administrative law judge and a third-party staff attorney who acts as a neutral participant.  ITC staff may conduct discovery, cross-examine witnesses, and submit their own briefs, making trial preparation especially complex.  There are no juries. This case involved accusations that BOE misappropriated dozens of trade secrets related to OLED display technologies used in phones, TVs, and micro displays.  BOE used these stolen trade secrets to manufacture competing products and import them into the U.S. for several years. Discovery in the case was complicated by both the legal obstacles to taking discovery of a Chinese company and language barriers, with Samsung's internal documents largely in Korean and BOE's in Chinese.  The team faced additional challenges defining the trade secrets at issue with sufficient specificity early in the case—a prerequisite for discovery.  Another major hurdle was proving that Samsung maintained a “domestic industry” in the U.S. worthy of protection under ITC rules—a jurisdictional requirement. Despite these difficulties, the administrative law judge issued a 15-year exclusion order covering all BOE OLED display products, effectively barring them from the U.S. market.  The team's trial efforts were bolstered by a pre-trial sanctions order against BOE for discovery misconduct.  The case demonstrates how IP litigation at the ITC can create enormous commercial leverage and underscores the critical role expert testimony and meticulous trial preparation play in high-stakes trade secret disputes. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

UNGA80, First Report:Inner City Press banned from UN for exposing corruptionSunday Sept 21 new USUN PR Mike Waltz presents credentials38 Floor video here. What next? More reports to follow: @InnerCityPressAmid Press Freedom Claims by UN and AI Inner City Press Bid to Enter Is Litmus Testby Matthew Russell LeeUN GATE, Sept 15 – On World Press Freedom Day, the United Nations of Antonio Guterres claimed to be in support of journalists being able to do their work without hinderance. Amnesty International makes just such claims, see below. UN Global Communications chief Melissa Fleming put out a video of Guterres equating what he (and she) characterize as disinformation as the threat to press freedom, Guterres has banned Inner City Press from entering the UN since 2018, when it exposed the omission of links to bribery firm CEFC China Energy from his financial disclosure. On June 19, 2025, Inner City Press submitted an application to cover the UN General Assembly, letter here. Law firm Quinn Emanuel, on a pro bono basis, wrote to Fleming and the UN Correspondents Association (with state media of China on its board of directors) seeking a dialogue to reinstate Inner City Press. Later, so did the pro bono law firm of Duane Morris.There has been no answer to an appeal to Guterres head of security Gilles Michaud. Nor has Amnesty International, to whose UN Office Inner City Press has repeatedly raised this glaring violation, done anything. Instead, on September 15, AI bragged that its Agnes Callamard will be at the UNGA, ready for interviews. Right. Inner City Press before being banned reported on her, here and here and here - and will again. This is a litmus test all around.But now, with Inner City Press' UN and SDNY covering, including the Sean Combs trial, being picked up all over the world, the application. Watch this site.June 19, 2025 application https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25979730-amid-un-press-freedom-claims-application-by-inner-city-press-to-enter-is-2025-litmus-test/

This Day in Legal History: John Locke BornOn August 29, 1632, John Locke was born in Wrington, England. A foundational figure in political philosophy, Locke's ideas on government, natural rights, and property would come to shape the ideological core of liberal democracies. His “Two Treatises of Government” advanced the notion that legitimate governments are founded on the consent of the governed and exist to protect life, liberty, and property. Locke's theory of property, rooted in the idea that individuals gain ownership by mixing their labor with natural resources, would have lasting effects not only in political theory but also in legal frameworks—particularly intellectual property law.Locke argued that since individuals own their labor, they also own the results of that labor. This labor-based theory of property acquisition later served as a philosophical underpinning for intellectual property rights, especially in Anglo-American legal systems. The notion that creators have a natural right to control and benefit from their intellectual creations echoes Locke's broader views on property. His influence is visible in early American legal thought, including the U.S. Constitution's provision empowering Congress to secure authors' and inventors' exclusive rights.Locke's work also fueled the American Revolution and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, with Thomas Jefferson borrowing heavily from Locke's formulations on natural rights. Likewise, his theories permeated the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Beyond constitutional law, his legacy persists in modern debates about the balance between public access and private rights in intellectual property regimes. Locke's vision of a just legal order grounded in individual rights, voluntary association, and property remains central to contemporary legal theory.A federal judge will hold a hearing on whether to temporarily block President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her removal in court. Cook argues that Trump lacks legal grounds for firing her, alleging that the justification—claims of past mortgage fraud—is a pretext tied to her refusal to lower interest rates. The Federal Reserve Act permits governors to be removed only “for cause,” though that term is undefined and has never been tested in court. Cook denies the fraud allegations and says even if true, the conduct occurred before she took office and should not qualify as cause for removal.Trump's administration argues that the allegations are sufficient to justify her dismissal and may also claim that legal limits on removing Fed governors infringe on the president's executive authority. The outcome of this case could significantly impact the perceived independence of the Fed and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. A Biden-appointed judge, Jia Cobb, will first determine if Cook is likely to succeed on the merits and if her removal would cause irreparable harm. The decision could lead to a preliminary injunction, subject to appeal.Trump has already clashed with the Fed, particularly with Chair Jerome Powell, over interest rate policies and management decisions. Removing Cook would allow Trump to install a fourth member on the seven-seat board, potentially shifting its direction.Trump's firing of Fed Governor Cook could be blocked by US judge | ReutersThe national average score on the July 2025 Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) was the highest in over a decade, reaching 142.4—the best performance since 2013, excluding pandemic-altered years. The MBE, which accounts for half of a bar taker's score in most states, is a key component of the U.S. bar exam. The National Conference of Bar Examiners expects the slight uptick in scores to translate into modestly higher pass rates across jurisdictions.This marks the third consecutive year of improvement for July test-takers, in contrast to the February bar exam, which continues to show declining performance. February 2025 saw a record low MBE average of 130.8, partly due to California's decision to use its own bar exam for that session—a move that backfired due to widespread logistical issues. The California Supreme Court has since ordered the state to resume using the MBE starting in July.As states begin releasing July results, optimism is growing among recent law graduates. However, the disparity between February and July results highlights persistent challenges for repeat test-takers and bar exam policy shifts across jurisdictions.US national bar exam scores hit 12-year high | ReutersMajor U.S. law firms saw strong revenue and profit growth in the first half of 2025, fueled by a sharp rise in billing rates—up 9.2% on average. This surge helped offset rapidly increasing expenses, particularly those tied to attorney compensation and the adoption of artificial intelligence tools. Overhead costs excluding lawyer pay rose by 8.6%, while total expenses, including compensation, were up 9.5%. Despite heavy investment in generative AI, firms haven't realized cost savings yet, as they're still maintaining full legal staffing alongside the new technology.Top partners at elite firms, such as Milbank and Quinn Emanuel, are now charging more than $3,000 per hour, with Milbank's Neal Katyal commanding $3,250. Experts note that while AI may one day disrupt the traditional billable hour model, that shift hasn't materialized yet—echoing past predictions during earlier tech changes that never fully played out. Still, some consultants believe AI may eventually push firms toward flat-fee or project-based pricing, especially as AI becomes capable of completing tasks in minutes that previously took hours.Meanwhile, law firm expenses are also climbing due to higher real estate costs and professional liability insurance. The legal talent pipeline remains strong, with law school applicants up 18% year-over-year and recent graduates enjoying a record-high 93.4% employment rate.Law firm rates, revenues soar but costs pile up in AI era | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax's lawsuit claiming racial discrimination in response to university sanctions against her. Wax, who is white, alleged that UPenn treated her unfairly based on race when it suspended her for a year with half pay over a pattern of controversial public comments about minority groups. Judge Timothy Savage ruled that her claims were “implausible,” noting that she failed to show how her race influenced the disciplinary process or the charges brought against her.Wax argued the university disproportionately disciplines white faculty for speech-related conduct while overlooking similar actions by faculty of color. However, the court found her comparisons to other UPenn speakers flawed, as those individuals had not repeatedly made derogatory remarks about minorities. The ruling follows an earlier denial of Wax's request for a preliminary injunction, where the court found she hadn't proven that the suspension would cause her lasting professional harm.Wax has long been a polarizing figure at Penn Law. Her 2017 op-ed favoring Anglo-Protestant cultural norms and later remarks about Black and Asian students drew widespread criticism. In 2018, she was barred from teaching required first-year courses, and in 2022, a faculty complaint sought a major sanction after she suggested the U.S. would be better off with fewer Asian immigrants.Judge tosses law professor Amy Wax's bias lawsuit over UPenn sanctions | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, a work that showcases the clarity, grace, and inventiveness that define Mozart's style. Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata is one of Mozart's most beloved keyboard pieces, notable for its departure from traditional sonata form. Instead of the expected fast-paced opening movement, Mozart begins with a theme and variations—a gentle, lilting Andante grazioso that unfolds with elegance and wit.Each variation adds a new layer of texture and character, giving performers the opportunity to explore contrasting articulations, ornamentation, and moods. The charm of the movement lies in its simplicity and restraint, traits Mozart uses not as limitations but as a foundation for subtle playfulness and sophistication. The theme itself is dance-like, with a lightly flowing triple meter that invites the listener in rather than demanding attention.While the final movement of this sonata—the famous "Rondo alla Turca"—often steals the spotlight, the opening movement contains just as much ingenuity and expressive depth. It's a window into Mozart's ability to transform formal conventions into personal, lyrical statements. This sonata was likely intended for his students or amateur musicians, yet it retains the masterful balance of accessibility and complexity that only Mozart could achieve.As we close this week, the Andante grazioso reminds us that refinement doesn't require grandeur, and that musical beauty often lies in the quiet unfolding of a well-turned phrase.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

John is joined by Avichal Garg, Managing Partner of Electric Capital and Chairman of the Crypto Council for Innovation, and Emily Kapur, Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel's Blockchain & Digital Asset Litigation Practice and partner in the firm's Silicon Valley office.  They discuss the complex legal and regulatory landscape surrounding cryptocurrency, digital assets, and the intersection with emerging technologies like AI. The decentralization and autonomy of crypto systems challenges traditional legal concepts.  Crypto technology—ranging from permissionless innovation to autonomous systems—raises foundational legal questions about jurisdiction, liability, and personhood, especially when code may function as both speech and money.  While early legal battles focused on whether tokens are securities, today's disputes often focus on jurisdictional issues and cross-border liability for autonomous systems with governance distributed around the world. U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins, while posing regulatory and competitive challenges, may also be an unparalleled tool for promoting U.S. soft power and economic influence.  They can bypass traditional banking systems and reach global users, reinforcing the dollar's dominance.  The recently enacted GENIUS Act provides a framework for regulating stablecoins in the U.S. without imposing restrictive reserve requirements, in contrast to European approaches. The rapid evolution of crypto trading venues—centralized exchanges like Coinbase, decentralized protocols like Uniswap, and traditional financial instruments such as ETFs and digital asset treasuries—highlight the legal uncertainty about which regulatory entities have jurisdiction.  The increasing use of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) poses additional challenges under theories that all participants in a DAO are potentially liable as partners in a joint venture. More legal innovation is needed, perhaps even entirely new legal entities or frameworks, to accommodate a future in which autonomous code can hold assets, transact, and potentially commit fraud.  Courts may begin to shape precedent in the absence of legislation, but a proactive regulatory approach or legal sandbox might be the key to responsibly managing these potentially disruptive forces. Ultimately, the question is whether the law will domesticate crypto or will crypto force legal innovation?Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Andrew Berdon, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York Office, and Joe Paunovich, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Salt Lake City office.  They discuss the $300 million victory Andrew and Joe's team recently won in Delaware Chancery Court in an earnout dispute arising from a pharmaceutical merger.  The dispute involved the acquisition of Syntimmune, a biotech company founded around a promising antibody drug—Alexion 1830—designed to treat rare autoimmune diseases by reducing levels of IgG.  The drug was initially developed from academic research at Harvard and advanced by a venture-backed startup that invested over $75 million before selling the company to Alexion, now a division of AstraZeneca.The acquisition included an upfront payment of $400 million, plus up to $800 million in earnout payments tied to eight developmental milestones, most of which were based on progress during pre-approval clinical trials.  The dispute arose when Alexion, shortly after the acquisition, deprioritized and ultimately terminated the drug's development, citing safety concerns and a perceived loss of first-mover advantage.  No earnout payments were made.The court found that Alexion breached its obligation to use "commercially reasonable efforts"—defined in the agreement as those a similarly situated biotech company would use—to develop the drug.  Evidence at trial showed Alexion made no attempt to benchmark its efforts against peer companies developing similar drugs.  Instead, internal shifts in corporate priorities and the subsequent acquisition by AstraZeneca led to the program's quiet abandonment, despite a highly promising therapeutic profile and a still viable market opportunity.The episode concludes with reflections on the broader pharmaceutical industry, the strategic use (and misuse) of earnout structures, and the importance of precisely drafted effort clauses to protect sellers when control shifts post-acquisition.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity ActOn August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government's efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson's "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states' rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state's independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | ReutersA federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk's SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president's authority over the executive branch.This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB's structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court's panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | ReutersNevada's Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware's Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission's work would serve as an interim step.This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware's procedures.Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.Nevada's Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court RulesInvestors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.They've asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk's defense in both cases.Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to To the Extent That, presented by the ABA. Today's From Boardroom to Courtroom features Kurt Wolfe—a Partner in Quinn Emanuel's SEC Enforcement group, former in Securities co-host, and adjunct securities law professor at the University of Richmond. We'll discuss the SEC's landmark Stable Road / Momentus enforcement, examine newly minted SPAC accounting and disclosure reforms, and explore the surprising 2025 SPAC resurgence.

In this week's episode, Quinn Emanuel partner Christopher D. Kercher reveals why he's been coined his firm's "AI evangelist." In addition to sharing how he has helped colleagues implement AI into their current workloads and the steps they take to mitigate hallucination risks, the New York City-based litigator sat down with Legal Speak co-host Cedra Mayfield to discuss what he predicts is next for AI use in the legal industry.   Hosts - Cedra Mayfield & Patrick Smith Guest: Christopher Kercher Producer: Charles Garnar

John Quinn is joined by Robert Loigman, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office, and Eric Winston, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office.  They discuss the extensive litigation that has followed the 2008 collapse of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme.  The litigation stems from a liquidation by a court-appointed trustee under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).  The primary goal of the liquidation was to recover assets for Madoff's victims.  The litigation has continued for 17 years, so far, because of the number of parties involved and the multitude of proceedings and appeals in both the U.S. and foreign courts.The trustee has pursued clawback claims against “feeder funds” under fraudulent transfer theories, targeting both “net winners” who withdrew more than they invested and “net losers” who withdrew less than they invested.  After the estate recovered $7 billion recovery from one feeder fund, investors began to anticipate higher recoveries than normally occur in SIPA proceedings.  Over time, a secondary market in Madoff claims developed, with distressed asset investors buying claims at steep discounts and profiting when recoveries exceeded expectations.  The Madoff litigation has led to several significant legal developments.  One key issue involved included the safe harbor under the Bankruptcy Code for good faith conduct.  Initially, a judge in the SDNY ruled that to show a lack of good faith, a trustee must show that an investor was willfully blind to the fraud at issue.  In 2021, the Second Circuit ruled that simple inquiry notice is enough, placing a greater burden on investors to investigate irregularities.Another significant legal development was the Second Circuit's ruling that U.S. bankruptcy law could reach transfers between foreign debtors and foreign transferees, expanding the potential reach of clawback efforts.  Finally, the Second Circuit ruled that in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy case, certain U.S. standards would apply to transactions between foreign entities even though the foreign courts with jurisdiction over the entities would apply different standards.The uniquely large and visible fraud in the Madoff litigation case may have led courts to expand legal doctrines in ways that affect bankruptcy and investor litigation more generally.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office.  They discuss the recent win Chris's team achieved in Delaware Chancery Court trial involving a high-stakes case involving Desktop Metal and Nano Dimension.  The dispute centered around a merger agreement that included a "hell or high water" clause obligating Nano, the buyer, to do whatever was necessary to secure regulatory approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), with a narrow exception if required actions would result in a loss of 10% or more of the company's revenue.After the agreement was signed, a hedge fund replaced Nano's board and management with personnel opposed to the deal.  The new board then sought ways to back out.  Although CFIUS approval was near, Nano's new leadership began stalling, making endless counterproposals, delaying communications, and attempting to trigger the revenue-loss exception by claiming a requirement to maintain a German facility would exceed the 10% threshold.  While the buyer tried to appear compliant with the contract, the evidence—especially a 38-day gap in responding to CFIUS—revealed a pattern of bad faith and delay.  Desktop Metal, struggling financially, was meticulous in adhering to operating covenants, collecting receivables and consulting Nano on business decisions, knowing any misstep could be weaponized to kill the deal.  Despite pressure, the seller never received a renegotiation offer from Nano.At trial, the team presented the buyer's conduct as a strategic “slow-walk.”  The court ultimately agreed, affirming that a hell or high water clause must be honored in both letter and spirit.  The case serves as a reminder that efforts to evade deal obligations—particularly those cloaked in delay or technicalities—will be exposed under judicial scrutiny, and that Delaware courts remain committed to upholding contractual integrity in complex M&A transactions.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In December 2024, attorney Tony Buzbee filed a lawsuit against Jay-Z's entertainment company, Roc Nation, alleging that its agents engaged in illegal solicitation and impersonation to undermine his legal practice. Buzbee claims that individuals associated with Roc Nation, including attorney Marcy Croft and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, posed as Texas state officials, complete with fake badges, to coerce his former clients into filing false claims against him and his firm. He asserts that these operatives offered financial incentives, up to $10,000, to entice clients to sue his firm, aiming to intimidate and discredit him, particularly concerning his involvement in litigation against Sean "Diddy" Combs.Roc Nation has denied the allegations, dismissing Buzbee's lawsuit as a baseless attempt to distract from ongoing legal matters. A representative from Roc Nation labeled the claims as "another sham" and expressed intent to cooperate with authorities to ensure any wrongdoing is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This legal confrontation adds another layer to the complex disputes involving high-profile figures in the entertainment industry, with Buzbee also representing clients in cases alleging sexual misconduct against both Sean "Diddy" Combs and Jay-Z.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:buzbee-lawsuit-against-roc-nation-croft-emanuel.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John is joined by Maaren A. Shah and Luke Nikas, both partners in Quinn Emanuel's New York office.  Maaren and Luke have the top art disputes practice in the world.   They discuss Maaren and Luke's recent victory in the multi-front litigation concerning the legacy of American pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his iconic LOVE sculpture. The case began when Indiana's longtime advisor, who held exclusive rights to fabricate Indiana's works, discovered that Michael McKenzie was creating and selling unauthorized artworks.  This led to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit.At the time, Indiana was elderly, isolated on an island off the coast of Maine, and physically deteriorating.  Indiana's situation was worsened by a coordinated effort by several individuals to cut him off from his longtime supporters and assume control over his name, artwork, and brand. The day after the initial lawsuit was filed, Indiana passed away, causing further complications.  His estate sought to terminate contracts with the advisor and seize control of its intellectual property rights and valuable inventory of Robert Indiana artworks.  The legal fight quickly expanded into multiple jurisdictions with overlapping lawsuits involving McKenzie, the advisor, the estate, and the sole beneficiary of the estate, a charitable foundation called the Star of Hope.  Maaren and Luke formed an alliance with the Star of Hope and the Maine Attorney General's office, which regulated the foundation.  They secured an agreement with the foundation ensuring the advisor would retain its rights, inventory, and business role regardless of the outcome of the litigation with the estate, rendering that litigation moot.  The Estate quickly buckled and ended its pursuit of the advisor.With the advisor's rights and assets secured, the team turned back to McKenzie, who had previously misrepresented the number of Indiana works in his possession.  After the team uncovered numerous hidden artworks and secured devastating testimony from McKenzie's former associate, among others, the court imposed terminating sanctions, including dismissing McKenzie's claims and awarding the advisor its attorney's fees.  The victory ultimately protects Indiana's legacy and ensures stability in the market for his art.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Quinn Emanuel partner Manisha Sheth has moved twice between elite private practice and high-stakes public enforcement. In this wide-ranging conversation we discuss:how to bet on yourself to cultivate new skillshow she ran 250 lawyers at the N.Y. Attorney General's office and sped up investigations with two simple process tweaksthe hottest state-level enforcement trends in climate, consumer finance, and AIdangling from an ice face at 19,000 ftListen for practical insights on career strategy, process and delegation as competitive advantages, and a couple mountaineering stories that will make your palms sweat.

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice.  Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others.  He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements).  They discuss the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements.  Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk's favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk's tweet about taking Tesla private.  He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory.  Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel's Wilmington, Delaware office.  They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions.  Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.”  Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare.  In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework.  The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders.  Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners.Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc.  In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair. Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty (e.g., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation.  “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend.  To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions.  The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed.  It also reforms the state's books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands.  The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world's demand for greater legal certainty.  Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office, and Jeffrey Chivers, co-founder of litigation AI company Syllo AI.  They discuss the transformative role artificial intelligence played in a recent Quinn Emanuel trial victory in Delaware Chancery Court.  The case involved Desktop Metal's attempt to force Nano Dimension to complete a $183 million merger, where Nano tried to stall the deal by slow-walking regulatory approvals by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States until the drop-dead date for the transaction had passed.  Quinn Emanuel was hired to represent Desktop Metal only six weeks before trial, requiring an accelerated approach to discovery and case preparation.  The team used Syllo AI, a litigation focused product that allowed them to review and organize massive volumes of documents through natural language prompts, create timelines, tag relevant material, and identify patterns much faster than traditional methods.  The Syllo platform also integrates multiple AI models that cross-check each other's outputs while following built-in mental models of legal reasoning.  During the trial, Syllo customized its tools to provide rapid privilege log and document production deficiency analysis, helping to identify gaps in the opposing side's discovery.  The team also worked with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic to test ideas, explore potential legal theories, and brainstorm approaches to witness examinations.  Syllo and Claude helped attorneys identify relevant evidence for use in expedited post-trial briefs and suggested potential lines of questioning for depositions.  Attorneys directed all AI usage, with Claude serving as a cognitive tool that amplified the legal team's capabilities while the attorneys maintained full responsibility for all work product.  AI did not displace anyone on the trial team. Instead, it complemented the attorneys' expertise, enhancing their ability to deliver strategic insights and respond effectively to case developments.  It may soon become malpractice not to use AI in trial preparation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The legal conflict between attorneys Alex Spiro and Tony Buzbee has intensified amid the high-profile lawsuits involving Sean "Diddy" Combs and Shawn "Jay-Z" Carter. Buzbee, representing numerous plaintiffs alleging sexual misconduct by Combs, filed a lawsuit implicating Jay-Z in a 2000 incident where a 13-year-old girl was allegedly raped at an afterparty. Jay-Z, denying the allegations, accused Buzbee of extortion, asserting that Buzbee attempted to coerce a settlement by threatening to publicize the claims. Spiro, Jay-Z's attorney, emphasized that the accuser admitted inconsistencies in her story and suggested that Buzbee influenced her to include Jay-Z in the lawsuit. Consequently, Jay-Z filed a defamation and civil extortion lawsuit against Buzbee and his client, seeking to clear his name and address the purported misuse of the legal systemIn response, Buzbee contended that his actions were standard legal procedures, denying any extortion attempts. He further alleged that Jay-Z and his legal team, including Spiro, engaged in efforts to discredit him by filing grievances that led to his withdrawal from over a dozen federal cases due to admission issues in the Southern District of New York. Buzbee claimed that these actions were part of a broader strategy to undermine his credibility and deter him from pursuing cases against high-profile individuals. He also filed a lawsuit against Roc Nation and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, accusing them of conspiring to have his clients file frivolous lawsuits against him. This escalating legal battle underscores the complex interplay between legal ethics, high-stakes litigation, and the influence of powerful figures in the entertainment industry.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John is joined by Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, one of the foremost companies in the world specializing in software platforms for big data analytics. They discuss the emerging trends in AI regulation.  Courtney explains the AI Act recently passed by the EU Parliament, including the four levels of risk it assesses for different AI systems and the different regulatory obligations imposed on each risk level, how the Act treats general purpose AI systems and how the final Act evolved in response to lobbying by emerging European companies in the AI space. They discuss whether the EU AI Act will become the global standard international companies default to because the European market is too large to abandon. Courtney also explains recent federal regulatory developments in  the U.S. including the framework for AI put out by the National Institute of Science and Technology, the AI Bill of Rights announced by the White House which calls for voluntary compliance to certain principles by industry and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which requires each department of the federal government to develop its own plan for the use and deployment of AI.  They also discuss the wide range of state level AI legislative initiatives and the leading role California has played in this process.  Finally, they discuss the upcoming issues legislatures will need to address including translating principles like accountability, fairness and transparency into concrete best practices, instituting testing, evaluation and validation methodologies to ensure that AI systems are doing what they're supposed to do in a reliable and trustworthy way, and addressing concerns around maintaining AI systems over time as the data used by the system continuously evolves over time until it no longer accurately represents the world that it was originally designed to represent.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Susheel Kirpalani, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and founder and Chairperson of the firm's Bankruptcy and Restructuring Group. They discuss restructuring litigation, including fraudulent transfer litigation and valuation disputes, and how it differs from commercial litigation.  They also discuss the importance of building alliances with other stakeholders in the company, how much the practice is based on relationships and trust, and the opportunities that exist to design creative securities that allow a company to survive but also allow its creditors substantial recoveries. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by David Elsberg, the Founding Partner of two law firms, most recently Elsberg, Baker & Maruri.  They discuss the experience of starting a law firm, including the motivations, challenges, and rewards of building a law firm from the ground up.  David is a former Quinn Emanuel partner.  He was inspired to start his own firms by the accounts of John and other Quinn Emanuel partners of the satisfaction they felt from building something new.  He wanted the challenge of starting a firm and learning the business side of legal practice.  Although running a law firm requires a different skill set from practicing law, starting a law firm is not particularly difficult compared to other businesses.  Success depends primarily on assembling the right people.  At first, David was intimidated by the non-legal aspects of starting a business, such as setting up payroll and office infrastructure, but found that hiring skilled professionals made the process manageable.  The most critical factor for success is selecting lawyers who are not only talented, but work well together.  Before starting a new firm, founders should carefully disengage from their current firm.  They need to walk a tightrope in how they communicate their departure to their current firm's management, colleagues, and clients.  Boutique litigation firms now attract high quality associates because they offer young lawyers more trial experience and closer client relationships.  Many clients also appreciate the hands-on approach of a smaller firm without the bureaucracy of a large organization.  David's firm prioritizes trial work, handling high-stakes disputes, particularly in finance.  He has found that, while it involves risk, the rewards of independence and creativity in a start-up firm are significant.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In the final episode in this series recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Richard Ma, Founder of the Dahui law firm; Xiao Liu, Quinn Emanuel's Chair of China Practice and Chief Representative of the Beijing Office; and Yixuan Zhu, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Beijing office.  They discuss building their respective firms, establishing their firms' cultures, global expansion strategies, and challenges in cross-border legal practice.  Dahui was established to better serve clients, particularly in fast-evolving new economy industries like technology, media, telecommunications, and healthcare.  Dahui adopted a boutique approach—being the best at what it did and providing full-service legal support to its clients.  Expanding carefully, the firm analyzes whether expanding into a new city will assist its clients and whether it can attract top tier local talent.  The Chinese legal market is also trending towards firms expanding into “second-tier” Chinese cities such as Wuhan, Nanjing, and Chongqing where an increasing number of disputes arise.  Quinn Emanuel's global expansion has been largely talent-driven and opportunistic, seeking exceptional lawyers to open offices rather than following a predetermined plan.  In addition, the globalization of business has led to a globalization of disputes with proceedings in multiple jurisdictions and key witnesses living around the world.  Firms with talented lawyers throughout the world are simply better suited to effectively represent clients in such cases.  Both firms work to maintain firm cultures that emphasizes competitiveness and client service.  Quinn Emanuel has a tradition of sending firm wide "victory emails" to celebrate case wins and instill a results-driven mindset.  Dahui values commitment to precision and professionalism, ensuring high standards in legal work.  On the evolving Chinese legal market, Dahui bridges the gap between international clients and China's regulatory landscape, correcting misconceptions and ensuring successful investments and dispute resolutions.  As Chinese companies continue to expand globally, demand for international dispute resolution will likely rise.  Legal complexities stemming from U.S.-China tensions will also likely provide opportunities for experienced litigators to navigate shifting regulatory and geopolitical landscapes.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The legal clash between Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal team revolves around a dispute that has captured significant public attention. Tony Buzbee, a prominent attorney, is representing clients who have raised allegations of misconduct involving Jay-Z or his business ventures. Buzbee has publicly criticized Jay-Z and his legal team for what he describes as attempts to intimidate or discredit his clients, alleging a pattern of leveraging wealth and influence to suppress the truth. Buzbee's approach, often marked by sharp rhetoric and public statements, suggests his intent to bring the case into the spotlight, possibly to apply pressure on Jay-Z and his team to address the allegations.Jay-Z's legal team has pushed back against Buzbee's claims, accusing him of sensationalizing the legal process for media attention. They argue that his public statements are inflammatory and undermine the integrity of the legal proceedings. The back-and-forth has escalated with Jay-Z's lawyers filing motions to dismiss or limit certain claims, citing insufficient evidence or procedural grounds. Meanwhile, they maintain that the allegations are baseless and are part of a broader campaign to tarnish Jay-Z's reputation. This dispute highlights the high-stakes nature of celebrity litigation, where legal strategies often intertwine with public narratives.The legal confrontation between attorney Tony Buzbee and Jay-Z has intensified with recent developments. Buzbee, representing a woman alleging that Jay-Z and Sean "Diddy" Combs sexually assaulted her when she was 13 at a 2000 MTV Video Music Awards after-party, has faced strong rebuttals from Jay-Z's legal team. Jay-Z's attorney, Alex Spiro, has labeled the claims as false and part of an extortion attempt, emphasizing inconsistencies in the accuser's account. Jay-Z has filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and to compel the accuser to reveal her identity, arguing that the allegations are baseless and damaging to his reputation.In a further escalation, Buzbee filed a lawsuit on December 18, 2024, against Jay-Z's company, Roc Nation, and the law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleging that they attempted to influence his former clients to file frivolous lawsuits against him and his firm. Buzbee claims to possess audio evidence supporting these allegations and has vowed to present it in court. This countersuit adds another layer to the ongoing legal battle, highlighting the contentious and complex nature of the dispute between Buzbee and Jay-Z's legal representatives.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jay-Z's lawyers ask to dismiss rape lawsuit after accuser's interview amid 'severe' legal misconduct | Daily Mail OnlineInside the insane battle now exploding between Jay-Z and cigar-smoking lawyer who's accusing him of rape | Daily Mail Onlineshow less

Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adOver 2 Million Butts Love TUSHY. Save BIG at 10% off TUSHY with the code LAWNERD at https://hellotushy.com/LAWNERD #tushypod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Jay-Z has been identified as Celebrity A, who participated with Diddy in sexually assaulting a 13 year old Jane Doe back in 2000. Jay-Z's attorney requested the court have the plaintiff refile the case without anonymity. Jay-Z also filed a lawsuit against The Buzzbee Firm as a John Doe, claiming he is being extorted.Buzzbee explained on social media that requesting to mediate a lawsuit is not extortion. Tony Buzzbee was Denied a Restraining Order against the Quinn Emanuel Firm. The firms are accusing each other of legal gamesmanship, filing lawsuits in bad faith and malpractice. We have seen Diddy's lawyers attack other plaintiff's attorney's before.Tony Buzzbee went to social media to claim that one of his clients recorded a call they had with an investigator offering to pay them to sue Buzzbee.Do you want me to continue to follow this mud slinging saga between the attorneys?RESOURCESLatest Quick Bits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbz89hq64cDonna Adelson's Status Conference - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRHNjlNen60This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

John Quinn is the founder and Chairman of Quinn Emanuel, the largest law firm in the world focused on business litigation, with more than $2 billion in revenue last year. John joins Adam to share his journey and his best lessons and advice. John and Adam discuss a wide range of topics: leadership, business development, building winning teams and cultures, negotiation, persuasion, and more.