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.

John is joined by Rachel Geman, partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Justin A. Nelson, and Rohit Nath, both partners at Susman Godfrey. They discuss the groundbreaking $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement Rachel, Justin, and Rohit reached with AI company Anthropic on behalf of the authors of copyrighted materials —the largest copyright recovery in history. The case involved Anthropic’s use of over 450,000 copyrighted works—mostly books—sourced from pirated sites like Library Genesis and Z-Library. These works were used to train large language models (LLMs). The case centered on infringing conduct stemming from the download and use of pirated copies of copyrighted works. Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case, found that Anthropic’s downloading of pirated works was “irredeemably wrong” and constituted infringement. He also ruled that using legitimately obtained books to train AI was transformative and, therefore, fair use—a finding the plaintiffs disagreed with. A trial was scheduled but avoided when the parties reached a $1.5 billion settlement shortly after fact discovery closed. The settlement compensates authors and publishers at an average rate of approximately $3,000 per work. The settlement also reflects contractual author-publisher splits and employs a structured claims process overseen by a special master. Under the agreement, Anthropic must also destroy the infringing copies and certify they were not used to train its commercial models. This resolution, the largest known copyright recovery to date, was approved after detailed scrutiny of its fairness and administration.

John is joined by Carolynn Levy, Chief Legal Officer of Y Combinator (YC). They discuss YC’s evolution into the world’s most prominent startup accelerator. Some of the famous startups to come out of YC include DoorDash, Airbnb, Stripe, and Coinbase. Carolynn joined YC in 2012. Since then, the organization has grown from a small early-stage investor to a robust platform funding approximately 600 startups annually. In 2012, companies were evaluated in two seasonal “batches,” but YC’s growth now requires having four seasonal batches every year. Each batch now includes approximately 150 startups. Each startup receives $500,000 in seed funding and gains access to a network of alumni, ongoing mentorship, and lifetime support through YC’s internal platform, Bookface. To select the startups, YC evaluates up to 20,000 applications per batch, relying on human review and in-person interviews, where selected applicants receive immediate decisions on whether they will be included in the next batch. The startups included in a batch work on their product for three months. Then, on Demo Day, the founders are given the opportunity to pitch their companies to a room full of investors. That room is now supplemented by online participation for broader reach. In Carolynn’s opinion, strong, resilient, and flexible founders are the most crucial ingredient for a start-up’s success and more important than the idea for the project itself. YC favors entrepreneurs who are focused on product-market fit and is cautious about early-stage founders who are overly preoccupied with legal formalities. Optimism is crucial in the startup world. This has caused Carolynn to shift her mindset from risk-averse legal training to embracing bold innovation. As the Chief Legal Officer of YC, Carolynn leads a team of seven lawyers that handle everything from entity formation and investment paperwork to founder breakups and brand protection. Recently, immigration issues have posed additional challenges due to the global nature of YC’s business. The episode offers a rare inside look at how YC balances legal oversight with startup culture, emphasizing practicality and a deep respect for entrepreneurial vision.

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 microdisplays. 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.

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff’s Law. They discuss Bill’s view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs’ work. The impetus for Bill’s book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths. The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students’ first year—rather than the fall of the students’ second year. This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights. The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction. Bill’s book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs’ practice. He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation. This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work. He argues that plaintiffs’ lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act. While not every case—or plaintiff’s lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law. Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid. These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.

John is joined by Hidetaka Mihara, Senior Counsel at Tokyo International Law Office. They discuss three major legal developments in Japan: (1) the criminal and civil litigation arising from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, (2) the rise of shareholder activism, and (3) Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel. On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Executives at the company that ran the nuclear power plant had been warned of tsunami risks years before the event, but did not report the risk to the government until days before the earthquake. The trial court found the executives not guilty of criminal negligence reasoning that tsunamis of this size were so rare and the cost of addressing the risk, cutting off electricity to the region while repairs were made, was so high that the company’s delayed report did not amount to negligence. Related civil claims against the government and management were also dismissed, with courts holding that neither breached their obligations under Japanese law. Despite some public criticism, most Japanese have moved on from the tragedy, focusing on rebuilding rather than retribution. The recent rise of shareholder activism in Japan is a notable shift in a culture traditionally averse to corporate confrontation. This rise follows reforms in Tokyo Stock Exchange rules, greater emphasis on corporate governance, and changes in ownership thresholds that empower minority shareholders to propose changes. One example is the Seven & i Holdings case, in which activists pushed for a corporate restructuring. While their proposal failed, their recommendations for improving the company were eventually adopted by management. Although shareholder litigation remains rare in Japan, shareholder proposals and negotiations have become increasingly effective, aided by the gradual unwinding of entrenched cross-shareholding relationships. Finally, Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel which has been politically controversial in the U.S., is widely seen in Japan as a strategic and mutually beneficial partnership. Japan views the acquisition as a way to strengthen both nations’ competitiveness against Chinese and Indian steelmakers. Ultimately, the U.S. government approved the acquisition based, in part, on obtaining “golden share” rights, including the right to block certain potential managerial changes at the company. The conversation reflects how Japan’s legal and corporate culture is gradually adapting to global norms while maintaining its distinct approach to risk, accountability, and trust.

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?

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.

John Quinn is joined by Mohammed Rashik, Founder and CEO of Rain Intelligence, a legal technology company that helps lawyers identify emerging legal needs and find potential clients—to make rain. Rain Intelligence provides AI-powered analysis of data from social media, government filings, e-commerce platforms, and other sources to detect patterns and events that could signal potential class action cases, regulatory issues, or other complex litigation opportunities. The goal is to make business development for lawyers more systematic and data-driven than more traditional, reactive methods. The idea for Rain Intelligence was born from Mohammed’s frustration with the lack of tools to help generate clients when starting a solo practice. He began identifying legal issues proactively—such as discovering that a warehouse fire had likely been caused by a neighboring property’s code violations—and found this approach led naturally to client engagement. The core insight was that legal needs often follow predictable patterns triggered by real-world events, and those patterns can be identified and scaled using data science. Rain Intelligence delivers daily personalized reports tailored to each attorney’s practice areas, clients, and litigation history. These updates synthesize signals from a wide range of data pipelines—such as product labels, product recalls, consumer complaints, Substack articles, government announcements, and class action advertising—to identify high-potential legal opportunities. The opportunities are analyzed to assess the prospects for proving liability, the amount of damages, and the collectability of judgments. The service is subscription-based and is currently used by roughly half of the Am Law Top 10 firms and 20% of the top 200. Mohammed explains how Rain Intelligence pieces together disparate data sets to uncover legal risks that may not be obvious in isolation. For example, labeling a food item “preservative free” while including citric acid, which regulators consider a preservative, could be the basis for a lawsuit when combined with regulatory guidance and recent litigation trends. The technology is built to integrate seamlessly into legal workflows, helping lawyers generate business by doing what they do best—spotting legal issues and advising clients.

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions. Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation. The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions. However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement. The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government’s behavior toward non-parties. Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country. Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s. Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution. Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand. Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making. These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class. The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship. Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies. He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.

John is joined by Andrew Frank, Founder and President of KARV. They discuss the evolving role of strategic communications in legal and other public relations “crisis” situations. KARV focuses on strategic advisory services, particularly in high-stakes litigation, crisis response, and public policy matters. Roughly half of the firm’s work involves law-related matters, including disputes, investigations, and regulatory issues. KARV operates internationally, with offices in major U.S. cities and partnerships around the globe. Early engagement is crucial in crisis communication planning. Ideally, engagement begins before a crisis breaks. However, most companies fail to prepare for crises in advance, and communications professionals are typically brought in after legal action has begun. Once engaged, the primary goal of KARV is to support the legal team while minimizing risk. This support includes preparing official statements, crafting consistent messaging, and developing media strategies aligned with legal objectives. The legal and communications teams must collaborate closely to avoid missteps and ensure a unified public-facing narrative. Clients need to understand the mechanics of media engagement, including the distinctions between on-the-record, off-the-record, and background communications. In crisis situations, clients must also understand the expectations of different media outlets, along with the challenges of working with internal PR teams that may lack experience in crisis or litigation matters. Common mistakes include saying too much, failing to coordinate messaging, and ignoring broader reputational concerns. Finally, Andrew explains how artificial intelligence is affecting the communications landscape. On the one hand, AI offers useful tools for drafting and analysis. However, AI also raises new challenges by accelerating the spread of misinformation. For example, a news broadcast may be assembled by an AI aggregator and delivered to the audience through an AI generated avatar without any of the content being confirmed as true. Social media posts now appear and receive more than a thousand comments in 15 minutes; that many comments must be generated by AI and both the comments and the original post may be fake. The need to correct such misinformation means that human judgment and experience in managing complex communications environments will remain central, especially in high-stakes legal disputes.

John is joined by Cassandra “Sandi” Knight, Vice President of Litigation and Discovery at Google. Sandi oversees a global team of over 200 in house legal professionals and a host of law firms around the world. The case load she oversees varies from patent disputes to content moderation, to AI, and privacy issues, among many other types of disputes. Sandi’s department focuses on three functions: litigation, discovery, and support for investigations. Cases rise to the level of Sandi’s attention based on the legal issues involved, the amounts at stake, and the reputational risk and the potential for press attention. One challenge of managing such a wide variety of matters lies in balancing the daily influx of urgent unpredicted matters with the need to intentionally carve out time for deeper strategic reflection. Much of Google’s litigation docket includes cutting-edge disputes in areas like AI and content moderation where there is often little clear legal precedent. In recent years, tech companies have experienced a shift in public perception—from celebrated innovators to targets of public skepticism. This shift has affected Google’s approach to jury trials and litigation in general. Sandi underscores the importance of building trust between the legal team and the business side of the company. This requires lawyers to take clear, actionable positions on legal matters, rather than simply explaining the competing legal risks and leaving the business team to weigh those risks and develop future plans on their own. Collaboration between outside counsel and internal product lawyers is critical to shaping legal strategy in the evolving tech landscape. Counsel who conduct careful mock argument sessions, particularly in Supreme Court litigation, have helped significantly shaped Google’s litigation strategy and contributed to positive outcomes. In general, Google values outside counsel who provide early engagement, strategic foresight, efficiency, and the ability to make legal recommendations rather than hedging every opinion.