Law, disrupted

John is joined by the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Lucien Wong, SC.  Attorney-General Wong explains that under Singapore’s constitution, his office is an independent organ of the state which does not answer to either the cabinet or the legislature.  His office includes four divisions:  the criminal division which conducts all prosecutions in Singapore, the civil division which advises government ministries and agencies as well as representing the government in civil court cases and arbitrations, the legislative drafting division which drafts all legislation in Singapore, and the international affairs division which protects Singapore's interests on the international legal stage.  Attorney-General Wong also explains that he is the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission which employs all lawyers working in his office and is independent from the Public Service Commission, which employs all other civil servants in Singapore.  They discuss the case where, less than a month after he became Attorney-General, Malaysia brought an action against Singapore in the International Court of Justice to reclaim an island off the coast of Singapore, requiring Attorney-General Wong to become an international lawyer overnight.  Finally, they discuss Singapore’s use of caning as a criminal punishment, including how the practice originated in India’s penal code which Singapore inherited upon achieving independence, its value as a deterrent, and that Singapore’s reputation as a clean, efficient, civil society might be attributable in part to the deterrent effects of its criminal punishments.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Rachel Geman, a partner at Lieff Cabraser, and Justin A. Nelson and Rohit Nath, both partners at Susman Godfrey, dive into the monumental $1.5 billion copyright recovery from Anthropic. They discuss the serious implications of using over 450,000 pirated works to train AI models. Judge Alsup's decision deemed this conduct irredeemably wrong. The guests also explain the structured claims process for authors, the importance of destroying infringing copies, and broader issues of creator consent and AI's existential risks.

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.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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 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.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner at Reid Collins & Tsai LLP and author of Fighting Bullies, advocates for a career in plaintiff's law. He discusses how law schools funnel students into BigLaw too early, limiting their options and passion. Bill argues that plaintiffs' work brings personal satisfaction and fulfillment by holding wrongdoers accountable. He emphasizes the importance of choosing a career that aligns with values and warns against succumbing to early OCI pressures. Additionally, they explore how AI might reshape law firm dynamics.

John is joined by Bethany W. Kristovich, Partner and Co-Chair of the Professional Liability Defense Group at Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP.  They discuss some of the unique aspects of legal malpractice cases, including how often they arise from collection cases, how a plaintiff must prove not only malpractice but that without the malpractice, the case would have had a different result, the importance of expert testimony in malpractice cases, and the difficulty of mastering damages theories from both the underlying case and the malpractice action.  Bethany explains some of the worst things that can happen in a malpractice case, including the lawyer criticizing the former client so much it provokes a backlash by the jury, internal emails in which lawyers on the same team criticize each other’s work, and lawyers who appear arrogant because they don’t know their own rates.  Finally, Bethany explains several ways lawyers can protect themselves from malpractice claims, including making sure the client is worthy of the firm before taking their case, getting a retainer and staying current on billing and collections, creating short agendas for telephone conversations to document the topics being discussed, and including the client in all decisions about the case.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Avichal Garg, a venture capitalist and Chairman of the Crypto Council for Innovation, teams up with Emily Kapur, a partner specializing in blockchain litigation at Quinn Emanuel. They delve into the evolving legal landscape of cryptocurrency, focusing on challenges like jurisdiction and liability. The discussion highlights the unique role of stablecoins in bolstering U.S. economic influence, alongside the complexities of decentralized autonomous organizations. Their insights illuminate the urgent need for legal systems to keep pace with rapid technological advancements.

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