John is joined by Michael Packard, federal prosecutor and civil litigator at the Boston office of Quinn Emanuel, and Bill Weinreb, an expert in white-collar criminal defense and complex litigation.Together, John, Bill and Michael discuss the recent acquittal Bill and Michael obtained for Jie “Jack” Zhao, the CEO of iTalk Global Communications Inc. in a high-profile “Varsity Blues” prosecution. Prosecutors claimed Zhao paid $1.5 million in bribes to obtain admission for his two sons to attend Harvard. Zhao was one of only four, out of roughly 60 defendants, who did not plead guilty and one of only two who were acquitted at trial. They explain the honest services fraud statute at issue, the preparation for trial, and the specific tactics and evidence Bill and Michael used to win the acquittal.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a rating, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fmKeep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Thomas Krueger, the Former Director of Strategic Trade and Nonproliferation for the National Security Council and current Senior Policy Advisor at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.Together, they discuss the latest regulatory controls on hi-tech exports to both Russia and China, explaining the legal basis for these restrictions, the specific technologies involved and the efforts made to get European and Asian allies to join in these restrictions.  If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by one of the most successful trial lawyers in the US, Jon Loevy, co-founder of Loevy & Loevy.Together, they discuss the $228 million jury verdict Jon won in the first trial brought for violations of Illinois’ unique Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). They explain the BIPA statute, focusing on the landmark suit Jon brought against BNSF Railway Co., including the history of the litigation, the trial itself, the course of settlement negotiations, and the implications of the case for the future of privacy litigation.If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform.To find out more about the podcast and sign up to our newsletter, visit: www.law-disrupted.fmKeep up to date with John on Twitter: @jbqlawPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Paul Schwartz, Professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law and Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, Viola Trebicka, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and the Co-Chair of the firm's Data Privacy and Security Practice, and Stephen Broome, partner in the firm’s Los Angeles and New York offices and the Co-Chair of the firm's Data Privacy and Security Practice. Together they discuss the explosion of data privacy claims on court dockets across the United States. The conversation begins with John asking what developments the panel is seeing right now with data privacy claims. Stephen highlights how more cases are being filed daily, particularly under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), as well federal and state wiretapping laws and new novel theories of recovery that were not previously plead in privacy cases. Viola then explains the two categories of claims plaintiffs have been filing recently.  The first category are common law invasion of privacy claims that are now being applied to modern data privacy issues. The second category consists of claims based on repurposing statutes that did not contemplate modern data gathering over the internet. One example of these statutes is the Federal Wire Tap Act of 1968 which was intended to prohibit people from physically connecting to a landline telephone without permission. Today, on the internet, when someone goes to the website for a company, they know they are communicating with that company, but that company will often send the person’s data off to a third party which tracks ads or pages the person visits clicks on.  Plaintiffs are now alleging that those third parties are eavesdroppers violating the Wire Tap Act. Another statute plaintiffs increasingly use is the Video Privacy Protection Act which was passed in the late 1980s to prevent reporters from learning what videos a person rented at a video store. Now, many websites have embedded videos.  Plaintiffs are now alleging that websites that share information about what embedded videos a person has watched, they have violated the VPPA.  John moves the conversation to why the US does not have comprehensive national legislation addressing data privacy. Paul explains that while Europe as well as states such as California, Nevada, and Virginia have passed statutes governing data privacy, the proposed federal statute, the American Data Privacy Protection Act (ADPPA) has not yet been brought to a vote in Congress. The discussion then turns to how plaintiffs build large damage claims. Viola explains that plaintiffs focus on unjust enrichment and restitution theories.  Unjust enrichment theories are usually asserted when the case centers on advertising data. The panel then discusses how these theories when applied to classes that include tens of millions of plaintiffs can easily lead to total damages figures in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The discussion then turns to what companies can do to avoid these huge awards.  Paul emphasizes that companies need to get ahead of these issues before they get sued by seeking privacy counseling, hiring Chief Privacy Officers, and mapping where their customers’ data is and what is happening to it. Finally, the group discusses two notable issues that have come up in recent FTC enforcement actions.  The first is the possibility of imposing personal liability on senior executives for data privacy violations.  The second is that when it settles a case, the FTC will now spell out in extreme detail what it expects of companies who have had a cybersPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael Schachter, Partner and Co-Chair of the White-Collar Defense Practice Group at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.  Michael has an unparalleled record of victories in some of the most high-profile criminal trials in the United States. Describing Michael in 2022, Chambers USA stated, "The things he can do in a courtroom are magical.”  Together John and Michael discuss the high-profile defense verdict Michael obtained in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of client Tom Barrack, founder of the global investment firm Colony Capital.John opens the conversation by asking Michael about the background of the charges against Mr. Barrack. Michael explains that Mr. Barrack had served as the chair of the Inauguration Committee for former President Trump. In the course of the numerous investigations of the former president’s affairs, the Inauguration Committee was examined thoroughly with no findings of wrongdoing. However, this brought Mr. Barrack under the government’s scrutiny.The charges ultimately brought against Mr. Barrack alleged that he acted as an agent of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) without notifying the Department of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 951, obstructed justice, and made false statements to federal agents when they interviewed him. Michael explains that the allegations about acting as an agent of the UAE arose from meetings Mr. Barrack had with the UAE’s National Security Advisor and the Crown Prince. Michael explains that Section 951 prosecutions are generally reserved for espionage cases, whereas lobbying cases, such as this one, are usually prosecuted under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Prosecutions under FARA require the government to prove that the defendant knew of the registration requirement for foreign lobbyists. Michael speculates that the government proceeded under Section 951 to avoid having to prove this element.The conversation then turns to the evidence presented at trial. Michael explains that the government built its case primarily on text messages and emails taken out of context, particularly a text message in which Mr. Barrack discussed a proposal that he become a special envoy to the Middle East. In that text, Mr. Barrack suggested that if he had such a role, it would benefit the UAE. Michael explains that at trial, he has able to show that Mr. Barrack affirmatively declined the special envoy role. Michael also called former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to testify about a conversation in which Mr. Barrack spoke against the actions of the UAE in a dispute it was having with Qatar. John then moves the conversation to Michael’s use of cross-examination during the prosecution’s case to establish his own themes with the jury. Michael describes how the defense team used the cross-examination of an expert called to testify that the UAE was not a good ally to the U.S. to prove that it really was. Michael also recounts how the defense used the cross-examination of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who previously headed Exxon, to show that it made good business sense for the head of a global large global business, such as Colony Capital, to meet with members of royal families in the Middle East who are often key business decision-makers. Finally, Michael and John discuss the possible impacts this case might have on government policy. Michael suggests that the case might convince the government to return to a more restrained approach to prosecutions under Section 951, confining them to espionage cases as in the past. He also suggests that the cross-examination Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Mark Lanier, Founder of the Lanier Law Firm. Mark is consistently recognized as one of America's premier civil trial lawyers. Together John and Mark discuss the $650.6m award Mark recently won on behalf of two Ohio counties in a bellwether trial against CVS, Walgreens & Walmart for their role in the opioid crisis.John and Mark begin by discussing the basis of the claims against these pharmacies. Mark explains that because opioids are controlled substances, pharmacies must ensure that a prescription is valid and proper before filling the prescription. Further, pharmacies must notice and resolve any red flags that arise in connection with a prescription before filling it. Mark provides several examples of potential red flags, including (a) several seemingly healthy people presenting prescriptions for the same dose of the same medicine written by the same doctor, (b) a prescription from a doctor located so far away that the customer had to drive by many other pharmacies that could have filled the prescription, or (c) the customer paying for other prescriptions with insurance, but paying cash for the opioids.John then turns the discussion to how Mark proved at trial that these pharmacies violated their duties on a systemic basis. They discuss the statistical evidence that Mark presented, including the methodology Mark used to sample an appropriate number of prescriptions to see how many raised red flags and how many times the pharmacies resolved those issues before filling the prescriptions. John and Mark also discuss policies that stores adopted preventing pharmacists from investigating red flags, including requirements that prescriptions be filled in 15 minutes or less.  They then discuss the defenses Walmart, Walgreens & CVS presented, that they each sold only a small percentage of the opioids sold in the two counties, so their actions could have had only a minimal effect on the opioid crisis. The conversation then moves to the damages phase of the trial, including injunctive relief. Mark explains why he focused his presentation on injunctive relief, particularly the costs of the actions the counties would have to take to control the opioid crisis over the next 15 years, rather than estimating the damages incurred to date. They discuss the remediation plan Mark first presented, the defendants’ attempts to poke holes in it, and the scaled-down plan Mark ultimately presented to the court.John and Mark then discuss what the $650.6m judgment for two small counties in one state would mean when extrapolated to the country as a whole. They also discuss the current state of opioid litigation in general, including the three buckets of plaintiffs (governmental entities affected by the crisis, opt-outs and hospitals and other healthcare institutions) as well as the three buckets of defendants (manufacturers and importers of opiates, opiate distributors, and pharmacies) and where each group currently stands in terms of litigation and settlement.John then turns the discussion to the arguments the pharmacies will raise on appeal. Mark explains the pharmacies’ arguments that the case is an unwarranted extension of the law of nuisance, their arguments against the joint and several liabilities, as well as their claim that the jury was tainted by one juror’s alleged misconduct. Finally, John and Mark discuss some of Mark’s other remarkable trial wins, including the $118m he won in a case that he had earlier offered to resolve for $10,000. This leads to a discussion of how experienced and thoughtful trial lawyers avoPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by John Hueston and Moez Kaba, Co-Founders and Partners at Hueston Hennigan LLP. Chambers has described John Hueston as “one of the top trial attorneys” in the United States and Moez as “a master in the courtroom.” Together they discuss an arbitration in which they obtained both a $175 million plus 5% ongoing royalty (an estimated $50 million annually) award in arbitration – one of the largest U.S. trademark awards ever – and a federal jury trial verdict for more than $271 million (a potential record for a Lanham Act case) for clients Monster Energy and Orange Bang against Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX), the maker of Bang energy drinks. The conversation begins with John Hueston explaining the background of the dispute. He discusses how for 40 years, Orange Bang had a widely known trademark for the term “Orange Bang” as a beverage. He then explains that VPX licensed the use of the term “Orange Bang” but only in connection with creatine-based beverages in the nutrition market. The discussion turns to the rise of VPX to become the third largest competitor in the energy drink market, thanks to their product, Bang Energy. The discussion then turns to the issues in play in the arbitration, including how John and Moez had to prove both the licensing agreement's validity and that the trademark had been infringed. They explain their strategy of making the three-week arbitration about the science creatine and how they used VPX’s own documents and witnesses’ depositions to work in their favor.  Moez and John discuss how they proved trademark infringement using survey evidence, historical admissions, and strong equitable stories, including how VPX signed the licensing agreement knowing confusion would ensue. They explain why they decided to take a conservative approach to  monetary damages rather than asking for more than $1 billion, which expert analysis could have supported. This approach resulted in an award of $175 million plus 5% royalties going forward.John then moves the discussion to the Lanham Act jury trial. Moez begins by noting the nine-month time difference between the arbitration and the federal trial and that Monster had filed its lawsuit in California in 2018 before the arbitration proceedings began. In the lawsuit, Monster alleged that VPX advertised its product as a game-changing beverage, which was "nothing short of a miracle drink that delivers benefits and cures that have evaded scientists for decades." Monster also alleged that VPX had misappropriated Monster’s trade secrets by hiring Monster employees and telling them to bring Monster’s confidential information over with them.John Hueston and Moez then explain their unique approach to mock jury exercises in which they overweight the other side’s arguments to help develop their approach both before starting discovery and to prepare for the trial. They also discuss the strict time limits the Court placed on the trial and how they were able to present their case involving complex health, science, and legal issues. Moez explains how they developed their themes that VPX was lying to consumers about what they put in their beverages, cheating competitors by taking confidential information and stealing shelf space away from Monster Energy in supermarkets. They discuss how instead of calling VPX’s CEO to the stand first, they targeted high-level executives who could confirm VPX’s false statements.Finally, the discussion turns to the two critical points of the trial that gave John & Moez the confidence to believe the jury would rule for them: the jury’s reaction to John Hueston’s Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Nasser Alrubayyi. Nasser is a partner at Quinn Emanuel.  He represents and defends international and domestic corporations in a wide assortment of litigation and arbitration cases. Together they discuss the modernization of law, the legal profession, legal process, and judiciary in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and how that relates to promoting foreign investment, including in the mining industry, tech, and life sciences.John and Nasser discuss how Saudi Arabia is currently the fastest-growing economy in the G20, which has led to significant investments in the sectors of the future such as biotech, and education logistics, in addition to oil and gas investment. They note that this growth depends upon a robust legal system that investors have started to have confidence in.  Nasser explains that the legal system is not based upon either common law nor civil law; rather, it is a hybrid, drawing on traits of both. Saudi Arabia has a written constitution, drawing on Sharia sources denoted from Islam, as well as different laws issued by government bodies relating to particular issues. Nasser then explains Sharia law, more specifically, its two primary sources, the holy Qu’ran and Sunnah, referring to the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad PBUH. In addition, there are other sources, such as the consensus of the companions of Sharia scholars. He describes the laws pertaining to procedural matters, such as Saudi companies' law and legislation that discusses substantial issues like personal status laws. Together John and Nasser discuss the procedure behind a significant new law being enacted, walking through the process step-by-step from start to finish, including the role of the Council of Ministers. John then steers the conversation toward understanding the recent developments that have taken place in the Kingdom to attract greater foreign investment. Nasser describes how Saudi Vision 2030 is a key driving force in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s push to make it a more friendly destination for foreign investment.  He notes that since the approval of Vision 2030, many laws have been amended, and new laws have been enacted to make the Saudi Arabian market more attractive to foreign investors. John and Nasser discuss the enactment of the new mining and investment law as an example of one such law. The law aims to accelerate foreign investment in the mining sector by adopting international best practices, including reducing administrative discretion, bureaucracy, and obstacles to obtaining required licenses. The law also establishes clear timelines for the Saudi entities to respond to requests from investors, as well as an online system that enables investors to track their license applications and know where in the process they are. Nasser notes that while great strides have been made, more work is needed to promote the Kingdom. John and Nasser discuss the Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference in Saudi Arabia, an excellent example of how the Kingdom seeks to play a crucial role in the global economy.The discussion then turns to understanding the Saudi judiciary and the importance of a fair, just, and practical system. Nasser explains the Saudi court system and how proceedings have been made more effective through the use of digital communications.  He notes that the majority of cases are now heard and accessed remotely, online. John and Nasser also discuss the path to becoming a judge in Saudi’s judiciary system and recent investments to provide judges additional training as well as more assistants to help them preparePodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael D. Hausfeld. Michael is widely regarded as one of the leading plaintiffs antitrust lawyers in the world. This episode examines how he achieved a $2.67 billion settlement, as well as market-changing injunctive relief for Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) subscribers. The conversation begins with John and Michael discussing the background of the case, noting that BCBS is the single largest national provider of healthcare insurance with over a hundred million subscribers. Together, they discuss how Hausfeld LLP first came to be involved in the case more than 14 years ago, with Michael describing how a number of firms, including firms that compete with Hausfeld LLP, came to him with suspicions of anti-competitive behavior, asking if he could see whether or not there was an antitrust violation. They then discuss how BCBS structured its “Blue Network” so that each individual Blue Cross entity was considered an independent entity, yet none could compete for healthcare insurance in any state outside their designated territory. They explain how these ostensibly separate entities had essentially allocated markets between themselves and agreed not to compete with each other in violation of antitrust laws.John and Michael cover the extensive discovery taken in the case, including the numerous depositions taken and the millions of documents produced. Michael describes the privilege disputes over hundreds of thousands of documents and the mostly favorable rulings the plaintiffs obtained before a Special Master who examined every document in dispute. John and Michael then discuss the battle of experts in the case and how, unlike a traditional cartel case where the experts need only determine a “but, for” price, this case required the experts to actually model the marketplace and identify which areas within a state a competitive entity would have entered first, how that might grow, etc. The experts then modeled or extrapolated those results for all 49 other states. Michael explains the judge’s novel process for resolving expert disputes in which he had two economists educate him off the record on the factors that each side’s economists focused on in making their determinations.John and Michael then explore how the judge’s ruling on a motion to determine the applicable principle of law, later affirmed on appeal, set the stage for settlement negotiations to be productive. Michael explains how the scope of injunctive relief rather than arriving at the $2.67 billion settlement amount was the most difficult issue to negotiate. They examine how the injunctive relief obtained requires BCBS to restructure its Blue Network so that national BCBS accounts can obtain multiple bids at their choice. They also discuss how, because the national account market is the benchmark for the remaining portions of the market, that will affect competition for all insurance markets: national, regional and local.They then discuss the new cases Michael is now working on, including one involving whether or not a branded manufacturer of HIV drugs unlawfully extended the life of its patents so that it could control pricing, another involving whether or not the major rail carriers agreed not to compete on imposing a fuel surcharge, and a mass tort climate change case on behalf of a number of global south countries against major carbon emitters.Finally, John and Michael discuss Michael’s view that big tech, including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta will be a focus of a great deal of antitrust attention for some time into the future.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Eric Winston, a Quinn Emanuel partner in the Los Angeles office. Eric is one the firm’s insolvency and restructuring partners. He is based in Los Angeles and appears in case around the country.Together, they discuss the Aearo bankruptcy case in Indianapolis, Indiana – a case where Aearo’s (solvent) parent, 3M Company, tried (but failed) to use Aearo’s bankruptcy to enjoin the largest MDL litigation in the federal court – the Combat Arms Earplugs MDL in Pensacola, Florida. This may be the first time in the recent history of “mass tort” bankruptcy cases that tort victims were able to defeat an injunction to protect non-debtor parent companies. The conversation begins with events leading up to the bankruptcy and the MDL, comprising over 250,000 product liability claims relating to defective earplugs sold to the US military. The discussion highlights the work of Quinn Emanuel associate Matt Hosen who found, buried in a large document production in a prior (and successful) antitrust case against 3M, an internal 3M document that became known as “The Flange Report.” John explains that the report by a scientist at 3M revealed that the earplugs that 3M had been selling to the U.S. military for over 15 years were defective. The report led to the filing of a False Claims Act suit against 3M and became important evidence in the resulting lawsuits filed by a quarter million active and former US service members.John and Eric then discuss Quinn Emanuel’s role in the ensuing mass tort litigation against 3M and Aearo, consolidated in an MDL proceeding in Pensacola, Florida. They recount the jury verdicts in “bellwether trials” and the sudden bankruptcy of just Aearo, in Indianapolis, as well as Aearo’s immediate efforts to extend the “automatic stay” protections of a bankruptcy filing to 3M, even though 3M itself was not in bankruptcy.John asks Eric what 3M was trying to accomplish by the bankruptcy filing. Eric explains that 3M’s goal was to use controversial bankruptcy tools, including the automatic stay, claim estimation or channeling injunctions into a bankruptcy plan, and forcing plaintiffs to file proofs of claim. These tools have been used in other major mass tort cases, such as in the LTL/Johnson & Johnson litigation, where a subsidiary holding the mass tort liabilities files for bankruptcy, but the solvent parent does not. In these cases, the debtors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting the non-debtor parents. John and Eric discuss why this matters. As Eric explains, 3M wanted to channel the resolution of all the tort claims into bankruptcy and, in turn, force plaintiffs to take less than they would usually get in civil court litigation, resulting in 3M keeping more money. Eric and his colleagues were able to defeat this strategy.Together, John and Eric then cover the Aearo bankruptcy case, including the bankruptcy discovery, trial, and important cross-examinations, including the importance of a key funding agreement between 3M and Aearo. The discussion then turns to what happened in the MDL before and after the bankruptcy court denied the injunction Aearo sought for 3M’s benefit. This included the motions Quinn Emanuel filed in the MDL to stop 3M from arguing that it was not 100% directly and independently liable for all earplug litigation.Finally, John and Eric discuss Eric’s experience working more broadly with the plaintiff lawyers in their bankruptcy arena and their different approaches to litigation, as well as the impact the Aearo case may have in future “mass tort” bankruptcies, bePodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi