Law, disrupted

Major universities are essentially huge businesses with massive infrastructure and numerous employees. They are large housing, food, athletic teams, and healthcare providers and are engaged in construction projects. All public and private roles within universities that receive federal funds are subject to government regulation with the same kinds of human resources problems as regular businesses. Legal issues besiege many universities; unlike corporations, which are used to a regulatory environment, universities are often not well equipped or staffed to address the myriad of legal issues they are facing now. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by American lawyer and academic administrator Michael K. Young, and partner at Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, former Ambassador Crystal Nix-Hines. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding higher education.  Firstly, they discuss issues surrounding the changing landscape of universities' role in protecting their students and what those institutions are doing to protect themselves from legal cases and liabilities they are sent. They briefly touch on the cases against Penn State regarding sexual harassment. Does the changing landscape raise questions about the fine line between universities' duty to protect students on and off-campus incidents? This issue leads to John asking whether the political sphere plays a role in this. Former Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, changed the law, shifting away from the law created by the Obama administration around sexual harassment, with universities highlighting concerns that Secretary DeVos’s standards made it more difficult for students to pursue claims against their alleged offenders. Together they touch on the issues surrounding higher education and sports teams. Athletics budgets have been reduced in recent years, paired with the question of equality of opportunity for all genders, which has made it difficult to pinpoint what equality looks like from a legal point of view. They turn to legal issues surrounding diversity in admissions, and standardized tests, with litigation on this going back a decade. They discuss why the mission of equality is so vital to modern universities and consider the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of the lawsuits brought against the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. They debate whether the Supreme Court is likely to overturn or reaffirm its prior holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Will the Court decide that race cannot be considered a factor in admissions at all?Finally, John wraps up the podcast by asking about the types of issues being litigated in universities right now, with the majority of claims coming from the COVID-19 pandemic; 370 suits against 200 universities as a result of universities shifting to remote learning during the pandemic lockdowns.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander RossiProducer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

One of the most difficult tasks facing our legal system is determining the compensation to provide individual victims of many of the large-scale tragic events that our country has faced in recent years.  In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by attorney Kenneth (Ken) Feinberg, a mediator extraordinaire who has settled some of the most high-profile mass tort and disaster disputes the US legal system has ever seen as well as managing the claims administration programs for terrible events that did not result in litigation. He has managed the victim compensation funds in high-profile tragedies including the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP oil spill fund, and the victim assistance funds established in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook shooting. Mr. Feinberg also resolved victim compensation issues in the General Motors ignition switch cases, the VW diesel emissions cases, the Boeing 737 MAX crash cases, the Eli Little DES cases, the Shoreham Nuclear Plant cases, Agent Orange, asbestos, among many others.  The conversation begins with exploring the ways that cases come to Mr. Feinberg, including defendants who realize they need to resolve a situation but first have to resolve how to divide the money they have available, plaintiffs who wish to avoid years of uncertain, costly litigation or when the government allocates money to compensate victims of a tragedy without any adversarial proceedings at all.  The two then discuss the need to establish consensus on clear procedures for the mediation before turning to the merits of the dispute and why 90 percent of cases settle on the second day of mediation.Mr. Feinberg and John then explore the extremely emotional and complicated problem of allocating the money among hundreds or thousands of claimants in these cases.  In particular, they explain the crucial role that transparency of the process plays in assuring claimants that there is no hidden agenda in how the proceeds will be divided up.  They detail how issues of criteria of eligibility, the methodology for calculating damages, proof requirements, and the right to a hearing all must be established at the outset for a settlement to succeed.  They then turn to objective ways to calculate damages for the death of a loved one and injury damages for large numbers of claimants without evaluating medical charts for every claimant.The two men then explore how these principles played out in high profile cases including the Boston Marathon bombings, the Pulse Nightclub attack, the Virginia Tech shootings, the 9/11 fund and the BP oil spill.  They explain how, in some cases, the number of potential cases might require hiring thousands of claims adjusters to determine which claimants are eligible for compensation and to screen for fraud as well as the need for a procedure to hear the appeals of those who believe their compensation under the process is not adequate.  Mr. Feinberg also explores in detail why, despite the magnitude of the disaster, the speed at which the families of the affected would receive the payment is vital in maintaining trust and belief in the entire process.Together, Mr. Feinberg and John examine potential court oversight to the process including situations such as 9/11 where there was no such oversight, identifying comparisons with the examples of the BP oil spill and the General Motors car recall. Throughout the podcast and especially at the end, Mr. Feinberg provides specific examples of the devastating personal stories he has heard from the victims of these horrific events and they discuss the emotional toll claims can and have had on Ken.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Cryptocurrencies are tearing up the financial and technological playbook with new projects breaking ground every day.  Despite recent fluctuations, the popularity of all things crypto continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Parallel to this astronomic growth is the mounting interest in a cryptocurrency regulatory framework to curb the potential for money-laundering and other crimes in this here-to-stay financial system. This week, Law, disrupted is tackling these very issues. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn is joined by Katie Lemire, Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s New York City office, and Ellen Zimiles, partner at Guidehouse, where she heads the Financial Services Advisory and Compliance practice.Together they discuss issues surrounding the crypto industry's legal and regulatory frameworks, diving into the role of financial regulators and institutions in the crypto realm. They speak to the historically mandated role of banks in preventing money-laundering and terrorist funding, and how crypto will operate successfully if required to do the same. They analyze compliance at both federal and state levels, with the New York state regulatory framework for cryptocurrency being a leading example for the other 49 states. They chew over the legal risks from a regulatory and compliance standpoint and finish by noting how regulators can keep up with crypto's explosive growth, as well as highlighting the future of anti-money-laundering compliance tools. Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander RossiProducer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John joins the Honorable Alan D. Albright, United States District Judge for Western District of Texas, Waco Division. After less than four years as a federal judge, Judge Albright now hears more patent cases than any other judge in the United States, with a docket that includes 25% of all patent cases in the country.Judge Albright predicts what the next big technology battleground in patent cases will be, shares advice for lawyers who are interested in practicing patent law and offers tips for attorneys who practice before him.To start the discussion, Judge Albright describes his years of experience as a patent litigator and how that experience shaped his approach to management of his patent docket. Judge Albright explains how speed in moving patent cases to trial has led his courtroom to become a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs. He and John then discuss how he has been able to attract clerks with technical backgrounds and experience with patent law and how he consulted with patent lawyers from a wide range of firms to come up with rules for litigating patent cases that he hopes are objectively fair to all sides. Judge Albright explains why he believes that it is essential to stay all discovery until after the Markman hearing.Together, Judge Albright and John dissect the factors that make Texas a fertile venue (both Eastern District and Western District) for patent litigation. Discussing the Alice test and section 101 patent eligibility issues, Judge Albright shares his thoughts on where there is adequate certainty from the federal circuit on such issues, and where further guidance and clarity is needed. He and John then discuss the circumstances when it is beneficial to appoint a technical advisor on a case and when it is less beneficial. Judge Albright also discusses his utilization of magistrate judges. The conversation turns to Judge Albright’s goals for adjudicating cases expeditiously and the changes that he has introduced to his Standard Order Governing proceedings in his Court. Judge Albright also describes the short-term and permanent changes to the litigation process resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, including his shift to using Zoom for virtually all pretrial hearings and, in some instances, for trial witnesses. John and the judge then explore Judge Albright’s “dialog” with the Federal Circuit on venue issues, including how one writ of mandamus quickly grew to eight or more. They cover Judge Albright’s approach to deciding when a case should be heard in Austin, as opposed to Waco and how Judge Albright handles cases that are transferred from Waco to Austin. They then discuss Judge Albright’s views on when a case should or should not be stayed in favor of IPR proceedings.The conversation then shifts to what Judge Albright believes will be the next big technology battleground for patent cases: electric cars and the aspects of that technology that make it ripe for patent litigation.Finally, Judge Albright gives advice to young lawyers interested in going into the patent field, including what qualities patent lawyers should have if they do not have a technical background. He also gives advice to lawyers who practice before him: learn to work with the other side.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Nearly 300,000 United States service members and veterans are suing technology and manufacturing giant 3M over claims that their supply of military earplugs caused soldiers to suffer hearing loss, tinnitus, and other hearing difficulties. The dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs (CAEv2) were standard issue equipment for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 10 years.In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John Quinn and his guests, Matt Hosen and Bryan Alystock, discuss how this defective earplug litigation started and evolved into the largest consolidated mass tort litigation in history.To open the episode, Matt Hosen shares how, as a second year Quinn Emanuel associate, he found, buried in a large document production in an antitrust case in which the firm represented a company called Moldex-Metric, an internal 3M document which became known as “The Flange Report.” He 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.Matt goes on to describe how Hal Barza, a former Quinn Emanuel partner, used the Flange Report in depositions of 3M laboratory employees to great effect; leading not only to the resolution of the antitrust case, but also the commencement of a whistleblower False Claims Act (Qui Tam) case brought against 3M on behalf of the U.S. government. In connection with this Qui Tam lawsuit, the Flange Report was brought to the government’s attention, leading to the United States Department of Justice’s intervention in the case. 3M entered into a settlement with the U.S. government in 2018 agreeing to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations it knowingly sold the earplugs to the U.S. military without disclosing the CAEv2 defects. The DOJ issued a public press release in July 2018 announcing the Qui Tam settlement.Bryan Aylstock, managing and founding partner of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, based in Pensacola, Florida, then joins the conversation to explain how this DOJ press release led to the plaintiffs’ mass tort bar filing cases all over the United States on behalf of U.S. service members alleging product defect, failure to warn and fraud claims. These cases were later consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Pensacola before Chief District Court Judge Casey Rodgers.Judge Rodgers appointed the Alystock firm to lead a Plaintiff Leadership Committee consisting of over three dozen law firms, including Quinn Emanuel. Judge Rodgers oversaw all aspects of discovery in the MDL, and with input from plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel, selected individual service members to serve as bellwether plaintiffs. Bellwether trials began in April, 2021.Plaintiff service members have achieved victory in 9 of the 15 bellwether trials to date, receiving over $222 million in damages. In the most recent bellwether trial, a Gainesville, Florida jury found in favor of the army veteran on all counts and awarded $2.2 million in compensatory damages. If the average awards in these bellwether cases, including the defense verdicts, are applied across the nearly 300,000 service member lawsuits currently pending, 3M’s total exposure would be over $1 trillion.With the bellwether process almost concluded, the guests explain how hundreds of individual lawsuits are now completing discovery, prior to being remanded to federal judges across the country for trial.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Russia’s illegal military invasion of Ukraine has already cost countless lives, and forced millions of innocent people to flee their homes and the country, creating a massive humanitarian crisis both within and outside Ukraine. Many other civilians are unable to flee, being besieged by constant Russian shelling and threat, leaving them trapped in cities without access to the most basic necessities such as medicines and medical treatment, food, water and electricity. As the war goes on, the tragic toll on Ukraine and its people continues to grow. Through the legal claim it will bring before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Ukraine will seek to hold Russia to account for its grave and flagrant violations of the fundamental human rights protections provided by the European Convention (the Convention) resulting from this illegal war.  Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan will represent Ukraine in this most important case, and in this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn joinsAlex Gerbi, a partner at Quinn Emanuel’s London office, to unpack the different aspects of this claim.The episode begins by highlighting the firm’s long-standing relationship with Ukraine, and how the illegal invasion and purported annexation of Crimea by Russia in early 2014 created a number of legal claims, including one for a state-owned bank Oschadbank, now a Quinn Emanuel client of many years. Alex shares how this significant case led the firm to grow its relationships in Ukraine, taking on other important cases along the way and ultimately leading to the firm’s instruction on this case before the ECtHR.John and Alex then shift to the current claim to be brought by Ukraine against Russia before the ECtHR as a result of Russia’s invasion of the country and the ongoing war. Together, they discuss the legal implications of Russia's breaches of human rights in the context of the Convention, and other issues relating to the conduct of the case before this European Court. With Russia having first renounced the Convention and then been expelled from the Council of Europe, how might the landscape of this claim be impacted? They discuss the nature of the Court, the make-up of the Judges, as well as the nature and timing of the proceedings. Finally, they discuss what relief Ukraine might look to obtain from the ECtHR and address the question -- will that make a difference in the face of Russia’s continued acts of aggression?Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.comSign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.meProducer www.alexishyde.comPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Despite the COVID-19 health crisis and extreme levels of market volatility, the private equity market has been on fire. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn joins Brad Berenson, Partner and General Counsel at TPG, and Chris Green, Managing Director and General Counsel at Bain Capital, two of the largest private equity firms in the world.Having both navigated the challenges presented by the pandemic, Brad and Chris describe how this period of time has showcased what’s valuable and differential about private equity, relative to other asset classes. They contest critics’ views that the industry operates under a model of “financial engineering and cost-cutting,” outlining how private equity has provided businesses with access to capital, job preservation and business protection through turbulent times.John and his guests discuss the new disclosure rules proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which presage sweeping regulatory and enforcement changes under the Investment Advisers Act. Aimed at increasing transparency from private companies, the SEC’s proposed rules represent an unprecedented level of scrutiny and oversight from the commission, striking at the heart of how the industry has historically done business. Together, John, Brad and Chris analyze how—if adopted—the rules will impact private fund investor reporting and documentation, evaluating whether these proposed rules miss the mark of increasing competition and reducing regulatory burdens.They then discuss a new chapter in antitrust law and the regulation of mergers and acquisitions. In particular, they discuss the apparent shift that merger control agencies seem to be taking from focusing on consumer welfare and competition towards focusing on protecting other interests, such as organized labor, small businesses or environmental concerns. They explain how this transition has led to additional scrutiny for potential deals that pose little risk under traditional antitrust analysis, which delays and injects uncertainty into commercial activity.John and his guests also examine the importance of ESG analysis when considering potential investments, and the ways ESG metrics are presently measured, such as a business's carbon footprint and climate-related risks. They also address ways in which private equity firms have been able to address ESG concerns more quickly than many public companies.The conversation turns to the potential liability of private equity firms as sponsors and the economic importance of respecting corporate forms, limiting any upward flow of liability from portfolio companies to private equity firms and their investors. This requires that private equity firms remain mindful of their governance role on their portfolio companies’ boards, avoiding actions that could support “alter ego” liability.Additionally, John and his guests discuss the dual roles of appointed directors on portfolio companies’ boards and how to prevent problems from arising, particularly in the context of protecting attorney-client privilege. They then conclude by covering some of the legal issues surrounding continuation funds, including how to protect the economic interests of limited partners when assets are rolled over into a continuation fund. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.comSign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music byPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

ESG—or environmental, social, and governance—criteria seems to be everywhere these days. With social issues more visible than ever in our interconnected world, consumers and investors alike are paying more attention to how the businesses they support will help or hinder greater progress for society as a whole. With new metrics for assessing social and environmental impact evolving and targets being embedded into corporate strategy, ESG data is informing decision-making around the world. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John and his guests discuss navigating the evolving ESG legal landscape.This episode features Andrew Malk, the Managing Partner of Malk Partners, a consulting firm focused exclusively on advising private equity firms and investors to create, protect and monitor value through ESG management. John also welcomes Anthony Alden and Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles and London offices.During their conversation, John’s guests share insights on how we got to where we are today, what to expect in the future, and what they are seeing from a reputational, regulatory and litigation perspective. They discuss whether society is expecting more accountability from businesses, and highlight a potential shift in the way we view the social contract between businesses, corporations, and individuals. With the rise of concern over sustainability and climate change, companies are experiencing increased pressure to make “green” claims and commitments. The three explore the emergence of various ESG rating systems that aim to meet such demands for transparency and discuss the inherent challenges in simplifying and standardizing comparable metrics. They then consider the SEC’s landmark proposal, which would require public companies to disclose extensive climate-related information in their filings, and debate what matters, and what should be measured. In this conversation, John and his guests detail how ESG considerations are surfacing in the US legal landscape compared with that of the UK and Europe, and highlight an uptick in greenwashing claims as we look to the future wave of ESG litigation. Guests: Anthony Alden is a Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Los Angeles office and Chair of the firm’s Climate Change Practice. Andrew Malk is Managing Partner of Malk Partners, a consulting firm focused exclusively on advising private market participants with respect to ESG issues. Julianne Hughes-Jennett is a Partner at Quinn Emanuel’s London office and has spent the last two decades litigating ESG cases.Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.comSign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.meProducer www.alexishyde.comPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John B. Quinn joins Greg Gentile, President of Silver Spike Capital, an asset management firm focused on investment opportunities in the cannabis, hemp and psychedelic industries and Robert Becher,  Partner and Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s Cannabis Litigation Practice Group. Together they discuss legal issues affecting the cannabis industry.The conversation begins with a discussion of the legal contradictions that exist in the cannabis space due to federal illegality and how Silver Spike Capital has successfully navigated this tricky legal landscape. They dig into how Silver Spike Capital launched the first publicly-listed business development company formed to invest across the cannabis ecosystem and what it took to obtain a NASDAQ listing for a cannabis business.  They next explore the unique legal issues and challenges associated with investing in and lending to the cannabis industry and dispel myths about the industry. Subjects covered in this part of the conversation include banking access, whether it is possible to obtain a security interest in a cannabis license, the role of state regulators, the unavailability of federal bankruptcy protection, state receiverships and federal taxation of cannabis businesses under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code.  To close out the portion of the conversation focused on cannabis law, they discuss likely litigation trends resulting from industry consolidation, whether federal legalization is inevitable and how the industry would change if cannabis could be shipped legally across state lines.  For the final segment of the podcast, the conversation shifts to an exploration of the law and business of psychedelics and Silver Spike Capital’s involvement in this sector. They discuss ongoing efforts to investigate the medical benefits of psychedelics through FDA-approved clinical trials, whether the psychedelic industry will follow the same trajectory as the cannabis industry and offer predictions for the future.Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.comSign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fmMusic by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.meProducer www.alexishyde.comPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

How did one article in the newspaper turn into a $12bn case? It starts with the Affordable Care Act, the “risk corridors program” incentivized insurers to enter the new health insurance marketplace by agreeing to backstop outsized losses in the first three years of the exchange's existence. The Government was refusing to pay amounts in full, losses mounted, and bankruptcies stacked up across the health insurance industry and the country. One little article covering such a bankruptcy crossed JD Horton’s desk and…the rest (all $12 billion of it) is covered in this podcast!In this episode of Law, disrupted, John joins Quinn Emanuel partners Stephen Swedlow & J.D. Horton, who led the recovery of billions of unpaid funds owed under the program in a case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In their discussion, they describe how they developed the statutory claim against the federal government under the Tucker Act, and reveal why health insurance companies were reluctant to sue the government and “bite the hand that feeds them.”Highlighting some of the challenges and push-back that they faced along the way, Stephen talks about crisscrossing the country to get 150 entities to join the claim he and Horton were heading, despite competition from several leading healthcare specialist law firms. Tune in for a blow-by-blow description of the tactical decisions they made that led them to victory!The first to file a “risk corridors” case in the nation for reneging on Obamacare’s promise, John’s guests detail how they worked together to drive their prosecution all the way up to the highest court in the land, and win!Guests Stephen Swedlow, Trial expert & Co-Managing Partner of Quinn Emanuel’s Chicago officeJ.D. Horton, Trial lawyer & Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan  Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.comSign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.meProducer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi