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.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Robert Loigman, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Eric Winston, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office.  They discuss the extensive litigation that has followed the 2008 collapse of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.  The litigation stems from a liquidation by a court-appointed trustee under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA).  The primary goal of the liquidation was to recover assets for Madoff’s victims.  The litigation has continued for 17 years, so far, because of the number of parties involved and the multitude of proceedings and appeals in both the U.S. and foreign courts.

The trustee has pursued clawback claims against “feeder funds” under fraudulent transfer theories, targeting both “net winners” who withdrew more than they invested and “net losers” who withdrew less than they invested.  After the estate recovered $7 billion recovery from one feeder fund, investors began to anticipate higher recoveries than normally occur in SIPA proceedings.  Over time, a secondary market in Madoff claims developed, with distressed asset investors buying claims at steep discounts and profiting when recoveries exceeded expectations.  

The Madoff litigation has led to several significant legal developments.  One key issue involved included the safe harbor under the Bankruptcy Code for good faith conduct.  Initially, a judge in the SDNY ruled that to show a lack of good faith, a trustee must show that an investor was willfully blind to the fraud at issue.  In 2021, the Second Circuit ruled that simple inquiry notice is enough, placing a greater burden on investors to investigate irregularities.

Another significant legal development was the Second Circuit’s ruling that U.S. bankruptcy law could reach transfers between foreign debtors and foreign transferees, expanding the potential reach of clawback efforts.  

Finally, the Second Circuit ruled that in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy case, certain U.S. standards would apply to transactions between foreign entities even though the foreign courts with jurisdiction over the entities would apply different standards.

The uniquely large and visible fraud in the Madoff litigation case may have led courts to expand legal doctrines in ways that affect bankruptcy and investor litigation more generally.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss the recent win Chris’s team achieved in a Delaware Chancery Court trial involving a high-stakes case involving Desktop Metal and Nano Dimension. The dispute centered around a merger agreement that included a "hell or high water" clause obligating Nano, the buyer, to do whatever was necessary to secure regulatory approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), with a narrow exception if required actions would result in a loss of 10% or more of the company’s revenue.

After the agreement was signed, a hedge fund replaced Nano’s board and management with personnel opposed to the deal. The new board then sought ways to back out. Although CFIUS approval was near, Nano’s new leadership began stalling, making endless counterproposals, delaying communications, and attempting to trigger the revenue-loss exception by claiming that a requirement to maintain a German facility would exceed the 10% threshold.

While the buyer tried to appear compliant with the contract, the evidence—particularly a 38-day gap in responding to CFIUS—revealed a pattern of bad faith and delay. Desktop Metal, struggling financially, was meticulous in adhering to operating covenants, collecting receivables and consulting Nano on business decisions, knowing any misstep could be weaponized to kill the deal. Despite pressure, the seller never received a renegotiation offer from Nano.

At trial, the team presented the buyer’s conduct as a strategic “slow-walk.” The court ultimately agreed, affirming that a hell or high water clause must be honored in both letter and spirit. The case serves as a reminder that efforts to evade deal obligations—particularly those cloaked in delay or technicalities—will be exposed under judicial scrutiny, and that Delaware courts remain committed to upholding contractual integrity in complex M&A transactions.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Spencer Collins, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of Arm Holdings, the UK-based semiconductor design firm known for powering over 99% of smartphones globally with its energy-efficient CPU designs.  They discuss the legal challenges that arise from Arm’s unique position in the semiconductor industry. 

Arm has a unique business model, centered on licensing intellectual property rather than manufacturing processors. This model is evolving as Arm considers moving “up the stack,” potentially entering into processor production to compete more directly in the AI hardware space.  Since its $31 billion acquisition by SoftBank in 2016, Arm has seen tremendous growth, culminating in an IPO in 2023 at a $54 billion valuation and its market value nearly doubling since.

AI is a major strategic focus for Arm, as its CPUs are increasingly central to AI processing in cloud and edge environments.  Arm’s high-profile AI projects include Nvidia’s Grace Hopper superchip and Microsoft’s new AI server chips, both of which rely heavily on Arm CPU cores.   Arm is positioned to be a key infrastructure player in AI’s future based on its broad customer base, the low power consumption of its semiconductors, and their extensive security features. 

Nvidia’s proposed $40 billion acquisition of ARM collapsed due to regulatory pushback in the U.S., Europe, and China.  This led SoftBank to pivot to taking 10% of Arm public.  Arm is now aggressively strengthening its intellectual property strategy, expanding patent filings, and upgrading legal operations to better protect its innovations in the AI space.

Spencer describes his own career path—from law firm M&A work to a leadership role at SoftBank’s Vision Fund, where he worked on deals like the $7.7 billion Uber investment—culminating in his current post.   He suggests that general counsel for major tech firms must be intellectually agile, invest in best-in-class advisors, and maintain geopolitical awareness to navigate today’s rapidly changing legal and regulatory landscape.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation.   They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts.  The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently.

Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available.  &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes.  Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output.

The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace.  It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence.

&AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing.  This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there.  AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation.  This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly.  Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm’s proprietary data and preferred styles.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Maaren A. Shah and Luke Nikas, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office.  Maaren and Luke have the top art disputes practice in the world.   They discuss Maaren and Luke’s recent victory in the multi-front litigation concerning the legacy of American pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his iconic LOVE sculpture. 

The case began when Indiana’s longtime advisor, who held exclusive rights to fabricate Indiana’s works, discovered that Michael McKenzie was creating and selling unauthorized artworks.  This led to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit.

At the time, Indiana was elderly, isolated on an island off the coast of Maine, and physically deteriorating.  Indiana’s situation was worsened by a coordinated effort by several individuals to cut him off from his longtime supporters and assume control over his name, artwork, and brand. 

The day after the initial lawsuit was filed, Indiana passed away, causing further complications.  His estate sought to terminate contracts with the advisor and seize control of its intellectual property rights and valuable inventory of Robert Indiana artworks.  The legal fight quickly expanded into multiple jurisdictions with overlapping lawsuits involving McKenzie, the advisor, the estate, and the sole beneficiary of the estate, a charitable foundation called the Star of Hope.  

Maaren and Luke formed an alliance with the Star of Hope and the Maine Attorney General’s office, which regulated the foundation.  They secured an agreement with the foundation ensuring the advisor would retain its rights, inventory, and business role regardless of the outcome of the litigation with the estate, rendering that litigation moot.  The Estate quickly buckled and ended its pursuit of the advisor.

With the advisor’s rights and assets secured, the team turned back to McKenzie, who had previously misrepresented the number of Indiana works in his possession.  After the team uncovered numerous hidden artworks and secured devastating testimony from McKenzie’s former associate, among others, the court imposed terminating sanctions, including dismissing McKenzie’s claims and awarding the advisor its attorney’s fees.  The victory ultimately protects Indiana’s legacy and ensures stability in the market for his art.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

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

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel’s Wilmington, Delaware office.  They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions.  Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.”  Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare.  In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework.  The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders.  Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners.

Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc.  In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair. 

Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty (e.g., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation.  “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend.  To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions.  The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed.  It also reforms the state’s books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands.  The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world’s demand for greater legal certainty.  Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi