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.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music 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.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff’s Law.  They discuss Bill’s view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs’ work.

The impetus for Bill’s book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths.  The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students’ first year—rather than the fall of the students’ second year.  This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights.  The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction.

Bill’s book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs’ practice.  He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation.  This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work.  He argues that plaintiffs’ lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act.  While not every case—or plaintiff’s lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law.

Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid.  These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.

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

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.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music 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.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Avichal Garg, Managing Partner of Electric Capital and Chairman of the Crypto Council for Innovation, and Emily Kapur, Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s Blockchain & Digital Asset Litigation Practice and partner in the firm’s Silicon Valley office.  They discuss the complex legal and regulatory landscape surrounding cryptocurrency, digital assets, and the intersection with emerging technologies like AI.

The decentralization and autonomy of crypto systems challenges traditional legal concepts.  Crypto technology—ranging from permissionless innovation to autonomous systems—raises foundational legal questions about jurisdiction, liability, and personhood, especially when code may function as both speech and money.  While early legal battles focused on whether tokens are securities, today’s disputes often focus on jurisdictional issues and cross-border liability for autonomous systems with governance distributed around the world.

U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins, while posing regulatory and competitive challenges, may also be an unparalleled tool for promoting U.S. soft power and economic influence.  They can bypass traditional banking systems and reach global users, reinforcing the dollar’s dominance.  The recently enacted GENIUS Act provides a framework for regulating stablecoins in the U.S. without imposing restrictive reserve requirements, in contrast to European approaches.

The rapid evolution of crypto trading venues—centralized exchanges like Coinbase, decentralized protocols like Uniswap, and traditional financial instruments such as ETFs and digital asset treasuries—highlight the legal uncertainty about which regulatory entities have jurisdiction.  The increasing use of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) poses additional challenges under theories that all participants in a DAO are potentially liable as partners in a joint venture.

More legal innovation is needed, perhaps even entirely new legal entities or frameworks, to accommodate a future in which autonomous code can hold assets, transact, and potentially commit fraud.  Courts may begin to shape precedent in the absence of legislation, but a proactive regulatory approach or legal sandbox might be the key to responsibly managing these potentially disruptive forces.

Ultimately, the question is whether the law will domesticate crypto or will crypto force legal innovation?

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

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.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Professor Mark Wu, the Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School, an expert in international trade and international economic law.  They discuss the legal and geopolitical implications of President Trump’s tariff strategy.  The President’s approach is rooted in a belief that the post-1970s international trade regime, which the U.S. helped build, has been exploited by foreign powers to the detriment of American interests, particularly the manufacturing sector and working-class communities.  The administration intends to leverage America’s market dominance and security alliances to pressure trading partners into more favorable terms, including opening their markets to exports and investing in America.

To legally impose many of these tariffs, the President has relied on statutory authorities that Congress delegated to the executive branch, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (covering national security issues from the importation of goods), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (covering unfair trade practices by  foreign countries), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which permits regulation of imports during a declared national emergency.  Unlike prior administrations, Trump has used IEEPA not only to declare national emergencies—such as the opioid crisis and trade deficits—but also to impose sweeping tariffs in response.

These actions have sparked a series of legal challenges.  Several importers and states have filed suits arguing that the president overstepped his authority under IEEPA.  Courts are now scrutinizing whether this use of IEEPA constitutes an overly broad delegation of congressional power and whether the tariffs align with the IEEPA’s statutory language.  The Court of International Trade ruled against the administration on this issue.  That case is now before the Federal Circuit, which heard the appeal en banc.  Whatever the outcome, the Supreme Court is likely to weigh in.

Even if tariffs under the IEEPA are barred by the courts, the administration has other tools at its disposal to achieve the same outcome, including imposing tariffs under Section 232, imposing tariffs under Section 301, and seeking additional legislation from Congress authorizing tariffs against specific countries.

Regardless of legal outcomes, the global trade regime has fundamentally changed.  There will be no going back to the pre-Trump regime.  Traditional alliances have been strained, other countries are adapting to long-term U.S. unpredictability, and legal precedents set here could impact more than trade law.

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

John Quinn is joined by Mohammed Rashik, Founder and CEO of Rain Intelligence, a legal technology company that helps lawyers identify emerging legal needs and find potential clients—to make rain. Rain Intelligence provides AI-powered analysis of data from social media, government filings, e-commerce platforms, and other sources to detect patterns and events that could signal potential class action cases, regulatory issues, or other complex litigation opportunities. The goal is to make business development for lawyers more systematic and data-driven than more traditional, reactive methods.

The idea for Rain Intelligence was born from Mohammed’s frustration with the lack of tools to help generate clients when starting a solo practice. He began identifying legal issues proactively—such as discovering that a warehouse fire had likely been caused by a neighboring property’s code violations—and found this approach led naturally to client engagement. The core insight was that legal needs often follow predictable patterns triggered by real-world events, and those patterns can be identified and scaled using data science.

Rain Intelligence delivers daily personalized reports tailored to each attorney’s practice areas, clients, and litigation history. These updates synthesize signals from a wide range of data pipelines—such as product labels, product recalls, consumer complaints, Substack articles, government announcements, and class action advertising—to identify high-potential legal opportunities. The opportunities are analyzed to assess the prospects for proving liability, the amount of damages, and the collectability of judgments. The service is subscription-based and is currently used by roughly half of the Am Law Top 10 firms and 20% of the top 200.

Mohammed explains how Rain Intelligence pieces together disparate data sets to uncover legal risks that may not be obvious in isolation. For example, labeling a food item “preservative free” while including citric acid, which regulators consider a preservative, could be the basis for a lawsuit when combined with regulatory guidance and recent litigation trends. The technology is built to integrate seamlessly into legal workflows, helping lawyers generate business by doing what they do best—spotting legal issues and advising clients.

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

John is joined by Renny Hwang, Deputy General Counsel and Head of Litigation at OpenAI and former Head of Litigation at Google. They discuss the legal issues surrounding AI technology. Renny explains that he believes that existing law is well equipped to deal with copyright, fair use and product liability issues raised by AI, but the challenge the industry faces is that most people do not understand how AI works. He also explains that he believes other legal issues, such as corporate transparency and governance, might require new regulations. John and Renny discuss the likely impact of patent and trade secret law on the AI industry in light of the industry’s tendency to publish significant research and findings. They also discuss the effect of the absence of comprehensive federal AI regulation, including the difficulty companies have in to implementing different compliance regimes for different jurisdictions and the possibility that the European AI Act will become the de facto default standard for AI regulation globally. Finally, Renny explains that OpenAI is a mission-driven company focused on building safe and beneficial AI and that commitment is reflected in OpenAI’s Board-level Safety Committee.

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