John is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans. The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind. The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive. Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.

John is joined by Shon Morgan and Jack Baumann, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss the growing legal tension surrounding the aggregation and commercialization of publicly available information. It focuses on when compiling public data into structured, searchable databases creates a protectable property interest, and when such activity exposes companies to legal risk. One recent series of cases involves disputes over whether entities that invest substantial resources to digitize, index, and organize public records may prevent others from accessing and reusing that enhanced data. In these cases, courts often recognize a distinction between underlying public records, which remain freely accessible, and value-added compilations created through private investment, which may be entitled to protection. A team led by Jack recently won one of these cases on behalf of Ancestry.com, a genealogy company that invested heavily in digitizing and organizing historical public records. Ancestry partnered with state records archives to convert paper and microfiche records into digital formats, adding searchable indexes and metadata that transformed otherwise difficult to use materials into accessible databases. Although the underlying records remained public and available to anyone willing to retrieve them manually, the company’s financial and technical investments significantly enhanced the utility of these public records. The dispute arose when an individual sought to obtain not the original public records, but the company’s digitized and indexed versions, through a public records request for Ancestry’s work directed at one state’s archive. The request effectively attempted to appropriate the company’s value-added work product without incurring the costs required to create it. An administrative body initially ruled that the materials should be disclosed, reasoning that the company had acted as an extension of the government in performing a public function. On appeal, however, a higher tribunal rejected that view, concluding that the digitized and organized database was materially different from the original records and not subject to compulsory disclosure. A second series of cases have been brought by individuals whose personal information appears in these searchable databases such as ZoomInfo, Spokeo, or Whitepages.com. Plaintiffs in these cases often assert privacy or right of publicity claims, arguing that even if the data originated from public sources, companies should not profit from compiling and monetizing that data without their consent. Although many of these claims face challenges similar to claims in data breach cases, especially in demonstrating actual harm or the inherent value of ordinary personal information. Some courts have allowed these cases to proceed past the dismissal stage, creating significant potential exposure for companies due to the prospect of class-wide liability and statutory damages. While raw public data remains freely accessible, significant private investment in organizing and enhancing that data may often generate a protectable interest. However, individuals may argue that while their information may be publicly available, they never agreed that third parties could profit from it. This tension remains unsettled and will likely evolve as courts confront similar disputes in other contexts involving large-scale data aggregation.

John is joined by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School. They discuss the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape surrounding U.S. tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the President’s reliance on emergency economic powers to impose broad tariffs. That ruling removed a significant set of tariffs but did not eliminate the overall tariff regime. Instead, the administration quickly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, particularly Section 122, which permits temporary tariffs for up to 150 days, as well as longer-term mechanisms such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. These alternative mechanisms allow the executive branch to impose targeted tariffs based on findings related to unfair trade practices or national security concerns, with less immediate need for congressional approval. As a result, the tariff environment has shifted from sweeping, across-the-board measures to a more fragmented and dynamic system, requiring analysis on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Ongoing investigations into issues such as excess capacity and forced labor are likely to produce additional tariffs that may persist longer than the temporary measures currently in place. Meanwhile, legal challenges continue, including lawsuits by states arguing that the executive branch has exceeded delegated authority and violated statutory constraints. These challenges may be overtaken by the expiration of temporary tariffs and the emergence of new ones. One major issue involves refunds for tariffs previously collected under the invalidated emergency economic powers authority. Courts have indicated that refunds are warranted and administratively feasible, even at large scale, although timing remains uncertain due to potential appeals and implementation delays. Importers’ entitlement to refunds from the government does not depend on whether they passed tariff costs on to customers, as the focus is on the legality of the government’s action rather than downstream economic effects. Downstream purchasers who claim that invalidated tariffs were passed on to them must pursue contractual remedies rather than recovery from the government.

John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office and co-chair of the firm’s Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss a sixteen-year copyright dispute involving two appeals to the Second Circuit that centered on the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies that own the copyrights to some of the world’s most famous songs. The defendant, represented by a Quinn Emanuel team led by Todd and Owen, was Vimeo, a popular video hosting and video sharing platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo should be held liable for copyright infringement based on users who posted videos incorporating the plaintiffs’ music without permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, which shield platforms such as Vimeo from copyright liability for the acts of their users as long as they comply with certain requirements. Among those requirements are that: (1) the platform does not have “the right or ability to control” allegedly infringing activity; and (2) the platform removes user-posted videos upon receiving sufficient knowledge of infringement, for example, the receipt of a DMCA notice from the copyright holder, or “red flag” knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeo’s voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled users’ infringing activity. Second, although the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staff’s awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeo’s “red flag” knowledge, imposing a duty on Vimeo staff to remove such videos on sight. In its defense, Vimeo argued that voluntary removal of unwanted videos (for example, bullying, sexual content, or advertising) did not disqualify it from safe harbor eligibility because it is consistent with the sort of moderation that Congress encouraged in the statute. Vimeo further argued that an ordinary Vimeo employee could not reasonably know whether a video is “obviously” infringing on sight and that the plaintiffs were in fact seeking an end-run around the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime. The Second Circuit agreed with Vimeo. It first concluded in 2016 that mere awareness that a video contains a famous song is not enough to show that it is obviously infringing; it could be authorized or a fair use, which are fact-intensive determinations. As the Court noted, even judges and copyright scholars have difficulty assessing the boundaries of fair use. The Court emphasized that copyright holders were not without remedy—they could send DMCA takedown notices for expeditious removal, which is the deliberate bargain that Congress struck. In 2025, the Second Circuit further ruled that a platform does not forfeit safe harbor by voluntarily removing unwanted videos, as such activity does not rise to providing “substantial influence” in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology. These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCA’s statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holder’s desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to the courts.

John is joined by Robert M. (“Bobby”) Schwartz, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office and co-chair of the firm’s Media & Entertainment Industry Practice, and Marie M. Hayrapetian, associate in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. They discuss recent cases testing whether large language model AI outputs may give rise to defamation claims. In one recent Georgia case, a journalist asked ChatGPT about a lawsuit and received a response stating that a company executive was an embezzler, even though the lawsuit did not involve any such allegations and he was not an embezzler. In another case, Google was sued after its AI overview tool incorrectly stated that a business was being sued by the Minnesota state attorney general for deceptive practices, an allegation that allegedly caused up to $200 million in lost sales. Other examples involve sexualized deepfake images allegedly generated from ordinary photos, creating reputational and privacy harms. Defamation law assumes a human speaker who publishes a false factual statement with some degree of fault. AI systems complicate that framework. In the case of LLM outputs, it is unclear who the speaker is. Is it the platform, the data scientists behind the platform, the user who created the prompt, or the model itself? It is also difficult to fit AI output into doctrines requiring intent, knowledge, or reckless disregard, especially in public figure cases that require proof of actual malice. In the Georgia case, the defense won a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the output would not reasonably be understood as stating actual facts because the system provided warnings about limitations and potential errors. That reasoning may be vulnerable on appeal, but it shows one approach courts may adopt to reject these claims. Republication may also result in liability. If someone republishes defamatory AI output as fact, ordinary defamation principles could apply. An unresolved issue is whether the Section 230 safe harbor protects platforms when AI output is generated through interactions between user prompts and the model. Current defamation law might ultimately be a poor fit for AI-generated speech. Assessing liability for AI-generated speech may eventually require a different legal framework, such as product liability law.

John is joined by Rebecca Abel, Supervising Deputy Federal Public Defender, and Kyra Nickell, Deputy Federal Public Defender, both with the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender’s Office. They discuss the wave of criminal cases arising from protests in Los Angeles against immigration enforcement actions. Rebecca and Kyra offer their own insights and do not speak on behalf of the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender’s Office. The government has filed more than seventy criminal cases in Los Angeles against protesters, most alleging felony assault on a federal officer. The cases generally stem from confrontations during demonstrations near federal facilities, where protesters, journalists, or bystanders are accused of physical contact with officers. These cases have gone to trial or been dismissed at a much higher rate than usual for the federal criminal dockets. Remarkably, each of the first six trials handled by the Los Angeles Federal Public Defender’s Office has ended in an acquittal. One case involved a photographer who had been documenting a protest outside the Metropolitan Detention Center after photographing demonstrators at a nearby Home Depot. He was charged with felony assault on a federal officer based on allegations that he touched an officer with his camera and then pushed the officer with his hand. At trial, the government relied mainly on testimony from the complaining officer and a supervisor, along with limited, distant, or incomplete video footage. The defense located additional witnesses and video, including independent journalists and protesters who had recorded the event from closer angles. The complaining officer testified that he was trying to create space between himself and the photographer when the photographer struck him. However, the defense introduced video evidence that contradicted the complaining officer’s testimony. The video showed the officer moved rapidly toward the photographer, that any contact between the camera and the officer’s face was incidental, and that the photographer’s later hand movement came only after the officer slapped the camera and advanced toward him. The defense argued that the physical contact was in self-defense rather than an assault. The jury deliberated for about five hours and asked for a rereading of the defendant’s testimony that he had been frightened and confused, suggesting that they were focused on the self-defense claim. The acquittal underscored the weakness of the evidence in this case and the unusual pattern emerging in these protest prosecutions.

John is joined by Jonathan Graham, Executive Vice President and General Counsel and Secretary of Amgen, one of the world’s largest biotech companies and one of the pioneers of the industry. They discuss in-house legal leadership in major biotech companies and how science, intellectual property, and regulation shape strategy. Jonathan began his practice clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then became a litigator for a large firm. Later, his career shifted in-house. He believes that litigation training develops useful skills, including rapid issue spotting across unfamiliar domains, crisp written and oral advocacy, and an ability to understand stakeholders’ incentives. The biotech industry is unusually purpose-driven because the output is medicine that can extend life and restore quality of life. That mission creates urgency across functions, as delays can mean patients wait longer for needed therapies. The sector is also highly regulated and fast-moving, which elevates the importance of legal teams that operate as strategic partners rather than as a “department of no.” Intellectual property is the economic lifeblood of biological drug development. Bringing a molecule to market often costs billions of dollars and requires years of lab work, clinical trials, and manufacturing scale-up. Without enforceable patents, competitors could free ride, undermining investment incentives. This reality drives frequent, high-stakes patent disputes that can be hard to settle because exclusivity is enormously valuable. Patent doctrines often lag behind technology, forcing courts to fit new technologies into older legal frameworks. Artificial intelligence is potentially a powerful tool for discovery and analysis of molecules, but not a substitute for wet-lab validation or human inventorship. Regulators still require clinical evidence before any medicine is approved and likely will for the foreseeable future. Biosimilars are currently a booming market with many parallels to generic drugs. A company may participate in the market as both innovator and biosimilar supplier by leveraging its research and manufacturing capabilities. Finally, government-driven drug pricing controls may slow innovation over time, even though scientific progress and therapeutic potential remain strong.

John is joined by Christopher P. Bogart, CEO and Co-Founder of Burford Capital. They discuss the evolving landscape of capital investment in law firms, focusing on the emergence of non-lawyer equity participation and managed service organization structures as potential solutions to long-standing financing constraints within the legal industry. Traditionally, U.S. law firms have been prohibited from allowing non-lawyer ownership, a rule rooted in the belief that outside investors could compromise lawyers’ undivided duty of loyalty to clients. Because of this restriction, firms have largely been limited to partner capital and debt financing, preventing them from accessing equity markets or monetizing the enterprise value they build over time. This limitation affects not only firm expansion and technology investment, but also partner retirement, succession planning, and talent retention. Other common law jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom and Australia, have relaxed these restrictions, permitting outside investment and even public listings. Still, large elite firms have been slow to adopt such models, due in part to risk aversion and concerns about partner compensation. In the United States, regulatory change has been fragmented because lawyer governance operates state by state. Arizona and Utah have experimented with loosening ownership rules, but geographic limits and regulatory pushback have constrained broader adoption of looser ownership rules. Recently, attention has shifted to alternative structures, particularly managed service organizations. These arrangements divide a law firm into two entities: one engaged in practicing law and a separate services company handling operational functions that can be outsourced such as litigation support, staffing, technology, and trial logistics. While non-lawyer investors could not own the legal practice, they could invest in the services entity, creating a vehicle for external capital, equity incentives, and infrastructure funding. However, implementing such structures within established firms would be complex from operational, management, and tax perspectives. Despite the slow pace, external capital is widely viewed as inevitable given the legal industry’s scale, profitability, and growing technological demands. Meaningful acceleration across the market will likely require several major firms to demonstrate workable models that others can follow.

John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision invalidating all tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA tariffs had generated an estimated $160 billion in revenue and were central to the administration’s tariff policy. The administration justified these tariffs based on declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. The Court did not rule on whether those circumstances constituted true emergencies. Instead, the Court held that the tariffs were invalid because the Constitution assigns all taxing authority to Congress, and the IEEPA did not expressly grant the President the power to impose tariffs. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the administration has now turned to other statutes, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Other tools, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permit product-specific tariffs tied to national security findings, but require administrative investigations and procedural safeguards. These mechanisms provide less unilateral flexibility than IEEPA had afforded. John, Dennis, and Fritz also discuss the prospects for companies obtaining refunds through litigation. Importers who directly paid the invalidated tariffs appear to have strong claims for reimbursement, primarily through the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. A two-year statute of limitations generally applies. While companies’ right to obtain refunds is viewed as legally solid, delays are anticipated through procedural defenses and litigation tactics. Additional complexity arises for downstream purchasers who indirectly bore tariff costs; their recovery prospects will likely depend heavily on contractual allocation of tariff liability and other fact-specific circumstances.

John is joined by Christopher L. Eisgruber, President of Princeton University and author of Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. They discuss the state of free speech on university campuses. While public perception often emphasizes crisis and failure, many institutions are upholding speech rights more effectively than they are credited for. The broad constitutional principles of free expression, protecting even offensive or unsettling speech, are a good starting place for academic environments. However, these principles alone are insufficient. Universities must also foster a culture of mutual respect, encouraging civil discourse and meaningful dialogue even amid disagreement. Some of the specific challenges universities face in the current polarized political climate include the impact of the Israel–Gaza conflict, protests, donor pressures, and calls for institutional statements. Institutions must balance their commitment to free expression with efforts to elevate discourse and promote inclusive learning environments. Chris believes that university leaders should not use censorship as a tool to enforce civility. Instead, they should model and promote norms of respectful engagement. Online culture has intensified the scrutiny of campus speech. Events that once remained local can now gain global attention instantly, raising the stakes for how universities manage protests and controversy. Students today often self-censor due to fears of online backlash, which complicates efforts to foster open exchanges of ideas. A tension exists between scholarly standards and political identity in faculty hiring. While Chris acknowledges there is an ideological imbalance in American universities, he believes that hiring decisions should prioritize scholarly excellence and viewpoint diversity within academic norms, rather than political quotas. John and Chris also discuss how and when university leaders should speak publicly on societal issues. While university presidents should not weigh in on every political controversy, there are moments, particularly when institutional values are at stake, when silence is not tenable. The goal is to preserve the university as a space for rigorous, inclusive, and respectful exploration of ideas.

John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Co-Chair of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss Michel’s team’s recent victory before the Delaware Supreme Court, reinstating Elon Musk’s Tesla compensation package, now valued at $139 billion, the largest compensation dispute in corporate history. The 2018 pay package required Musk to meet extremely ambitious growth milestones, including doubling Tesla’s size over a ten-year period, before receiving any compensation. After that, there were a series of 12 levels of compensation corresponding to 12 further growth milestones. The Tesla Board approved the package, as did the shareholders with 70% support. He ultimately achieved all the required milestones, growing the company from $50 billion to over $1 trillion in four years. Despite that, a Tesla shareholder owning just nine shares brought a derivative suit, alleging the board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the package. The Delaware Chancery Court found Musk to be a “controlling stockholder” due to his 21% ownership, close relationships with directors, and status as a “superstar CEO.” As a result, the court applied the “entire fairness” standard, under which defendants must prove that a transaction was entirely fair to the shareholders, and found the package did not meet that standard. The court reasoned that Tesla could have obtained Musk’s services for less or even for free, citing other CEOs who had worked without compensation. It also ruled that shareholder approval was invalid due to inadequate proxy disclosures, including the omission of details about Musk’s social ties with board members. The court rescinded the entire compensation package and awarded the plaintiff’s counsel $345 million in attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the defense team focused on three main arguments: Musk was not a controlling stockholder, the package met the entire fairness standard, and even if there was a violation, rescission was not an appropriate remedy. The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that rescission was unwarranted and awarding nominal damages of $1. It reinstated the pay package, now valued at $139 billion. It also reduced the attorneys’ fee award to $54 million. The case has influenced legislative changes in Delaware corporate law regarding the definition of controlling shareholders and shareholder ratification.

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher and Peter H. Fountain, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss their recent representation of Citadel Securities, one of the world’s largest market makers, in connection with a case concerning Mallinckrodt, a pharmaceutical company forced into bankruptcy due to opioid litigation. The central issue was whether $1.6 billion in stock share buybacks conducted between 2015 and 2018 could be recovered by the bankruptcy estate as fraudulent transfers. The legal theory advanced by a litigation trust formed during the bankruptcy was unprecedented, as it sought to void Mallinckrodt’s share repurchases on the open market, which were made in the ordinary course of business. The trust contended that, under Irish law (Mallinckrodt was an Irish corporation), these repurchases were void because Mallinckrodt should have recognized that it was insolvent due to substantial opioid-related tort liabilities that were not reflected on its balance sheet. The litigation trust characterized these sales as constructive fraudulent conveyances, asserting that Mallinckrodt lacked adequate capital when executing the buybacks. The trust sought to claw back the full $1.6 billion from ordinary market participants who had sold shares years prior, basing their argument on limited precedent from Enron-related cases from the 1980s. The defense successfully challenged these claims by invoking the Section 546(e) bankruptcy safe harbor provision. This provision is intended to preserve finality in financial markets and protect legitimate securities transactions. The defense emphasized that Citadel and similar market makers qualified as financial participants and that the share repurchases constituted protected settlement payments and transfers pursuant to securities contracts under the safe harbor provision. Accepting the litigation trust’s theory would require market makers to investigate not only the published financial statements of every traded company, but also hidden tort liabilities and the corporate laws of each jurisdiction of incorporation, before facilitating any transactions. Both the bankruptcy and district courts recognized that imposing such obligations would paralyze financial markets and defeat the purpose of the safe harbor provision, and rejected the trust’s novel claims.

John is joined by Robert Tyson and Cayce E. Lynch, both partners at Tyson & Mendes and Co-Founders of Apex Defense Consulting. They discuss how defense lawyers can counter the recent rise in “nuclear verdicts.” Nuclear verdicts are extremely large jury awards, often in personal injury cases, in which pain and suffering or emotional distress awards are vastly disproportionate to economic damages. These verdicts are a key factor behind the recent, dramatic rise in insurance costs. Over the past 15 years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have shifted tactics. While plaintiffs’ attorneys used to appeal to jurors’ sympathy for the plaintiff, they now focus on inciting juror anger against the defendant. Robert and Cayce obtained the trial transcripts from 100 nuclear verdict cases and carefully analyzed each case. They tracked 60 data points per case and concluded that defense lawyers frequently failed to respond effectively to plaintiffs’ shift to inciting anger in the jury. Their research identified four strategies which, when used together, greatly reduce the risk of a nuclear verdict. First, defense counsel must personalize the defendant to create a connection between the people on the jury and the people working for the defendant. Second, defense counsel must accept responsibility for some issue in every single case. Accepting responsibility helps take the anger out of the jury. Third, counsel must give an alternative damages number to the plaintiff’s claim in every case. When defense counsel fails to give an alternative number, the jury will often award significantly more than the plaintiff asked for. A University of Iowa study also found that when the defense provides its own damages number, the likelihood of obtaining a defense verdict increases. Finally, defense counsel must address the plaintiff’s non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. This should be done by presenting a message emphasizing the joys that remain in the plaintiff’s life. They should also emphasize the impact their alternative damages number could have on the plaintiff’s life. None of the 100 nuclear verdict cases Robert and Cayce reviewed involved defense lawyers who employed all four of these strategies. Robert and Cayce conclude by advocating for a broader sharing of best practices among defense counsel, noting that the plaintiffs’ bar has traditionally excelled in coordinating and sharing information and best practices.

John is joined by Jennifer Prosek, Founder and Managing Partner of Prosek Partners, one of the world’s leading integrated marketing and communications firms. They discuss effective reputation and crisis management in high-stakes corporate and financial legal matters. Success in such matters often depends on maintaining a disciplined alignment between legal and communications teams. Despite today’s fast-paced media environment, both teams must develop a strategic plan and resist the pressure to react impulsively. Saying less can often be more effective, as premature or excessive public comments may create lasting reputational harm, even when the legal outcomes are ultimately favorable. The output of large language models bearing on reputation can be shaped by proactively feeding the digital landscape, especially large language model AI systems, with positive, relevant content, particularly third-party media coverage. By doing so, companies can shape the narrative these systems generate. While influencing large language models is not fully understood, the importance of establishing ongoing, high-quality positive public engagement is clear. In one case, Bridgewater’s controversial hedge fund culture was proactively reframed into a compelling public story. Rather than hiding or ignoring critical media narratives, the firm opted to control and shape its own messaging, resulting in a broader cultural conversation and the creation of a best-selling book. This example demonstrates how taking the “front foot” in communications may often transform perception and build long-term reputational value. To “nail the narrative,” communications teams must distill a company’s essence into a concise and compelling story that resonates with customers, investors, and the media. Differentiating oneself from competitors, even if polarizing, is essential in today’s crowded communications landscape. Finally, John and Jennifer discuss entrepreneurship, including the value of taking initiative, the power of simply asking for what you want, and the importance of connection and authentic human relationships in business.

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. They discuss a complex cross-border dispute involving a Chinese public company listed on the Shanghai Exchange. The company, which owned oil assets in Texas and was one of the largest private oil producers in the U.S., faced a governance crisis after an investor took over the company and elected a new board in China. When the new board attempted to gain control over the company’s U.S. subsidiaries, it discovered that the company’s former management had implemented mechanisms at the subsidiaries’ holding companies that blocked the election of new directors. This control deadlock posed an existential threat, as Chinese regulators warned the company it could be delisted if control was not reestablished by the end of the year. The urgency of the situation demanded a rapid litigation strategy across three U.S. jurisdictions: Texas, Nevada, and Delaware. The client’s initial effort, led by another firm, to resolve the matter in Texas failed because of the “internal affairs doctrine,” which required adjudication in Delaware, where the entities were incorporated. Fortunately, the other side initiated a Delaware proceeding allowing the Chinese parent to counterclaim and consolidate all issues under a highly expedited schedule. A key early win was securing a “status quo” order in Delaware, which froze major corporate actions and gave the new board veto power over decisions exceeding $100,000, effectively halting adverse moves by the former management. The case involved extensive discovery, much of it in Mandarin, and included WhatsApp, WeChat, and other messaging platforms. Advanced AI tools played a crucial role in accelerating document review, translating materials, and aiding strategy development. Cultural sensitivity and coordination with Chinese counsel were also essential to preparing the case. As trial approached, the opposing side sought settlement, likely due to being overwhelmed by the pace and depth of the litigation.