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.

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

John is joined by Dr. Hamed Merah, Chief Executive Officer of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) and Nasser Alrubayyi, Managing Partner of Quinn Emanuel office Riyadh. They discuss commercial arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the recent impact of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration. Dr. Hamed explains SCCA’s mission to establish a world class center with full case management services where foreign parties will feel comfortable submitting their disputes to a diverse roster of accomplished, impartial independent arbitrators. Although almost half of the SCCA’s caseload is construction related, it also adjudicates cases involving banking, capital markets, intellectual property, media, and the pharmaceutical industry. They discuss how legislation in the last five years has removed restrictions on Saudi governmental entities submitting disputes to arbitration to the point that arbitration with the SCCA is now the default option in contracts between governmental entities and foreign parties. Nasser explains that parties are increasingly moving from ad hoc stand-alone arbitration procedures to institutional arbitration through the SCCA because the SCCA is the quicker and more cost efficient option. Dr Hamed also describes a recent study concluding that more than 90% of the SCCA’s awards have been upheld when challenged in annulment proceedings. Finally, they discuss how arbitration with the SCCA is becoming more popular in technical cases, IP cases and construction disputes.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, as well as the Mayor of Miami and Counsel to Quinn Emanuel, Francis Suarez. Together, they discuss legal issues in crypto-currencies, low-income housing, and homelessness. The conversation begins with Mayor Suarez touching on the legal issues related to receiving compensation in crypto rather than legal tender, and discussing the use of applications that have the option to automatically or periodically convert money into crypto. Mayor Suarez also explains how SEC oversight requires that public officials avoid advocating for the use of crypto in any way, shape, or form. Mayor Adams provides the perspective of New York City, which states that people cannot be compensated directly in crypto, but allows them to convert to crypto after receiving the actual paycheck. He adds that his goal is to get to the point where city employees can be paid directly in crypto. John and both mayors then discuss the legal offices that serve their respective cities, including the size of the offices, the complexity of the issues they face, and their use of outside counsel. They then focus on the challenging legal issues involved in creating low-income housing. Mayor Adams notes that zoning changes and location are the biggest challenges faced by the department for housing and other government departments, with many people not wanting new developments in their community. He observes that all of these issues must be navigated in the context of New York’s Uniform Land Use process. Mayor Suarez talks about a housing boom in Miami, which comes with its own legal issues, such as increased rental prices and Community Benefits Agreements, which allow developers to increase their zoning if they give back to the community. This raises constitutional issues involving property rights if the government tells a developer that the only way they can get more favorable zoning is if they make more of the building income accessible. The discussion then turns to the issue of rent control, which is prohibited in Florida, but long-established in New York. The two mayors discuss the pros and cons of rent control as a policy matter and the procedures New York City has in place to help it run properly. Finally, the episode turns to legal issues surrounding homelessness. Mayor Adams begins the conversation by touching on the fact that homelessness has unfortunately been a problem that New York City has faced for many years, which has only worsened due to COVID-19. Together, they chew over the legal process surrounding improving conditions for the homeless, with Mayor Adams highlighting the issue of how much say those homeless people who suffer from serious mental illnesses should have in determining where they live. He notes that there is a vocal minority who believe that the government should have no input in these decisions. Mayor Suarez then talks about the Miami city perspective where the local government was sued by the ACLU in the Pottinger case with the result that the police cannot arrest a person for being homeless. Mayor Suarez details how Miami is trying to adjust to the Pottinger decision through a new homelessness policy, which created a decentralized set of homeless assistance centers where people could be housed, receive drug and mental health treatment, and receive vocational training to be reintegrated into society. Mayor Suarez goes on to explain how this policy resulted in the federal court lifting the injunction that had been in place as a result of the Pottinger case. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Professor Song Sang-Hyun, retired Professor of Law at Seoul National University and former President of the International Criminal Court. Professor Song explains the origins of the Korean civil justice system which is based upon the German system by way of Japan. He discusses how after World War II, American Army officers drafted many of Korea’s statutes and, in the past two decades, American law in fields such as corporate law, shipping and aviation law, antitrust law, securities regulations, intellectual property, and class action lawsuits have increasingly influenced Korean law. They then discuss Korean pretrial practice which does not involve voluminous document discovery or any depositions and often involves the trial judge also acting as a mediator. Professor Song explains some of the unique aspects of Korean trial practice including Korea’s recent adoption of juries that render advisory decisions on disputed facts and that cases average less than a year from filing through trial. They also discuss that the loser must pay the winner’s attorneys’ fees, although, in practice, courts tend to award less than all the fees incurred. Finally, they discuss some of the emerging issues in Korean law including labor, environmental and privacy law as well as the protection of personal information.

In this episode of “Law, disrupted,” host John B. Quinn joins Haiyang Tang and Xiao Liu, the Co-Managing Partners of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s Shanghai office. The firm’s China practice focuses on advising multinational companies in their global government enforcement, investigation, and compliance matters, and advising China-based companies in sensitive cross-border litigation and arbitration. The conversation begins with the participants analyzing how the government in China has cracked down on its largest tech companies, wiping out more than a trillion dollars in market value, and asking the question: is China still investible? The discussion will address a series of legislative, administrative, and enforcement actions by the Chinese government, examining efforts to tighten up data security laws and regulations. Is this consistent with global trends, or will these new regulations hinder greater investment from the West? Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Eytan Liraz, the Principal of Eytan Liraz & Co. Law Offices, one of the foremost business litigation firms in Israel. Eytan explains some of the unique aspects of business litigation in Israel, including that Israel has more lawyers per capita than any other country on earth, that aggressive litigation is a common and accepted business strategy, and that Israel has far more class action lawsuits than other countries, including lawsuits where the complaints are literally copies of class action complaints that have been filed in the U.S. He also explains the three phases that each lawsuit goes through: (1) the initial phase in which the claimant files a statement of claim raising its main arguments and elements of proof and the defendant files a statement of defense containing its arguments and proof, (2) the pretrial phase in which limited discovery and any preliminary motions take place and all evidence and expert opinions are filed with the court, and (3) the interrogation phase in which the parties are allowed to conduct cross-examinations of the adversary’s witnesses. Cases are usually decided within one year and four months of the first filing. Finally, they discuss the impact the events of October 7 have had on litigation in Israel including the number of lawyers who are not available due to military service, the entire court system shutting down for two months and the general effect, now dissipating, of people being unusually reluctant to litigate.

John is joined by Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, one of the foremost companies in the world specializing in software platforms for big data analytics. They discuss the emerging trends in AI regulation. Courtney explains the AI Act recently passed by the EU Parliament, including the four levels of risk it assesses for different AI systems and the different regulatory obligations imposed on each risk level, how the Act treats general purpose AI systems and how the final Act evolved in response to lobbying by emerging European companies in the AI space. They discuss whether the EU AI Act will become the global standard international companies default to because the European market is too large to abandon. Corey also explains recent federal regulatory developments in the U.S. including the framework for AI put out by the National Institute of Science and Technology, the AI Bill of Rights announced by the White House which calls for voluntary compliance to certain principles by industry and the Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which requires each department of the federal government to develop its own plan for the use and deployment of AI. They also discuss the wide range of state level AI legislative initiatives and the leading role California has played in this process. Finally, they discuss the upcoming issues legislatures will need to address including translating principles like accountability, fairness and transparency into concrete best practices, instituting testing, evaluation and validation methodologies to ensure that AI systems are doing what they're supposed to do in a reliable and trustworthy way, and addressing concerns around maintaining AI systems over time as the data used by the system continuously evolves over time until it no longer accurately represents the world that it was originally designed to represent.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John B. Quinn chats with Kathleen Sullivan, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Los Angeles and New York offices, and founding chair of the firm's national appellate practice. He also joins John Bash, a partner at Quinn Emanuel's Austin and Washington offices. Between the two of them, Kathleen and John have argued over 20 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. The conversation begins by reflecting on 2016’s Apple v Samsung lawsuit, unpacking how the design patent war between the two tech giants made its way to the Supreme Court. John and his guests then take a closer look at how a legal conflict can reach the nation’s highest court. Given that over 7,000 cases are submitted to the Supreme Court to review each year, they explain why the Justices choose to decide well fewer than 100 cases each year. As experienced Supreme Court practitioners, Kathleen and John share what’s involved in drafting written arguments and preparing for oral arguments before the Supreme Court—one of the most “challenging intellectual experiences” a lawyer can face. They also discuss the impact of media coverage on the public’s perceptions of the decision-making process. Lastly, John and his guests cover the value of moot courts for lawyers to practice and hone their arguments, discuss the impact of Covid on the courts, and consider how amicus briefs—briefs by “friends of the court”—can increase a party’s chance of legal success. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

John is joined by Christopher Bogart, CEO, Director and Co-Founder of Burford Capital, the largest litigation funding firm in the world. They discuss the use of AI and data science in litigation funding decisions. Chris explains that while AI is currently not advanced enough to make decisions on whether to fund a case, advances in data science now allow litigation funders to improve their decisions by examining enormous amounts of public data to find meaningful facts such as accurate damage ranges that are often buried deep in individual case dockets. Chris also identifies the key data points used to evaluate whether to fund a case, including the legal theory of the case, the counsel representing the parties, the judge or arbitrator presiding over the case, and the likely time to reach an outcome. Finally, John and Chris also discuss other ways that AI is impacting the legal profession including the use of AI to provide real time assistance in cross examination, the use of AI by courts in Singapore and Connecticut to adjudicate low value routine matters and traffic violations, and how AI has enabled smaller firms to expand into areas of litigation they previously could not handle such as large antitrust cases by automating the review and processing of millions of pages of documents.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Sarah Heaton Concannon, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington D.C office and Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s SEC Enforcement Defense practice, and Xiao Liu, Co-Managing Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Shanghai office and Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s China Practice. Currently, 200 Chinese companies are publicly listed in the U.S. Those firms face the prospect of being delisted under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act due to a disagreement between American and Chinese authorities on the ability to conduct investigations and access audit work papers in China. John, Xiao and Sarah discuss the terms of the China-United States agreement whereby Chinese accounting firms can share certain information with American regulators about the finances of Chinese listed companies. Is it a done deal? John opens the conversation by asking Sarah what exactly has been agreed to by U.S. and Chinese officials. She talks about how the agreement gives them the ability to conduct on-site inspections in Hong Kong and touches on how Chinese privacy and security statutes have made it impossible for the SEC and the PCAOB to conduct their routine examinations of auditors. Sarah notes how this new agreement enables the PCAOB to have its inspectors on the ground as early as mid-September, seemingly giving the auditors free reign over which audits to inspect and unfettered access to audit work papers. John then asks Xiao why this deal and special rules are needed and queries whether it could be construed as an example of the U.S. picking on China. Xiao talks about how the history of the relationship between the two nations is an important factor to consider in understanding the relationship between the PCAOB, USA and China. He dives into how, on the one hand, there is Chinese law supposedly prohibiting these audit firms from scrutinizing these materials, and on the other hand, U.S. law, which states these audit firms do have the obligation to turn over papers. Xiao highlights how Chinese authorities have a strong interest in enforcing state secrets laws and personal privacy protection laws. However, at the same time, they care about public statements regarding agreements with U.S. authorities, especially those impacting the Chinese state-owned companies whose shares are listed in the U.S. Together, John, Sarah and Xiao dive deeper into how Chinese issuers have typically tapped the Hong Kong-based affiliates of the Big Four companies, granting the PCAOB access to working papers and the right to take testimony from audit company staff in China. Sarah talks through her predictions on the future timeline of events, noting that she expects the PCAOB to draft a shortlist of companies that were already front of mind in the enforcement space and that they will quickly try to move through those audit records. The conversation shifts to a more financial perspective of the issue with John asking Xiao whether these Chinese companies will continue to want the ability to be listed in the U.S. Xiao explains how China is now comfortable with allowing PCAOB access to Chinese companies’ audit papers as China has strengthened its own state secrets laws, personal privacy laws, and cybersecurity laws. China has taken the necessary steps to protect itself from issues that they have encountered in the past with the U.S. before reaching the agreement. Finally, John asks what's next and what the future holds. Sarah believes that there will be some caution to see if the PCAOB is satisfied, but only time will tell how this agreement will play out. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi​

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Dr. Marcus Grosch, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s German offices. Together, they discuss German patent law. Marcus is regularly awarded top ratings in leading international and German-ranking publications, and both Chambers Europe and Chambers Global have listed him as a “highly regarded patent litigator.” The conversation begins with John noting how Germany is arguably the world’s second most important patent litigation jurisdiction after the U.S. They highlight how major technology disputes in the U.S. district courts are often seen in parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus notes that Germany is integral to the patent litigation world due to the sheer number of cases it receives, as the German economy is far more resilient and bigger relative to its other European counterparts. He touches on how Germany’s significance in the field of patent litigation can be traced back as far as the 1950s. Marcus explains how Germany’s time to trial is also far quicker than in other major European nations, with the fastest trials taking place in Munich and Mannheim, which only take twelve months. He highlights how at least 50% of the patents, whose validity is challenged, are either entirely revoked or significantly amended. Marcus argues that district courts have to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions, therefore, they have to be more prudent and look more closely into the validity issues, which they are generally ready to do. Then, John asks Marcus for advice for other lawyers involved in patent litigation in the U.S. and parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus highlights how in the U.S., the work has to be done ahead of the filing, which is very different from Germany – most of the cases in America need a notice pleading in the first step, whereas Germany requires a case to be complete from the outset. He also points out how different cases are in Germany compared to the ones in the U.S. The most significant difference is that Germany, like all continental European jurisdictions, does not have a trial-based system, so the parties’ arguments are not exclusively presented to the trier of fact through evidence, like witness examinations. Rather, more like in an appellate hearing, the lead counsel, guided by questions and introductory remarks from the bench, has to address all relevant issues of law and fact in the main hearing. The taking of evidence is limited to specific instances, in which contested issues of fact are directly relevant for the court’s decision. However, many factual issues are not in dispute at the end of the process, which is the result of specific pleading standards and flexibly shifting the burden of proof. This is also important since all continental European jurisdictions have no general pre-trial discovery system. All issues of law and fact are addressed in the main hearing, with no separate motions to dismiss or claim construction decisions ahead of the main hearing. This requires significant preparation and time in court, which Marcus highlights vary depending on the case, with the average patent case being four hours. He notes how sometimes the preparation can take significantly longer than the actual hearing. In addition, he explains how he deals with a ‘hot bench’ over 90% of the time, as judges are very ambitious, prepared and equipped with all of the information and specific details. Finally, John and Marcus discuss European law and how there is no civil litigation at the European level, so patents need to be litigated in national courts. This will now be fundamentally changed with the Unified P 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.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Júlio César Bueno, Partner and Head of Litigation at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, one of the most highly regarded law firms in Brazil. Júlio explains some of the unique characteristics of the Brazilian civil justice system, including the ability of lawyers to have ex parte communications with the judge and the severe limits on pretrial discovery. They discuss the burdens imposed by Brazil’s enormous docket (over 83 million pending cases) on the system, including the lengthy delays, the extremely short time allocated for oral argument or witness examination and the resulting importance of winning cases through written submissions. They also discuss how these burdens have led to an increase in arbitration, particularly in infrastructure and merger and acquisition disputes, as well as the increasing digitalization of the entire court system. Finally, Júlio explains that disputes over mergers and acquisitions, corporate shareholder disputes and environmental litigation are the most rapidly growing areas in Brazilian civil disputes.