Shalabh Gupta, Amran Nawaz, and Daniel Nazareth joined the 2 Guys, A Girl, and F1 podcast to discuss their article “Demystifying Andretti’s Failed F1 Application” and share valuable insights on the F1 business landscape, Andretti’s application, and anti-dilution fees. The experts also discuss the motivations behind GM Cadillac’s successful F1 application and its broader impacts on the sport.

Why was GM Cadillac’s application accepted over Andretti’s, and how might this decision affect existing teams and the overall dynamics of the sport? With F1’s increasing popularity, understanding these considerations is more important than ever.

Listen to Shalabh, Amran, and Daniel on the 2 Guys, A Girl, and F1 podcast here.

Read: Demystifying Andretti’s Failed F1 Application

by Shalabh Gupta, Amran Nawaz, and Chris Kavanagh

Introduction

The popularity and value of sports leagues and teams have grown exponentially in recent decades, and athletes’ earnings have reached unprecedented heights. For example, wage costs in European football leagues have increased by 10x (in France) to 14x (in England) over the past three decades.[1]

Figure 1: “Chart 4: ‘Big Five’ European League clubs’ wage costs – 1996/97 and 2013/14 to 2022/23 (€m)”1

This surge in earnings has led to an increase in litigation and arbitration when athletes face career-impacting or career-ending events.

In recent news, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that specific provisions of the FIFA regulations violated EU law. The ruling was based on a case in 2014 when Lokomotiv Moscow brought a claim against Lassana Diarra (a former footballer) for his alleged unjust contract termination. Diarra’s career was halted pending the initial ruling, derailing his career. The ruling will have ramifications for players, clubs, and the entire football transfer system.[2]

This article dives into the ever-growing area of personal injury damages in sports and the economic theory behind it. We discuss current and historical cases from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, their applicable judgements, and how a damages expert’s evidence (or lack thereof) can impact the monetary damages an athlete may be awarded.

The Fundamentals of Economic Losses

Economic losses impacting individuals can arise in several situations, including personal injury, wrongful termination, and breach of contract.

A trier of fact may award monetary and/or non-monetary awards when an economic loss event occurs. Damages experts with experience in finance, accounting, economics, valuation and the quantification of economic damages are generally involved in the quantification of monetary damages,[3] which typically consist of one of the following:

• Compensatory (or Special) Damages – damages that aim to restore the plaintiff to the same position they would have occupied had the event(s) that caused economic losses to the plaintiff not occurred.
• Restitution (or Disgorgement) Damages – damages that aim to make a defendant give up profits or benefits it earned through wrongful means.

In personal injury matters, monetary damages typically consist of income losses, which are calculated as the income that the individual would have earned over their work-life expectancy, absent or ‘but-for’ the incident that caused the injury, less the income that the individual earned since the incident and is expected to earn in the future, as illustrated in the graphic below. Income losses are divided into two time periods: past losses occur from the date of the injury to the date of the trial/award, and future losses are the losses which are expected to occur from the date of the trial/award to the date the individual is expected to retire.

Figure 2: Illustrative Example of Economic Loss

Thus, the key elements that must be determined in the calculation of past and future income losses are:           

1. The individual’s estimated earnings absent the injury from the date of the injury over their estimated remaining work-life expectancy. The relevant factors are case-specific and will typically consider the individual’s age, life expectancy, work experience, historical earnings, expected career trajectory, employment contracts, retirement age, and economic conditions. This analysis would include an assessment of contemporaneous contracts, agreements, and other relevant documents available prior to the injury, as well as an assessment of comparable competitors or athletes.
2. The individual’s actual earnings from the date of the injury to the date of the assessment and their estimated actual earnings thereafter over their remaining work life expectancy given their injury. The relevant factors are the same as above but will also include assumptions, typically based on expert medical or vocational opinions, concerning the individual’s prognosis for recovery and their ability to obtain alternative employment to mitigate their losses.

A claim for economic losses must adequately assess and reflect the above considerations relevant to the case to assist the trier of fact in their determination.

Claims for Economic Losses in Sports

We have identified several examples of substantiated and unsubstantiated claims for economic losses in sports-related disputes. Unsurprisingly, the unsubstantiated claims were not awarded a favourable result for the plaintiff.

For example:

• Dr. Dorofeyeva (a sports medicine specialist) was ruled to be ineligible to practice for a period of four years for violating the International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) anti-doping policy by advising a professional tennis player to take a product which contained a banned substance. In Dr. Dorofeyeva’s appeal, she sought compensatory damages of €150,000 and punitive damages of €250,000. The arbitrator found “…that the claims submitted by [Dr. Dorofeyeva] are completely unsubstantiated… [Dr. Dorofeyeva] neither submitted any evidence nor a skeleton calculation how she derived the figures claimed. Already for these reasons the claims must be dismissed.”[4]
• A sports agent lodged a claim against Bologna FC for not making an agreed-upon bonus payment of €4,000,000 upon the successful transfer of a soccer player. Mr. Pineiro requested payment of the bonus and an unspecified amount of monetary damages. The tribunal ultimately found that the club was liable to pay €2,000,000, plus interest. However, “…the Agent’s request for ‘monetary damages’ was not supported by convincing evidence, and therefore, such request should be dismissed.”[5]
• A court justice was unable to use the evidence of an expert witness in quantifying the losses to an eighteen-year-old playing for Manchester United Football Club, as he found the expert’s opinion to be “somewhat anecdotal and subjective in nature”. The justice also found the tone of the expert’s evidence to be unmeasured in their criticisms of other evidence.[6]

Conversely, when claims for economic losses are adequately substantiated, the awards can be significant. In a medical malpractice claim brought against a defendant relating to the treatment of a knee injury, which ended Mr. Maragos’ career, the plaintiff’s economic losses were assessed at $9 million, “…evidenced by his contract at the time of his injury as well as a reasonable projection for a future contract had he continued to play.”[7]^,[8]

Case Study – A Deep Dive into an Athlete’s Personal Injury Losses

The case of Michael Appleton v. Medhat Mohammed El Safty provides a comprehensive example of how courts assess the economic losses of an athlete. Mr. Appleton, a professional European football player, sustained a partial tear in his right knee, which led to the defendant advising Mr. Appleton to have reconstructive surgery, which the defendant then negligently carried out. Mr. Appleton sought £7 million in losses.[9]

Justice Clarke provided a detailed assessment of the damages suffered by Mr. Appleton based on the joint report provided by both parties’ experts. The table below highlights some key considerations and how they impacted Justice Clarke’s decisions.

Appleton v. El Safty (EWHC 631(QB))

Consideration	Claimant’s Expert	Defendant’s Expert	Justice Clarke’s Decision	Justice Clarke’s Reasoning
Estimating future playing time after expiry of the current contract[10]	Either 1) Mr. Appleton would remain with West Bromwich Albion FC, or 2) Mr. Appleton would have moved to another established club in the Premier League.	Mr. Appleton would not have continued at the same level for more than three years.	Accepted Defendant’s Expert’s Position.	There was not “any real or substantial chance of the claimant transferring to another Premiership club at that stage given his history and prognosis.”
Sign-on fee and salary under another premiership club scenario[11]	A signing fee of £100,000 per year and a £500,000 salary increasing by £50,000 each year.	£450,000, increasing by £50,000 each year, would be appropriate.	Preferred the Claimant Expert’s position.	It was unclear whether the Defendant’s expert’s estimate included a signing fee. Further, there were inconsistencies among the Defendant’s expert’s oral evidence, cross-examination and re-examination.
Estimated appearances[12]	No details given in the Claimant Expert’s opinion.	Estimated at 70%, declining to 60% over the next three seasons.	Independent decision of 85%.	Found the Defendant’s position too pessimistic and based decision on Mr. Appleton’s appearance history from the prior season.
Personal bonus[13]	Personal bonus of up to £3,000 per match based on a similar agreement for another player.	No details given in the Defendant Expert’s opinion.	Independent decision that Claimant would not receive a personal bonus.	Based on evidence that, West Bromwich Albion FC only awarded personal bonuses to lower-paid players, which Mr. Appleton was not.
Career progression post-retirement[14]	Mr. Appleton would become a manager in the premiership after retirement at age 31.	No details given in the Defendant Expert’s opinion.	Independent decision to award a lump sum of £60,000.	Opined that the Claimant’s chances were very low, citing that there are only 92 managerial jobs in the professional leagues, with low vacancies and fierce competition, and Mr. Appleton would have been young and inexperienced.

Conclusion

Successfully claiming economic losses in sports requires a comprehensive assessment of an athlete’s financial and career trajectory. Given the multiple income sources, fluctuating earnings, and the complexities of projecting income in the absence of an injury, a detailed and robust quantification is critical. The cases of Mr. Appleton and Mr. Maragos highlight that well-substantiated expert reports, incorporating all relevant economic factors, can assist in supporting the quantum of losses claimed. By applying rigorous and transparent methodologies, damages experts not only support fair compensation but also enhance the credibility and reliability of financial claims in legal proceedings.

About the Authors

---

[1] Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance 2024. Wage costs. Wage costs include wages, salaries, signing-on fees, bonuses, termination payments, social security contributions and other employee benefit expenses.
[2] Diarra vs FIFA’s RSTP – Bosman 2.0?, Morgan Sports Law.
[3] Damages experts are not typically involved in non-monetary awards, as they relate to matters at the judge’s discretion, such as pain and suffering.
[4] Dorofeyeva v. International Tennis Federation, (CAS 2016/A/4697), Paragraph 94.
[5] Bologna FC 1909 S.p.A. v. Gonzalo Luis Madrid Pineiro (CAS 2016/A/4517), Paragraphs 12, 14 and 70.
[6] Benjamin Collett v. Gary Smith (EWHC 1962 (QB)), Paragraph 89.
[7] Maragos v. Bradley, Non-precedential decision (S.C. Pennsylvania 2023), Page 11.
[8] Mr. Maragos further received “approximately $36 million for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering”, bringing his total claim to $43.5 million. Source: Law360 article, “Pa. Court Affirms Ex-Eagle’s $43.5M Knee Injury Verdict”, August 2024.
[9] Appleton v. El Safty (EWHC 631(QB)), Paragraphs 1-2.
[10] Ibid, paragraphs 106 – 109.
[11] Ibid, Paragraphs 122 – 127.
[12] Ibid, paragraphs 112 – 114.
[13] Ibid, paragraphs 117 – 118.
[14] Ibid, paragraph 167 – 172.

---

Secretariat, the leading disputes, investigations, economics, engineering, and data advisory firm, is thrilled to announce the promotion of 64 individuals effective as of January 1, 2025.

“These well-earned promotions underscore Secretariat’s continued growth and expansion across geographical regions and service lines,” said CEO Don Harvey. “As a firm, we are dedicated to supporting our exceptional professionals, continuing to cultivate unparalleled talent, and further strengthening our global expertise.”

We are proud to highlight these promotions, which exemplify the wealth of experience offered by our global professionals and span across 18 offices: Atlanta, Boston, Brisbane, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Dubai, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Mumbai, Munich, New York, San Diego, San Francisco, Toronto, and Washington, DC.

Congratulations to our newest:

Managers 

• Arham Chohan
• Marshall Deng
• Varun Dhawan
• Frances Escalona
• Moti Jiang
• Paul Kelly
• Jacob Miller
• Lawrence Myung
• Madison Ondo
• Lauren Shannon
• Nate Tolles
• Manuel Trevino
• Tobin Van Bremen
• Kenneth Yau
• Zaima Zeniya

Senior Associates 

• Matt Badali
• Enobong Bassey
• Sarab Bhatia
• Noah Case
• Pranick Chamlagai
• Charlotte Drake-Dun
• Zuura Dzhuzumkulova
• Ananya Jain
• Luyang Jia
• Matt Joesoep
• Chris Kavanagh
• Lucas Keeton
• Meghan Ourand
• Christine Pang
• Aabha Parikh
• Elizabeth Parker
• Mark Roberts
• Wyatt Rose
• Oliver Saffery
• Billy Si
• Justin Wang
• Terence Yim

Corporate Professionals  

• Kayla Brown (Senior Specialist)
• Vonetta Johnson (Manager)
• Jillian Rathbone (Operations Manager)
• Patti Nelson (Senior Manager)
• Sean Sebers (Analyst)
• Kyle Smith (Senior Manager)

Managing Director Ralph Stobwasser discusses with Gulf State Newsletter (GSN) the latest findings from Secretariat’s white paper, Integrity and Accountability: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Drive. Sharing key data insights from the white paper, GSN discusses the recent increase in anti-corruption investigations and arrests by Nazaha, Saudi Arabia’s Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority.  

Read GSN’s coverage here (subscription required).

Managing Director Chaitanya Arora provided an expert report and testimony in a complex trust dispute litigation case brought before the High Court of Singapore. Mr. Arora’s testimony was upheld and accepted on all counts.

Mr. Arora was retained by TSMP Law Corporation on behalf of three family members as plaintiffs to provide expert testimony and quantify damages in a case against the plaintiffs’ father.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, in the role of trustee, acted in breach of a testamentary trust created under the Last Will and Testament of their late paternal grandfather. The will outlined the assets for the defendant to hold on trust for the named beneficiaries, the plaintiffs. The trust’s assets included real property as well as hundreds of thousands of shares in several private companies co-founded by the plaintiffs’ grandfather. Mr. Arora assessed damages to the trust and quantified the capital that ought to have been returned to the Trust. Notably, Mr. Arora’s testimony informed the Court’s decision on the difference in value of a founder’s share with special rights, when compared to an ordinary share.

The Honorable Justice Goh Yihan, Judge of the High Court, accepted Mr. Arora’s testimony and valuations of the disputed trust assets over the defendant’s presented expert. Justice Goh found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial damages based on the analysis and calculations provided by Mr. Arora for the various claims.

“The case is interesting from several perspectives,” Mr. Arora said. “The judgment highlights the points of law regarding a trustee’s’ fiduciary duties even when the trustee has absolute discretion. It also underscores the importance of instructions to experts and the need for experts to ‘stick to their lane’, as a significant part of the opposing expert’s testimony was dismissed by Justice Goh for opining on issues that is not within his professed expertise.”

Read the judgment in full here.

Secretariat is proud to be sponsoring the ACEDS Third Annual Artificial Intelligence Survey. This represents a unique opportunity to assess the state of AI adoption in the legal industry and identify both opportunities and obstacles for the road ahead. With each passing year, this survey has provided invaluable guidance for legal professionals navigating a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

We invite you to reflect on your own experiences. What changes have you observed in the use of AI in e-discovery and document review? Have you used GenAI for your work and how do you think GenAI will shape the future of our industry? Join the conversation and to share your thoughts as we uncover the latest insights.

In this survey we will be examining the role of AI in e-discovery, document review, and investigations, including the growing impact of Generative AI (GenAI). Previous surveys have provided meaningful insights into AI adoption, and we look forward to discovering what new trends come out of this year’s findings.

What Will the 2025 Survey Uncover? 

With these historical insights in mind, the forthcoming 2025 survey promises to shed light on new and evolving trends in AI’s role in e-discovery, document review and investigations, including: 

• How is GenAI Reshaping eDiscovery and document review? How quickly is GenAI being adopted for legal work? What are the most commonly used applications? Will GenAI’s ability to predict document characteristics be adopted for responsive and privileged document review? How will concerns over AI hallucinations be addressed?
• What Role Does AI Play in Investigations? AI has become a powerful tool for uncovering critical evidence in investigations, enabling faster review and identification of key patterns within vast datasets. How are law firms and investigators leveraging AI to enhance their work, and what challenges are they encountering along the way? 
• Are ESI Agreements Improving? Have the issues identified in previous surveys around poorly drafted ESI agreements been addressed, or do they persist as a common pain point? If progress has been made, what best practices are driving this improvement? 
• Are Corporations Closing the AI Gap? Will this year’s survey reveal that corporate legal departments have made strides in adopting AI tools, narrowing the gap with law firms? What strategies have proven most effective in helping corporations embrace AI, and where do challenges remain? 

Previous surveys uncovered unexpected issues and insights including: 

2023 Report

“Over 80% of survey respondents [in 2023] said they had used AIML in document review in the last twelve months…and there was consensus that the technology worked and saved money…”

2024 Report

“Corporations are less involved in AI e-discovery activities…Law firms are overwhelmed with the amount and complexity of new data [and] they embrace AI in e-discovery…”

Carrie Distler provided expert reports and trial testimony on behalf of San Diego craft brewer Stone Brewing in a trademark infringement suit against the maker of Keystone Light, Molson Coors.  

Ms. Distler, now a leading expert in Secretariat’s Intellectual Property practice¹, provided expert damages analysis on behalf of plaintiff Stone Brewing and counsel BraunHagey and Borden LLP. Relying on Ms. Distler’s testimony, a Southern District of California jury awarded Stone Brewing $56 million in damages in 2022. Then, on December 30, 2024, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the $56 million jury award based on Ms. Distler’s testimony.

Stone’s lawsuit, filed in 2018, alleged that Molson Coors’ rebranding of Keystone Light to emphasize “Stone” in its packaging and marketing infringed on Stone Brewing’s trademark. At trial, Stone claimed damages for lost profits and corrective advertising. The eight-person jury agreed with Stone Brewing’s claims, awarding $56 million in damages.  

Molson Coors appealed, arguing that future lost profits included in the $56 million verdict were speculative. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruling that “[t]he jury could reasonably rely on [Ms. Distler’s] calculation to determine that Stone Brewing’s sales would not recover immediately.”² According to BraunHagey and Borden LLP, this is the fourth-largest trademark infringement verdict in U.S. history.³ 

Ms. Distler prepared multiple expert reports from 2018 through 2022 assessing the harm to Stone’s business from Molson Coors’ infringement. This included a deep dive into Stone’s operations to analyze the business’s performance as well as the performance of the industry and Stone’s peers. Working closely with the marketing expert for the theoretical underpinnings, Ms. Distler isolated the impact on Stone’s profits from the infringement. She also rebutted Molson Coors’ expert analysis that claimed Stone had experienced no harm. 

“I am thrilled my analysis helped the court in this complex and significant case,” said Ms. Distler. “I am glad to have helped a small brewer quantify and recover the harm that it experienced from the misuse of its trademark by a large, global competitor.” 

---

¹ As of December 2023 
² Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC, Case No. 23-3142 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024)
³ Ninth Circuit Affirms $56 Million Jury Award for Stone Brewing 

The partnership aims to advance education, innovation, and resources for legal professionals navigating AI-driven discovery processes.

February 5, 2025

Secretariat is proud to announce the firm has joined the affiliate partnership program of The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), the world’s premier organization dedicated to improving the quality of education and standards of the e-discovery industry and part of BARBRI Professional Education. This collaboration reinforces both organizations’ commitment to advancing excellence, education, and innovation in AI-driven discovery and legal technology.

Secretariat, a globally recognized leader in investigations, disputes, arbitration, engineering, and expert advisory services, brings market-leading expertise in e-discovery and AI-driven solutions. By aligning with ACEDS, Secretariat is poised to play a vital role in enhancing industry standards and providing legal professionals with cutting-edge resources and training.

“We are thrilled to announce our affiliate partnership between Secretariat and ACEDS. This collaboration marks a significant step forward in advancing excellence, education, and innovation in AI-driven discovery. By combining Secretariat’s world-class expertise with ACEDS’ industry-leading education programs, we’re poised to provide crucial resources and benchmarks for the legal industry as it increasingly adopts AI in discovery processes. Together, we’re committed to empowering legal professionals with the knowledge and tools they need to stay at the forefront of technological advancements in our industry,” commented Richard Finkelman, Managing Director at Secretariat.

Maribel Rivera, VP of Strategy and Client Engagement at ACEDS, who oversees the ACEDS community globally, expressed her excitement about the partnership:

“As AI continues to revolutionize eDiscovery and the management of legal data, it’s critical for professionals to stay ahead of the curve. At ACEDS, we are dedicated to equipping our members and the broader eDiscovery community with the tools, knowledge, and strategies needed to optimize workflows, uncover insights quickly, and drive efficiency. Partnering with Secretariat strengthens this mission by providing access to cutting-edge expertise and resources that empower legal teams to embrace AI-driven solutions confidently and effectively.”

The partnership will also provide ACEDS members with access to insights and best practices from Secretariat’s experts through webinars, thought leadership articles, and collaborative events.

For more information about ACEDS and its affiliate program, visit www.aceds.org.

About Secretariat

Secretariat experts are trusted in the highest-stakes legal, risk, and regulatory matters around the world. Renowned law firms, leading corporations, and respected governmental entities turn to our more than 600 disputes, investigations, economic, engineering, and data advisory experts when the stakes are high— supporting them with meticulous preparation, insightful analysis, and clearly persuasive communications.

Our bright minds and passionate problem-solvers put their financial, analytical, and strategic insights to work in the fast-paced sectors we serve – from construction and energy to healthcare, technology, and natural resources.

Quality, integrity, and independence are woven into every aspect of our work. But, most importantly, when success is on the line, our globally integrated teams thrive on working through the most daunting problems in ways that remove uncertainty and instill confidence.

About ACEDS

The Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS), part of leading legal education provider BARBRI Global, is the world’s leading organization for training and certification in e-discovery, information governance, and related disciplines. ACEDS provides training to corporate legal departments, law firms, the government, service providers, and institutions of higher learning. Our flagship CEDS certification is recognized worldwide and used to verify skills and competence in electronic discovery for organizations and individuals through training, certification, and continuing education. The CEDS credential is held by practitioners at the largest Fortune 500 companies, Am Law 200 firms and government agencies. ACEDS has 30 chapters in most major US cities, Canada, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Australia. Our goal is to help professionals and organizations reduce the costs and risks associated with e-discovery while helping to improve and verify their skills and advance their careers and overall technology competence in e-discovery and related fields. Learn more at www.aceds.org

About BARBRI

BARBRI is the global leader in technology-enabled legal education with leadership positions in the US and the UK. Dedicated to providing unparalleled innovation and excellence in legal education, BARBRI delivers outstanding success to learners by providing the most trusted and industry leading products under one unified experience and across every step of the legal learner’s path. Building on the success of its core bar courses, which have helped more than 1.5 million lawyers around the world pass a U.S. bar exam, BARBRI offers a comprehensive suite of learning solutions for higher education institutions and law-related businesses empowering every step of legal learning journey. Founded in 1967, BARBRI is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with offices throughout the United States and around the world.

Secretariat Media Contact

Nathan Jenks
Director of Marketing & Communications
+1 773 220 8896
njenks@secretariat-intl.com

ACEDS Media Contact

Katie Saylor
913.219.4444
ksaylor@aceds.org

by Eric Poer

2025 Priorities for SEC Enforcement: Shadow Trading, AI, and Crypto in the Spotlight

2024 was a pivotal year for SEC enforcement as the Commission significantly ramped up its efforts, filing 583 enforcement actions and obtaining $8.2 billion in financial remedies, a record for the agency.^[1] Penalties against digital-asset participants was a record $4.98 billion in 2024.^[2] As we move forward in 2025, the spotlight will be on shadow trading, artificial intelligence (AI), and cryptocurrency (crypto) enforcement. In its recently released 2025 Division of Examination Priorities, the SEC announced it was prioritizing “perennial and emerging risk areas, such as fiduciary duty, standards of conduct, cyber security and artificial intelligence.”^[3] These emerging areas are poised to drive further regulatory scrutiny and potential legal challenges.

Shadow Trading Ushers in a New Era of Insider Trading Scrutiny

Building on the momentum from the SEC’s recent “shadow trading” case, we expect increased regulatory scrutiny and potential legislative shifts with respect to insider duties.^[4] The case, which expanded the definition of insider trading to include the use of material non-public information to trade in securities of a comparable company, may lead to more aggressive enforcement. Market participants, especially corporate executives and traders, should anticipate increased scrutiny and potential liability, particularly surrounding the issue of economic correlation between companies. Firms should be mindful of these increased risks when establishing compliance and training protocols, and monitoring staff to avoid potential enforcement actions.

AI at the Intersection of Legal Risks and Innovation

Simultaneously, AI has caused significant changes and challenges across industries. The SEC appointed a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer to oversee effective governance, innovation and risk.^[5] As firms integrate AI into their operations, including in creating investment strategies, they face increased scrutiny from regulators and investors. The SEC has highlighted that examinations could include reviews of compliance policies and procedures, and disclosures to investors about an advisor’s use of AI into its operations.^[6] As an emerging technology, firms should be mindful of the changing landscape and potential liabilities when implementing AI.  For example, proposed SEC rules could change conflict of interest rules and require additional disclosures to investors.^[7]

Crypto Faces High Stakes and Greater Risks in 2025

The SEC’s focus on crypto assets, which includes reviewing potential technological and security risks, will likely continue in 2025.  The recent appointment of Paul Atkins as SEC chair may lead to changes in enforcement. However, as the industry evolves, legal and enforcement risks will remain significant, particularly for those who fail to comply with shifting regulations. On January 21, 2025, Mark Uyeda was designated as the Acting Chairman of the SEC; that same day, among his first actions was launching a cryptocurrency Task Force to create a regulatory framework for crypto assets with the goal of making enforcement mechanisms clearer and more efficient.^[8] In 2024, 73% of cryptocurrency enforcement actions by the SEC alleged fraud, a trend that is likely to continue or increase with the new administration.^[9] As the cryptocurrency sector grows, founders and executives will navigate complex regulatory landscapes while managing investor expectations. The SEC’s increased focus on crypto assets could lead to more enforcement actions, especially for early-stage projects that may face challenges related to misrepresentations, inadequate disclosures, operational shortcomings and cases related to fraudulent conduct. Proactive planning and continuous monitoring of the legal and regulatory landscape will be essential.

---

[1] https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-186
[2] Cornerstone Research, SEC Cryptocurrency Enforcement: 2024 Update
[3] https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-172
[4] https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-25170
[5] https://www.sec.gov/ai
[6] https://www.sec.gov/files/2025-exam-priorities.pdf
[7] https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-140
[8] https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-30
[9] Cornerstone Research, SEC Cryptocurrency Enforcement: 2024 Update

By Ralph Stobwasser, Dominique Dondelinger, Tarek Bleik, and Mikhail Reshotkin

As Saudi Arabia emerges as a global investment destination, it is essential for foreign investors, financial institutions, and legal and compliance professionals to understand the Kingdom’s anti-corruption initiatives, including crucial legal frameworks and reporting mechanisms. Our latest whitepaper, ‘Integrity and Accountability: Saudi Arabia’s Anti-Corruption Drive’ explores the introduction of the recent Nazaha Law, and discusses Saudi Arabia’s ongoing efforts to combat corruption and foster a more transparent and fair business environment.

In this report, global investigations experts Ralph Stobwasser, Dominique Dondelinger, Tarek Bleik, and Mikhail Reshotkin detail the connection between Saudi Arabia’s anti-corruption efforts and Vision 2030—the Kingdom’s programme to reform its economic landscape and drive long-term prosperity. We analyse:

• The role and activities of Nazaha, the country’s Oversight and Anti-Corruption Authority.
• Updates on legislation aiming to enhance transparency, accountability, and public participation in combating corruption.
• Current progress, future goals, and remaining challenges for Saudi Arabia’s anti-corruption efforts and Vision 2030 reforms.
• Nazaha caseload statistics, reporting channel data, and examples of high-profile cases.

Managing Director Jon Fowler recently contributed to the Active Learning Best Practice Guide, developed by International Legal Technology Association (ILTA).

This guide represents the combined expertise of eDiscovery leaders from London’s top law firms, input from over 50 global contributors, and the valuable perspective of retired Judge former Master Victoria McCloud.

This initiative addresses a critical gap in Practice Direction 57AD, providing clear, actionable guidance for the effective application of Active Learning in English courts. By establishing a standardized approach, the guide aims to promote consistency, transparency, and efficiency in the use of technology-assisted review, ultimately reducing time and costs whilst streamlining disclosure processes.

Chris Robinson provided an expert report, deposition, and trial testimony on behalf of defendant Miraca Life Sciences, Inc. in a wrongful termination suit. The jury awarded the plaintiff less than $1 million, reflecting the exact amount Mr. Robinson calculated and presented at trial, and a substantially lower figure than was put forth by the plaintiff‘s damages expert.

Mr. Robinson was retained by Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. on behalf of Miraca to provide expert analysis and quantify damages to the plaintiff. Mr. Robinson provided testimony and was cross-examined in a nearly two-week jury trial in Nashville, Tennessee in December 2024.  

The jury agreed with Mr. Robinson’s testimony, awarding the plaintiff the exact amount Mr. Robinson calculated — less than $1 million — and rejected the plaintiff expert’s significantly higher damages calculations.