Mohammed A. Alvi

Paul, Weiss is advising Stonepeak portfolio company Rinchem Company, LLC, operator of the world’s largest chemical and gas distribution network, on its debt exchange and new money financing in connection with its combination with Louisiana-based Dupré Logistics. Dupré is a North American leader in chemical supply chain logistics. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed. Per the terms of the financing, a substantial majority of Rinchem’s lenders will, among other things, invest approximately $100 million and exchange up to about $300 million of their existing term loans for new loans with maturities extended by two years to 2031. Additionally, all of Rinchem’s revolving lenders agreed to, among other things, extend the maturity of Rinchem’s revolving credit facility for over three years to 2030. The Paul, Weiss team is led by partners Paul Basta, Brian Bolin and Eric Wedel, and includes corporate partner Michael Montgomery; tax partner Robert Holo and counsel Daniel Bleiberg; executive compensation partner Jarrett Hoffman; and intellectual property partner Claudine Meredith-Goujon.

Jan 28

1 min

Tesla asked a Los Angeles County Superior Court to vacate a California Department of Motor Vehicles order that it said "wrongfully and baselessly" labels the automaker a false advertiser for marketing its vehicles' "autopilot" function, calling the order "deeply flawed." Tesla Inc.'s petition for writ of mandamus and complaint centers on the DMV's Dec. 16, 2025, order finding that the company violated state law by marketing its vehicles' "autopilot" and "full self-driving capability." Those phrases are misleading because the technology doesn't actually enable autonomous driving, the DMV said at the time, ordering the company to change its marketing or see its permit to sell vehicles in the state suspended. According to Tesla, the DMV's findings lack evidence, a problem the agency tried to duck by ignoring the relevant legal standard and "unlawfully shifting the burden of proof onto Tesla." "And the order disregards a critical fact that should have been dispositive: It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or full self-driving capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous," Tesla says in the petition, dated Feb. 13. "The order is factually wrong, legally flawed, unconstitutional and should be set aside," it adds. In the December 2025 order, the DMV ordered the automaker to stop using the term "autopilot" within 60 days, or the agency would issue a 30-day suspension of Tesla's dealership license. Tesla had already stopped using the phrase "full self-driving capability" in its marketing after the DMV filed its complaints against the company in 2022. Administrative Law Judge Juliet E. Cox at the time rejected Tesla's argument that it could still use "self-driving" to describe its cars because their hardware would allow them to reach this ultimate goal. "Respondent's argument that such vehicles may yet become fully autonomous is optimistic, but not evidence-based," Judge Cox said. "The feature set name full self-driving capability is actually, unambiguously false and counterfactual." Additionally, Judge Cox slammed Tesla's arguments that it has always and repeatedly issued disclaimers that its autopilot cannot supplant human attention. "[Tesla] follows a long but unlawful tradition of intentionally using ambiguity to mislead consumers while maintaining some level of deniability about the intended meaning," the judge said in her order. "Moreover, [the DMV's] allegation regarding autopilot is not only that this name misleads in context; it is that the name itself, which respondent chose, is inherently misleading." But Tesla says in its petition that the DMV didn't hear testimony from a single consumer before reaching its decision. And it "ignored that it was impossible to buy or use a Tesla equipped with either autopilot or full self-driving capability without being informed that they do not make the vehicle autonomous," the company adds. Beyond that, Judge Cox "never cites, quotes or purports to apply the relevant legal test: whether the challenged statements, when read in context, could mislead 'a significant portion' of reasonable consumers," it says. "DMV's procedure deprived Tesla of its constitutionally protected due process rights," Tesla argues. "After serving as investigator, charging party, and complainant, DMV then served as the final decisionmaker after adopting a recommendation arising out of proceedings rife with procedural and legal errors — notably including the administrative law judge failing to follow her own preannounced rules. The entire process was grossly unfair and violated Tesla's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process." Tesla and the California DMV didn't immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday. Tesla is represented by David C. Marcus, Matthew D. Benedetto and Ari Holtzblatt of WilmerHale, and Ariel A. Neuman, Oliver Rocos and Miri E. Gold of Bird Marella Rhow Lincenberg Drooks & Nessim LLP. Counsel information for the DMV wasn't immediately available. The case is Tesla Inc. v. California Department of Motor Vehicles, case number 26STCP00629, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Feb 24

3 min

A California federal magistrate judge on Wednesday warned attorneys representing Databricks in a group of writers' copyright lawsuit over AI training that they cannot discuss deposition testimony with witnesses during breaks other than for privilege reasons, but she rejected the writers' accusation that defense counsel had improperly coached witnesses. The discovery ruling is the latest development in a high-stakes proposed class action filed in March 2024 by writers Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O'Nan who allege their books were part of a pirated database that Databricks and its subsidiary, MosaicML, used to train large language models without consent or compensation. Databricks acquired MosaicML for roughly $1.3 billion in 2023. In a joint letter last week, the writers accused defense attorneys of coaching two witnesses, MosaicML co-founder Hanlin Tang and former MosaicML chief scientist Jonathan Frankle, during depositions, and improperly directing them not to answer certain questions. Both witnesses are now executives and researchers at Databricks. Meanwhile, defense counsel countered that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to ask "personally invasive and harassing" questions. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros reviewed the witnesses' transcripts, and in a 5-page order on Wednesday, she denied the writers' request to further examine the witnesses. Judge Cisneros agreed with the writers that Databricks' counsel improperly discussed the substance of the examinations with Tang and Frankle during deposition breaks, and she noted that the "far better course" would have been for defense counsel to examine the witnesses and show them certain documents "on the record during the deposition." However, the judge said those witnesses did not change their testimony following their discussions with defense counsel, and the writers' counsel were still able to ask follow-up questions, so further questioning is not warranted. Judge Cisneros additionally found that defense counsel improperly directed Tang not to answer certain questions during his deposition about how much he stood to gain from Databricks' acquisition of MosaicML purportedly due to defense counsel's privacy concerns. The judge noted that Databricks' privacy concerns are "somewhat overblown," given that the depositions are sealed and the witness' personal stake in the MosaicML deal may be relevant to the writers' claims. "The court notes that this does not give plaintiffs carte blanche to question witnesses regarding their personal finances unrelated to the acquisition or the financial benefit from defendants' alleged infringement, and instructions not to answer may be appropriate in such situations," the order adds. Even so, the judge warned Databricks counsel that her standing order and the district's case law prohibits private conferences between deponents and attorneys "in the course of interrogation, including a line of related questions." The sole exception to that prohibition is to determine whether a privilege should be asserted, the judge said. "If counsel believes that a witness's testimony requires clarification or needs to refresh the witness's recollection, the proper procedure is for them to question the witness 'on the record at the conclusion of the deposition' rather than confer with the witness during breaks," the order says. "Counsel shall comply with these procedures at any future depositions." Judge Cisneros also noted that examining counsel can ask witnesses whether they discussed non-privileged testimony with their attorneys during breaks, and those witnesses are only required to confirm or deny whether they did without disclosing the content of their discussions or waiving attorney-client privilege. Counsel and representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. The proposed class is represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Evan Creutz, Elissa A. Buchanan, William Castillo Guardado and Jane J. Kim of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Justin A. Nelson, Alejandra C. Salinas, Rohit D. Nath, Elisha Barron, Craig Smyser, Jordan W. Connors and Trevor D. Nystrom of Susman Godfrey LLP, Rachel J. Geman, Danna Z. Elmasry, Anne B. Shaver and Betsy A. Sugar of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Bryan L. Clobes, Alexander J. Sweatman and Mohammed A. Rathur of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Brian D. Clark, Laura M. Matson and Arielle Wagner of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Matthew Butterick. Databricks and Mosaic are represented by Jedediah Wakefield, Brian David Buckley, Charles Moulins, David Lloyd Hayes, Deena Julia Greenberg Feit, Diana Buck, Justine Alexis Vandermel, Ryan Kwock and Zachary Harned of Fenwick & West LLP. The case is In re: Mosaic LLM Litigation, case number 3:24-cv-01451, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Nov 26

3 min

Writers suing Databricks for allegedly using their copyrighted works for artificial intelligence training have urged a California federal judge to order defense attorneys to stop coaching witnesses during depositions, with defense counsel countering that the court should bar plaintiffs from asking "personally invasive and harassing" questions. In a joint letter submitted to the court on Thursday, the plaintiffs accused defense attorneys of inappropriate conduct during seven depositions, while the defense responded by saying their actions were in line with ethical and legal obligations and denied that their conversations with clients involved coaching. The parties told the court they need the court's intervention because all they could agree on to resolve their dispute is that going forward all "objections to form" will be made by saying "objection to form" or some variation of that without going into the specifics of the objection. Counsel for Databricks "has coached witnesses during breaks, then aggressively instructed them not to answer any questions about their mid-deposition coaching," the plaintiffs said in the letter. Attorneys for Databricks said in the letter that's not true. "Plaintiffs mischaracterize the facts and misstate the law in an effort to prohibit nearly all communications with witnesses during depositions recesses," Databricks said. The lawsuit from Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene and Stewart O'Nan alleges the plaintiffs' books were part of a pirated database that Databricks and its subsidiary, MosaicML, used to train large language models without consent or compensation. In the letter, which contains several redactions, the plaintiffs asked the court to order defense counsel to not discuss "the substance of testimony during deposition breaks, except to address issues of privilege." The plaintiffs also want an order requiring defendants to stop "directing witnesses not to answer" questions other than for privilege reasons or "legitimate harassment." The plaintiffs also want more deposition time with two witnesses, including one of Mosaic's co-founders. Meanwhile, defense counsel insisted they "correctly instructed certain witnesses not to answer inappropriate and personally invasive questions" and asked the court for an order that prevents such questions. "Plaintiffs should be prohibited from pursuing personally invasive and harassing lines of questioning about" their internet browsing history "or downloading personal content decades ago." The defense also said the plaintiffs should not be allowed to ask certain questions about training data for particular LLMs, arguing they are no longer at issue in the case. Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Evan Creutz, Elissa A. Buchanan, William Castillo Guardado and Jane J. Kim of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Justin A. Nelson, Alejandra C. Salinas, Rohit D. Nath, Elisha Barron, Craig Smyser, Jordan W. Connors and Trevor D. Nystrom of Susman Godfrey LLP, Rachel J. Geman, Danna Z. Elmasry, Anne B. Shaver and Betsy A. Sugar of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Bryan L. Clobes, Alexander J. Sweatman and Mohammed A. Rathur of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Brian D. Clark, Laura M. Matson and Arielle Wagner of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Matthew Butterick. Defendants are represented by Jedediah Wakefield, Brian David Buckley, Charles Moulins, David Lloyd Hayes, Deena Julia Greenberg Feit, Diana Buck, Justine Alexis Vandermel, Ryan Kwock and Zachary Harned of Fenwick & West LLP. The case is In re: Mosaic LLM Litigation, case number 3:24-cv-01451, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Nov 21

3 min

Paul, Weiss advised Investindustrial on the financing aspects of its acquisition of leading North American private label snacking and beverage manufacturer TreeHouse Foods, Inc., for an enterprise value of $2.9 billion. The financing for the take-private transaction consisted of proceeds from a first lien credit facility and an offering of senior secured notes. The group also entered into an asset-backed loan facility in connection with the transaction. The Paul, Weiss team was led by corporate partners Eric Wedel, Matthew Leist, Caroline Epstein, Neel Sachdev, Matthew Merkle, Deirdre Jones and Stefan Arnold-Soulby and included partner Reva Raghavan; tax partner Robert Holo and counsel Samir Kurani; and intellectual property partner Jonathan Ashtor.

Feb 11

1 min