John C. Kennedy

Google is opposing a move by Unlockd Media seeking the recusal of U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in an antitrust lawsuit in California federal court, arguing that the judge's close relationship with Google's vice president for litigation and discovery doesn't require him to step away from the case. In a response filed Wednesday, Google said the instant case does not merit Judge Gilliam's recusal, as the litigation VP, Cassandra Knight, joined the technology giant well into the case and has had no involvement in the matter. "Ms. Knight's lack of involvement in this case, coupled with the fact that she is one of hundreds of legal team members and many thousands of employees who work at Google, confirms that no reasonable person could question the court's impartiality here," according to the filing. "As the court's multiple orders granting Google's respective motions to dismiss made clear, all the at-issue conduct in this case began many years before Ms. Knight started working at Google." Google added that the case began well before Knight began working for the company in August 2022 and that Unlockd brought its first complaint in September 2021. The case was assigned in October 2021, and Unlockd filed an amended complaint in January 2022, Google pointed out, adding that the parties had fully briefed Google's motion to dismiss by June 2022. The friendship between Judge Gilliam and Knight was documented in a July 2025 article in the Stanford Lawyer Magazine that noted the judge officiated at Knight's wedding in 2021 and that Knight had spoken at Judge Gilliam's investiture ceremony about a decade ago. These same revelations recently prompted video-sharing site Rumble to request Judge Gilliam's recusal in its own antitrust suit against Google. Rumble's counsel reportedly learned about the judge's connection to Knight in October. When seeking the judge's recusal in November, Unlockd cited Rumble's case and raised the same concerns about the appearance of impropriety. It wrote that "this court's nondisclosure is particularly significant here because it continued presiding over this case — including through the entry of summary judgment in Google's favor — despite issuing recusal orders in other Google-related matters after Knight's arrival at Google." Unlockd added that it wasn't aware of the relationship until after the Rumble filing. Google countered that Unlockd didn't make any arguments of its own and instead pointed "to a different motion filed by a different plaintiff in an unrelated case, with little attempt to apply the arguments to this case." The tech giant also said Unlockd cited two cases in support of its motion but did not explain why they were relevant when neither case showed that a friendship between a judge and an employee of a party can give rise to an appearance of partiality. Furthermore, Google asserted, Unlockd's citations to other cases where Google and Knight's prior employer is a party and the court issued recusal orders also do not support recusal in this matter. The company reiterated Knight's lack of employment at the time and lack of involvement. Judge Gilliam granted Google's request to dismiss the case earlier this year, saying in a February opinion that Unlockd "has offered no factual support from which the court could assume that harm to plaintiff is somehow tantamount to harm to this entire [digital advertising] market." "Plaintiff's theory is also further undermined by its acknowledgment that similar products do continue to exist in the digital advertising market," he wrote. Unlockd is appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit. In Wednesday's filing, Google alternatively contended that Unlockd is only seeking a prospective recusal if the case returns to the lower court and that the court can defer its ruling unless and until the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands the matter. Counsel for the parties in the case Unlockd brought did not immediately respond to Law360's requests for comment Thursday. Unlockd is represented by Allan B. Diamond, Justin B. Strother and Damion Robinson of Diamond McCarthy LLP and Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., Philip J. Iovieno and Jack G. Stern of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP. Google is represented by Beatriz Mejia, Alexander J. Kasner, Ashley K Corkery, Deepti Bansal and John C. Dwyer of Cooley LLP. The case is Unlockd Media Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC et al., case number 4:21-cv-07250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dec 4

3 min

The Delaware Chancery Court has signed off on the framework that will govern how scores of insurers press claims in the liquidation of Scottish Re (U.S.) Inc., issuing an opinion to spell out when courts must defer to the state insurance commissioner and when they must step in. Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster's ruling Friday approved the Delaware Insurance Commissioner's proposed claims and dispute-resolution procedures for the insolvent reinsurer, holding that the court's role is to police legal compliance and avoid second-guessing business and valuation judgments the commissioner makes as receiver. "This decision holds that the procedures must both comply with law (principally DUILA) and otherwise not constitute an abuse of discretion," Vice Chancellor Laster wrote, referring to Delaware's Uniform Insurance Liquidation Act, which establishes a streamlined, coordinated and orderly statutory scheme for the Delaware Insurance Commissioner to take possession of an insolvent insurer's assets and facilitate the fair and equitable resolution and payment of claims for policyholders and creditors across multiple jurisdictions. The vice chancellor framed the standard of review as a two-step exercise. Courts must first review the commissioner's decisions de novo for compliance with "positive law" such as constitutions, statutes, regulations and common law, and only then consider whether the commissioner's judgment calls are supported by substantial evidence and free of arbitrariness. Once the commissioner has identified a legal basis, articulated a rationale and built a factual record, the burden shifts to objectors to show that the decision violates law, lacks evidentiary support or constitutes an abuse of discretion, Vice Chancellor Laster said. He applied that framework both to the commissioner's request for approval of global claims procedures and to future recommendations on individual claims. As to claim determinations, the opinion held that purely legal issues will be reviewed de novo, but that "as to any issue requiring the exercise of judgment or the weighing of evidence, the court will review the commissioner's recommendation under an abuse of discretion standard." Scottish Re (U.S.), a life and annuity reinsurer headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, stopped writing new business in 2008 and went into run-off, backing existing obligations to primary insurers through reinsurance and retrocession agreements. The insurer's financial position worsened after its Cayman and Delaware parent entities entered insolvency proceedings, and in March 2019 the Delaware insurance commissioner obtained a rehabilitation order in Chancery Court. In July 2023, after efforts to save the business failed, the court converted the case to a liquidation, fixed Scottish Re's obligations to its cedents as of Sept. 30, 2023 and imposed antisuit injunctions requiring claims to be funneled through the receivership. Delaware Insurance Commissioner Trinidad Navarro followed with a series of 2024 motions seeking approval of reinsurance claims procedures, "other claims" procedures, dispute-resolution rules and "final determination" procedures for adjudicating and paying claims. Large blocks of cedent insurers and retrocessionaires objected, raising more than two dozen issues about standards of review, the sequence of the claims process, the use of arbitration clauses, access to information and contractual protections for reinsurers. Objectors first attacked the commissioner's plan to solicit information from each claimant, issue an initial valuation and then invite the claimant either to accept that number or file a formal claim. They argued that DUILA requires claimants to file first before any evaluation occurs. The court disagreed, holding that "the commissioner's approach does not violate DUILA and is not an abuse of the commissioner's discretion," and declining to hard-wire a more rigid sequence into the statute's silence. Vice Chancellor Laster likewise declined to bless or condemn specific valuation formulas, holding instead that the commissioner's proposed methodologies were not inherently an abuse of discretion and that fights over how to value particular books of business should wait until concrete recommendations reach the court. On discovery, insurers had urged the court to allow plenary, litigation-style information demands on the receiver. The vice chancellor rejected that as incompatible with a streamlined liquidation. "The special nature of the claims proceeding does not accommodate plenary discovery," he wrote, finding the proposed information-sharing mechanism adequate so long as the commissioner uses it in good faith and does not wield noncooperation as a blunt forfeiture tool. The opinion also turned aside objections that the procedures violate mandatory arbitration clauses in Scottish Re's contracts. DUILA and the court's antisuit injunctions centralize the process in Chancery, and "Delaware's regulatory scheme takes precedence," Vice Chancellor Laster held, though he left room for parties to seek relief from the injunctions in exceptional cases where sending a dispute to arbitration would still comport with liquidation policy. Retrocessionaires argued that they were contractually entitled to notice of all underlying claims, an opportunity to investigate and a right to assert additional defenses before the commissioner. They further pressed for a ruling that their contracts terminated when Scottish Re's outward-facing reinsurance contracts were cut off. Laster found that, under Delaware law, those notice-and-participation provisions do not bind the commissioner as receiver and noted that the commissioner had already committed to give reasonable notice, allow reinsurers to investigate at their own expense and raise defenses by objection after recommendations are filed. "That is all the reinsurers would be entitled to even if Delaware law validated the provisions at issue," he said. He also refused to impose a retrocession termination date, holding that the commissioner's decision "is not contrary to law, nor is it an abuse of discretion." Beyond the immediate fights, Vice Chancellor Laster used the opinion to criticize Delaware's continued reliance on a 1939-era uniform act that the drafters themselves withdrew as obsolete in 1981, noting that "By not updating its statute and persisting with DUILA, Delaware continues to use a gapridden scheme that the promulgating authority declared obsolete over four decades ago." Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. Delaware Insurance Commissioner Trinidad Navarro, receiver for Scottish Re (U.S.) Inc. is represented by Peter B. Ladig and GianClaudio Finizio of Bayard PA. Scottish Re (U.S.) Inc. is represented by Michael Busenkell of Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown LLC. The insurance companies are represented by Joseph B. Cicero and Gregory E. Stuhlman of Chipman Brown Cicero and Cole LLP, Travis S. Hunter of Richards Layton & Finger PA, Ricardo Palacio, William P. Bowden and Catherine A. Gaul of Ashby & Geddes PA, Kelly A. Green and Jason Miller of Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Marisa R. De Feo, Allison Neff, Gary W. Lipkin and Patrick A. Lockwood of Saul Ewing LLP, Randall MacTough and Paul S. Seward of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Elizabeth Fenton of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, John C. Phillips and David A. Bilson of Phillips McLaughlin & Hall PA, Jennifer R. Hoover and Noelle Torrice of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, John G. Harris of Halloran Farkas Kittila LLP, Peter C. McGivney of Berger McDermott LLP and Simon Fraser of Cozen O'Connor PC. The case is In the Matter of the Rehabilitation of Scottish Re (U.S.) Inc., case number 2019-0175, in the Delaware Chancery Court.

Dec 1

5 min

Paul, Weiss is advising intelligent power management company Eaton on the tax-free spin-off of its vehicle and e-mobility segments (together, the Mobility Group) into an independent public company. The Mobility Group provides mission- and safety-critical engineered solutions that create, distribute and optimize power for all types of vehicles and propulsion systems. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed. The spin-off is expected to complete by the end of the first quarter of 2027, subject to customary closing conditions. The Paul, Weiss team is led by corporate partners Dotun Obadina and Steven Williams, and includes partners John Kennedy and Patricia Vaz de Almeida; intellectual property partners Bonnie Chen and Marisa Geiger; executive compensation partners Matthew Friestedt and Christopher Gonnella.

Jan 26

1 min

A group of Oklahoma-based companies accused retail-focused real estate investment trust Simon Property Group Inc. of waging "an anticompetitive campaign" to take down their competing mixed-use project in Oklahoma City. In a suit filed Tuesday in Oklahoma federal court, the companies accused the REIT, its Chairman and CEO David Simon and other related parties of attempting to undermine the OAK project, a development that includes retail, residential and office space. Simon Property Group's nearby Penn Square Mall is a major business competitor. "Rather than fairly compete with OAK for retail tenants and customers by investing in Penn Square Mall to spur interest in Oklahoma City, defendants have abused SPG's monopoly power to prevent prominent retail brands from opening stores at OAK or, in some cases, from opening stores anywhere in Oklahoma City," the companies claimed. The entities that filed the suit — Veritas Development LLC, NWPF LLC and NWPF subsidiaries Oak Land and Development LLC, Oak Phase I Property Owner LLC, Oak Hotel Owner LLC, Oak Block 2 LLC, Oak Block 3 LLC and Oak SE Corner LLC — said they've been developing the OAK project for over 10 years, but Simon Property Group is trying to "destroy" it by engaging in anticompetitive tactics. "Among other conduct, defendants have used SPG's vast portfolio of properties to restrain tenants' choices, including by offering prospective tenants that are considering leasing space at OAK preferred terms or 'package deals' involving leases at SPG properties in other states that are conditioned on the prospective tenant either leasing or renewing space at Penn Square Mall, or blocking prospective tenants from leasing space at any competing shopping center in Oklahoma City," the companies said. Simon Property Group also tried to make the Oklahoma City Council shoot down Veritas Development's "requested zoning changes" in 2019, according to the lawsuit. The REIT also scared away anchor tenants like restaurant chains North Italia and Culinary Dropout from the OAK project, the companies claimed. The OAK development started talking to North Italia and Culinary Dropout owner Cheesecake Factory Inc. in October 2022 about the restaurant chains becoming tenants, according to the complaint. The negotiations led to Cheesecake Factory making plans to open North Italia and Culinary Dropout locations at the project in 2025 and 2026, respectively, the suit said. But when the REIT learned about these plans, it tried to force Cheesecake Factory to ditch the OAK project for the Penn Square Mall, the companies claimed. "On information and belief, [Cheesecake Factory] initially rebuffed defendants, notifying defendants in or about January and/or February 2025 that it was not interested in leasing space at Penn Square Mall," the suit said. "On information and belief, defendants responded by using SPG's enormous market power to force [Cheesecake Factory] to suspend its lease negotiations with OAK and enter a contractual investigation period to further evaluate potential locations at Penn Square Mall," the companies continued. "As a result, in April 2025, [Cheesecake Factory] informed plaintiffs that further discussions regarding its planned locations at OAK would be delayed as it investigated options to instead open a new North Italia location at Penn Square Mall." In July, Cheesecake Factory told the plaintiff companies that it was still going to open North Italia and Culinary Dropout locations at OAK, according to the complaint. But the restaurant eventually gave in to Simon Property Group's demands and told the OAK companies in September that it wanted to open a North Italia spot at the Penn Square Mall instead, the suit said. "As a result of defendants' coercive conduct, plaintiffs' negotiations with [Cheesecake Factory] were terminated, and plaintiffs were unable to consummate a final lease agreement for North Italia at OAK," the companies claimed. "The loss of North Italia and likely Culinary Dropout as anchor tenants was devastating for OAK." The LLCs also pointed to prior antitrust investigations and litigation against Simon Property Group, such as an antitrust probe the New York Attorney General's Office launched into the company in 2017 and eventually settled. Counsel for the companies, John C. Hueston, told Law360 Real Estate Authority on Wednesday that Simon Property Group is unfairly undermining its competition. "As alleged in the complaint, Simon Property Group has a history of abusing its enormous market power to hurt competitors and consumers," Hueston said. "OAK and Oklahoma City are only its latest victims." "Through this lawsuit, OAK is standing up to that bullying and seeking to repair the enormous damage Simon has already caused," he also said. However, in a Wednesday statement sent to Law360, a Simon spokesperson slammed the suit. "This is a meritless and fictional lawsuit from a competitor that is struggling to lease space," the spokesperson said. "Penn Square has competed lawfully for tenants, and it is those tenants that have the power to select where they open stores." "We will continue with our plans to deliver exciting new tenants at Penn Square while defending ourselves vigorously from these baseless claims," they added. Simon Property Group's counsel information wasn't immediately available. The OAK companies are represented by M. Richard Mullins and Andrew J. Morris of McAfee & Taft APC and John C. Hueston, Marshall A. Camp, Justin M. Greer and Raymond Magsaysay of Hueston Hennigan LLP. The case is Oak Land and Development LLC et al. v. Simon Property Group Inc et al., case number 5:25-cv-01444, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Dec 3

4 min

Google is opposing a move by Unlockd Media seeking the recusal of U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. in an antitrust lawsuit in California federal court, arguing that the judge's close relationship with Google's vice president for litigation and discovery doesn't require him to step away from the case. In a response filed Wednesday, Google said the instant case does not merit Judge Gilliam's recusal, as the litigation VP, Cassandra Knight, joined the technology giant well into the case and has had no involvement in the matter. "Ms. Knight's lack of involvement in this case, coupled with the fact that she is one of hundreds of legal team members and many thousands of employees who work at Google, confirms that no reasonable person could question the court's impartiality here," according to the filing. "As the court's multiple orders granting Google's respective motions to dismiss made clear, all the at-issue conduct in this case began many years before Ms. Knight started working at Google." Google added that the case began well before Knight began working for the company in August 2022 and that Unlockd brought its first complaint in September 2021. The case was assigned in October 2021, and Unlockd filed an amended complaint in January 2022, Google pointed out, adding that the parties had fully briefed Google's motion to dismiss by June 2022. The friendship between Judge Gilliam and Knight was documented in a July 2025 article in the Stanford Lawyer Magazine that noted the judge officiated at Knight's wedding in 2021 and that Knight had spoken at Judge Gilliam's investiture ceremony about a decade ago. These same revelations recently prompted video-sharing site Rumble to request Judge Gilliam's recusal in its own antitrust suit against Google. Rumble's counsel reportedly learned about the judge's connection to Knight in October. When seeking the judge's recusal in November, Unlockd cited Rumble's case and raised the same concerns about the appearance of impropriety. It wrote that "this court's nondisclosure is particularly significant here because it continued presiding over this case — including through the entry of summary judgment in Google's favor — despite issuing recusal orders in other Google-related matters after Knight's arrival at Google." Unlockd added that it wasn't aware of the relationship until after the Rumble filing. Google countered that Unlockd didn't make any arguments of its own and instead pointed "to a different motion filed by a different plaintiff in an unrelated case, with little attempt to apply the arguments to this case." The tech giant also said Unlockd cited two cases in support of its motion but did not explain why they were relevant when neither case showed that a friendship between a judge and an employee of a party can give rise to an appearance of partiality. Furthermore, Google asserted, Unlockd's citations to other cases where Google and Knight's prior employer is a party and the court issued recusal orders also do not support recusal in this matter. The company reiterated Knight's lack of employment at the time and lack of involvement. Judge Gilliam granted Google's request to dismiss the case earlier this year, saying in a February opinion that Unlockd "has offered no factual support from which the court could assume that harm to plaintiff is somehow tantamount to harm to this entire [digital advertising] market." "Plaintiff's theory is also further undermined by its acknowledgment that similar products do continue to exist in the digital advertising market," he wrote. Unlockd is appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit. In Wednesday's filing, Google alternatively contended that Unlockd is only seeking a prospective recusal if the case returns to the lower court and that the court can defer its ruling unless and until the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands the matter. Counsel for the parties in the case Unlockd brought did not immediately respond to Law360's requests for comment Thursday. Unlockd is represented by Allan B. Diamond, Justin B. Strother and Damion Robinson of Diamond McCarthy LLP and Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., Philip J. Iovieno and Jack G. Stern of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP. Google is represented by Beatriz Mejia, Alexander J. Kasner, Ashley K Corkery, Deepti Bansal and John C. Dwyer of Cooley LLP. The case is Unlockd Media Inc. Liquidation Trust v. Google LLC et al., case number 4:21-cv-07250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dec 4

3 min