Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Global law firm Baker McKenzie has acted as regulatory counsel to Unilever on its acquisition of Dr. Squatch, the fast-rising men’s natural personal care brand previously backed by Summit Partners.
Dr. Squatch has carved out a loyal following in the U.S. with its bold branding, natural ingredients, and direct-to-consumer model. For Unilever, the deal fits neatly into its ongoing strategy of expanding into premium, fast-growth areas of personal care.
Fabian Garcia, President of Unilever Personal Care, said the brand is a natural fit:
“I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Squatch into the Unilever family. Dr. Squatch has built a solid foundation and loyal following with highly desirable products and clever digital engagement strategies. Building on its success in the U.S., we are excited to scale the brand internationally and strengthen our offering in the fast-growing men’s personal care segment.”
Josh Friedman, CEO of Dr. Squatch, reflected on the company’s journey:
“I am incredibly proud of what the Dr. Squatch team has achieved thus far. Our mission is to inspire and educate men to be happier and healthier, and we’re excited about the ability to amplify our brand and mission in this next chapter with Unilever. We’re just getting started and look forward to reaching new heights internationally.”
The cross-border Baker McKenzie team was led by Creighton Macy, Global Antitrust Chair in Washington, DC, alongside Anthony Gamble, Partner in London. They were supported by Mark Weiss, Marisa Dieken, Evan Harris, Carmen Gillis, and Kayleigh Golish.
Its Antitrust & Competition Practice is among the largest worldwide, with more than 300 practitioners across 60 offices in 43 countries.
The group regularly advises on merger clearance, antitrust litigation, investigations, enforcement matters, and compliance training.
Dr. Squatch is a U.S. men’s personal care brand founded in 2013 and headquartered in Los Angeles. Known for its natural formulations and direct-to-consumer model, the company has built a strong following with products ranging from soap and deodorant to hair and skin care. Certified as a B Corporation, Dr. Squatch combines sustainability with bold, humorous branding and digital-first marketing that has fueled rapid growth in the premium men’s grooming sector.
Baker McKenzie is a leading global law firm founded in 1949, with a presence in over 40 countries. With a team of 13,000 professionals, the firm advises corporations, governments, and institutions on complex legal matters across corporate law, litigation, tax, and more. Renowned for its cross-border capabilities and innovative approach, Baker McKenzie has handled over USD 600 billion in M&A transactions in the past five years, more than 65% of which span multiple jurisdictions. The firm is also recognized for its commitment to diversity, inclusion, and sustainable business practices.
DLA Piper Canada LLP has welcomed Jerónimo Zabala as Foreign Legal Consultant in Toronto.
Jerónimo Zabala’s practice spans a wide range of corporate and commercial matters, with a particular focus on mergers and acquisitions, asset deals, joint ventures, and corporate reorganizations.
Mr. Zabala also advises on governance, commercial contracts, credit arrangements, and financing transactions, covering everything from corporate and structured deals to complex project financings.
He brings with him significant experience in mining law, including exploration, project development, and contract negotiations. This background adds valuable depth to our team, especially for clients with interests across the mining sector.
Prior to moving to Canada, Jerónimo practised with DLA Piper Chile. He completed his LL.M. at the University of Sydney and holds a Foreign Legal Consultant permit from the Law Society of Ontario.
Through this designation, he remains qualified to practice law in Chile and is able to serve as a trusted adviser to clients with cross-border operations in the region.
DLA Piper is a global law firm with a strong reputation for providing legal services across a broad spectrum of industries and sectors. With offices in more than 40 countries, the firm offers comprehensive legal solutions in areas such as corporate law, litigation, intellectual property, real estate, and regulatory matters. DLA Piper serves a diverse range of clients, including multinational corporations, governments, and individuals, delivering innovative and strategic advice. The firm is known for its collaborative approach, providing tailored legal expertise to address complex, cross-border issues while maintaining a commitment to exceptional client service.
At the University of Texas, a group of students is fighting back against a sweeping new state law they say silences campus life itself.
The measure - Senate Bill 2972, branded by lawmakers as the Campus Protection Act — forbids almost every form of expressive activity on campus during the night hours.
On paper, it’s meant to restore order after last year’s heated wave of protests. In practice, critics argue, it treats students less like citizens and more like trespassers in their own communities.
Now those students, joined by a diverse mix of organizations and supported by a national free-speech watchdog, have taken the matter to federal court.
Starting this semester, Texas campuses are supposed to go quiet between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. No speeches, no rallies, no music performances, nothing that could be classified as “expressive activity.”
The law doesn’t stop there. For the final two weeks of every semester, the rules get even tighter, banning sound systems, drums, tents, guest speakers, and even masks.
Supporters argue it’s common sense: less chaos during finals, fewer sleepless nights for students trying to study. But opponents say the wording is so broad that it’s hard to tell what isn’t covered.
The lawsuit paints a vivid picture of how everyday campus traditions could suddenly become violations of state law.
Religious groups point out that many faith practices — sunrise prayers, evening vigils — fall squarely within the banned hours.
Musicians and performers fear they’ll be punished simply for rehearsing late at night, a time when campus quads often come alive.
Student journalists warn that late-night editorial meetings, when big stories often break, could be treated as unlawful expression.
Political organizations say even wearing a slogan-covered T-shirt after dark could technically be a problem.
The plaintiffs argue the law effectively forces students to “switch off” large parts of their campus life, creating expression-free zones that go far beyond controlling disruptive protests.
The measure didn’t come out of nowhere. In spring 2024, Texas campuses were roiled by demonstrations tied to the Israel–Hamas conflict.
At several universities, students pitched tents, held all-night vigils, and clashed with administrators who were scrambling to maintain order. By summer, lawmakers moved quickly to draft a bill that would prevent similar scenes in the future.
To its backers, SB 2972 is about keeping campuses focused on education. To its critics, it’s a political reaction dressed up as a safety measure.
The case has attracted an unusual alliance of plaintiffs:
The Texas Society of Unconventional Drummers, who say their nighttime practices are now forbidden.
The Fellowship of Christian University Students, for whom evening prayer is central.
Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian group that hosts talks and debates.
A student newspaper, worried its staff can’t operate under the law’s vague wording.
They’re represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which has a track record of winning campus speech battles nationwide. FIRE is pushing for an injunction to freeze the law before it reshapes student life this semester.
At its heart, the lawsuit is about whether Texas lawmakers went too far. The First Amendment doesn’t forbid all restrictions - universities can set reasonable rules on the “time, place, and manner” of expression. But those rules must be neutral, narrow, and leave other ways for speech to happen.
The students argue SB 2972 fails all three tests. It’s not narrow, because it blocks everything from protests to prayers. It’s not neutral, because it allows administrators wide discretion.
And it doesn’t leave alternatives, because shutting down expression for ten hours a day leaves little room to maneuver.
The UT System has stayed mostly quiet, saying only that the law is under review. Administrators may soon find themselves caught in the middle, pressed by lawmakers on one side and students on the other.
The federal court will decide soon whether to grant a temporary block on the law. That ruling could arrive within weeks and will set the tone for a longer legal battle that may stretch into the appellate courts.
For students, though, the stakes feel immediate. They see their campus as more than a place to attend class, it’s where they pray, create, argue, and publish. And they say SB 2972 tells them all of that must stop the moment the clock strikes ten.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1999 to defend free speech and individual rights. Originally focused on college campuses, FIRE has secured more than 500 advocacy victories, reformed hundreds of campus policies, and supported rights-protective legislation across the U.S. In 2022, it expanded its mission beyond higher education to champion free expression nationwide. Based in Philadelphia, FIRE provides advocacy, legal support, and public education to ensure the First Amendment remains a living protection for all Americans.
Can Texas ban student protests entirely?
No. Schools can regulate when and where protests happen, but broad bans often collapse under constitutional review.
Does the First Amendment protect prayer on campus?
Yes. Public universities must allow religious expression on equal footing with other types of speech.
Why is the law called the Campus Protection Act?
Lawmakers framed it as a way to shield universities from disruption, particularly during finals week, though critics say it’s really about silencing dissent.
Who is backing the lawsuit?
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit that has fought dozens of free-speech battles on campuses across the U.S.
Clifford Chance has advised lenders on an $11 billion lease-and-leaseback with Saudi Aramco, backing a Global Infrastructure Partners-led consortium in the Jafurah gas project, a cornerstone of Saudi Arabia’s energy strategy.
The newly formed Jafurah Midstream Gas Company (JMGC) will lease rights to two major assets, the Jafurah Field Gas Plant and the Riyas NGL Fractionation Facility, before leasing them back to Aramco.
In return, Aramco will pay a tariff for processing and treatment services over a 20-year period.
The structure allows Aramco to release capital while retaining operational control, offering investors stable, long-term returns. Aramco holds a 51% stake in JMGC, with 49% owned by the GIP-led consortium, now part of BlackRock, highlighting international appetite for Gulf energy assets.
Clifford Chance has advised lenders through a cross-border team spanning Abu Dhabi, Dubai, London, Luxembourg, and Riyadh (AS&H Clifford Chance), led by partner Chirag Sanghrajka, who called the deal a milestone requiring innovative structuring and collaboration.
Saudi Aramco, headquartered in Dhahran, is the world’s largest integrated energy and chemicals company. Majority state-owned, it produces more oil than any other firm globally and operates across the full hydrocarbon chain, from exploration and production to refining, distribution, and petrochemicals. As a cornerstone of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, Aramco is central to both the Kingdom’s economy and global energy markets.
Clifford Chance is a global law firm with over a century of history and a presence in 23 countries through 34 offices. A member of the prestigious Magic Circle, the firm is recognized for its deep expertise in banking, corporate law, finance, dispute resolution, and tax. It advises a broad spectrum of clients, including multinational corporations, financial institutions, governments, and not-for-profits by combining international best practices with local market insight. Known for its collaborative culture and forward-thinking approach, Clifford Chance delivers innovative, high-quality legal solutions across every major industry and sector.
After nearly two decades of legal wrangling, Colgate-Palmolive has agreed to pay $332 million to settle a class action lawsuit over pension benefits.
The case, which has been moving through federal courts since the mid-2000s, involves more than a thousand current and former employees who claimed the company underpaid lump-sum distributions from its retirement plan.
The story goes back to 1989, when Colgate switched from a traditional pension plan to a cash-balance plan, a model that promised more flexibility but quickly drew criticism for its complexity.
Employees who chose lump-sum payouts argued that the company’s formula left them shortchanged.
Colgate did attempt to fix the issue in 2005 with a retroactive amendment. But according to the plaintiffs, the recalculations still didn’t measure up. That disagreement opened the door to years of litigation, with claims filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
By 2007, the first lawsuits were already on the docket. A consolidated class action followed in 2016, formally titled McCutcheon et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.. Plaintiffs accused the company of breaching fiduciary duties and misrepresenting benefits.
Colgate never admitted liability. Instead, it argued that its calculations complied with federal law. Yet after years of motions, appeals, and mounting legal costs, the company made the calculation most corporations eventually do: settling was safer than rolling the dice at trial.
The agreement, filed in Manhattan federal court, sets aside $332 million in total. Once attorneys’ fees and expenses are deducted, employees and retirees should see about $232.7 million flow back to them. Roughly 1,177 individuals are covered by the settlement.
Colgate had prepared for this moment, reserving funds in its financial statements as far back as 2023.
The move ensures the payout won’t come as a shock to investors, even though it is one of the largest pension-related settlements in recent memory.
This case is a reminder that pension disputes can cast a very long shadow. A change made more than thirty years ago still ended up pulling a global company into a costly courtroom fight.
For employers, the message is straightforward: even small errors in pension math can grow into major liabilities over time. For employees, the outcome shows that persistence under ERISA can make a difference, even when the opponent is a Fortune 500 giant.
The settlement still needs a judge’s approval. If it goes through, it will finally close the book on a dispute that began in the late 1980s and lingered in the courts for nearly two decades.
Ørsted Sues Trump Administration Over $5 Billion Offshore Wind Project Halt
Hogan Lovells Expands M&A Practice in China with New Partners
Monthly Legal Plan vs Pay-Per-Document: Which Is Better for You?
Gibson Dunn Advises Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals on Global Collaboration with Novartis
Hackers aren’t just after banks and big tech anymore, law firms have become one of their favorite marks. In 2025, cybercriminals are targeting US law firms with a mix of AI-powered phishing, deepfake impersonations, and phone-based vishing scams that exploit trust inside the profession.
Add in ransomware, lawsuits from angry clients, and stricter regulations, and the message is clear: every law firm, big or small, is now on the front line of the cybersecurity war.
Law firms have something most industries don’t: concentrated, high-value data. A single server can hold merger strategies, medical records, financial disclosures, and sensitive litigation files.
To a hacker, that’s like breaking into a vault where every drawer belongs to a different Fortune 500 company.
The FBI has been warning firms about a group called Silent Ransom that doesn’t even bother encrypting files anymore. Instead, they pose as IT staff on the phone, persuade an employee to install “diagnostic software,” and quietly siphon out client data.
No ransom note appears just an email weeks later demanding payment to stop public leaks.
Until recently, most phishing emails had obvious red flags. Typos, bad grammar, or suspicious links gave them away. That’s changing fast. Hackers are now using AI-generated emails, contracts, and even deepfake audio of senior partners to trick employees into handing over credentials.
Imagine getting a voicemail that sounds exactly like your managing partner, asking you to send over a password reset code, that’s not science fiction anymore.
Cyber incidents no longer stay quiet. In 2025, the U.S. judiciary itself admitted its filing system was under sustained attack, forcing new restrictions on sensitive documents.
At the same time, class-action lawsuits against law firms are piling up. One firm in New York was sued within weeks of disclosing its breach, with plaintiffs arguing it failed to protect personal data.
Meanwhile, regulators are tightening the screws:
SEC rules force public companies to disclose material cyber incidents within four days, which means their law firms need rapid response strategies too.
Bar ethics opinions stress that lawyers have a duty to tell clients if their information is compromised—delays can be seen as misconduct.
Cyber insurance is still available, but the “easy days” are over. Carriers are demanding proof of strict controls - multi-factor authentication across all systems, offline backups that can’t be tampered with, and endpoint detection software running 24/7.
Some underwriters now require firms to run tabletop breach exercises before renewal.
Law firms that are staying ahead of the curve are:
Running internal “red team” drills to simulate phishing and vishing calls.
Moving toward Zero Trust frameworks, where no user or device is trusted by default.
Writing cyber clauses into client engagement letters to set clear expectations.
Aligning incident response timelines with SEC and state breach laws.
Updating staff training to include AI deepfake awareness—something unthinkable just a few years ago.
For lawyers, cybersecurity has become less about IT troubleshooting and more about protecting the firm’s credibility. Clients don’t just want their cases won, they want to know their secrets won’t end up on the dark web.
The firms that treat cyber defense as a core business function, not an afterthought, will be the ones still trusted five years from now.
In short, the question isn’t if hackers will try, it’s how they are targeting US law firms in 2025 that matters most.
Why are law firms such attractive cyber targets?
Because they handle troves of confidential client data, often spanning multiple industries, making them a one-stop shop for hackers seeking maximum leverage.
What’s new in cyberattacks against US law firms in 2025?
AI-enhanced phishing, deepfake voicemails, and vishing campaigns that bypass email filters are now the biggest threats.
Do law firms face lawsuits after data breaches?
Yes. Plaintiffs are increasingly filing class actions against firms that fail to protect or notify clients after breaches.
What cybersecurity controls do insurers demand from law firms?
Multi-factor authentication, endpoint detection, immutable backups, and incident response testing are now standard insurance requirements.
When Elon Musk’s Grok app unveiled its Imagine feature this summer, most of the headlines focused on the playful (and controversial) “Spicy” mode, which allows looser, less filtered outputs. But beneath the hype, a smaller update may prove more consequential: the Access to Speech feature.
This new tool lets users generate short AI-animated videos simply by speaking prompts aloud. On the surface, it looks like a usability perk. For lawyers, regulators, and anyone watching the fast-moving legal tech space, it raises much bigger questions about accessibility, authorship, liability, and data rights.
Grok Imagine, launched in mid-2025, is Musk’s answer to the growing field of AI video tools. Think of it as a revival of Vine, only instead of filming your own clips, you provide a prompt typed or spoken and the system generates a 6–15 second animated video with sound.
The tool offers four creative modes:
Normal (mainstream safe use)
Fun (lighthearted, playful results)
Custom (tailored outputs)
Spicy (minimal content restrictions, and already a lightning rod for deepfake concerns)
While casual users play with Spicy, lawyers should pay close attention to the quieter voice-input feature.
Allowing voice input makes Grok Imagine more inclusive, particularly for users with limited mobility or difficulty typing. In theory, this could support compliance with accessibility laws such as:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the U.S.
The Equality Act 2010 in the UK.
But legal tech experts know accessibility is a double-edged sword. Once features like voice input become widely available, courts and regulators may begin asking: is this now a standard? If so, companies that lack comparable accessibility options could face pressure or even liability for failing to provide them.
The more complex legal issue comes with authorship. If a user speaks an idea into Grok Imagine and the AI generates a video, who owns the output?
In the U.S., the Copyright Office has consistently refused to grant copyright to works “not created by a human author.”
Yet if a human provides the spoken idea, is there a case for shared authorship?
In commercial contexts say, advertising generated from voice prompts this grey zone could become a litigation risk.
As AI video tools expand, expect intellectual property lawyers to confront more disputes over ownership of “voice-to-video” works.
The legal risks grow when Access to Speech intersects with Spicy mode. A user can simply say “make a video of [celebrity name] in X scenario” and produce a deepfake-style clip within seconds.
That raises at least three major concerns:
Right of publicity – In the U.S., celebrities and private individuals alike can sue for unauthorized commercial use of their likeness.
Defamation – Harmful or false portrayals could expose both users and platforms to claims.
Privacy – EU and UK law offers strong protections against misuse of personal images and reputations.
So where does liability land? With the platform (xAI)? With the user? Or both? Courts are likely to wrestle with this as AI video tools spread.
Voice prompts mean Grok is collecting voice recordings, which may be treated as biometric data in some jurisdictions. That triggers strict compliance regimes:
GDPR (EU/UK) – classifies voice as personal data, requiring clear consent and purpose limitations.
California CCPA/CPRA – expands consumer rights over stored data.
Illinois BIPA – one of the toughest U.S. biometric privacy laws, with steep penalties for mishandling voice data.
For lawyers advising tech companies, the message is simple: Access to Speech isn’t just a convenience. It’s a data collection pipeline that could carry significant regulatory risk if not handled properly.
Finally, there’s the bigger picture: how regulators will treat generative AI in the years ahead.
The EU AI Act, due to roll out gradually from 2025, will classify AI systems by risk and impose obligations around transparency, labeling, and safety. Grok Imagine’s voice-to-video system could fall under “general-purpose” or “high-risk” categories, depending on usage.
In the U.S., while there’s no federal AI law yet, states like California, New York, and Illinois are pushing their own AI and deepfake legislation.
Access to Speech may look harmless, but as regulators move faster, it will likely be swept into broader compliance frameworks.
The Access to Speech feature highlights how even small usability upgrades in AI tools can carry wide legal implications. Lawyers and compliance officers should be alert to:
Accessibility – Could soon be treated as a legal obligation.
Copyright and authorship – Voice-to-video works sit in a legal grey zone.
Deepfake misuse – Spicy mode + voice prompts = higher litigation risk.
Biometric privacy – Voice data may trigger GDPR, CCPA, or BIPA duties.
Emerging regulation – EU AI Act and state laws will reshape the landscape.
For most Grok users, Access to Speech feels like a fun shortcut. For the legal community, it’s a case study in how rapid innovation collides with slow-moving law.
Voice-to-video tools touch on nearly every corner of modern legal practice - accessibility, IP, media law, privacy, and regulation.
In short, talking to AI is easy. Working out who owns, protects, and regulates what comes next is anything but.
What is Grok Imagine?
It’s an AI feature in Elon Musk’s Grok app that generates short animated videos (6–15 seconds) with sound, based on text or voice prompts.
What does “Access to Speech” mean in Grok?
It refers to the ability to speak prompts into the app instead of typing them, making video generation faster and more accessible.
Why does Access to Speech raise legal issues?
Because it touches on accessibility law, copyright ownership, data privacy (voice as biometric data), and liability for misuse (e.g., deepfakes).
Is Access to Speech available to all Grok users?
It began rolling out to premium subscribers on iOS and is gradually expanding to more users.
What laws could apply to Grok’s voice feature?
Accessibility laws (ADA, Equality Act 2010), copyright law, biometric privacy laws (GDPR, BIPA, CCPA), and upcoming AI-specific regulations like the EU AI Act.
Danish energy company Ørsted has filed suit in federal court after the Trump administration abruptly ordered a halt to construction of the Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island, despite the offshore wind farm being nearly 80% complete.
Ørsted and its partner Skyborn Renewables argue the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acted unlawfully and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act when it issued an August stop-work order citing national security concerns. The companies have asked the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for a preliminary injunction to allow work to resume.
Separately, the attorneys general of Rhode Island and Connecticut have sued in Rhode Island federal court, warning the suspension threatens more than 2,500 jobs, grid reliability, and state-level climate goals.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized wind energy and has issued several executive orders blocking new projects since returning to office. His administration has also launched a national security investigation into turbine imports, raising the prospect of tariffs.
Ørsted has already invested $5 billion in Revolution Wind and warns delays could add another $1 billion in costs. The company is pursuing a $9.4 billion rights issue to stabilize its finances, backed partly by shareholder Equinor.
The litigation centers on whether BOEM exceeded its authority, whether the stop-work order was arbitrary, and how far federal agencies can go in overriding state-backed energy projects. The outcome could have lasting implications for U.S. renewable energy investment and executive power.
Courts in Washington and Rhode Island will decide if the suspension can stand. Appeals are expected, with the possibility that the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Ørsted A/S is a Danish renewable energy leader specializing in offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, and green hydrogen. Headquartered in Fredericia, Denmark, the company employs about 8,500 people worldwide and is committed to net-zero emissions across its supply chain by 2040.
U.S. DOJ Moves to Ban Gender-Affirming Procedures for Minors
Elrod Pope Accident & Injury Attorneys: A Trusted Name for Victims
Global law firm Hogan Lovells is expanding its corporate practice in Greater China with the addition of two well-known dealmakers, David Wang and Meka Meng, who join from Paul Hastings.
David Wang brings over two decades of experience advising on complex cross-border transactions in China, with a practice covering acquisitions, private equity, venture capital, and securities offerings.
At Paul Hastings, he played a central role in developing the firm’s China platform, leading the Shanghai and Beijing offices for more than 15 years and building them into significant and well-regarded practices.
Looking ahead to his new role, David Wang said he’s energized by the move:
“Having spent much of my career building teams and advising on complex cross-border M&A, I am thrilled to bring that experience to one of the top firms globally. The firm’s ambition to grow its corporate practice in Greater China and across Asia resonates strongly with me, and I look forward to collaborating with colleagues in China and internationally to shape that next chapter.”
In Beijing, Meka Meng focuses on private equity fund formation, investment transactions, offshore investment management, and joint ventures. His practice also covers outbound investments and venture capital, giving Hogan Lovells a deeper bench in areas that are increasingly important to clients navigating fast-changing markets.
Meka Meng said the chance to join a global platform was a big part of his decision:
“Joining Hogan Lovells is a tremendous opportunity to bring my experience to a truly global platform. I look forward to collaborating with colleagues in Greater China and across the global network to help clients achieve their strategic investment goals."
The addition of Wang and Meng is part of a larger push by Hogan Lovells to grow its transactional strength in Asia. In recent months, the firm has added talent across Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore, signaling its long-term commitment to the region.
James Doyle, who leads the firm’s Corporate & Finance practice, described the hires as a natural extension of that strategy:
“This move is a significant step forward in our strategy to grow our offering in Greater China alongside the other recent investments that we have made in our transactional practice in other parts of the APAC region, including Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Singapore. David and Meka's deep local insights and distinguished track record will further strengthen our existing team."
Hogan Lovells is a global law firm with over 2,600 lawyers across six continents, offering top-tier legal services in complex litigation, regulatory, and transactional matters. Known for its deep industry knowledge and cross-border capabilities, the firm partners with clients to solve their toughest legal challenges and drive strategic growth. Hogan Lovells serves major players in life sciences, financial services, technology, energy, and beyond, combining local insight with global reach.
Gibson Dunn Advises Arrowhead on Global Collaboration with Novartis
Susan Kelly Elected Non-Executive Chair of Dentons’ Global Board
U.S. DOJ Proposes Ban on Gender-Affirming Treatments for Minors
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has advised Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals in a global licensing and research agreement with Novartis.
The partnership centers on ARO-SNCA, Arrowhead’s preclinical-stage siRNA therapy designed to target alpha-synuclein, a protein strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. The agreement also covers future programs using Arrowhead’s Targeted RNAi Molecule (TRiM™) platform.
Novartis will pay Arrowhead $200 million upfront, with the potential for up to $2 billion in additional milestone payments, plus tiered royalties on future sales. The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2025, pending regulatory approval and customary conditions.
Christopher Anzalone, Ph.D., President and CEO of Arrowhead, said the partnership marks an important step forward:
“With a robust neuroscience pipeline and clear commitment to neurodegenerative diseases and genetic medicines, Novartis is a compelling partner for Arrowhead in the CNS space. Our TRiM™ platform has generated impressive preclinical results demonstrating delivery to CNS, including distribution to deep brain regions, after subcutaneous administration."
"We look forward to working with Novartis to bring ARO-SNCA for the treatment of synucleinopathies, such as Parkinson’s Disease, into clinical trials as soon as possible and to collaborate on additional programs in the future.”
Fiona Marshall, Ph.D., President of Biomedical Research at Novartis, added:
“PNeurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s Disease affect millions of patients worldwide. Novartis aspires to transform the lives of patients and families living with these diseases, by advancing medicines that significantly alter the course of the disease.”
"We see Arrowhead’s TRiM™ technology as having great potential to achieve the type of widespread and effective delivery in key brain structures that will be necessary to see the full benefit of RNA medicines in neurodegeneration.”
Gibson Dunn team advising Arrowhead includes partners Karen Spindler and Ryan Murr, alongside partners Pamela Lawrence Endreny, Benjamin Fryer, and Sophia Hansell, with associates Michael Dziuban, Ryan Rott, and Anna Searcey.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is a prominent global law firm headquartered in Los Angeles, California. With a reputation for providing exceptional legal services to clients across various industries, the firm was founded in 1890 and operates more than 20 offices worldwide. Gibson Dunn offers expertise in areas such as corporate law, litigation, real estate, and regulatory matters. Known for its commitment to excellence, the firm represents multinational corporations, governments, and individuals, delivering innovative solutions to complex legal challenges. The firm is recognised for its strong focus on client relationships and its deep industry knowledge.
U.S. DOJ Moves to Ban Gender-Affirming Procedures for Minors
Susan Kelly Becomes Non-Executive Chair of Dentons’ Global Board
