{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Chair","value":"Chair"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":2839},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Atlanta's John Marshall Law School","value":2830},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Bond University","value":2841},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP Law School","value":3237},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Bucerius Law School, Germany","value":2898},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"Chicago-Kent College of Law","value":3050},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"College of Law, Guildford, UK","value":2646},{"name":"College of Law, London, UK","value":2647},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"Delhi University","value":3099},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Durham University","value":2708},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University","value":2936},{"name":"ELTE University Budapest","value":2969},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce School of Law","value":2259},{"name":"Free University Berlin","value":2903},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"Fudan University","value":2986},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Guildhall University, London","value":2863},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"Inns of Court School of Law, UK","value":2649},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany","value":2653},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"King Saud University College of Law \u0026 Political Sciences","value":2823},{"name":"King's College London","value":2987},{"name":"King's College, University of London, UK","value":2654},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Leiden University","value":2926},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"Liverpool University, UK","value":2657},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"London School of Economics and Political Science, UK","value":2658},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich","value":3105},{"name":"Lund University","value":3084},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":2660},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":3047},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":2715},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Oxford University, UK","value":2669},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queen's University Faculty of Law","value":2801},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":2725},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Sciences Po Paris","value":2925},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Manchester","value":2845},{"name":"The University of Melbourne","value":2836},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2752},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":3168},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá Colombia","value":2677},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Iberoamericana","value":2915},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"Université Catholique de Louvain, Licencie en Droit","value":3213},{"name":"Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium","value":2679},{"name":"Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne","value":2680},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University College London, UK","value":2760},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Augsburg","value":2779},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of Bonn, Germany","value":2682},{"name":"University of Bristol, UK","value":2761},{"name":"University of Buenos Aires, Argentina","value":2683},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Cambridge, UK","value":2684},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Cape Town, South Africa","value":2854},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Cologne, Germany","value":2885},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of Deusto, Spain","value":2685},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of East London","value":2963},{"name":"University of Exeter, UK","value":2770},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3112},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Hamburg, Germany","value":2688},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law","value":2202},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kent at Canterbury, UK","value":2690},{"name":"University of Kent","value":2849},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Law","value":2954},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Lima","value":2859},{"name":"University of London","value":2692},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2739},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":3064},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of New South Wales","value":2871},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Nottingham, England","value":2881},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Otago, New Zealand","value":2694},{"name":"University of Paris II, Pantheon-Assas, France","value":2695},{"name":"University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne","value":3190},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of Sheffield","value":2805},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Sydney, Australia","value":2700},{"name":"University of Tasmania","value":2835},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Tokyo","value":3153},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Turku","value":3083},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Vienna School of Law","value":2701},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Warwick, UK","value":2771},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Western Australia","value":2949},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2755},{"name":"University of Wollongong, Australia","value":2873},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"University Toulouse Capitol","value":3109},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"118","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"E","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445136,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7291,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacob Ebin advises clients on copyright, antitrust and other complex litigation matters. Jacob has represented public and private companies in a range of industries, with a particular concentration in the music industry. Jacob has worked on numerous high-profile disputes that have shaped music rate-setting law, for both new media and traditional media companies. Jacob has particular expertise before the ASCAP and BMI rate courts as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board, where he has tried four separate cases. Jacob also advises clients in connection with intellectual property licensing. Jacob has also been actively involved in representing clients before the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office as part of their recurring reviews of the music licensing landscape.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacob was formerly an analyst and manager at Lexecon, Inc. (now Compass Lexecon), one of the premier economic consulting firms. While there, he advised clients on antitrust and intellectual property disputes, with a focus on the music and energy industries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jacob-ebin","email":"jebin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMusic Licensing Trial Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (\u003cem\u003eJohnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM\u0026rsquo;s public performance of sound recordings. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and \u0026ldquo;Preexisting\u0026rdquo; Subscription Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords\u003c/em\u003e (Phonorecords III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings\u003c/em\u003e (Web IV)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS II)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI \u0026ldquo;Adjustable-Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eBroadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eComplete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP \u0026ldquo;Adjustable Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Music Licensing Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever \u0026ldquo;administrative assessment\u0026rdquo; proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWithers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (\u003cem\u003eMeredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e, (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC\u0026rsquo;s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Significant Litigation Experience:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ebin","nick_name":"Jacob","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jacob","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacob Ebin advises clients on copyright, antitrust and other complex litigation matters. Jacob has represented public and private companies in a range of industries, with a particular concentration in the music industry. Jacob has worked on numerous high-profile disputes that have shaped music rate-setting law, for both new media and traditional media companies. Jacob has particular expertise before the ASCAP and BMI rate courts as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board, where he has tried four separate cases. Jacob also advises clients in connection with intellectual property licensing. Jacob has also been actively involved in representing clients before the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office as part of their recurring reviews of the music licensing landscape.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacob was formerly an analyst and manager at Lexecon, Inc. (now Compass Lexecon), one of the premier economic consulting firms. While there, he advised clients on antitrust and intellectual property disputes, with a focus on the music and energy industries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMusic Licensing Trial Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (\u003cem\u003eJohnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM\u0026rsquo;s public performance of sound recordings. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and \u0026ldquo;Preexisting\u0026rdquo; Subscription Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords\u003c/em\u003e (Phonorecords III)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings\u003c/em\u003e (Web IV)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services\u003c/em\u003e (SDARS II)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI \u0026ldquo;Adjustable-Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eBroadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eComplete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP \u0026ldquo;Adjustable Fee Blanket License\u0026rdquo;; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e)).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Music Licensing Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever \u0026ldquo;administrative assessment\u0026rdquo; proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (\u003cem\u003eIn Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (\u003cem\u003eWithers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (\u003cem\u003eMeredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e, (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC\u0026rsquo;s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdditional Significant Litigation Experience:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora\u0026rsquo;s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Top Music Lawyer”","detail":"Billboard Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13302}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-20T22:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Ebin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Music Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Billboard Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}Music Licensing Trial Experience\nRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board).{{ FIELD }}Represented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM’s public performance of sound recordings. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and “Preexisting” Subscription Services (SDARS III)).{{ FIELD }}Represented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III)).{{ FIELD }}On behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web IV)).{{ FIELD }}Represented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services (SDARS II)).{{ FIELD }}Represented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI “Adjustable-Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Complete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP “Adjustable Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (United States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.)).{{ FIELD }}Additional Music Licensing Experience\nRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever “administrative assessment” proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective.{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses.{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.).{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (WPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (Withers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Meredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC’s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period.{{ FIELD }}Additional Significant Litigation Experience:\nRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.{{ FIELD }}Jacob Ebin advises clients on copyright, antitrust and other complex litigation matters. Jacob has represented public and private companies in a range of industries, with a particular concentration in the music industry. Jacob has worked on numerous high-profile disputes that have shaped music rate-setting law, for both new media and traditional media companies. Jacob has particular expertise before the ASCAP and BMI rate courts as well as before the Copyright Royalty Board, where he has tried four separate cases. Jacob also advises clients in connection with intellectual property licensing. Jacob has also been actively involved in representing clients before the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Copyright Office as part of their recurring reviews of the music licensing landscape.\nJacob was formerly an analyst and manager at Lexecon, Inc. (now Compass Lexecon), one of the premier economic consulting firms. While there, he advised clients on antitrust and intellectual property disputes, with a focus on the music and energy industries. Partner “Top Music Lawyer” Billboard Magazine Brandeis University  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Massachusetts New York Music Licensing Trial Experience\nRepresented Spotify USA, Inc. in the successful appeal of a Copyright Royalty Board decision setting rates and terms for “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers as well as the resulting remand proceeding. (Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board). Represented Sirius XM in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board in a litigation over appropriate royalty rates and terms for Sirius XM’s public performance of sound recordings. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Transmission of Sound Recordings by Satellite Radio and “Preexisting” Subscription Services (SDARS III)). Represented Pandora in a five-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board to set rates for so-called “mechanical” rights licenses to be paid to songwriters and music publishers. (In re Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III)). On behalf of Pandora, secured highly favorable sound recording performance royalty rates for the 2016-2020 license period following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Royalty Rates and Terms for Ephemeral Recording and Webcasting Digital Performance of Sound Recordings (Web IV)). Represented Sirius XM in a royalty-rate setting victory following 19 days of trial in federal rate-setting litigation before the Copyright Royalty Board; defended successfully on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (In the Matter of Determination of Rates and Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services (SDARS II)). Represented background music service DMX, Inc. in a precedent-setting trial victory in the BMI Rate Court establishing rates and terms for the first ever BMI “Adjustable-Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DMX, Inc.). Complete trial victory for background music service DMX, Inc. in the ASCAP rate court establishing rates and terms for the first ever ASCAP “Adjustable Fee Blanket License”; defended successfully on appeal to the Second Circuit. (United States v. ASCAP (In the Matter of DMX, Inc.)). Additional Music Licensing Experience\nRepresented the commercial local television industry in ASCAP license fee negotiations, recently securing a significant industry-wide license fee decrease without need to turn to litigation. Represented the Digital Licensee Coordinator in the first ever “administrative assessment” proceeding to set the budget for the Mechanical License Collective. Represented the commercial local television industry in SESAC license fee negotiations and arbitration in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for SESAC licenses. Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Petition of Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, et. al.). Represented the commercial local television industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (WPIX, Inc. et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.). Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the ASCAP rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for ASCAP licenses. (In Re Application of the Cromwell Group, Inc.). Represented the commercial radio industry in license fee negotiations and litigation before the BMI rate court in a proceeding to set reasonable rates and terms for BMI licenses. (Withers Broadcasting Co., et al v. Broadcast Music, Inc.). Successfully represented a group of local television stations as plaintiffs in a putative class action against SESAC alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (Meredith Corporation, et al. v. SESAC LLC, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2014)). Resulted in a very favorable industry-wide settlement that provided $42.5 million in refunds to the stations and placed various restrictions on SESAC’s dealings with local television stations for a 20-year period. Additional Significant Litigation Experience:\nRepresenting Pandora Media in a group of copyright infringement cases coordinated by purported licensing collective, Word Collections, on behalf of alleged owners of the copyrights in jokes and comedy routines embodied in comedy sound recordings available on Pandora’s streaming service. In this case, the plaintiffs seek to disrupt decades of industry custom and practice by claiming that Pandora must separately license the underlying jokes from the sound recordings in which those jokes are embodied. Represented a major pharmaceutical company in antitrust litigation alleging that a competitor foreclosed its product from the market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Represented a major consumer products retailer in litigation brought by the Federal Trade Commission attempting to block its proposed merger.","searchable_name":"Jacob Ebin","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444242,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5858,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLuke is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Luke specializes in international employment law and understands the unique challenges of managing a global workforce. Multinational corporations need solutions to workforce matters in each country in which they operate. Legal frameworks\u0026mdash;both the risks and opportunities\u0026mdash;are broad and varied. Luke works collaboratively with clients to navigate these frameworks and deliver successful outcomes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke supports organisations to manage their cross-border workforces globally and has a regional focus in the Asia-Pacific. He works daily with various Asia-Pacific countries, and understands the particular challenges faced by clients seeking to navigate cross-border matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke advises clients in relation to day-to-day matters faced by global employers, together with multijurisdictional projects such as compliance reviews, cross border mergers and acquisitions and outsourcings, privacy and data protection, investigations, restructures and reductions in force and employee integration issues. Clients regularly comment that Luke always ensures that their needs across the Asia-Pacific region, whether on a single jurisdiction or multijurisdiction basis, can be met quickly and effectively.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"luke-edwards","email":"laedwards@kslaw.com","phone":"+61 419 233 041","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":28,"guid":"28.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Edwards","nick_name":"Luke","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Luke","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2782,"meta":{"degree":"QLTT","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia","detail":"2022 - 2024"},{"title":"Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment","detail":"The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019)"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/luke-edwards-97a37669/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLuke is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Luke specializes in international employment law and understands the unique challenges of managing a global workforce. Multinational corporations need solutions to workforce matters in each country in which they operate. Legal frameworks\u0026mdash;both the risks and opportunities\u0026mdash;are broad and varied. Luke works collaboratively with clients to navigate these frameworks and deliver successful outcomes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke supports organisations to manage their cross-border workforces globally and has a regional focus in the Asia-Pacific. He works daily with various Asia-Pacific countries, and understands the particular challenges faced by clients seeking to navigate cross-border matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke advises clients in relation to day-to-day matters faced by global employers, together with multijurisdictional projects such as compliance reviews, cross border mergers and acquisitions and outsourcings, privacy and data protection, investigations, restructures and reductions in force and employee integration issues. Clients regularly comment that Luke always ensures that their needs across the Asia-Pacific region, whether on a single jurisdiction or multijurisdiction basis, can be met quickly and effectively.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia","detail":"2022 - 2024"},{"title":"Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment","detail":"The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8211}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:58.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Edwards{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2022 - 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019)\"}{{ FIELD }}Acted for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration.{{ FIELD }}Acted for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.{{ FIELD }}Advised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries.{{ FIELD }}Assisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.{{ FIELD }}Luke is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Luke specializes in international employment law and understands the unique challenges of managing a global workforce. Multinational corporations need solutions to workforce matters in each country in which they operate. Legal frameworks—both the risks and opportunities—are broad and varied. Luke works collaboratively with clients to navigate these frameworks and deliver successful outcomes.\nLuke supports organisations to manage their cross-border workforces globally and has a regional focus in the Asia-Pacific. He works daily with various Asia-Pacific countries, and understands the particular challenges faced by clients seeking to navigate cross-border matters.\nLuke advises clients in relation to day-to-day matters faced by global employers, together with multijurisdictional projects such as compliance reviews, cross border mergers and acquisitions and outsourcings, privacy and data protection, investigations, restructures and reductions in force and employee integration issues. Clients regularly comment that Luke always ensures that their needs across the Asia-Pacific region, whether on a single jurisdiction or multijurisdiction basis, can be met quickly and effectively. Partner Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia 2022 - 2024 Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019) University of Sydney, Australia  University of Sydney, Australia  BPP Law School BPP Law School London England and Wales New South Wales The Law Society of New South Wales Acted for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration. Acted for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Advised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries. Assisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.","searchable_name":"Luke A. Edwards","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":449173,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6872,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoss Elfand is a seasoned antitrust trial lawyer who has served as lead and co-lead counsel in high profile matters on behalf of\u0026nbsp; pharmaceutical and technology companies. He has extensive experience as\u0026nbsp;the lead advocate before competition enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general offices, and other agencies around the world.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss often serves as lead counsel in large-scale, complex, and high-risk matters, including multi-district cartel and monopolization cases in the United States. He is a skilled litigator of claims involving the interplay between intellectual property and antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss is a trusted legal advisor on antitrust risks associated with product development, contracting, marketing, joint ventures, and patent-related issues. He also advises companies in the technology industry regarding the intersection of global privacy and competition laws.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ross-elfand","email":"relfand@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonopolization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGraco v. Carlisle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ndash; Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco\u0026rsquo;s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecounterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLive Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead\u0026nbsp;antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegeneron v. Novartis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed \u0026ldquo;reverse payment\u0026rdquo; patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCartel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNuclear Power Generation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCo-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eDefended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Elfand","nick_name":"Ross","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2005 - 2006"}],"first_name":"Ross","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2705,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/ross-elfand/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoss Elfand is a seasoned antitrust trial lawyer who has served as lead and co-lead counsel in high profile matters on behalf of\u0026nbsp; pharmaceutical and technology companies. He has extensive experience as\u0026nbsp;the lead advocate before competition enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general offices, and other agencies around the world.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss often serves as lead counsel in large-scale, complex, and high-risk matters, including multi-district cartel and monopolization cases in the United States. He is a skilled litigator of claims involving the interplay between intellectual property and antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoss is a trusted legal advisor on antitrust risks associated with product development, contracting, marketing, joint ventures, and patent-related issues. He also advises companies in the technology industry regarding the intersection of global privacy and competition laws.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonopolization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGraco v. Carlisle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ndash; Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco\u0026rsquo;s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ecounterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLive Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead\u0026nbsp;antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegeneron v. Novartis\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed \u0026ldquo;reverse payment\u0026rdquo; patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCartel\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNuclear Power Generation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCo-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eDefended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ndash; Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12192}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-06-05T22:00:43.000Z","updated_at":"2026-06-05T22:00:43.000Z","searchable_text":"Elfand{{ FIELD }}Monopolization{{ FIELD }}Graco v. Carlisle – Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco’s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust Walker Process counterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Live Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation – Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies.{{ FIELD }}Regeneron v. Novartis – Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions.{{ FIELD }}Rebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation – Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars.{{ FIELD }}In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation – Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed “reverse payment” patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements.{{ FIELD }}In re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation – Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company’s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin.{{ FIELD }}Cartel{{ FIELD }}Nuclear Power Generation Antitrust Litigation – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information.{{ FIELD }}In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig. – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers.{{ FIELD }}In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation – Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products.{{ FIELD }}In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation – Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion.{{ FIELD }}State Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation – Defended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois.{{ FIELD }}Fair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al. – Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Global Investigations{{ FIELD }}Represented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}Ross Elfand is a seasoned antitrust trial lawyer who has served as lead and co-lead counsel in high profile matters on behalf of  pharmaceutical and technology companies. He has extensive experience as the lead advocate before competition enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general offices, and other agencies around the world. \nRoss often serves as lead counsel in large-scale, complex, and high-risk matters, including multi-district cartel and monopolization cases in the United States. He is a skilled litigator of claims involving the interplay between intellectual property and antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry.\nRoss is a trusted legal advisor on antitrust risks associated with product development, contracting, marketing, joint ventures, and patent-related issues. He also advises companies in the technology industry regarding the intersection of global privacy and competition laws. Partner Emory University Emory University School of Law Brooklyn Law School Brooklyn Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New Jersey New York Law Clerk, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Monopolization Graco v. Carlisle – Successfully represented Graco as one of the lead attorneys in an eight-day jury trial, securing a first-of-its kind jury verdict in Graco’s favor rejecting the fraud and antitrust Walker Process counterclaims entirely and allowing Graco to avoid damages and attorneys’ fees. Live Sports Betting Patent and Antitrust Litigation – Represented the plaintiff as one of the lead antitrust lawyers in litigation against sports betting streaming technology companies. Regeneron v. Novartis – Represented Novartis as co-lead counsel in antitrust litigation involving Walker Process monopolization claims relating to a patent covering syringes prefilled with an anti-VEGF drug that treats ophthalmic conditions. Rebate Wall Biosimilar Litigation – Represented Pfizer as co-lead counsel in ground-breaking antitrust litigation regarding the impact of contracting and rebating practices on biosimilars. In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation – Represented Boehringer lngelheim as co-lead counsel in class action multidistrict litigation arising from alleged delay in generic competition to Aggrenox, due to a claimed “reverse payment” patent settlement and obtained appellate victory in challenge to class action settlements. In re Loestrin Antitrust Litigation – Represented Warner Chilcott in class action litigation challenging the company’s settlements of patent litigation relating to the oral contraceptive Loestrin. Cartel Nuclear Power Generation Antitrust Litigation – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a defendant in an antitrust class action accusing the nuclear power generation industry of colluding to suppress employee wages and share competitively sensitive compensation information. In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig. – Co-lead antitrust lawyer for a group of more than a dozen large healthcare providers who opted out of a $2 billion class settlement and brought their own direct antitrust litigation against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 member companies, alleging that the Blues violated the antitrust laws by allocating markets through exclusive service areas and fixing prices paid to healthcare providers. In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation – Represented CertainTeed Gypsum in the homebuilders' opt-out antitrust litigation alleging price fixing among producers of drywall products. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation – Represented Toshiba in civil cases involving allegations of price-fixing of LCD panels, including two class actions and numerous opt-out cases. After a six-week trial where the Plaintiff alleged damages of over $2 billion, the jury unanimously found no liability against Toshiba. In an earlier six-week trial, the jury found no recoverable damages against Toshiba where the Plaintiffs alleged class-wide damages of nearly $3 billion. State Attorneys General TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation – Defended Toshiba as the lead for the defense group in three separate state antitrust actions filed by state attorneys general in Mississippi, Washington, and Illinois. Fair Isaac Corporation v. Equifax, et al. – Represented Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in an action brought by FICO, the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services, against the three major U.S. credit bureaus alleging collusion and trademark violations in the sale of credit scoring services, securing summary judgment on the antitrust claims and a jury verdict on the trademark claims. The jury also found that FICO committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in procuring registration of the trademark. Secured affirmation of both the antitrust dismissal and the jury's verdict on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Global Investigations Represented technology companies as global counsel in competition investigations by enforcement agencies in the United States, Europe, India, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and numerous other jurisdictions.","searchable_name":"Ross E. Elfand","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445138,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNils Eliasson, a partner in the firm\u0026rsquo;s International Arbitration group, advises clients on commercial and investment treaty disputes in Asia and around the world across a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, construction, private equity and telecommunications. In addition to acting as counsel, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator in international proceedings. Nils\u0026rsquo; experience as a leading arbitration practitioner is widely recognized by independent legal directories, including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers \u0026amp; Partners\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils acts as counsel in commercial and investment treaty disputes conducted under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), German International Arbitration Institute (DIS) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), as well as in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils\u0026rsquo; experience includes disputes related to joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, engineering, license disputes, telecommunications, and real estate. He has also handled investment treaty arbitrations under various bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty. He serves as Vice-Chair of HKIAC and is a member of the HKIAC Council.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils has been presiding arbitrator, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and emergency arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, SCC, KCAB, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL in disputes arising from sales agreements, supply agreements, joint ventures, asset transfer agreements, share subscription and share purchase agreements, shareholder agreements and ship building contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils was named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in China (2020)\u003c/em\u003e. He is also featured as a Global Leader in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal: Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e, which describes him as a \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;very smart\u0026rsquo; arbitration specialist who is highly recommended for his impressive experience handling disputes under various arbitral rules from HKIAC to ICC and LCIA\u0026rdquo; (2020). Previous editions note that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson comes \u0026lsquo;highly recommended\u0026rsquo; thanks to his \u0026lsquo;practical approach and strong legal mindset\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Asia-Pacific 2021\u003c/em\u003e, where he is ranked in Band 1, noted that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson is held in high esteem for his veteran experience on investment treaty arbitrations, construction and project development disputes and commercial disputes for both domestic and international corporates.\u0026rdquo; A client reports: \u0026ldquo;He's a brilliant lawyer who is extremely smart and talented, but very humble with clients and very present while working with us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Levelling the International Arbitration Playing Field: Outcome-Related Fee Structure Reform in Hong Kong and Singapore,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAsian Dispute Review\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021 (with E. Taylor)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Strong Foundations on which Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s Status as a Leading Seat of International Arbitration Rests Remain Intact,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHong Kong Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Treaty Remedies,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging \u0026lsquo;Belt and Road\u0026rsquo; Business Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(M. Moser and C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2021)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Chinese Outbound Investments in the Belt and Road: What Protection Do China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaties Have to Offer?,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational Arbitration: When East Meets West: Liber Amicorum Michael Moser\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N. Kaplan, M. Pryles, C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2020)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some Reflections on Hong Kong from an Investment Treaty Perspective,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForward!, - B?e???! \u0026ndash; Fram\u0026aring;t! \u0026ndash; Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hob\u0026eacute;r\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Lustus, 2019)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Review of Investment Treaty Awards by Municipal Courts,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration under International Investment Agreements\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2 (Oxford, 2nd\u0026nbsp;ed., 2018) \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaty Programme: Past, present and future,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChina Business Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, Apr. 2017, at 23 (with E. Jacomy)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Asia Arbitration Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Respondek \u0026amp; Fan, 3rd ed., 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration and Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Chief Justice Ma \u0026amp; D. Brock eds., 2nd, 3rd\u0026nbsp;and 4th\u0026nbsp;ed., Sweet \u0026amp; Maxwell, 2011, 2014 and 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Will Asia Change International Arbitration?,\u0026rdquo; Maxwell Conversations, October 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Let's talk arbitration in the Philippines,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC Virtual Brown Bag Series, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Making Virtual Hearing Work,\u0026rdquo; Roundtable discussion (Chair), Hong Kong, March 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sovereign States and Foreign Investors: How to Mitigate (the new) Risks of Disputes?,\u0026ldquo; ICC Belgium /CEPANI webinar, December 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Year One of the New Normal: What has changed, what must change, and are these changes here to stay?,\u0026rdquo; 9th\u0026nbsp;Asia-Pacific ADR Virtual Conference - The New Arbitration Landscape: 2020 and Beyond, November 2020\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;HKIAC\u0026rsquo;s Virtual Hearing Capabilities and Hong Kong as seat of Arbitration,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC-JIDRC Collaborative Webinar, September 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Win-Win Collaboration of ADRs,\u0026rdquo; Shanghai International Arbitration Summit organized by SHIAC, Shanghai, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement - Article II of the New York Convention,\u0026rdquo; 3rd\u0026nbsp;UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Judicial Summit 2019, Hong Kong, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;How urgent is emergency relief? Predictability and substantive standards,\u0026rdquo; Launch of the ICC Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings, Seoul, September 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration \u0026ndash; Issues and Insights\u0026rdquo; panel discussion, at the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) conference on International Dispute Resolution: Reflections and Redirections, Hong Kong, July 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Key features of the new 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules,\u0026rdquo; co-led panel discussion with representatives of the HKIAC, HKIAC Road Show Event, New York, June 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Arbitrator conflicts and challenges,\u0026rdquo; at the HKIAC | LCIA Joint Seminar: Arbitrator appointments, conflicts and challenges, Hong Kong, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDebate on the Future of ISDS: Arbitration vs Mediation, Hong Kong Forum - 60th\u0026nbsp;Anniversary of New York Convention, Hong Kong, September 2018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"nils-rolandsson-eliasson","email":"neliasson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian LNG buyer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esubsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants\u0026rsquo; State applied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned Enterprise\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction and Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eheavy equipment supplier and contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian contractor and its subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFrench-German consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over \u0026euro;6.1 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultiple Asian companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness Combination Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational professional services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands\u0026rsquo; corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund and its founder\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund\u0026rsquo;s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSri Lankan company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Commercial Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorth American technology company\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned telecommunication provider\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAfrican telecom infrastructure company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over \u0026euro;100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese telecommunication solution provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestment Treaty Arbitrations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;shareholder of Yukos\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over \u0026euro;1.4 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3281}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eliasson","nick_name":"Nils","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Nils","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.”","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.” ","detail":" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025"},{"title":"Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader”","detail":"LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is top notch in all elements”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“ ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Named a Global Leader","detail":"Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021"},{"title":"Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing","detail":"Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020"},{"title":"Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)”","detail":"China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020"},{"title":"Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong","detail":"Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Leading Individual","detail":"The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/nils-eliasson-internationalarbitration-hongkong/","seodescription":"Nils Eliasson is a partner in the firm’s International Arbitration group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNils Eliasson, a partner in the firm\u0026rsquo;s International Arbitration group, advises clients on commercial and investment treaty disputes in Asia and around the world across a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, construction, private equity and telecommunications. In addition to acting as counsel, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator in international proceedings. Nils\u0026rsquo; experience as a leading arbitration practitioner is widely recognized by independent legal directories, including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers \u0026amp; Partners\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils acts as counsel in commercial and investment treaty disputes conducted under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), German International Arbitration Institute (DIS) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), as well as in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils\u0026rsquo; experience includes disputes related to joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, engineering, license disputes, telecommunications, and real estate. He has also handled investment treaty arbitrations under various bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty. He serves as Vice-Chair of HKIAC and is a member of the HKIAC Council.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils has been presiding arbitrator, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and emergency arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, SCC, KCAB, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL in disputes arising from sales agreements, supply agreements, joint ventures, asset transfer agreements, share subscription and share purchase agreements, shareholder agreements and ship building contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils was named \u0026ldquo;Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in China (2020)\u003c/em\u003e. He is also featured as a Global Leader in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal: Arbitration\u003c/em\u003e, which describes him as a \u0026ldquo;\u0026lsquo;very smart\u0026rsquo; arbitration specialist who is highly recommended for his impressive experience handling disputes under various arbitral rules from HKIAC to ICC and LCIA\u0026rdquo; (2020). Previous editions note that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson comes \u0026lsquo;highly recommended\u0026rsquo; thanks to his \u0026lsquo;practical approach and strong legal mindset\u0026rsquo;.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Asia-Pacific 2021\u003c/em\u003e, where he is ranked in Band 1, noted that \u0026ldquo;Nils Eliasson is held in high esteem for his veteran experience on investment treaty arbitrations, construction and project development disputes and commercial disputes for both domestic and international corporates.\u0026rdquo; A client reports: \u0026ldquo;He's a brilliant lawyer who is extremely smart and talented, but very humble with clients and very present while working with us.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Levelling the International Arbitration Playing Field: Outcome-Related Fee Structure Reform in Hong Kong and Singapore,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAsian Dispute Review\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021 (with E. Taylor)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Strong Foundations on which Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s Status as a Leading Seat of International Arbitration Rests Remain Intact,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHong Kong Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Treaty Remedies,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eManaging \u0026lsquo;Belt and Road\u0026rsquo; Business Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(M. Moser and C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2021)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Chinese Outbound Investments in the Belt and Road: What Protection Do China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaties Have to Offer?,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational Arbitration: When East Meets West: Liber Amicorum Michael Moser\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(N. Kaplan, M. Pryles, C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2020)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Some Reflections on Hong Kong from an Investment Treaty Perspective,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eForward!, - B?e???! \u0026ndash; Fram\u0026aring;t! \u0026ndash; Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hob\u0026eacute;r\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Lustus, 2019)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Review of Investment Treaty Awards by Municipal Courts,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration under International Investment Agreements\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2 (Oxford, 2nd\u0026nbsp;ed., 2018) \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;China\u0026rsquo;s Investment Treaty Programme: Past, present and future,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChina Business Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, Apr. 2017, at 23 (with E. Jacomy)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Asia Arbitration Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Respondek \u0026amp; Fan, 3rd ed., 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration and Hong Kong,\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eArbitration in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Chief Justice Ma \u0026amp; D. Brock eds., 2nd, 3rd\u0026nbsp;and 4th\u0026nbsp;ed., Sweet \u0026amp; Maxwell, 2011, 2014 and 2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Will Asia Change International Arbitration?,\u0026rdquo; Maxwell Conversations, October 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Let's talk arbitration in the Philippines,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC Virtual Brown Bag Series, April 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Making Virtual Hearing Work,\u0026rdquo; Roundtable discussion (Chair), Hong Kong, March 2021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Sovereign States and Foreign Investors: How to Mitigate (the new) Risks of Disputes?,\u0026ldquo; ICC Belgium /CEPANI webinar, December 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Year One of the New Normal: What has changed, what must change, and are these changes here to stay?,\u0026rdquo; 9th\u0026nbsp;Asia-Pacific ADR Virtual Conference - The New Arbitration Landscape: 2020 and Beyond, November 2020\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;HKIAC\u0026rsquo;s Virtual Hearing Capabilities and Hong Kong as seat of Arbitration,\u0026rdquo; HKIAC-JIDRC Collaborative Webinar, September 2020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Win-Win Collaboration of ADRs,\u0026rdquo; Shanghai International Arbitration Summit organized by SHIAC, Shanghai, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement - Article II of the New York Convention,\u0026rdquo; 3rd\u0026nbsp;UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Judicial Summit 2019, Hong Kong, November 2019\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;How urgent is emergency relief? Predictability and substantive standards,\u0026rdquo; Launch of the ICC Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings, Seoul, September 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Investment Arbitration \u0026ndash; Issues and Insights\u0026rdquo; panel discussion, at the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) conference on International Dispute Resolution: Reflections and Redirections, Hong Kong, July 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Key features of the new 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules,\u0026rdquo; co-led panel discussion with representatives of the HKIAC, HKIAC Road Show Event, New York, June 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Arbitrator conflicts and challenges,\u0026rdquo; at the HKIAC | LCIA Joint Seminar: Arbitrator appointments, conflicts and challenges, Hong Kong, January 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDebate on the Future of ISDS: Arbitration vs Mediation, Hong Kong Forum - 60th\u0026nbsp;Anniversary of New York Convention, Hong Kong, September 2018\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian LNG buyer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esubsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants\u0026rsquo; State applied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned Enterprise\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction and Engineering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eheavy equipment supplier and contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian contractor and its subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFrench-German consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over \u0026euro;6.1 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultiple Asian companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBusiness Combination Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational professional services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehigh-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands\u0026rsquo; corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund and its founder\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund\u0026rsquo;s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSri Lankan company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Commercial Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorth American technology company\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese State-owned telecommunication provider\u003c/strong\u003e, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAfrican telecom infrastructure company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over \u0026euro;100 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChinese telecommunication solution provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestment Treaty Arbitrations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;shareholder of Yukos\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over \u0026euro;1.4 billion was at stake.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.”","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.” ","detail":" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"\"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.”","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026"},{"title":"“Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"\"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025"},{"title":"Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader”","detail":"LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Nils is top notch in all elements”","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025"},{"title":"“Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“ ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"\"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\"","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)","detail":"China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022"},{"title":"Named a Global Leader","detail":"Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021"},{"title":"Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing","detail":"Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020"},{"title":"Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)”","detail":"China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020"},{"title":"Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong","detail":"Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020"},{"title":"Named a Leading Individual","detail":"The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9629}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-20T22:07:42.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-20T22:07:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Eliasson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026amp;A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Nils is top notch in all elements”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“ \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Global Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Leading Individual\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific\"}{{ FIELD }}Energy\nAdvised Asian energy company on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.{{ FIELD }}Advised Asian LNG buyer in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market.{{ FIELD }}Represented the subsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector in two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants’ State applied.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chinese State-owned Enterprise in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. oil and gas company in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chinese oil company in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Construction and Engineering\nRepresenting heavy equipment supplier and contractor in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\nRepresenting Asian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\nRepresented Asian contractor and its subsidiary, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\nRepresented Asian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\nRepresented French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over €6.1 billion was at stake.\nAdvising multiple Asian companies in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned enterprises in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Business Combination Disputes\nRepresented an international professional services company in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\nAdvised a high-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands’ corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\nRepresented Hong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented a private equity fund and its founder in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund’s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\nRepresented a Chinese company in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\nRepresented a Sri Lankan company in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}General Commercial Disputes\nRepresenting North American technology company, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned telecommunication provider, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\nAdvised an African telecom infrastructure company in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\nRepresented European company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over €100 million was at stake.\nRepresented Chinese telecommunication solution provider in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Investment Treaty Arbitrations\nRepresenting the People’s Republic of China in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\nRepresented a shareholder of Yukos in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\nRepresented a European energy company in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over €1.4 billion was at stake.{{ FIELD }}Nils Eliasson, a partner in the firm’s International Arbitration group, advises clients on commercial and investment treaty disputes in Asia and around the world across a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, construction, private equity and telecommunications. In addition to acting as counsel, he is frequently appointed as arbitrator in international proceedings. Nils’ experience as a leading arbitration practitioner is widely recognized by independent legal directories, including Who’s Who Legal, Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, Legal 500, and Best Lawyers.   \nNils acts as counsel in commercial and investment treaty disputes conducted under the auspices of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Vienna International Arbitration Center (VIAC), German International Arbitration Institute (DIS) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), as well as in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.\nNils’ experience includes disputes related to joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, engineering, license disputes, telecommunications, and real estate. He has also handled investment treaty arbitrations under various bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty. He serves as Vice-Chair of HKIAC and is a member of the HKIAC Council.\nNils has been presiding arbitrator, sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and emergency arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings under the rules of the ICC, HKIAC, SCC, KCAB, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL in disputes arising from sales agreements, supply agreements, joint ventures, asset transfer agreements, share subscription and share purchase agreements, shareholder agreements and ship building contracts.\nNils was named “Lawyer of the Year” for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing by Best Lawyers in China (2020). He is also featured as a Global Leader in Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, which describes him as a “‘very smart’ arbitration specialist who is highly recommended for his impressive experience handling disputes under various arbitral rules from HKIAC to ICC and LCIA” (2020). Previous editions note that “Nils Eliasson comes ‘highly recommended’ thanks to his ‘practical approach and strong legal mindset’.” Chambers Asia-Pacific 2021, where he is ranked in Band 1, noted that “Nils Eliasson is held in high esteem for his veteran experience on investment treaty arbitrations, construction and project development disputes and commercial disputes for both domestic and international corporates.” A client reports: “He's a brilliant lawyer who is extremely smart and talented, but very humble with clients and very present while working with us.”\nRecent Publications\n\n“Levelling the International Arbitration Playing Field: Outcome-Related Fee Structure Reform in Hong Kong and Singapore,” Asian Dispute Review, April 2021 (with E. Taylor)\n“The Strong Foundations on which Hong Kong’s Status as a Leading Seat of International Arbitration Rests Remain Intact,” Hong Kong Lawyer, April 2021\n“Investment Treaty Remedies,” Managing ‘Belt and Road’ Business Disputes (M. Moser and C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2021)\n“Chinese Outbound Investments in the Belt and Road: What Protection Do China’s Investment Treaties Have to Offer?,” International Arbitration: When East Meets West: Liber Amicorum Michael Moser (N. Kaplan, M. Pryles, C. Bao eds., Kluwer, 2020)\n“Some Reflections on Hong Kong from an Investment Treaty Perspective,” Forward!, - B?e???! – Framåt! – Essays in Honour of Prof Dr Kaj Hobér (Lustus, 2019) \n“Review of Investment Treaty Awards by Municipal Courts,” Arbitration under International Investment Agreements 2 (Oxford, 2nd ed., 2018)  “China’s Investment Treaty Programme: Past, present and future,” China Business Law Journal, Apr. 2017, at 23 (with E. Jacomy)\n“Hong Kong,”  Asia Arbitration Guide (Respondek \u0026amp; Fan, 3rd ed., 2017)\n“Investment Arbitration and Hong Kong,” Arbitration in Hong Kong: A Practical Guide (Chief Justice Ma \u0026amp; D. Brock eds., 2nd, 3rd and 4th ed., Sweet \u0026amp; Maxwell, 2011, 2014 and 2017)\n\nSpeaking Engagements\n\n“Will Asia Change International Arbitration?,” Maxwell Conversations, October 2021\n“Let's talk arbitration in the Philippines,” HKIAC Virtual Brown Bag Series, April 2021\n“Making Virtual Hearing Work,” Roundtable discussion (Chair), Hong Kong, March 2021\n“Sovereign States and Foreign Investors: How to Mitigate (the new) Risks of Disputes?,“ ICC Belgium /CEPANI webinar, December 2020\n“Year One of the New Normal: What has changed, what must change, and are these changes here to stay?,” 9th Asia-Pacific ADR Virtual Conference - The New Arbitration Landscape: 2020 and Beyond, November 2020 \n“HKIAC’s Virtual Hearing Capabilities and Hong Kong as seat of Arbitration,” HKIAC-JIDRC Collaborative Webinar, September 2020\n“Win-Win Collaboration of ADRs,” Shanghai International Arbitration Summit organized by SHIAC, Shanghai, November 2019 \n“Recognition and Enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement - Article II of the New York Convention,” 3rd UNCITRAL Asia Pacific Judicial Summit 2019, Hong Kong, November 2019 \n“How urgent is emergency relief? Predictability and substantive standards,” Launch of the ICC Commission Report on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings, Seoul, September 2019\n“Investment Arbitration – Issues and Insights” panel discussion, at the BIICL (British Institute of International and Comparative Law) conference on International Dispute Resolution: Reflections and Redirections, Hong Kong, July 2019\n“Key features of the new 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules,” co-led panel discussion with representatives of the HKIAC, HKIAC Road Show Event, New York, June 2019\n“Arbitrator conflicts and challenges,” at the HKIAC | LCIA Joint Seminar: Arbitrator appointments, conflicts and challenges, Hong Kong, January 2019\nDebate on the Future of ISDS: Arbitration vs Mediation, Hong Kong Forum - 60th Anniversary of New York Convention, Hong Kong, September 2018\n Nils Eliasson lawyer Partner “Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in predictions regarding fees, timelines.” Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils Eliasson is extremely capable in prep and conduct of hearing.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils Eliasson is able to digest the essence of a commercial.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Extremely skilled legal and arbitration professionals led by Nils Eliasson.”   Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 Nils Eliasson – Recommended Lawyer Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 \"Nils Eliasson is extremely capable, an industry leader and very effective team leader as well.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2026 \"Nils is a highly skilled, detail-oriented and serious litigator.\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils is very comprehensive in his analysis. He is easy to work with.” Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils' advice is always practical and persuasive. We trust him and value his advice.” Chambers Asia-Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2026 “Nils Eliasson is an extremely effective advocate with comprehensive experience.”  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2025 \"Nils Eliasson who is recommended for his expertise in M\u0026amp;A, private equity investments, and joint ventures.\" Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, Foreign Firms, Philippines 2025 Ranked “Global Elite Thought Leader” LEXOLOGY INDEX: SOUTHEAST ASIA - ARBITRATION, 2025 “Nils is extremely smart, hard-working and easy to work with, and he thinks deeply about the issues facing his clients” Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025 “Nils is a very skilled, strong and engaged lawyer” Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025 “Nils is top notch in all elements” Chambers Asia Pacific, Dispute Resolution: Arbitration, Singapore 2025 “Very happy with Nils Eliasson’s timeliness and quality of his work product, and skill in advocacy and communication“  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024 \"Nils was very responsive, hard-working on a matter that was super-urgent and arose at an inconvenient time\"  Legal 500 Asia-Pacific, International Arbitration, Singapore 2024 \"Nils has great cultural insights and is clear in what he thinks and his reasoning\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024 \"Academically Nils is very strong and has a lot of insight into arbitration in Asia\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024 \"Nils has vast experience in commercial arbitration and is very easy to work with\" Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2024 Ranked Band 1 in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms) Chambers Asia-Pacific, 2017-2022 Top ranked in Dispute Resolution: Arbitration (International Firms) China and Dispute Resolution – Sweden Chambers Global, 2017-2022 Named a Global Leader Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, 2018 - 2021 Named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration and Mediation (International Firms) in Beijing Best Lawyers in China 1st edition, 2020 Recognized in The A-List China’s Elite 100 Lawyers (Foreign Firms)” China Business Law Journal, 2019 - 2020 Named a Litigation Star in Hong Kong Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific, 2020 Named a Leading Individual The Legal 500 Asia-Pacific Utrecht University Utrecht University Lund University  Lund University  Hong Kong Sweden Member, Hong Kong Government Advisory Committee on Arbitration (2019–2021) Member, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Founder and Past Executive Committee Member, HK45 Member, Swedish Arbitration Association (SAA) Member, Hong Kong Law Society Member, Swedish Bar Association Member, International Bar Association (IBA) Member, Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Vice-Chair, HKIAC Chairman, HKIAC Proceedings Committee (2015-2021) Member, ICC Commission on Arbitration Member, ICC Task Force on Decisions as to Costs Member, ICC Task Force on Emergency Arbitrator Proceedings Member, ICC Arbitration Committee, Hong Kong Member, LCIA Member, International Arbitration Institute (IAI) Energy\nAdvised Asian energy company on its contractual and investment treaty rights in relation to a dispute with a South East Asian state-owned company. The dispute arises from a Production Sharing Contract. The contract provides for ad hoc arbitration in Singapore under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Advised Asian LNG buyer in relation to gas price review mechanism and risks in the Asia-Pacific LNG market. Represented the subsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector in two parallel ICC arbitrations in Singapore initiated by its Asian co-shareholder and its parent company. The dispute arose from two agreements related to the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants’ State applied. Represented Chinese State-owned Enterprise in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising under a long-term gas supply agreement. Over $2 billion was at stake. Represented a U.S. oil and gas company in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules against a sovereign State regarding a production-sharing agreement for the extraction of hydrocarbons. Over $100 million was at stake. Represented Chinese oil company in arbitration proceedings in London against a Russian oil company under the LCIA Rules. The dispute concerned pricing issues for oil transportation over the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean Oil Pipeline. Over $150 million was at stake. Construction and Engineering\nRepresenting heavy equipment supplier and contractor in relation to an arbitration and a number of delay, disruption, defects and other disputes arising out of two energy construction projects in Africa with claims and counterclaims of over $2 billion. The law of the country of the projects applies.\nRepresenting Asian State-owned entity and its joint venture partners in a dispute with a Middle Eastern State-owned entity. The dispute arises from an EPC contract for the construction of a large petrochemical project.\nRepresented Asian contractor and its subsidiary, Claimants in parallel HKIAC arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong against an owner company. The dispute arose from an EPC contract and related contracts for the construction of a power plant in the Philippines. Philippines law applied.\nRepresented Asian State-owned entity and its subsidiaries in a UNCITRAL arbitration in Stockholm against a State-owned entity in a Central Asian State. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a plant on a turnkey (EPC) basis. The amount at stake exceeded $200 million.\nRepresented French-German consortium in an ICC arbitration in Stockholm against a Finnish utility company. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland. Finnish law governed. Over €6.1 billion was at stake.\nAdvising multiple Asian companies in a dispute against an American consortium concerning the construction of a nuclear power plant. Over $3 billion is at stake.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned enterprises in a dispute against a European chemical company in an SCC arbitration governed by Swedish law arising out of a series of engineering services contracts for the design and construction of a petrochemical plant. $1.8 billion was at stake. Business Combination Disputes\nRepresented an international professional services company in a dispute with a European consulting company. The dispute concerns the earn out provision of a share purchase agreement. The contract is governed by Danish law and provides for arbitration under the Rules of the Danish Institute of Arbitration.\nAdvised a high-profile recording artist and media entrepreneur and their Delaware incorporated company in parallel joint venture disputes with Cayman Islands’ corporate entities. The disputes arose from joint venture agreements concerning media and technology businesses in Mainland China and North America. The agreements were governed by Hong Kong law and provided for HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong.\nRepresented Hong Kong, Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands corporate entities and directors as Claimants in ICC arbitration and Emergency Arbitrator proceedings in Hong Kong and as Respondents in parallel High Court of Hong Kong proceedings. The dispute arises from a private equity co-investment agreement. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented a private equity fund and its founder in ICC and HKIAC arbitrations initiated by the fund’s general partner and an alleged investor in the fund, as well as in related domestic court proceedings in multiple jurisdictions. The arbitrations each concerned ownership of various entities in the fund structure. Hong Kong and Cayman Islands law applied.\nRepresented a Chinese company in HKIAC arbitration proceedings against a U.S. company concerning a joint venture and technology transfer. Over $150 million was at stake.\nRepresented a Sri Lankan company in arbitration proceedings in Singapore under the SIAC Rules against a European supplier and developer of business systems. The dispute concerned the control and management of a Sri Lankan joint venture company and $120 million was at stake. General Commercial Disputes\nRepresenting North American technology company, Respondent in an ICC arbitration in Hong Kong brought by an Asian electronics manufacturer. The dispute arises from a manufacturing agreement and related guarantee. Hong Kong law applies.\nRepresented Chinese State-owned telecommunication provider, Respondent in SIAC arbitration in Hong Kong. The dispute arose from a long-term services agreement. Singapore law applied.\nAdvised an African telecom infrastructure company in a dispute with an African telecom provider. The dispute arose from an infrastructure license agreement. The contract was governed by New York law and provided for ICC arbitration in Paris.\nRepresented European company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore against a Chinese company concerning the breach of license agreements for minerals and metal processing technology. Over €100 million was at stake.\nRepresented Chinese telecommunication solution provider in five parallel SCC and UNCITRAL arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong and Stockholm against a Ukrainian mobile phone operator. Over $50 million was at stake. Investment Treaty Arbitrations\nRepresenting the People’s Republic of China in an ICSID arbitration brought by Hela Schwarz GmbH (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/19). The claims are brought under the China-Germany bilateral investment treaty.\nRepresented a shareholder of Yukos in an investment treaty arbitration against the Russian Federation based on a bilateral investment treaty. Over $75 million was at stake.\nRepresented a European energy company in an investment treaty arbitration against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty and the ICSID Convention. Over €1.4 billion was at stake.","searchable_name":"Nils Eliasson","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446860,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6839,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBeatrice Edler advises clients in various industries on\u0026nbsp;data privacy, cybersecurity,\u0026nbsp;and healthcare regulatory matters, including matters involving regulatory compliance and product counseling, AI, enforcement actions and investigations,\u0026nbsp;mergers and acquisitions,\u0026nbsp;and complex healthcare and reimbursement\u0026nbsp;litigation matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeatrice is an associate in the Data Privacy and Security practice where she advice clients in multiple jurisdictions on U.S. federal and state law and EU law.\u0026nbsp;Prior to joining the firm, Beatrice has six years of experience as a Swedish lawyer primarily working with EU regulatory matters and transactions related to data protection, health technology, and intellectual property law. She worked at one of the largest transaction-focused law firms in the Nordics where she assisted multinational clients across various industries with M\u0026amp;A transactions, compliance projects, complex multijurisdictional contracts, and regulatory investigations. Most recently, she comes from a senior legal counsel role at one of the largest digital health care providers in the Nordics. Beatrice received her law degree and LL.M. from Lund University School of Law, and pursued a second LL.M. at New York University School of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"beatrice-edler","email":"bedler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Edler","nick_name":"Beatrice","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Beatrice","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1406,"meta":{"degree":"LL.M.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2024-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBeatrice Edler advises clients in various industries on\u0026nbsp;data privacy, cybersecurity,\u0026nbsp;and healthcare regulatory matters, including matters involving regulatory compliance and product counseling, AI, enforcement actions and investigations,\u0026nbsp;mergers and acquisitions,\u0026nbsp;and complex healthcare and reimbursement\u0026nbsp;litigation matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeatrice is an associate in the Data Privacy and Security practice where she advice clients in multiple jurisdictions on U.S. federal and state law and EU law.\u0026nbsp;Prior to joining the firm, Beatrice has six years of experience as a Swedish lawyer primarily working with EU regulatory matters and transactions related to data protection, health technology, and intellectual property law. She worked at one of the largest transaction-focused law firms in the Nordics where she assisted multinational clients across various industries with M\u0026amp;A transactions, compliance projects, complex multijurisdictional contracts, and regulatory investigations. Most recently, she comes from a senior legal counsel role at one of the largest digital health care providers in the Nordics. Beatrice received her law degree and LL.M. from Lund University School of Law, and pursued a second LL.M. at New York University School of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12116}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-03-19T16:33:31.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-19T16:33:31.000Z","searchable_text":"Edler{{ FIELD }}Beatrice Edler advises clients in various industries on data privacy, cybersecurity, and healthcare regulatory matters, including matters involving regulatory compliance and product counseling, AI, enforcement actions and investigations, mergers and acquisitions, and complex healthcare and reimbursement litigation matters. \nBeatrice is an associate in the Data Privacy and Security practice where she advice clients in multiple jurisdictions on U.S. federal and state law and EU law. Prior to joining the firm, Beatrice has six years of experience as a Swedish lawyer primarily working with EU regulatory matters and transactions related to data protection, health technology, and intellectual property law. She worked at one of the largest transaction-focused law firms in the Nordics where she assisted multinational clients across various industries with M\u0026amp;A transactions, compliance projects, complex multijurisdictional contracts, and regulatory investigations. Most recently, she comes from a senior legal counsel role at one of the largest digital health care providers in the Nordics. Beatrice received her law degree and LL.M. from Lund University School of Law, and pursued a second LL.M. at New York University School of Law.\n Associate Lund University  New York University New York University School of Law New York","searchable_name":"Beatrice Edler","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426962,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6014,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJackson Eskay is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial and\u0026nbsp;Global Disputes group and Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security practice. Jackson's practice focuses on complex\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation, including privacy and data breach class actions and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJackson graduated from\u0026nbsp;the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where he served as a Senior Editor for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law\u003c/em\u003e. Prior to law school, Jackson played professional soccer\u0026nbsp;in Richmond, Virginia. Jackson received\u0026nbsp;his undergraduate degree from the College of William and Mary, where he\u0026nbsp;graduated with Honors in Philosophy. Jackson played varsity\u0026nbsp;soccer at William and Mary, where he was the first third-generation scholarship athlete at the school, following his grandfather (basketball), his father (soccer), and his mother (track).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jackson-eskay","email":"jeskay@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Eskay","nick_name":"Jackson","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jackson","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[{"id":2282,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJackson Eskay is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial and\u0026nbsp;Global Disputes group and Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security practice. Jackson's practice focuses on complex\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation, including privacy and data breach class actions and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJackson graduated from\u0026nbsp;the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where he served as a Senior Editor for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law\u003c/em\u003e. Prior to law school, Jackson played professional soccer\u0026nbsp;in Richmond, Virginia. Jackson received\u0026nbsp;his undergraduate degree from the College of William and Mary, where he\u0026nbsp;graduated with Honors in Philosophy. Jackson played varsity\u0026nbsp;soccer at William and Mary, where he was the first third-generation scholarship athlete at the school, following his grandfather (basketball), his father (soccer), and his mother (track).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10088}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:58.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Eskay{{ FIELD }}Jackson Eskay is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Atlanta office and a member of the firm’s Trial and Global Disputes group and Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security practice. Jackson's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including privacy and data breach class actions and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country.\nJackson graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, where he served as a Senior Editor for the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. Prior to law school, Jackson played professional soccer in Richmond, Virginia. Jackson received his undergraduate degree from the College of William and Mary, where he graduated with Honors in Philosophy. Jackson played varsity soccer at William and Mary, where he was the first third-generation scholarship athlete at the school, following his grandfather (basketball), his father (soccer), and his mother (track).\n  Associate College of William and Mary William \u0026amp; Mary Law School University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Georgia","searchable_name":"Jackson Eskay","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}