Commercial

A US federal judge has rejected McDonald’s request to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing the fast-food chain of misleading consumers about the meat used in its McRib sandwich.

The plaintiffs allege that McDonald’s deliberately shapes the McRib patties with ridges resembling pork ribs, creating the impression that the sandwich contains rib meat, an expensive cut known for its higher fat content and rich flavour.

They claim that the company’s actual use of lower-grade pork products, including shoulder meat, heart, tripe or stomach, misled customers into paying more for the McRib, one of the chain’s most expensive menu items.

While dismissing some of the claims, US District Judge April Perry, sitting in Chicago, where McDonald’s is headquartered, said it was too early to accept the company’s argument that no reasonable consumer could expect the McRib to contain rib meat.

The judge noted that McDonald’s website describes the sandwich as containing pork but does not provide further clarification about the specific cuts used. She added that consumers should not be expected to conduct extensive research before purchasing a fast-food sandwich costing $7.

Perry also said advertisements emphasising the rib-like shape of the meat could support the plaintiffs’ allegation that the company intended to mislead consumers, although further evidence would be required.

“The plaintiffs’ proffered understanding of ‘McRib’ is not unreasonable or fanciful,” Perry wrote.

McDonald’s has sold the McRib periodically since 1981.

The company argued that distinctive product names do not deceive reasonable consumers and that customers’ preference for a particular cut of pork does not turn truthful marketing into consumer fraud.

In a statement, McDonald’s maintained that it does not use hearts, tripe or stomach in the McRib and has always been transparent about its ingredients.

“This lawsuit distorts the facts and the claims are meritless,” the company said.

Thiago Coelho, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his clients would continue seeking accountability for what they consider deceptive marketing practices.

Fast-food chains have faced several other lawsuits over the way their products are depicted in advertisements and on menu boards.

These include cases accusing McDonald’s, Burger King and Wendy’s of making their burgers appear larger in promotional material than they are when served to customers.

The Dubai Court of Appeal has acquitted a former executive accused of embezzling Dh1.24 million after an independent court-appointed expert established that the disputed payment was an authorised end-of-service gratuity.

The court overturned an earlier conviction that had resulted in a Dh50,000 fine and an additional penalty of Dh1.24 million, equivalent to the amount allegedly misappropriated.

The former executive had faced charges of embezzlement and breach of trust following the issuance and encashment of a cheque for Dh1.24 million in September 2024. Prosecutors alleged that the payment had been made without proper authorisation.

However, the Court of Appeal found that documentary evidence and the findings of an independent accounting expert raised sufficient doubt over the allegations, warranting an acquittal.

Disputed Payment Linked to End-Of-Service Benefits

The case centred on whether the Dh1.24 million payment represented a legitimate employment-related benefit or funds unlawfully withdrawn from the organisation.

The defence maintained that the amount was an end-of-service gratuity approved by the organisation's general assembly and that the payment had followed the applicable internal procedures.

To support this position, the defence submitted minutes of the general assembly meeting recording the approval, together with an official clearance letter confirming that no outstanding financial or administrative liabilities existed between the parties.

It also sought an independent examination of the organisation's financial records, internal regulations and payment procedures to establish whether the transaction had been properly authorised.

The court-appointed expert's findings subsequently supported the defence position, confirming that the gratuity had received general assembly approval and that the payment was authorised under the organisation's internal procedures.

Management Dispute Triggered Financial Investigation

The allegations emerged following a change in the organisation's management, which prompted a review of its financial transactions.

The incoming management alleged that the former executive had issued and encashed the cheque without the knowledge or approval of the board. An advisory accounting report submitted by the complainant questioned the legitimacy of the payment, arguing that the organisation's governing documents did not provide for an end-of-service bonus and disputing whether earlier general assembly minutes authorised the transaction.

The organisation subsequently demanded repayment of the amount and warned that legal action would follow.

During the appeal proceedings, the defence requested an independent expert examination to establish whether the payment had complied with the organisation's governing rules and financial controls.

The expert found that the general assembly had approved the Dh1.24 million gratuity at a meeting held on September 5, 2024. The approval followed the executive's resignation after a lengthy period of service, with his advanced age also cited in connection with the decision.

The expert further established that the organisation's internal regulations permitted its financial officer to approve payments exceeding Dh50,000 in writing after verifying the reasons for the expenditure. The disputed payment had received the officer's approval in accordance with those procedures.

An official letter dated January 8, 2025, also confirmed that there were no outstanding financial or administrative liabilities between the parties.

Taken together, the findings contradicted the allegation that the executive had unlawfully appropriated the organisation's money.

Benefit of Doubt Applied In Criminal Proceedings

In overturning the conviction, the Court of Appeal considered the evidentiary value of the independent expert's report and the supporting documentary records.

The court observed that judges have the discretion to assess expert reports and rely on findings supported by sound reasoning and documentary evidence. Referring to an established principle of the Court of Cassation, it noted that a court may adopt a properly reasoned expert report without being required to address individually every objection raised against it.

The general assembly minutes, written payment authorisation and financial clearance letter collectively raised serious doubts about whether the transaction constituted a criminal offence.

The court applied Article 212 of the UAE Criminal Procedure Law, under which doubt must be interpreted in favour of the accused. Since the evidence did not establish the alleged criminal conduct with the required certainty, the earlier conviction could not stand.

The judgment overturned the criminal conviction and acquitted the former executive.

Civil Claims Must Be Pursued Before First-Instance Court

The Court of Appeal also dismissed two appeals filed by the civil claimant as inadmissible because the Court of First Instance had not issued a ruling on the underlying civil claims.

Under Article 139 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law, a claimant seeking a determination of civil claims must return to the first-instance court where those claims remain undecided, rather than appeal against a ruling that was never made.

The appellate court held that considering the claims for the first time at the appeal stage would deprive the parties of an opportunity for the prescribed level of judicial review.

The claimant remains entitled to pursue the outstanding civil claims before the Court of First Instance.

The judgment consequently resolves the criminal proceedings in favour of the former executive, while leaving the separate civil dispute open for determination by the competent court.

Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Justice, Dr Walid Al-Samaani, has approved the Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law, introducing a new procedural framework that will come into force on October 29, 2026, alongside the implementation of the new law.

Issued under Royal Decree No. M/237, the regulations were published on Friday in the Kingdom’s official gazette, Umm Al-Qura.

The 54-article framework establishes the procedures, deadlines and requirements for enforcing judicial rulings and legal obligations. It aims to improve the effectiveness of enforcement proceedings while maintaining the legal safeguards available to both creditors and debtors.

The regulations also address the enforcement of court orders concerning alimony, child custody and visitation rights, providing procedural clarity for matters involving family obligations.

In addition, they specify the requirements for registering bills of exchange and promissory notes through approved electronic platforms. They also identify the orders and decisions that may be contested through formal objection procedures.

The Ministry of Justice said the regulations are intended to give effect to the provisions of the Enforcement Law while ensuring a fair balance between the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The UAE has introduced greater flexibility into the rules governing share transfers in private joint-stock companies, opening up additional options for shareholders seeking to exit investments, bring in strategic partners or reorganise their ownership structures.

Ministerial Decision No. 83 of 2026, issued on April 5, 2026, sets out circumstances in which the statutory restriction period may be shortened to six or seven months, or waived altogether. The Decision follows amendments made by Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2025 to Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021 on Commercial Companies.

The changes are intended to make investment and corporate restructuring more practical, but they do not give shareholders a general right to sell their holdings before the normal restriction period expires. Eligibility depends on the nature of the proposed transaction, the classification of the shares involved and compliance with the applicable regulatory and procedural requirements.

The Revised Share-Transfer Restriction Framework

Article 266 of the UAE Commercial Companies Law generally prohibits the transfer of shares in a private joint-stock company before publication of its balance sheet and profit and loss account for at least one financial year, calculated from the company's registration in the Commercial Register.

The 2025 legislative amendments replaced the previous two-year restriction with a one-year period and empowered the Minister of Economy and Tourism to alter that period or grant exemptions in specified circumstances.

Ministerial Decision No. 83 of 2026 gives effect to this authority by establishing alternative routes for early transfers, taking account of different investment arrangements and commercial requirements.

A separate statutory exemption applies to private joint-stock companies that offer securities through private placement and are listed on a UAE securities market. Such companies are outside the restriction period under Article 266(4), rather than merely qualifying for one of the reductions introduced by the new Decision. Other private joint-stock companies remain subject to the general rule unless they meet the conditions for a reduction or exemption.

When Can Shares Be Transferred After Seven Months?

Article 3(1)(a) of Ministerial Decision No. 83 of 2026 allows the restriction period to be reduced to seven months where the company has published two consecutive quarterly financial statements, reviewed by its duly licensed external auditor, following its registration in the Commercial Register.

The requirement for consecutive statements is important. Preparing internal management accounts or obtaining an auditor's review for only one reporting period would not, by itself, meet the prescribed test. The company must be able to demonstrate that both quarterly statements have been reviewed and published in accordance with the Decision.

For example, a company incorporated in January 2026 seeking to facilitate an early shareholder exit would need to establish that the required quarterly reporting had been completed and published before relying on this provision. The timing of incorporation alone would not establish eligibility.

The provision effectively links earlier access to share liquidity with financial transparency. Companies that anticipate changes in their shareholder structure during their first year should therefore put appropriate accounting, audit and publication arrangements in place from the outset.

Who Qualifies for the Six-Month Transfer Period?

The Decision identifies two separate circumstances in which the restriction period may be reduced to six months. The first concerns companies that approve multiple classes of shares and allocate qualifying classes to Professional Investors outside private subscription arrangements.

Under Article 3(1)(b), the shorter period applies only to the relevant qualifying share classes. It does not automatically extend to the company's other shares or to shareholders holding a different class.

Accordingly, where founders hold ordinary shares while a separate class has been allocated to Professional Investors, the founders cannot claim the six-month period simply because the company has introduced a qualifying investor class. The treatment of each class must be considered separately.

The second route relates to employee share incentive programmes. Article 3(1)(c) allows shares forming part of an adopted employee incentive programme to benefit from the six-month restriction period.

This provision could be significant for businesses seeking to retain senior executives and key employees through equity-based remuneration. It offers greater flexibility in structuring employee participation, although the reduced period is confined to shares covered by the approved programme. Other shares held by the same individuals do not automatically qualify.

The distinction is central to the new framework: eligibility is determined by the relevant share class or incentive arrangement, not simply by the identity or status of the shareholder.

Transaction-Specific Exemptions: When Does the Lock-Up Not Apply?

In addition to shortening the restriction period, Article 3(2) provides for exemptions in specified transaction scenarios. These include the entry of a strategic partner acquiring at least 10 per cent ownership, transfers involving tag-along and drag-along rights under the company's Articles of Association, capital restructuring through the creation of multiple share classes, and enforcement of a registered share pledge pursuant to a final court judgment.

The Decision also allows exemptions in special circumstances through a specific ministerial decision issued in coordination with the competent authority.

The strategic investor provision may be particularly useful to companies seeking external capital or a commercial partner during their initial years of operation. A company proposing to admit an investor who will acquire 15 per cent of its shares, for example, may be able to seek an exemption, provided the transaction meets the applicable conditions and receives the required approval.

However, the exemption should not be interpreted as permission for every existing shareholder to sell shares during the restriction period. Its application is confined to the shares involved in the qualifying transaction.

A similar distinction applies to tag-along and drag-along arrangements. The relevant rights must be reflected in the company's Articles of Association, and the transfer must involve one or more strategic partners as part of the same transaction. A contractual right contained only in a separate shareholders' agreement may not, on its own, establish eligibility under this exemption.

Companies should therefore examine their constitutional documents before entering into a transaction that depends on these provisions. The distinction between contractual transfer rights and the statutory conditions for an exemption could have a direct bearing on whether an early transfer can proceed.

Documentation and Approvals Required Before a Transfer

For companies seeking to rely on the Decision, establishing eligibility will require more than demonstrating that a particular transaction falls within one of the recognised categories. The supporting corporate records and documents must also reflect the proposed arrangement and satisfy the applicable requirements.

Depending on the route being pursued, companies should review their financial statements, shareholder register, Articles of Association, share-class records and relevant corporate approvals. In a proposed strategic investment, the transaction documents should clearly identify the shares to be transferred and establish the investor's resulting ownership percentage. Where different share classes are involved, the company's constitutional documents and shareholder records should support the classification and allocation of the relevant shares.

Existing contractual restrictions, shareholder consent provisions and other regulatory requirements also need to be considered. An exemption from the statutory restriction does not necessarily remove separate restrictions arising under the company's Articles of Association, shareholders' agreements or other applicable rules.

Article 4 requires the relevant decision on a reduction or exemption to be issued by the Ministry in coordination with the competent authority. Shareholders should not, therefore, assume that satisfying the commercial conditions alone gives them permission to complete an early transfer. The required approval remains an important part of the process.

Completion Notifications and Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Decision also imposes procedural obligations after approval has been granted. Under Article 4, the company must notify the Ministry and the competent authority within 10 working days of completing the procedures relating to the reduction or exemption. This includes updating the Commercial Register and the relevant particulars.

The Ministry may extend the period once, in coordination with the competent authority, where justified reasons are provided.

A further provision carries particular significance for transaction planning. Article 4(4) states that the Ministry's approval will be deemed null and void if the prescribed procedures are not completed.

This creates a risk even where a proposed transaction meets the substantive eligibility requirements. Failure to complete the necessary registration and notification formalities within the prescribed period could result in the loss of the approval.

Companies should consequently factor regulatory notifications, registration formalities and documentary requirements into their transaction timetable. Treating these steps as routine administrative work to be completed after the transfer could expose shareholders and investors to avoidable uncertainty.

Practical Implications for Shareholders and Investors

The 2026 framework marks an important development in the regulation of private joint-stock companies in the UAE. By allowing shorter restriction periods and exemptions for specified transactions, it provides additional scope for strategic investment, employee participation and corporate restructuring while retaining regulatory oversight.

The distinction between a reduced restriction period and a transaction-specific exemption remains particularly important. A six-month period available to a qualifying share class does not release other shareholders from the applicable restriction. Equally, the admission of a strategic investor does not create a general entitlement for unrelated shareholders to dispose of their holdings.

The Decision also repeals previous ministerial decisions dealing with the restriction period, including Ministerial Resolution No. 50 of 2025. Companies considering early share transfers should therefore assess their position under the current framework rather than rely on earlier approvals or assumptions about the applicable period.

Conclusion

Ministerial Decision No. 83 of 2026 gives UAE private joint-stock companies additional scope to facilitate early share transfers, attract strategic investors and undertake corporate restructuring. Its provisions offer practical alternatives to the general restriction period, particularly where companies have established appropriate financial reporting arrangements or are pursuing qualifying investment and employee incentive structures.

However, the exceptions are neither automatic nor available to every shareholder. Eligibility must be assessed against the particular shares involved, the nature of the transaction and the applicable approval and registration requirements.

For companies and investors considering an early transfer, the key question is not simply whether six or seven months have passed since registration. They must also establish that the proposed transaction meets the statutory conditions and can be properly approved, documented and registered.

The effectiveness of the new framework will ultimately depend on how carefully companies approach these transfers. Financial disclosure, sound corporate governance and timely regulatory compliance will remain central to making use of the additional flexibility.

Saudi Arabia’s new Commercial Transactions Law allows individuals aged 15 and above to engage in trade, provided they obtain authorisation from a guardian, custodian or the court, Commerce Minister Dr Majid Al-Qasabi has said.

Approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday, the law establishes a new regulatory framework for commercial activities in the Kingdom. It will come into force 180 days after its publication in the official gazette.

Al-Qasabi said the legislation regulates key aspects of commercial contracts, including sales, supply agreements, brokerage and commercial agency. It complements the Civil Transactions Law and aims to improve the regulatory environment for commerce and investment.

The Ministry of Commerce said the law comprises 271 articles covering commercial activities, the legal status of merchants, the establishment of commercial businesses, merchants’ obligations, accounting records, contracts and commercial instruments, including bills of exchange, promissory notes and cheques.

The legislation replaces three existing laws: the Commercial Law, the Commercial Papers Law and the Commercial Books Law.

It also revises the definition of a merchant, clarifying which activities acquire commercial status through a single transaction and which require professional expertise to qualify as commercial activities.

The law introduces provisions to promote fair competition and prohibits practices that harm competitors. Parties affected by such conduct may seek court injunctions to prevent further harm and claim compensation.

Certain categories of merchants are exempt from the requirement to maintain accounting records. Other businesses may keep their records electronically or on paper in Arabic, while records in another language are also permitted under the law. These measures are intended to simplify business operations and reduce commercial disputes.

For the first time, provisions governing commercial sales, supply agreements, commercial agency and brokerage have been consolidated into a single legislative framework. The ministry said this would help protect the rights of parties to commercial transactions, safeguard small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and support their growth through commercial contracts and agency arrangements.

Twenty-one US states and the District of Columbia sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday over its rollback of corporate ownership reporting requirements introduced under a 2021 law aimed at combating illicit finance.

The administration finalised a rule in August exempting US companies and individuals from reporting beneficial ownership information to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), reversing key requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act.

In their lawsuit, the coalition of mostly Democratic-led states asked a federal court to overturn the rule, which they said formed part of a broader effort by the administration to weaken anti-corruption measures.

“The executive branch cannot repeal a law by rulemaking. That fundamental principle resolves this case,” the lawsuit said. It was filed in the US District Court for the District of Oregon.

The complaint argued that the administration had effectively gutted the 2021 law by exempting more than 99.9% of the companies originally required to disclose information about their owners.

The defendants include US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Treasury Department and FinCEN. The heads of the Justice and Homeland Security departments were also named.

When the rule was announced in August, Bessent described it as a measure to eliminate a burdensome reporting requirement for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising national security.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the officials leading the legal challenge, said the administration had effectively overturned the law by exempting domestic companies and US owners of foreign companies from its requirements.

She said the changes would allow the actual owners of domestic and foreign shell companies to remain anonymous.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the senior Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, warned in August that the rollback could increase the risks of sanctions evasion, fraud, drug trafficking, sex trafficking and organised crime.

The Dubai Commercial Court has ordered two companies and their managers to pay Dh2 million in compensation to an authorised car agent for infringing its exclusive commercial agency rights. The defendants must also pay annual interest of 5% from the date the judgment becomes final until full settlement, in addition to court fees, expenses and legal costs.

The claimant, which has held the exclusive commercial agency for the car brand in the UAE since 2020 and operates a branch in Dubai, had sought Dh10 million in compensation for material and moral damages and lost profits. The lawsuit alleged that the two companies had promoted new vehicles bearing the same brand through social media, offering competitive prices, bank financing and free vehicle registration.

An expert committee appointed by the court examined the allegations and found no recorded import transactions in the names of the companies or their managers since January 2024. However, it confirmed the sale of a new 2025-model vehicle based on conversations, invoices and documents relating to possession, inspection and registration with the relevant authorities.

The investigation also uncovered earlier online advertisements promoting vehicles for sale in the UAE, including details of financing options, registration procedures and vehicle specifications. No comparable online activity was identified for the second company during the inspection. The committee further established that the vehicle had entered the local market through a separate company.

The court rejected objections relating to the electronic evidence, invoices and timing of the advertisements. It found that the confirmed sale, supported by promotional material, was sufficient to establish an infringement of the agent’s exclusive rights. The subsequent removal of the advertisements did not undermine their evidentiary value for the period in which they had been available online.

The court also reaffirmed that UAE legislation applies to free zones unless a specific exemption provides otherwise. Under the Commercial Agencies Law, products covered by a registered commercial agency cannot be imported or traded without authorisation from the designated agent or its consent.

In assessing the compensation, the court found that the infringement had caused substantial harm to the authorised agent, including lost business opportunities, a reduction in market share, reputational damage and expenses associated with restoring customer confidence. Although the claimant had demanded Dh10 million, the court considered Dh2 million appropriate in the circumstances.

The court further held that the managers of both companies had been directly involved in the violations and were personally liable for their actions. It ordered them, together with the companies, to pay the compensation jointly and severally. All other claims were dismissed.

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic PBC is building an unusually large and diverse legal team as it prepares for a potential stock market debut that could rank among the biggest initial public offerings (IPOs) in history, Bloomberg Law reported.

The company has recruited nearly 100 lawyers over the past 18 months as it positions itself for a possible valuation exceeding $2 trillion. While several leading law firms are involved in preparations for the anticipated IPO, many of Anthropic’s new legal hires are working on enterprise software sales and other commercial functions that support its rapid revenue growth.

The recruitment drive reflects a shift in how technology companies organise their legal operations. Rather than concentrating lawyers within a conventional legal department, Anthropic has placed many of them across functions including human resources, taxation, public policy, product research and engineering.

The approach highlights growing demand for lawyers who understand not only legislation and regulation but also commercial strategy, software licensing and product development. As artificial intelligence companies expand their services into new markets, legal expertise is becoming increasingly embedded in their day-to-day operations.

The change is also evident in the development of AI-focused legal businesses and technology providers such as Legora and Harvey. Commercial and product lawyers are increasingly working alongside business and technology teams, rather than operating exclusively within traditional legal departments.

Anthropic, whose Claude chatbot is also being developed for professional and business applications, has signalled an interest in expanding its presence in the legal sector.

Adam Braveman, a former Big Law litigator and McKinsey & Company partner who now leads legal intelligence provider Firm Prospects, said senior lawyers from leading law firms were increasingly taking non-traditional positions at AI companies.

He attributed part of the recruitment surge to legal engineering roles, which combine commercial strategy, market development and product design. Such positions can offer competitive remuneration and equity participation, providing an alternative to the conventional route towards partnership at a major law firm.

However, the roles also bring new challenges. Lawyers must help train users, improve the adoption of AI tools and ensure that products can be deployed effectively across different business environments.

For Anthropic and other advanced AI developers, software is the central product, and its commercial use depends on a complex framework of legal rights and contractual arrangements. That creates substantial demand for lawyers who can manage licensing requirements across jurisdictions and tailor agreements to different products and customers.

Mark Chandler, a veteran of Silicon Valley who spent two decades leading the legal function at Cisco Systems, said lawyers were increasingly involved in defining and differentiating technology products through contractual terms. Work traditionally associated with product management could now require substantial legal input, particularly where licensing conditions determine how a service is offered in different markets.

New Frontiers

Anthropic has declined to disclose the size and composition of its legal team. Its recruitment website, however, lists almost 20 legal vacancies and around 100 other openings in related areas, including trust and safety, security and public policy.

The expansion comes against the backdrop of warnings by chief executive and co-founder Dario Amodei that advances in agentic AI could eliminate a significant proportion of entry-level white-collar jobs, including legal positions, within five years. For now, Anthropic’s own recruitment activity suggests that the development and deployment of advanced AI systems continue to generate demand for specialist legal expertise.

The company is also preparing for a potential IPO at a time when the traditional role of the general counsel is evolving. The experience of Space Exploration Technologies Corp, better known as SpaceX, which raised $86 billion without a legal department leader in its executive suite, offers another example of how major technology businesses can organise their leadership structures differently.

Lawrence Cunningham, a corporate governance expert at the University of Delaware, said the general counsel’s traditional responsibilities were changing rapidly as AI became capable of performing an increasing range of legal tasks. Companies were having to respond to both developments simultaneously, with the pressures particularly pronounced in the AI sector.

The legal challenges extend beyond commercial contracts and regulatory compliance. Advanced AI systems can create unforeseen risks, including cybersecurity threats and questions about accountability for the actions of autonomous systems. These concerns may require legal teams to work more closely with researchers, engineers, safety specialists and other professionals.

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci, a law professor at Hofstra University, has argued that the deployment of advanced AI raises broader questions about corporate governance and the relationship between technology and society. He believes legal departments may need to bring together lawyers and experts from other disciplines to address issues that conventional legal structures were not designed to handle.

A Flatter Legal Structure

Despite the scale of the risks facing the company, Anthropic appears to favour a relatively flat organisational structure, with fewer layers of management than those typically found in large corporate legal departments.

In an employment research report published on October 16, the company described a workplace in which human employees operate alongside an expanding number of AI agents. The report also indicated that non-technical employees, including lawyers, could process more contracts and devote additional time to assessing risks and opportunities when using agentic AI tools such as Claude.

Five people familiar with Anthropic’s legal team, who requested anonymity to discuss its evolving structure, said dozens of associate general counsel operated without the conventional hierarchy of senior managers often found in large legal departments.

The team has also undergone leadership changes. Janel Thamkul, one of two deputy general counsel, left earlier this year. The other, Aparna Sridhar, joined the company in 2024 and was subsequently promoted to lead its litigation and regulatory team.

Anthropic’s international expansion has added another dimension to its legal recruitment. A Bloomberg Law analysis of public announcements, professional registrations, LinkedIn profiles and other publicly available information identified the need for specialised legal expertise as the company entered additional jurisdictions.

Khurram Naik, a recruiter specialising in intellectual property and a legal industry podcaster, said AI companies were also seeking litigators to manage a growing volume of disputes. Lawyers at the mid-level of their careers, including those working at major firms and specialist practices, were attracting interest despite such appointments being less common in traditional in-house legal recruitment.

Building an effective team requires leadership that combines legal knowledge with commercial judgement. Chandler said the most important qualities for a senior legal executive included the ability to recruit capable people, delegate responsibilities and make sound decisions when the appropriate course of action was uncertain.

Drawing Talent From Big Tech

Google, part of Alphabet Inc and closely linked to Anthropic through its technology and investment relationships, has been an important source of legal talent for the AI company, according to Bloomberg Law data.

Sridhar spent more than 12 years at Google, while Michelle Lee, the technology company's first deputy general counsel and head of patent strategy, became an adviser to Anthropic this year.

Elena Leichty, who joined Anthropic in 2023 after nearly six years at Google, succeeded Jeffrey Bleich as general counsel in August. She reports to Brian Israel, Anthropic’s chief legal officer, who joined the company from NASA in 2022.

Bleich has since moved to Anthropic’s policy team as a special international envoy. His responsibilities include pursuing opportunities linked to data centre development, reflecting the increasingly broad range of issues that legal and policy specialists may handle within an AI business.

The senior legal team’s limited public-company experience is not necessarily unusual for a fast-growing technology company preparing for a possible listing. The demands of an IPO are substantial, but the wider remit of an in-house legal leader extends beyond securities regulation and listing requirements.

Chandler said business understanding was essential for a senior legal executive, alongside the ability to help build products that customers value. As AI companies expand, that combination of legal judgement, commercial awareness and technological understanding is becoming increasingly important to the way corporate legal teams are structured.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered an event management company to pay a woman Dh15,000 in compensation for failing to fulfil a contract to organise a party, ruling that the services provided did not match what had been agreed.

The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of First Instance also ordered the company to pay annual interest of 3 per cent until the amount is settled in full, subject to a maximum equal to the compensation awarded.

The case arose after a man and a woman filed a lawsuit against the company, seeking compensation for losses allegedly caused by its failure to meet its contractual obligations. They had hired the firm to organise a party, but the services delivered fell short of the agreed requirements.

The woman sought Dh43,000, representing the value of work that she said had not been carried out as agreed. She also claimed Dh60,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, along with interest at 12 per cent.

In its assessment, the court examined the evidence, including the company’s advertisement and photographs showing the work actually completed. A comparison of the promotional material with the results presented in the case revealed significant differences between what had been promised and what had been delivered.

The court found that the evidence established the company’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations relating to the party.

It concluded that Dh15,000 was an adequate amount to compensate for the damages suffered and ordered the company to pay that sum, together with the specified interest.

Dubai’s Civil Court has ordered a woman to repay Dh700,000 to an Arab man after she sold him a counterfeit Patek Philippe watch, falsely presenting it as genuine.

The court also ordered her to pay legal interest at 5% a year from the date of the civil judgment until the full amount is repaid, along with court fees, costs and legal expenses.

The case began when the buyer filed a complaint accusing the woman of deceiving him into purchasing the fake luxury watch for Dh700,000.

In March 2025, the Dubai Misdemeanour Court fined the woman Dh10,000, ordered the confiscation of the counterfeit watch and directed her to return the Dh700,000 obtained from the buyer.

The woman challenged the ruling, but her appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. She subsequently appealed to the Court of Cassation, which also dismissed her challenge, making the criminal conviction final.

In its civil ruling, the court relied on the findings of the final criminal judgment, which established that the woman had obtained the buyer’s money through fraudulent means by misleading him about the authenticity of the watch.

The court found that the offence had directly caused the buyer financial loss, establishing the woman’s civil liability for the damage suffered and requiring her to repay the money.