Welcome to America, Where You Can Buy a Company—But Not Run It
The Nippon Steel deal may be remembered as a turning point not just for industrial policy, but for how the U.S. is perceived by global investors. In a geopolitical moment defined by economic competition and fragmented alliances, the U.S. must choose: will it lead by example as an open, rules-based economy or slide into the very model of conditional capitalism it has long criticized in others?
The golden share may be strategic. But unless applied with extreme caution, it could prove to be short-sighted, self-defeating, and a poor trade for long-term investment leadership.
Meta's Absorption of Scale AI Talent: Strategic Leap or Antitrust Red Flag?
Meta Platforms' nearly $15 billion investment in Scale AI has garnered attention not only for its size, but for its structure: v Meta receives a 49% stake paired with the absorption of Scale AI's CEO Alexandr Wang and key research personnel.
Unlike other high-profile AI investments—such as Microsoft's stake in OpenAI or Amazon's in Anthropic— Scale AI's CEO and research personnel will be Meta employees despite Meta being a “minority shareholder” in Scale AI. This move further blurs the line between strategic partnership and acquisition. This blog explores the regulatory implications of Meta's approach, especially the role that executive and technical talent transfers may play in inviting legal scrutiny.
What Makes a Healthcare Startup Attractive to VCs and Private Equity?
So far in 2025, Pittsburgh-based healthcare startup Abridge has landed $250 million in funding, UK-based OrganOx closed $142 million, and Transcarent merged with Accolade, Inc.. Both Transcarent and Datavant appear to be open to additional acquisitions as they build toward IPO. Meanwhile, healthcare investors and several healthcare mega-companies have signaled that they "don't much of an appetite" for big deals this year according to Business Insider.
What does this mean? Let's figure this out!
Doomed to Fail: The Limits of Musk’s Case Against the WFA
X Corp. (formally “Twitter”) has sued the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and a number of member companies for orchestrating an illegal boycott of Twitter. X Corp. v. World Federation of Advertisers. The complaint asserts that it is “an antitrust action relating to a group boycott by competing advertisers of one of the most popular social media platforms in the United States.” The lawsuit premise of this (forcing advertisers to do business with a floundering company using antitrust law) is absurd, and should not survive summary judgment (initial motions).