Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Expert Insights: Environmental Risk in Times of Regulatory Change & Litigation Pressure
Environmental risks are becoming a central concern for organizations as regulations tighten, public expectations rise, and litigation related to environmental claims grows more common. Companies today must navigate a complex landscape where regulators, investors, and advocacy groups are paying closer attention to how environmental impacts are managed and reported. Recently, J.S. Held published the article, Environmental Claims and Disputes: Navigating Regulatory Change and Litigation Pressure, led by environmental risk and compliance expert Kimberly Logue Ortega. In this article, experts from J.S. Held share practical insights for insurance professionals and legal advisors on identifying environmental risks across industries and preparing for environmental disputes before they escalate. It examines how this increased scrutiny is creating new legal and financial pressures, particularly when organizations fail to comply with evolving regulations or when environmental claims made in public disclosures are challenged. A key issue is the growing focus on corporate environmental statements and sustainability reporting. Businesses face potential consequences whether they overstate environmental achievements, commonly referred to as “greenwashing" or avoid discussing them altogether. Without strong governance systems, clear internal oversight, and transparent reporting processes, organizations may expose themselves to regulatory penalties, legal disputes, and reputational damage. The article emphasizes that effective environmental governance is no longer simply a compliance exercise but an essential part of responsible corporate management. Kimberly Logue Ortega specializes in environmental risk and compliance. With over fifteen years of experience in the areas of environmental and natural resources law, Ms. Logue provides consulting and expert services for industrial facilities and law firms throughout the country. She has extensive experience with assessing and managing potential and ongoing compliance obligations. She routinely supports clients and media on rulemaking and legislative efforts focused on environmental and natural resources issues. View her profile As environmental regulations and stakeholder expectations continue to evolve, organizations that proactively strengthen their compliance frameworks and reporting practices will be better positioned to manage risk and build trust. The full report offers deeper insights into how companies can navigate regulatory change, reduce exposure to environmental claims, and develop stronger governance strategies in an increasingly complex landscape. To explore the topic further, simply connect with Kimberly through her icon below.
Global Honors Highlight J.S. Held’s Unmatched Technical and Advisory Expertise
J.S. Held proudly celebrates the numerous industry and expert recognitions earned throughout 2025. As a global consulting firm, J.S. Held continues to be acknowledged for its deep financial, technical, and scientific expertise, with leading outlets highlighting the firm’s capabilities across investigations, risk advisory, forensics, turnaround and restructuring, business intelligence, and litigation support. The firm’s curated team of entrepreneurs — each with an unrivaled understanding of both tangible and intangible assets — reflects a collective strength that is recognized worldwide. Beyond organizational achievements, J.S. Held’s experts received individual distinctions that further demonstrate their standing as leaders within their respective fields. Industry publications and ranking bodies honoured these specialists for excellence in arbitration, construction and engineering, environmental consulting, forensic accounting, investigations, litigation support, intellectual property, specialty finance, and a wide range of other highly specialized domains. Together, these recognitions underscore J.S. Held’s commitment to delivering trusted insight and unparalleled expertise as clients navigate increasingly complex challenges. In a rapidly evolving business landscape, the firm remains dedicated to providing informed, innovative, and practical solutions that enable organizations to move forward with confidence. Click on the link below to learn more about our recognition and respective areas of expertise: Expert recognition by notable organizations serves as a further testament to J.S. Held's agile, collaborative, creative, and client-centric team, reflecting the trusted advisor role the firm has earned over the last 50 years. For any media inquiries, contact: Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
Forensic Meteorology in Insurance: Bridging Weather Science, Claims, and Liability
When severe weather strikes, the insurance industry is not only contending with damage and loss, but also with the question: Did this storm event actually occur, and did it trigger the risk covered under policy terms? J.S. Held's forensic meteorologist Daniel Schreiber authored an article explaining how Certified Consulting Meteorologists substantiate (or refute) storm-event claims by reconstructing what the weather actually did at a loss location. In his article “Forensic Meteorology in Insurance: How Do Certified Consulting Meteorologists Help with Storm Damage Claims & Disputes?” Schreiber illustrates how the overlap of a valid insurance policy, a damaging event, and a verified storm forms the core of many disputed claims. Dan Schreiber is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist with over ten years of experience in military, aviation, and severe weather operations. Mr. Schreiber has provided consulting and expert services for both plaintiff and defense law firms and insurance adjusters, appraisers, umpires, and policyholders throughout North America. He has been consulted and/or retained as an expert in over 850 matters and has testified in both depositions and during trials in state and federal courts. View his profile here Why This Matters In an era of escalating extreme weather events and heightened exposure for insurers, the science of forensic meteorology — the application of certified weather expertise to claims investigation and litigation — is becoming indispensable. Professional meteorology, as it relates to insurance claims handling and the litigation process, is becoming increasingly recognized, and the employment of meteorologists within the insurance industry is growing. Schedule an interview with Daniel Schreiber to learn more about how forensic meteorologists can help with insurance claims and disputes by clicking on his icon below.
As sustainability moves from niche topic to boardroom central, companies face an increasingly complex global environment of regulatory divergence, disclosure demands and reputational risk. A recent article by J.S. Held's John Peiserich examines how multinational firms can respond effectively to the “crosscurrents” of ESG compliance, litigation exposure and evolving definitions of corporate responsibility. John Peiserich specializes in environmental risk and compliance. With over 30 years of experience, John provides consulting and expert services for heavy industry and law firms throughout the country with a focus on Oil & Gas, Energy, and Public Utilities, including serving as an expert witness in arbitration proceedings and in state and federal courts. View his profile here Key Insights: Sustainability now touches every major business function — environmental, social, and governance — and must be embedded in strategy rather than treated as an add-on. Regulatory landscapes are diverging: while the U.S. federal approach remains fragmented, individual states like California are moving ahead with mandatory climate and emissions-related corporate disclosures. In contrast, the European Union’s Green Deal and related frameworks promote a more unified regulatory model, creating operational tension for multinational corporations. Litigation and disclosure risk are increasing, with “greenwashing” (overstating sustainability achievements) and “greenhushing” (avoiding or under-reporting ESG performance) emerging as major board-level concerns. Effective risk management now requires scalable data systems, transparent communication, strong governance, and agility to adapt across multiple regulatory regimes. Why this matters: The widening divide between jurisdictions — and intensifying scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims — means ESG compliance can no longer be treated as a checkbox exercise. Organizations that fail to anticipate regulatory expectations or align ESG strategy with business goals risk legal exposure, reputational harm, and missed opportunities for value creation. Strategic Insights for Corporate Leadership on Sustainability Boards and executives must adjust their mindset, seeing sustainability not as a burden but as a catalyst for growth and differentiation. Proactive investment in research, development, and stakeholder engagement will help organizations seize new opportunities and maintain credibility in a fast-changing world. Documentation and transparency are vital defenses against legal challenges, while ongoing monitoring of policy and market trends ensures adaptability. Ultimately, the most successful companies will treat sustainability as an essential tenet of strategy—aligning profit, purpose, and governance to secure their position in the global marketplace. Navigating the crosscurrents of sustainability requires courage, judgment, and a commitment to continuous learning. By embracing these principles, corporations can build a future that is not only profitable but also just, resilient, and worthy of the trust placed in them by shareholders and society alike. Looking to know more or connect with John Peiserich about this important topic? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
#Expert Perspective: When AI Follows the Rules but Misses the Point
When a team of researchers asked an artificial intelligence system to design a railway network that minimized the risk of train collisions, the AI delivered a surprising solution: Halt all trains entirely. No motion, no crashes. A perfect safety record, technically speaking, but also a total failure of purpose. The system did exactly what it was told, not what was meant. This anecdote, while amusing on the surface, encapsulates a deeper issue confronting corporations, regulators, and courts: What happens when AI faithfully executes an objective but completely misjudges the broader context? In corporate finance and governance, where intentions, responsibilities, and human judgment underpin virtually every action, AI introduces a new kind of agency problem, one not grounded in selfishness, greed, or negligence, but in misalignment. From Human Intent to Machine Misalignment Traditionally, agency problems arise when an agent (say, a CEO or investment manager) pursues goals that deviate from those of the principal (like shareholders or clients). The law provides remedies: fiduciary duties, compensation incentives, oversight mechanisms, disclosure rules. These tools presume that the agent has motives—whether noble or self-serving—that can be influenced, deterred, or punished. But AI systems, especially those that make decisions autonomously, have no inherent intent, no self-interest in the traditional sense, and no capacity to feel gratification or remorse. They are designed to optimize, and they do, often with breathtaking speed, precision, and, occasionally, unintended consequences. This new configuration, where AI acting on behalf of a principal (still human!), gives rise to a contemporary agency dilemma. Known as the alignment problem, it describes situations in which AI follows its assigned objective to the letter but fails to appreciate the principal’s actual intent or broader values. The AI doesn’t resist instructions; it obeys them too well. It doesn’t “cheat,” but sometimes it wins in ways we wish it wouldn’t. When Obedience Becomes a Liability In corporate settings, such problems are more than philosophical. Imagine a firm deploying AI to execute stock buybacks based on a mix of market data, price signals, and sentiment analysis. The AI might identify ideal moments to repurchase shares, saving the company money and boosting share value. But in the process, it may mimic patterns that look indistinguishable from insider trading. Not because anyone programmed it to cheat, but because it found that those actions maximized returns under the constraints it was given. The firm may find itself facing regulatory scrutiny, public backlash, or unintended market disruption, again not because of any individual’s intent, but because the system exploited gaps in its design. This is particularly troubling in areas of law where intent is foundational. In securities regulation, fraud, market manipulation, and other violations typically require a showing of mental state: scienter, mens rea, or at least recklessness. Take spoofing, where an agent places bids or offers with the intent to cancel them to manipulate market prices or to create an illusion of liquidity. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, this is a crime if done with intent to deceive. But AI, especially those using reinforcement learning (RL), can arrive at similar strategies independently. In simulation studies, RL agents have learned that placing and quickly canceling orders can move prices in a favorable direction. They weren’t instructed to deceive; they simply learned that it worked. The Challenge of AI Accountability What makes this even more vexing is the opacity of modern AI systems. Many of them, especially deep learning models, operate as black boxes. Their decisions are statistically derived from vast quantities of data and millions of parameters, but they lack interpretable logic. When an AI system recommends laying off staff, reallocating capital, or delaying payments to suppliers, it may be impossible to trace precisely how it arrived at that recommendation, or whether it considered all factors. Traditional accountability tools—audits, testimony, discovery—are ill-suited to black box decision-making. In corporate governance, where transparency and justification are central to legitimacy, this raises the stakes. Executives, boards, and regulators are accustomed to probing not just what decision was made, but also why. Did the compensation plan reward long-term growth or short-term accounting games? Did the investment reflect prudent risk management or reckless speculation? These inquiries depend on narrative, evidence, and ultimately the ability to assign or deny responsibility. AI short-circuits that process by operating without human-like deliberation. The challenge isn’t just about finding someone to blame. It’s about whether we can design systems that embed accountability before things go wrong. One emerging approach is to shift from intent-based to outcome-based liability. If an AI system causes harm that could arise with certain probability, even without malicious design, the firm or developer might still be held responsible. This mirrors concepts from product liability law, where strict liability can attach regardless of intent if a product is unreasonably dangerous. In the AI context, such a framework would encourage companies to stress-test their models, simulate edge cases, and incorporate safety buffers, not unlike how banks test their balance sheets under hypothetical economic shocks. There is also a growing consensus that we need mandatory interpretability standards for certain high-stakes AI systems, including those used in corporate finance. Developers should be required to document reward functions, decision constraints, and training environments. These document trails would not only assist regulators and courts in assigning responsibility after the fact, but also enable internal compliance and risk teams to anticipate potential failures. Moreover, behavioral “stress tests” that are analogous to those used in financial regulation could be used to simulate how AI systems behave under varied scenarios, including those involving regulatory ambiguity or data anomalies. Smarter Systems Need Smarter Oversight Still, technical fixes alone will not suffice. Corporate governance must evolve toward hybrid decision-making models that blend AI’s analytical power with human judgment and ethical oversight. AI can flag risks, detect anomalies, and optimize processes, but it cannot weigh tradeoffs involving reputation, fairness, or long-term strategy. In moments of crisis or ambiguity, human intervention remains indispensable. For example, an AI agent might recommend renegotiating thousands of contracts to reduce costs during a recession. But only humans can assess whether such actions would erode long-term supplier relationships, trigger litigation, or harm the company’s brand. There’s also a need for clearer regulatory definitions to reduce ambiguity in how AI-driven behaviors are assessed. For example, what precisely constitutes spoofing when the actor is an algorithm with no subjective intent? How do we distinguish aggressive but legal arbitrage from manipulative behavior? If multiple AI systems, trained on similar data, converge on strategies that resemble collusion without ever “agreeing” or “coordination,” do antitrust laws apply? Policymakers face a delicate balance: Overly rigid rules may stifle innovation, while lax standards may open the door to abuse. One promising direction is to standardize governance practices across jurisdictions and sectors, especially where AI deployment crosses borders. A global AI system could affect markets in dozens of countries simultaneously. Without coordination, firms will gravitate toward jurisdictions with the least oversight, creating a regulatory race to the bottom. Several international efforts are already underway to address this. The 2025 International Scientific Report on the Safety of Advanced AI called for harmonized rules around interpretability, accountability, and human oversight in critical applications. While much work remains, such frameworks represent an important step toward embedding legal responsibility into the design and deployment of AI systems. The future of corporate governance will depend not just on aligning incentives, but also on aligning machines with human values. That means redesigning contracts, liability frameworks, and oversight mechanisms to reflect this new reality. And above all, it means accepting that doing exactly what we say is not always the same as doing what we mean Looking to know more or connect with Wei Jiang, Goizueta Business School’s vice dean for faculty and research and Charles Howard Candler Professor of Finance. Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview or time to talk today.
Unlocking Liquidity Through Fine Art Appraisal and Lending
As financial markets shift, fine art collectors and investors are discovering new ways to unlock liquidity without parting with prized works. Art-backed loans, supported by professional appraisal, allow owners to access capital while maintaining ownership and display rights. This article explores how lenders and borrowers alike can benefit from these arrangements—when supported by rigorous appraisal standards and careful risk management. What’s covered: • The role of USPAP-compliant appraisal in fine art lending • How fair market value differs from insurance replacement value • Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios and best practices in structuring art-backed loans • Key borrower responsibilities: insurance, storage, and title maintenance • Risk considerations for lenders, including authenticity, liquidity, and due diligence Connect with the Experts Amanda McConaha Senior Fine Art Appraiser Expert in Post-War, Contemporary, and Emerging Fine Art valuations, specializing in collateral loans and insurance appraisals. amanda.mcconaha@jsheld.com Michael Alexander Senior Vice President, Economic Damages & Valuations Brings deep expertise in valuation methodologies, forensic investigations, and financial analysis. michael.alexander@jsheld.com Dalton Campbell Consultant, Economic Damages & Valuations Provides financial and economic analysis with a focus on valuation, estate law, and all stages of pre-litigation and litigation support. dalton.campbell@jsheld.com For any media inquiries, contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com.
Intangible assets now make up more than 90% of S&P 500 market value — yet many organizations still lack a dedicated executive role to manage them strategically. This is where the Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) comes in. In this expert-backed piece, J.S. Held's Chief Intellectual Property Officer James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP, and his colleague David Ngo unpack the economic forces shaping this role, the skills CIPOs bring to the table, and why forward-thinking companies are making IP leadership a boardroom priority. What you’ll learn: • The economic forces driving the rise of CIPO leadership • How CIPOs bridge legal, technical, and commercial priorities to unlock value • The growing relevance of CIPOs in consulting, insurance, and AI-driven industries • Practical strategies for integrating IP leadership into portfolio and risk management • Why the next decade will define the CIPO’s role in corporate success With deep expertise in IP strategy, valuation, and litigation, Malackowski and Ngo offer a clear, compelling case for elevating IP leadership to the C-suite. Looking to connect with the experts? Click on their profiles to arrange an interview or gain deeper insights into intellectual property strategy, risk, and valuation. James E. Malackowski, CPA, CLP Chief Intellectual Property Officer, J.S. Held | Co-founder and Senior Managing Director, Ocean Tomo Global leader in intellectual property valuation, strategic advisory, and expert testimony. Recognized among IAM’s “World’s Leading IP Strategists” and a pioneer in IP exchange models. David Ngo Senior Analyst, Intellectual Property Disputes Financial Expert Testimony, Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held Specialist in quantifying economic damages in IP disputes and valuing intangible assets, with expertise in applying economic and financial analysis to complex litigation. For any other media inquiries, contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com.
J.S. Held Announces the First Global Consulting Company Chief Intellectual Property Officer
Global consulting firm J.S. Held proudly announces the appointment of intellectual property (IP) expert James E. Malackowski as the first Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) of a global consulting company. J.S. Held Chief Executive Officer Lee Spirer observes, “In today's knowledge-based economy, the role of CIPO serves an important strategic and operational role both internally and in support of clients.” Protecting J.S. Held Intellectual Property and Other Intangible Assets J.S. Held experts have developed methodologies, frameworks, proprietary tools, and research that support client work. The CIPO partners across the business to ensure that these intangible assets are identified, protected, and leveraged to benefit the business. “Having dedicated IP leadership will help the company move faster in developing and deploying new methodologies, while ensuring reasonable measures of protecting our innovations,” noted James E. Malackowski. Managing J.S. Held Intellectual Property and Other Intangible Assets J.S. Held maintains a robust portfolio of patents including a “System and Method for Financing an Insurance Transaction”, trademarks, data, trade secrets, and other proprietary technologies that support client work. “As CIPO, I intend to partner with company leadership and our professional experts across the globe to manage and monetize the many patent, trademark, data, and other proprietary assets that set J.S. Held apart among our competitors, benefitting clients and our investors,” added James E. Malackowski. Industry’s Most Comprehensive Global Intellectual Property Consulting Group Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held, is rooted in an expansive understanding of intellectual property (IP) value and risk, providing a foundation of Expertise for the Innovation Economy™. Built upon more than three decades of experience assessing IP in the most rigorous of venues - state, federal, and international courts, Ocean Tomo clients benefit from continuous feedback between litigation economic damage outcomes, transaction pricing, capital market valuations, debt financing terms, equity assessments, and deep technical insight. The team possesses the most comprehensive and market-tested understanding of IP value. Financial, market, and technical experts uniquely understand the contributory value of patented inventions, know-how, brands, and copyrights that permeate every business, viewing IP not simply as an isolated asset, but as an integral component of enterprise value. Multidimensional Intellectual Property-Informed Experts Benefit J.S. Held Clients Intellectual property expertise permeates the global organization. Beyond the expertise within J.S. Held’s dedicated IP practice Ocean Tomo, a part of J.S. Held, multidisciplinary experts across J.S. Held combine intellectual property expertise to core specializations, including: • Artificial Intelligence (AI) • Business Intelligence • Construction Advisory • Enterprise Risk Management • Fraud Investigations • Forensic Accounting • Insurance Claims Consulting • Restructuring, Turnaround, Receivership, and Bankruptcy Tangible and Intangible Asset Value Understanding The depth and breadth of J.S. Held’s work in the property and casualty insurance market and Ocean Tomo’s work across all forms of intellectual property and other intangible assets uniquely combine to create a strong foundation in risk assessment, data analysis, global awareness, regulatory compliance, technological adaptability, and risk mitigation. Collectively, these skills better equip J.S. Held experts to assess business risk across diverse geographies, geopolitical landscapes, regulatory frameworks, and technological advancements for the benefit of our clients. Learn more about the new J.S. Held Chief Intellectual Property Officer, James E. Malackowski: Looking to know more or connect with James E. Malackowski? Simply click on the expert's icon now to arrange an interview today. For any other media inquiries - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
Video Insights: What Investors Need to Know About Shifting Tariffs
Unprecedented uncertainty brought on by quickly evolving tariff policies is creating challenges and additional considerations for investors and other capital providers. In this video, J.S. Held experts Brian Gleason, John Peiserich, James E. Malackowski, and Tom Burns – experts in turnaround, supply chain, intellectual property, and political risk – pose twelve questions to private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies to explore amid the continued tariff uncertainty. Restructuring and operations expert Brian Gleason has managed or participated in more than 300 turnaround engagements over the past 29 years and applies the principles utilized in J.S. Held's work advising companies in crisis. In the video, Brian addresses three essential questions that investors should consider with their portfolio companies during this period of unprecedented tariff-policy-induced uncertainty: 1) How have tariffs impacted business forecasting and investor confidence? 2) What are the key actions portfolio company management teams should take during tariff-induced uncertainty? 3) What leadership strategies are recommended for navigating the economic stress caused or complicated by tariffs? Business intelligence expert Tom Burns has extensive experience leading intelligence collection assignments for financial institutions, law firms, and blue-chip multinationals around the world. Tom explores the additional pre-acquisition diligence essential amid tariff uncertainty in the video. He addresses three questions, including: 4) How have tariffs changed the due diligence process in acquisitions? 5) What is transshipment, and why is it a concern for investors and their portfolio companies? 6) What steps should investors take to manage tariff-related risks in acquisitions? Capital projects, environmental risk, and compliance expert John Peiserich has over 30 years of experience advising heavy industry and law firms throughout the country with a focus on Oil & Gas, Energy, and Public Utilities. In the video, John reflects upon: 7) Why is it important for investors to assess the owner-operator's understanding of supply chain risks? 8) How have tariffs introduced new challenges for large-scale projects? 9) What is the potential impact of supply chain and tariff-related delays on investment outcomes? James E. Malackowski has a unique perspective on intellectual property litigation risk, strategic management, and monetization, which benefits from his prior work at a leading private equity firm. In the video, he advises investors and their portfolio companies to consider: 10) How do tariffs influence decisions around manufacturing relocation and intellectual property? 11) What IP-related risks should companies consider when relocating manufacturing operations? 12) What steps should investors take to ensure IP is properly managed in response to tariffs? The J.S. Held Tariffs and Trade Series is a collection of intelligence, insights, and action plans that inform strategic business decision-making and foster resilience in an increasingly volatile global market. To view more of our Tariffs and Trade Series expert analysis and commentary, visit: Looking to know more or connect with John Peiserich and James E. Malackowski? Simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today. If you are looking to connect with Brian Gleason or Tom Burns - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
Video Insights: Regulatory Impacts of Trump’s First 100 Days
Since taking office in January, President Trump’s administration has taken numerous actions that will impact the realm of environmental and sustainability regulations. Such rapid changes and inconsistencies are creating complications for companies accustomed to relying on clearly established legislative and regulatory road maps, but also potential opportunities that may materialize as a result. In this video, John Peiserich and Andrea Korney discuss how a surge of new legislation, resulting litigation, and factors such as changing tariffs and supply chains present both emerging risks and opportunities for stakeholders as they plan ahead past the new administration’s first 100 days. Looking to know more or connect with John Peiserich and Andrea Korney? Simply click on either expert's icon now to arrange an interview today.
