Wei & Yang Law Firm, 11F./6, No. 328, Songjiang Road, Taipei (2026)

24/08/2026

How Tech Giants Finance AI Data Centers: The Legal Structure Behind Meta’s Off-Balance-Sheet SPV
AI infrastructure is burning through staggering sums. In 2026, Big Tech’s AI capital expenditure is set to exceed $400 billion, up about 70% from 2024. Financing this through traditional loans or bonds would badly erode credit ratings. So the giants turned to financial engineering, the most watched tool being off-balance-sheet financing via Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs). A general explainer, not advice.

HOW IT WORKS: Take Meta’s Hyperion data center. Rather than fund it directly, Meta forms a JV with asset manager Blue Owl, and through an SPV arranged by Morgan Stanley, issues roughly $27 billion in debt and $2.5 billion in equity. Anchor buyers include PIMCO and BlackRock, backed by insurers and pension funds. The SPV builds and holds the center; Meta leases the capacity back. Blue Owl holds about 80% of the JV, Meta about 20%.

THE KEY EFFECT, OFF-BALANCE-SHEET: Because Meta holds only about 20% and lacks control, the SPV’s enormous debt does not consolidate onto Meta’s statements. The balance sheet looks healthier, the credit rating is preserved (heavy borrowing normally triggers downgrades), and capital expenditure becomes smoother operating expense via the lease. Meta leverages the capital to build without borrowing itself.

A CRITICAL CLAUSE, THE RESIDUAL VALUE GUARANTEE: Meta promises to compensate investors if the center’s value falls below a set threshold. This helped persuade PIMCO and others to buy the debt, shifting depreciation risk back to Meta. So Meta moves the debt off its books via ownership, yet assumes real risk via the guarantee. Should this debt count as Meta’s?

THE LEGAL AND ACCOUNTING FLASHPOINTS. Control and consolidation: accounting turns on control, not just ownership. A 20% holder bearing the main risks and rewards may still be a variable interest entity requiring consolidation. Rating tension: agencies rating these bonds leaned heavily on the parent’s rating, raising whether the debt should count in that rating. Real risk transfer: moving debt off the books does not sever risk. If lease income cannot cover interest, the funds, pensions, and insurers behind them are exposed, and ordinary investors may lose too. Opacity: most SPV financials are undisclosed.

WHY IT MATTERS BEYOND SILICON VALLEY: SPVs are common in cross-border investment, project finance, and securitization. Off-balance-sheet does not mean risk-free. Whether structuring or buying these products, one must pierce the structure to locate the real risk.

Financial innovation or a bubble in the making, time will tell. But the ability to see through structures to where risk truly lands has never mattered more.
📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Po-Chun Lin | Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar (New York) | Former General Counsel
weiandyang.com

10/08/2026

$1.5 Billion, $3,000 Per Book: What the Anthropic AI Copyright Settlement Sets, and Leaves Unsettled.
On July 20, 2026, a San Francisco federal court approved Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement of a copyright class action. The maker of the AI model Claude was accused of illegally downloading millions of copyrighted books to train its AI. It is the largest known copyright recovery in U.S. history.
THE CORE FACTS: The court found Anthropic downloaded over 7 million books it “knew had been pirated” from shadow libraries like Library Genesis. The settlement covers roughly 500,000 books at about $3,000 each, shared among authors and publishers. Anthropic must also destroy the pirated files.

THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION: FAIR USE AND ILLEGAL ACQUISITION ARE SEPARATE QUESTIONS.
The most important and most misunderstood point. Judge Alsup ruled in June 2025 that Anthropic buying physical books and digitizing them to train AI was “fair use.” But the same judge found that illegally downloading millions of books from pirated sources was unlawful. That drove the settlement.
Training AI on lawfully acquired content may be fair use, but if the content was pirated, the purpose of “training AI” does not launder the illegal acquisition. How you obtain the material and whether your use is fair are two independent legal questions.

WHY THIS SETTLEMENT IS NOT PRECEDENT:
Alsup’s fair-use ruling was a single district-court decision. Because Anthropic settled rather than appealed, it will never become binding precedent. Other pending AI copyright suits (Google, Meta, OpenAI, Midjourney) remain free to reach different conclusions. The industry-wide question of whether training AI on copyrighted works is legal remains unresolved. Publishers including Hachette and Elsevier, plus some authors, rejected the settlement and are suing separately.

WHAT IT SETS AND DOESN’T: It sets a market price anchor of $3,000 per book for future AI licensing. It does NOT answer whether training AI on copyrighted content is lawful, since the settlement kept the case from becoming precedent. Critics note $3,000 is far below what a successful book earns.
LESSONS FOR COMPANIES: Source legality of training data is critical. However legitimate your AI’s purpose, training on pirated data may infringe. “For AI training” is no shield for illegal acquisition. Build due diligence on data provenance. U.S. copyright damages far exceed those elsewhere. Licensing is becoming the new normal, and obtaining rights upfront is the sounder strategy. “Fair use” standards differ by country and cannot be transplanted wholesale.

Innovation cannot be built on unlawful use of others’ IP. The legality of acquisition and the fairness of use are two gates that must each be passed.
📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Po-Chun Lin | Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar (New York) | Former General Counsel
weiandyang.com

19/07/2026

Lecture Recap: Talking About “Saying Love Through a Will” with a Full House in Kaohsiung🧑‍🏫

Yesterday at the Gangshan Cultural Center Branch of Kaohsiung Public Library, I gave a talk titled “Saying Love Through a Will: On Estate Planning and Inheritance.” Seeing a full room of attentive residents taking notes, with lively questions throughout the Q&A, is the most rewarding sight for any speaker.

A will is not cold legal text. It’s the gentlest final love letter we leave to those dearest to us.

In traditional thinking, “wills” and “inheritance” are often taboo subjects. Many feel it’s unlucky, premature, or unnecessary if their assets are modest. But that very avoidance often creates the deepest rifts among family members later. Planning early isn’t just about ensuring your wishes are honored. It’s a “safety net of love” that spares your family from future disputes.

THE MOST COMMON QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE:

Is a handwritten will valid? Yes, a holographic will is valid under Taiwan’s Civil Code, but it must fully meet formal requirements: written entirely by hand, dated, and personally signed. Miss any element and the entire will may be void.
Can I leave more to one child? Yes, but subject to “forced heirship”, the minimum share the law guarantees each statutory heir. A will cannot fully strip that away. If it does, the affected heir can claim a reduction.

If I transfer a house to one child while alive, does that avoid disputes? Not necessarily. Lifetime gifts may in some cases be treated as advancements and counted back into the estate. Lifetime arrangements still need comprehensive legal planning.

WHY THIS MATTERS FOR EVERY FAMILY:
In my practice, I’ve handled many inheritance disputes. What’s saddest is never the numbers. It’s watching once-close siblings turn into strangers after their parents pass, fighting over the estate. Much of this could have been avoided through a well-planned will made while the person was still alive.

The law can decide how assets are divided, but it cannot decide whether family bonds survive. A good will uses rational legal tools to protect that irrational, precious love. That’s why inheritance planning isn’t just for the wealthy. It’s homework for anyone who cares about their family.

Bringing law into the community, letting professional knowledge reach every family, is the core purpose behind our firm’s ongoing pro bono lectures. From campuses, communities, libraries, women’s support groups, disability care social workers, to yesterday’s residents in Gangshan, each talk does the same thing: making law a tool that protects people, not distant text.
📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Po-Chun Lin | Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar (New York) | Former General Counsel
weiandyang.com

08/07/2026

Wei & Yang Law Firm is honored to join “Super Citizen GO” on National Education Radio. Join us on 2026/07/11 as we break down the legal responsibilities behind sharing inappropriate videos online. Don’t miss it.

05/07/2026

🇺🇸 Happy 250th Birthday, America
On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed. Two hundred and fifty years later, the ideas it set forth, the rule of law, human dignity, and checks on power, remain foundational to modern legal systems.
As an attorney licensed in both Taiwan and the United States, I work between two legal traditions every day. It has taught me one thing: the value of a system lies not in how perfect it is, but in whether it can be continually corrected, practiced,

📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Po-Chun Lin | Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar (New York) | Former General Counsel
weiandyang.com

01/07/2026

Taiwan’s New Workplace Bullying Law Takes Effect Today. Five Key Points Every Employer Needs to Know.
As of July 1, 2026, the workplace bullying prevention chapter of Taiwan’s Occupational Safety and Health Act is officially in force. It’s the first time Taiwan has written “workplace bullying” into statute, and the moment the employer’s prevention duty shifts from moral persuasion to legal obligation.The law is live. Here are the five points that matter.
➡️1. WHAT COUNTS AS BULLYING. Article 22-1 requires three elements: abuse of position or power, exceeding the necessary and reasonable scope of business, and persistent improper conduct causing harm to physical or mental health. The critical element is “exceeding reasonable business scope.” The law explicitly protects management authority. Demanding performance, correcting errors, assigning challenging tasks are not bullying. The question is always whether conduct crosses the line of reasonable necessity.
➡️2. A SINGLE INCIDENT CAN QUALIFY. The traditional view required repeated, sustained behavior. The new law makes an exception: if circumstances are serious, even one occurrence can constitute bullying. Severe physical violence or extreme public humiliation counts even once. This breaks the mistaken belief that “yelling once doesn’t count.”
➡️3. THREE COMPLIANCE TIERS BY HEADCOUNT. Under 10: general prevention duties. 10+: must establish a dedicated complaint channel (email, hotline, messaging), publicly posted. Critical: it cannot be the company switchboard or shared customer service line. 30+: must adopt written prevention measures, complaint and disciplinary rules, and designate a responsible unit.
➡️4. FAILURE TO PREVENT: UP TO NT$4.5 MILLION. The most powerful deterrent. Previously, bullying prevention was administrative guidance without enforcement. Now, employers who fail to fulfill prevention duties face fines up to NT$4.5 million. The question is no longer “should we” but “did we.”
➡️5. DOCUMENTATION IS SELF-PROTECTION. When a dispute arises, employers prove they fulfilled their prevention duty through written records, not verbal explanations. Prevention measures, training sign-in records, complaint handling, every investigation step must be documented. These are the key evidence for exemption or mitigation.

THREE THINGS TO DO NOW: Audit existing management culture for gray-zone behavior. Build compliant complaint and investigation mechanisms by headcount tier. Train managers and employees on the new boundaries.
During my years as GC, I handled employee complaints, internal investigations, and labor disputes end to end. July 1 isn’t the finish line. It’s the starting point for real compliance.

📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Po-Chun Lin | Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar (New York) | Former General Counsel
weiandyang.com

16/05/2026

The Chairman-CEO Relationship Is the Ceiling of Your Corporate Governance🪩

Wei & Yang International Law Firm | Corporate Governance · Board Operations · Public Company Compliance

Rereading a Harvard Business Review piece on the board chairman’s evolving role brought me back to my years as General Counsel of a listed company. Almost every governance issue traced back to one question: where does the chairman’s authority end and the CEO’s begin?
Board committees have exploded. Sustainability, technology, innovation, risk,on top of audit, compensation, and nomination. Every new committee means more information requests, more reporting, more questions. Boards should be informed. But I’ve watched companies blow past the tipping point,executives spending more time on board materials than running the business.

That gray zone between oversight and interference is where I spent much of my time as GC.

The law covers the basics: fiduciary duty, adequate disclosure, informed decisions. But it doesn’t say when a board’s appetite for information becomes micromanagement. That’s a design problem solved with legal tools.
What works is structured collaboration. The chairman manages the board’s information flow. The CEO ensures demands don’t pull the team underwater. Not adversaries,counterweights. But it must be engineered: board charters, committee terms of reference, tiered disclosure protocols, informal channels.
Independent doesn’t mean isolated. Without effective chairman,CEO communication, you get misunderstandings, slower decisions, higher governance costs.
As GC drafting board minutes, designing committees, building disclosure processes,it all came down to balancing oversight with ex*****on. That balance doesn’t come from a template. It’s tailored to each company.
That’s what I do now from the outside, governance that works in practice, not just on a regulator’s checklist.

☀️Wei & Yang International Law Firm is led by Po-Chun Lin, dual-licensed in Taiwan and the U.S., former GC of a listed tech company. Practice areas: corporate governance, board advisory, public company compliance, cross-border M&A, antitrust, IP strategy, international disputes.

📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Po-Chun Lin | Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar | Former GC
Website: https://weiandyang.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/weiandyang

11/05/2026

When Court Transcripts Look Like Text Messages ,Taiwan’s Courtrooms Need a Tech Upgrade

Wei & Yang International Law Firm | Criminal Defense · Judicial Efficiency · Legal Technology · Digital Courts · Cross-Border Business Law

I was in court recently on a corruption case, and something happened that stuck with me,not because of the legal issues, but because of the process.

During examination, the prosecutor asked the court clerk to add question marks and exclamation points to the transcript. Not just one. After finishing a statement, the prosecutor specifically instructed: “Add three exclamation marks after that.”

Three exclamation marks.

The clerk typed each word manually, paused to insert punctuation, then resumed typing. The rhythm of the hearing — which should have been focused on establishing facts and testing evidence,kept getting interrupted by formatting requests. A significant chunk of courtroom time was spent on punctuation choices.
This isn’t about one prosecutor’s style. It’s about a bigger question: it’s 2026, and most courtrooms in Taiwan are still producing transcripts by having a clerk type every word in real time. The judge speaks, the clerk types. When the clerk can’t keep up, the judge stops and waits. When someone wants a word changed or punctuation adjusted, everything pauses again. Those micro-interruptions add up fast.
The technology exists. Taiwan’s Judicial Yuan has already deployed an AI speech recognition system in Citizen Judge courtrooms. It was trained on over 10 million court decisions and 1.8 million hearing transcripts. In lab conditions, accuracy hits 92%. The system can handle up to 19 simultaneous speakers and even works when two people talk at the same time.

But here’s the gap. Only about 28 courtrooms nationwide currently have this technology installed. The plan is to expand to 150 within three years. For the judges and clerks grinding through hearings every single day, that timeline feels like a lifetime.

For comparison, U.S. federal courts have long used real-time court reporting systems, and many have adopted AI-assisted speech-to-text. The UK is pushing standardized digital court recording. The direction is the same everywhere: free the clerk from mechanical transcription so they can focus on quality review and legal precision.

For lawyers who spend significant time in court, hearing efficiency isn’t just about saving time. It directly impacts litigation quality. When a carefully planned cross-examination rhythm gets broken by transcript pauses, when a witness’s response flow is chopped up by formatting requests, the coherence of your courtroom strategy suffers. That’s true for both prosecution and defense.

During my years as General Counsel of a publicly listed company, I led the digital transformation of our in-house legal operations. Coming back to the courtroom and seeing workflows that haven’t changed in over a decade is jarring. Taiwan has the technical capability. The rollout just needs to move faster.

Wei & Yang International Law Firm is a Taiwan-based firm led by Managing Attorney Po-Chun Lin, who holds dual bar licenses in Taiwan and the United States and previously served as General Counsel of a publicly listed technology company. The firm focuses on cross-border legal services, including criminal defense and white-collar crime, anti-corruption law, civil litigation strategy and court representation, cross-border commercial litigation, M&A and investment structuring, corporate governance and board advisory, IP strategy and licensing, U.S. antitrust and competition law compliance, U.S. bankruptcy and creditor protection, international commercial contract disputes, healthcare regulation and NHI administrative litigation, and cross-border family and estate matters.

📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Managing Attorney: Po-Chun Lin
Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar | Former General Counsel, publicly listed company
Website: https://weiandyang.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/weiandyang
Instagram: https://bit.ly/weiyang_ceo

06/05/2026

When “Simple” Isn’t Simple: A Case Study in Judicial Efficiency 🏛️🏛️

Wei & Yang International Law Firm | Civil Litigation · Judicial Procedure · Litigation Strategy · Cross-Border Business Law

Seven hearings. Over a year. A case in Taiwan’s Xindian Simple Division that was supposed to be ,by definition — straightforward.

After the seventh round of oral arguments, the court closed proceedings and scheduled a judgment date. My client and I adjusted our timelines accordingly. Then, before the judgment was handed down, we received a court notice: the judge had decided to reopen oral arguments.

Back to square one.

Taiwan’s Code of Civil Procedure, Article 427, establishes the simple proceeding for cases where the amount in dispute is NT$500,000 (roughly US$15,000) or less. The legislative intent is clear: reduce litigation costs for parties, resolve disputes faster, and ease the caseload burden on courts. The entire reason the simple proceeding exists is that it’s supposed to be quicker than the ordinary proceeding.

So what happens when it isn’t?

Every additional hearing means another day off work for the parties. Another round of transportation costs. Another cycle of waiting and uncertainty. If they’ve retained counsel, another appearance fee. Add all of that up over seven ,now eight. meaning hearings spanning more than a year, and the procedural costs alone may be approaching the value of the claim itself.

But it’s not just the cost. It’s the predictability problem. When a court closes arguments and sets a judgment date, everyone in the system, parties, lawyers, witnesses,plans around that date. Reopening arguments after that point doesn’t just add time. It breaks the reasonable expectation that the process is moving toward a conclusion. That erosion of procedural predictability is a governance issue, not just a scheduling inconvenience.

For context, consider how other jurisdictions handle small claims. U.S. Small Claims Courts typically resolve cases in one or two hearings. Some states don’t even allow attorney representation , the goal is maximum simplicity. Japan’s summary proceedings are designed to conclude in a single court date, with judgment delivered on the spot. The common thread is that “simple” isn’t just a label. It’s an institutional commitment to efficiency.

Taiwan’s judiciary faces real structural constraints ,heavy caseloads at the trial court level are well documented. But the solution isn’t to let simple proceedings stretch into ordinary-proceeding timelines by default. Concentrated trial principles, meaningful pretrial preparation, and better case triage ,routing genuinely complex disputes into ordinary proceedings early, and keeping simple cases simple , would go a long way.

Parties choose the simple proceeding because they trust the system to be faster. Not because they want to pay lower filing fees for an equally long fight.

During my years as General Counsel of a publicly listed company, I managed commercial litigation at every level,from district courts to the Supreme Court. Now in private practice, I handle everything from simple division cases to cross-border disputes. The problems at the simple division level may seem small, but they affect the largest number of people,parties with modest claims who deserve a process that works as advertised.

Wei & Yang International Law Firm is a Taiwan-based firm led by Managing Attorney Po-Chun Lin, who holds dual bar licenses in Taiwan and the United States and previously served as General Counsel of a publicly listed technology company. The firm handles civil litigation strategy and court representation, simple and ordinary proceedings, cross-border commercial litigation, M&A and investment structuring, corporate governance and board advisory, IP strategy and licensing, U.S. antitrust and competition law compliance, U.S. bankruptcy and creditor protection, international commercial contract disputes, healthcare regulation and NHI administrative litigation, and cross-border family and estate matters.

📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Managing Attorney: Po-Chun Lin
Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar | Former General Counsel, publicly listed company
Website: https://weiandyang.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/weiandyang
Instagram: https://bit.ly/weiyang_ceo

04/05/2026

DoorDash’s “Break It, Scale It, Settle It” Playbook.Where Are the Legal Lines in the Platform Economy?🚗

Wei & Yang International Law Firm | Platform Economy Law · Trademark Infringement · Deceptive Trade Practices · Tech Industry Compliance · Cross-Border Business Law

Ship first, ask for permission later. It’s the oldest playbook in Silicon Valley — and it’s also the most expensive one when the lawsuits catch up.🇺🇸

DoorDash’s early growth strategy included a move that infuriated the restaurant industry: listing restaurants on its app without their knowledge or consent. No contract, no conversation. Just scrape the menu off the internet and go live.

Diners loved it — more options. Restaurant owners found out the hard way. Customers would complain about cold food, wrong items, outdated menus, and prices that didn’t match what the restaurant actually charged. And here’s the kicker: those complaints didn’t land on DoorDash. They landed on the restaurant. Your brand, your reputation, someone else’s screwup.

In-N-Out sued DoorDash over this in 2015. The case settled quickly, and DoorDash stopped delivering from In-N-Out. But they kept doing it to everyone else.

Think about what that means legally. You’re using a restaurant’s name and logo without authorization,that’s trademark infringement. You’re presenting them as “partners” when no agreement exists,that’s deceptive trade practices. And customers are blaming the restaurant for service failures caused entirely by your platform,reputational harm with no recourse. Any one of those is a lawsuit. All three together is a pattern.

But DoorDash had done the math. Move fast, grab market share, deal with the legal fallout later. By the time cities started passing laws requiring written consent,California in 2021, Chicago with its own ordinance,DoorDash had already grown from 1,500 cities to 6,000. The land grab was over. As one industry entrepreneur put it: they did it, got escape velocity, and then pulled the ladder up on everyone else.

In late 2025, DoorDash agreed to pay $18 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the City of Chicago. The allegations went beyond unauthorized listings,the city accused DoorDash of misleading customers about fees, charging a deceptively named “Chicago fee,” and letting customers believe their tips went directly to drivers when they were actually subsidizing base pay.

This pattern break it, scale it, settle it isn’t new in tech. Uber ran a version of the same playbook in city after city around the world. But it raises a question that matters for any business operating in a fast-moving space: when regulation can’t keep up with innovation, there’s a gap. And in that gap, the people who get hurt are usually the ones who can’t afford lawyers.

If your business model only works in a legal gray zone, the risk isn’t whether someone will come after you. It’s when. And whether you’ll have $18 million sitting around to make it go away.

Wei & Yang International Law Firm is a Taiwan-based firm led by Managing Attorney Po-Chun Lin, who holds dual bar licenses in Taiwan and the United States and previously served as General Counsel of a publicly listed technology company. The firm focuses on cross-border legal services, including platform economy and tech industry legal compliance, trademark infringement and brand protection, deceptive trade practices and consumer protection law, cross-border commercial litigation, M&A and investment structuring, corporate governance and board advisory, IP strategy and licensing, U.S. antitrust and competition law compliance, U.S. bankruptcy and creditor protection, international commercial contract disputes, healthcare regulation and NHI administrative litigation, and cross-border family and estate matters.

This post is a legal analysis of publicly available information and does not constitute legal advice.
📙 Wei & Yang International Law Firm 📙
Managing Attorney: Po-Chun Lin
Taiwan Bar | U.S. Bar | Former General Counsel, publicly listed company
Website: https://weiandyang.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/weiandyang
Instagram: https://bit.ly/weiyang_ceo

Wei & Yang Law Firm

24/08/2026

10/08/2026

19/07/2026

08/07/2026

05/07/2026

01/07/2026

16/05/2026

11/05/2026

06/05/2026

04/05/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request