Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al.
S.D. New York (Bankruptcy) · Apr 18, 2026
NY / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritybankruptcy
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | AI-generated, non-existent/incorrect Westlaw citation for Three Arrows Capital appearing in the Motion; corrected in Schedule A. Outcome: Firm apologised. Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that its April 9, 2026 Motion contained AI-generated inaccuracies including fabricated and misquoted case citations. The firm apologized, identified and corrected the errors in Schedule A, undertook remedial measures, and filed corrected papers. The issue was brought to the firm's attention by opposing counsel (Boies Schiller Flexner).
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Firm apologised; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Even BigLaw must prove partner-level review; log every AI-assisted cite and require supervisor sign-off before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | AI-generated, non-existent/incorrect Westlaw citation for Three Arrows Capital appearing in the Motion; corrected in Schedule A. Outcome: Firm apologised. Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that its April 9, 2026 Motion contained AI-generated inaccuracies including fabricated and misquoted case citations. The firm apologized, identified and corrected the errors in Schedule A, undertook remedial measures, and filed corrected papers. The issue was brought to the firm's attention by opposing counsel (Boies Schiller Flexner).
Operational lesson
Even BigLaw must prove partner-level review; log every AI-assisted cite and require supervisor sign-off before filing.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateApr 18, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeFirm apologised
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Firm apologised
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | AI-generated, non-existent/incorrect Westlaw citation for Three Arrows Capital appearing in the Motion; corrected in Schedule A.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Garbled/doubled citation for Soundview Elite (mixed volumes, pages, and years) in the Motion; corrected in Schedule A.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Inaccurate quotation/misstatement attributed to Soundview Elite in the Motion (garbled language and tense); corrected in Schedule A.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Clearly erroneous citation with impossible year/number formatting for Three Arrows/related filings (e.g., year '20234'); corrected in Schedule A.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | AI-generated, non-existent/incorrect Westlaw citation for Three Arrows Capital appearing in the Motion; corrected in Schedule A. Outcome: Firm apologised. Sullivan & Cromwell acknowledged that its April 9, 2026 Motion contained AI-generated inaccuracies including fabricated and misquoted case citations. The firm apologized, identified and corrected the errors in Schedule A, undertook remedial measures, and filed corrected papers. The issue was brought to the firm's attention by opposing counsel (Boies Schiller Flexner).
- Why does In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Even BigLaw must prove partner-level review; log every AI-assisted cite and require supervisor sign-off before filing.
- What does the public record establish about In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al.?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this In re Prince Global Holdings Limited, et al. summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.