Suit Against DLA Piper Says Firm's Mistaken Email Revealed 'Double Dealing'
After client Ferrellgas Partners contacted the firm about the email, DLA said it conducted an internal investigation, the suit claims.
June 17, 2020 at 01:22 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
A propane supplier is suing DLA Piper for breaching fiduciary duties and "double-dealing," citing an emailed invoice that the law firm mistakenly sent to the company last year revealing a conflict.
Ferrellgas and parent company Ferrellgas Partners, represented by Squire Patton Boggs, filed suit against DLA on Tuesday, alleging the mistaken email showed the law firm represented adverse interests engaged in a hostile bid to take over the company.
The complaint, filed in Kansas state court, alleges that after Ferrellgas received the mistakenly sent invoice and contacted the firm about it, DLA said it conducted an internal investigation. The firm did not deny that it represented an adverse client, only that it did not disclose Ferrellgas' confidential information, the suit claims.
Ferrellgas originally hired DLA Piper and global restructuring co-head Thomas Califano in July 2018 to advise in the restructuring of its subsidiary Bridger Logistics, a transportation firm the company acquired for $822 million in 2015, according to the complaint. As counsel, Califano and his DLA team had access to Ferrellgas' data room, debt documentation and knowledge of the company's restructuring strategy, according to the complaint.
DLA's active involvement in the restructuring effectively ended in November 2018, although neither party terminated the representation and Ferrellgas' restructuring efforts continued, the complaint says.
The following year, between July 2019 and November 2019, Ferrellgas' employee stock ownership plan trustee, GreatBanc Trust Co., engaged in a hostile takeover of Ferrellgas demanding that the company replace its board of directors, the complaint alleges. The takeover was ultimately quashed in Kansas federal court.
In November, DLA mistakenly sent Ferrellgas' general counsel an invoice for legal services, which laid out a $14,000 bill to an unknown client for research on Ferrellgas amid the takeover bid in October and signed by Califano, according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges that the invoice laid out specific tasks that made it clear that DLA and Califano were working for adverse interests.
Over the next few months, Ferrellgas reached out to Califano to find out who the invoice was meant for and whether DLA used confidential information gleaned from its representation of Ferrell during the Bridger restructuring, according to the complaint. DLA did not deny that it represented an adverse client, only that it did not disclose confidential information, the suit said.
Ferrellgas demanded that DLA return its client file. On June 5, DLA's assistant general returned the file in an email, adding that an internal investigation found no evidence that the file was accessed in connection to work with another client, the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs claim that DLA still maintains a copy of the file.
The plaintiffs and their Squire Patton counsel are seeking a preliminary injunction to "prevent any ongoing and future misuse of Ferrellgas' confidential information as well as permanent injunctive relief for DLA's alleged breach of contract and fiduciary duty."
"DLA's breach of its fiduciary duties is obvious. DLA put itself on both sides of Ferrellgas' restructuring efforts," the complaint alleges, having received highly confidential information from Ferrellgas and advising on its restructuring strategy and then accepting the representation of an undisclosed entity with an adverse interest in Ferrellgas' restructuring.
The suit said it seeks to hold DLA "responsible for the violation of fiduciary and contractual obligations to its client Ferrellgas and its improper conduct in advising one or more clients in matters directly adverse to Ferrellgas."
Attorneys for the plaintiff declined to comment on the case. A DLA spokesperson and Califano did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250