How Partners' Reluctance to Merge Can Tank Firms: The Morning Minute
The news and analysis you need to start your day.
November 03, 2023 at 06:00 AM
4 minute read
Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.
|
WHAT WE'RE WATCHING
DEALBREAKERS - In law firms, as in life, you've gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. The prime time for a law firm to merge is when a combination is not necessary to its survival, according to consultants, but partner hold-outs refusing to consider a merger or specific merger partner can cause a firm to miss this ideal window of opportunity, resulting in long-term consequences or even in its eventual demise. As one industry insider told Law.com's Amanda O'Brien, "lower-performing partners are often fearful of a merger and what it would mean for them." They further suggested that there were signs this reluctance lurked behind Stroock & Stroock & Lavan recent decision to dissolve.
CAN I GET A WITNESS? - Mark your calendars: an amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is set to take effect Dec. 1, clarifying the standards courts rely on for the qualification of expert witnesses. One of the more controversial aspects of the amended rule accentuates the role courts must play as a judicial gatekeeper, hemming in expert testimony to "a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case." As Law.com's Alaina Lancaster writes in this week's Barometer newsletter, the amendment has created yet another dividing line between the plaintiffs and defense bars and has already begun to shape the course of lawsuits. To receive the Law.com Barometer directly to your inbox each week, click here.
ON THE RADAR - Forkable Delivery was hit with an employment lawsuit on Oct. 31 in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County for claims under the Private Attorneys General Act. The court action, brought by Justice for Workers, accuses the defendant of failing to provide meal and rest breaks, pay minimum wages and overtime wages and reimburse job-related expenses; the suit further contends that the defendant inaccurately categorized employees as independent contractors. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 23STCV26664, Castillo v. Forkable Delivery. Stay up on the latest state and federal litigation, as well as the latest corporate deals, with Law.com Radar.
|
EDITOR'S PICKS
|
|
|
This content has been archived.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 All
Baker McKenzie Accepts Defeat on Australian Integration With Firm's Asia Practice
2 minute read
Stars and Gripes: Merging Firms Need a ‘Superstar Culture’ for US Success
6 minute read
Law Firm Real Estate Strategy: Attorney Offices Are Out, Conference Rooms Are In
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
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
