Perkins Coie, Bracewell Targeted in Malpractice Suit Over IP Licensing Deal
A company that developed technology for "spread trading" claims its lawyers at Perkins Coie and Bracewell led it into a contract that failed to protect its interests against Morgan Stanley.
May 07, 2018 at 03:38 PM
3 minute read
Perkins Coie and Bracewell are facing allegations in New York state court that they allowed an electronic securities trading platform developer, Electron Trading LLC, to sign onto an unfavorable technology licensing agreement with Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, costing Electron tens of millions of dollars.
Electron, represented by Rachel Fleishman and Jeffrey Gross of Reid Collins & Tsai, lodged a legal malpractice complaint against the two firms late last week, alleging that Perkins Coie and Bracewell repeatedly failed to advise the company properly in connection with the Morgan Stanley contract. Under the deal, Electron granted Morgan Stanley the rights to the intellectual property on a technology system for “spread trades,” a form of trading in which investors simultaneously buy and sell related securities to try to capture price differences between multiple financial instruments.
The malpractice suit alleged that before signing the licensing pact, Electron and Morgan Stanley agreed to terms that would have limited Electron's potential liability for any intellectual property claims made by third parties. Electron also alleged that it intended to retain its right to sue Morgan Stanley if the bank breached the licensing agreement, and that Morgan Stanley agreed to that term before the deal was finalized.
Despite those commitments, lawyers for Morgan Stanley later inserted terms into the licensing deal that effectively limited the bank's potential financial exposure if it breached the agreement.
“The license agreement was drafted with language that accomplished the opposite result: Electron's potential liability to indemnify Morgan Stanley against third party claims was unlimited while Morgan Stanley's liability to Electron for willfully breaching the license agreement was capped at the amount it had already paid Electron,” the suit said.
Electron alleges that as legal advisers on the licensing deal, Perkins Coie and Bracewell should have alerted the company that Morgan Stanley's lawyers inserted changes to the contract that were favorable to the bank. But, the suit said, the law firms “failed to fulfill their duties.”
Soon after the deal was finalized, Morgan Stanley allegedly breached the contract, but Electron's lawsuit against the bank failed to go anywhere. A New York trial court dismissed the case, holding that the agreement limited Electron's potential damages for that sort of claim, and an appeals court affirmed that decision. Electron said it was hampered in the Morgan Stanley suit as a result of the altered agreement.
“Electron was left negotiating against one of the most sophisticated financial entities in the world without receiving the basic and necessary legal advice that any reasonable and competent lawyer would have provided,” the malpractice suit said. Electron also alleged that, in light of the shoddy contract drafting, the two law firms caused the company damages that include lost royalties under the licensing pact and the costs of unsuccessfully litigating against Morgan Stanley.
In a statement, a Perkins Coie spokesman said, “We do not comment on pending litigation, but we will defend this matter vigorously.” A spokesman for Bracewell also said the firm does not comment on pending litigation.
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 AllAkin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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