Dewey’s leaders discuss downfall, next steps
The well-publicized collapse of New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf likely is coming to its closing chapters. The firm has now lost about 160 of its nearly 320 partners since January 2012 to other firms, with 81 of those partners having announced their departures in May. And for many...
May 14, 2012 at 07:49 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The well-publicized collapse of New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf likely is coming to its closing chapters. The firm has now lost about 160 of its nearly 320 partners since January 2012 to other firms, with 81 of those partners having announced their departures in May. And for many of the firm's associates and staff, this will be their last week of employment.
Yesterday, two members of Dewey's office of the chairman—the four-person leadership group—spoke to the Wall Street Journal about how the collapse has come about, and what they expect to happen next.
Dewey bankruptcy specialist Martin Bienenstock and legislative and public policy group head Charles Landgraf told the Journal that the plan is to liquidate the floundering firm without going through a formal bankruptcy process. If successful, this strategy could save money and provide a better chance of collecting unpaid bills from clients to pay off the more than $225 million that the firm owes to creditors.
Bienenstock, who soon will be taking five partners with him from the firm's bankruptcy group to Proskauer Rose, told the Journal that there were several factors that led to Dewey's demise:
“For one thing, the projection of revenues for last year fell $30 million short in December. So instead of earning $820 million we were closer to $790 million for 2011. So the net income was $250 million instead of $280 million.
“The second factor: The firm had a $100 million revolver from a group of lenders that was due to mature in April of 2012. In order to maximize our ability to roll the revolver over for 2012, the firm was advised not to bring the draw back up to $100 million. At the end of December, the revolver had been paid down to about $30 million, but we were advised to draw it back up only to $75 million, not all the way to $100 million.
“So between the $30 million revenue shortfall and the $25 million of unavailable credit, we were looking at a working capital contraction of $55 million. This is why people weren't paid.”
Landgraf, who also is expected to announce a move to another firm, told the Journal that in face of these troubles, Dewey's management team has worked hard to keep the firm afloat.
“As far as we can tell, we've left no stone unturned,” Landgraf said. “We tried to save the firm first, and then to provide a smooth transition.”
Bienenstock said the initial goal was to keep the firm afloat as a stand-alone entity, but when that looked unlikely, the goal shifted to transitioning large blocks of departments to other firms in an effort to save staff jobs and protect clients.
Despite this piece-by-piece dismantling of Dewey, Bienenstock adamantly told the Journal that the leadership team still has no plans to dissolve the firm.
“The intent is to optimize the outcome for all the constituencies,” he said. “Right now that's done without the use of the court. Whether it continues that way, we have to say we're not sure, but so far it's worked.”
“Right now, we have no plan to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy,” Bienenstock continued. “We've had a completely nonadversarial relationship with our lenders, and right now the cash we're using is the lender's collateral. They have blessed our use of cash collateral to pay expenses. Their expenses, too, are much less because we are not in the courts.”
Bienenstock and Landgraf added that after they leave Dewey, firm general counsel Janis Meyer and mergers & acquisitions department head Stephen Horvath will oversee any further unwinding.
Click here to read the whole interview with the Wall Street Journal.
For more from InsideCounsel on Dewey's downfall, read:
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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