Dewey to propose settlement to ex-partners
Dealing with the aftermath hasnt been any more fun than watching the ship sink. New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf still has a long way to go before its finished winding down from its May 28 bankruptcy filing.
July 10, 2012 at 08:30 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Dealing with the aftermath hasn't been any more fun than watching the ship sink. New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf still has a long way to go before it's finished winding down from its May 28 bankruptcy filing.
The latest bit of drama comes from a report yesterday that Dewey will present some of its former partners with a settlement proposal on Wednesday. The firm has been trying to recover funds from its former attorneys who jumped ship prior to its official demise.
Albert Togut, Dewey's bankruptcy counsel, said in a court hearing yesterday that the firm will offer dollar figures for potential payments by former partners at a meeting tomorrow. It is not yet clear what partners would be asked to return money under the settlement and how much each partner would be asked to pony up.
Dewey may have claims against former partners to whom it promised massive salary guarantees and partners who are seen to have taken value from the firm when they brought their clients with them to other firms.
Despite the news, Ed Weisfelner, a lawyer for Dewey's creditors' committee, told Reuters that Togut was overselling the progress of settlement talks, and that none of the firm's creditor constituencies have approved a dollar figure for a settlement.
“There are a lot of hours between now and Wednesday and hopefully we'll reach some closure,” Weisfelner told Reuters. “I would have thought Dewey would seek approval, a thumbs-up, from its creditor constituencies.”
Dewey has been scrambling to scrape together money for weeks now.
In late June, Dewey's bankruptcy team announced that it would present its former partners, whose earnings are subject to clawbacks, with an outline for how to settle claims with more than 5,000 creditors anxious to recover their money.
As part of the intended plan, partners who agreed to the settlement would be released from any future claims by Dewey's estate and creditors, as well as from other partners. The intent of the latter clause was to promote participation from some of Dewey's former rainmakers, many of whom had lucrative compensation packages or were in prominent positions within the firm and could be in the crosshairs of angry partners who blame them for the firm's failure.
This provision was particularly noteworthy given that the firm's former IP litigation specialist Henry Bunsow leveled the first publicly filed lawsuit from a former partner at five former members of the firm's management team and a slew of people to be named later the week prior to the clawback announcement. In the suit, Bunsow claims they misrepresented Dewey's financial performance and stability in an effort to recruit partners at other firms. He also asserts that the defendants then used the capital brought in by the new talent to pay favored partners and not run the firm. In a particularly scathing section of the complaint, Bunsow says that the firm's management was “running a Ponzi scheme in order to enrich themselves and select partner of the Firm.”
Additionally, last week, the firm announced that it hopes to pay its 52 remaining workers up to $700,000 in bonuses in an effort to keep them happy and stick out however long it will take to finish dismantling what's left of the defunct firm.
Because Dewey cannot afford to lose any more people, it argued before the court that it should be allowed to pay out incentive and retention compensation to its few remaining workers, who comprise billing, collections, IT and HR professionals.
“The employees are integral to the efficient and expeditious wind down of the debtor's affairs,” the firm said last Tuesday in court papers. “Without the continued commitment of these employees, the debtor's ability to complete an orderly liquidation and to make a meaningful distribution to creditors would be severely compromised.”
For more on the proposed settlement, read Reuters.
And for more from InsideCounsel on Dewey, 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
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 2Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 3These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 4'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 5Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
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