Conrad & Scherer Loses Case Over Loan; Plaintiff Plans to Ask Court to Appoint Receiver for the Firm
Former client-turned-lender Douglas Von Allmen will argue at a June 19 hearing that the firm won't be able to repay him and still remain in business.
June 15, 2018 at 02:55 PM
4 minute read
A plaintiff who alleged Conrad & Scherer reneged on a nearly $20 million debt won summary judgment Thursday on several claims against the Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based firm.
Former client-turned-lender Douglas Von Allmen will ask the court next week to appoint a receiver for Conrad & Scherer — a move that would remove financial control from the firm's hands. His lawyers are gearing to argue at a June 19 hearing that the firm won't be able to repay Von Allmen and still remain in business.
“We have a security interest in all the firm's account receivables,” plaintiffs counsel Jonathan Feldman said. “When we enforce that security interest, the firm is not going to have the availability to fund day-to-day operations.”
But before the litigants reach that argument, Broward Circuit Judge John J. Murphy III must determine damages against Conrad & Scherer, which claims Von Allmen has an unpaid debt of “$2 [million] to $3 million easily” in unpaid legal fees.
“We respect Judge Murphy very much, (but) we don't agree with the decision,” Conrad & Scherer's defense counsel Albert L. Frevola Jr. said. “We think that there are a lot of disputes as to what the actual facts are. … All the court found is that money is owed, but the court hasn't yet determined how much money is owed.”
The firm denied any liability, arguing Von Allmen and the firm's founder, prominent litigator William Scherer, made several oral modifications to the loan agreements when the two men shared a yearslong friendship. It now questions Von Allmen's motives, suggesting the former client is intent on striking a lethal blow to the company and its founder.
“It's apparent the Von Allmens and their lawyers have been taking the steps to destroy the firm, which makes no sense,” Frevola said. “If they're really owed the money, why would they want to destroy the firm?”
Von Allmen filed suit in 2017 alleging he loaned millions to the firm to fund litigation against convicted Ponzi schemer and former law firm chairman Scott Rothstein and to launch a national human rights practice. He asked the court to enter judgement for breach of promissory notes, breach of guaranty and to enforce a security agreement.
Von Allmen also claimed his loan funded human rights cases against multinational companies — a venture that has brought negative attention to the firm. Former Conrad & Scherer partner Terrence Collingsworth allegedly paid witnesses to change their testimony in a case accusing Alabama coal conglomerate Drummond Co. of conspiring to kill labor activists in Colombia.
If Von Allmen gets what he wants — including interest, attorney fees and court costs — the judgment could reach $25 million.
But Conrad & Scherer said it was well capitalized.
“'The firm's going to continue,” Frevola said. “There are assets that the firm has that exceeds any money owed to Mr. Von Allmen.”
A hearing on June 19 will determine next steps in the litigation.
“The judge granted all the relief we requested,” said plaintiffs counsel Feldman, a partner in Perlman Bajandas Yevoli & Albright's litigation practice. “Now that liability has been established, it's now just a mathematical calculation as to what is owed.”
Related stories:
Read the ruling:
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'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
3 minute readFlorida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
3 minute readFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readDisbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
3 minute readTrending 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