Dewey retirees unhappy with proposed settlement
It seems as though no ones happy with Dewey & LeBoeuf these days: not creditors, not regulators and certainly not its former partners, who may be on the hook for the firms massive debts.
July 18, 2012 at 07:40 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It seems as though no one's happy with Dewey & LeBoeuf these days: not creditors, not regulators and certainly not its former partners, who may be on the hook for the firm's massive debts.
Last week, the firm proposed a settlement that would release former partners from claims by creditors, in exchange for payments of between $25,000 and $3 million. The defunct Dewey owes $315 million to creditors; the settlement, if accepted, would cover up to $103.6 million of that amount.
But some Dewey retirees aren't rushing to open their wallets, according to the Wall Street Journal. A group of 53 retirees has spoken out against the deal, arguing that the $3 million cap favors highly paid partners—some of whom made more than $6 million annually. Also controversial is the fact that the settlement would prevent lawsuits against former Dewey executives, who some partners blame for mismanaging the firm's finances.
The group's attorney, Annette Jarvis of Dorsey & Whitney, told WSJ that her clients are unanimously opposed to the proposed settlement. In a statement Tuesday, Jarvis called the plan “nothing more than a flagrant attempt by the grossly over-compensated partners who ran the firm into the ground to escape liability for their own conduct.”
Read more on the story at the Wall Street Journal.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the Dewey & LeBoeuf saga, see the following:
It seems as though no one's happy with
Last week, the firm proposed a settlement that would release former partners from claims by creditors, in exchange for payments of between $25,000 and $3 million. The defunct Dewey owes $315 million to creditors; the settlement, if accepted, would cover up to $103.6 million of that amount.
But some Dewey retirees aren't rushing to open their wallets, according to the Wall Street Journal. A group of 53 retirees has spoken out against the deal, arguing that the $3 million cap favors highly paid partners—some of whom made more than $6 million annually. Also controversial is the fact that the settlement would prevent lawsuits against former Dewey executives, who some partners blame for mismanaging the firm's finances.
The group's attorney, Annette Jarvis of
Read more on the story at the Wall Street Journal.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the
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
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