Trio of firms in dispute over Lehman bankruptcy fees cut
Three US law firms are in a dispute over fees on the mammoth US bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers - which has already generated $300m (£200m) in legal costs - after their fees were reduced by marginal amounts, writes The Am Law Daily The fees dispute gained momentum earlier this week when three firms - Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, Jones Day and Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle - filed papers protesting the Lehman fee committee's reductions of their bills for the period of 1 June 2009 through the end of September 2009.
March 18, 2010 at 01:24 PM
4 minute read
Three US law firms are in a dispute over fees on the mammoth US bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers – which has already generated $300m (£200m) in legal costs – after their fees were reduced by marginal amounts, writes The Am Law Daily
The fees dispute gained momentum earlier this week when three firms – Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, Jones Day and Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle – filed papers protesting the Lehman fee committee's reductions of their bills for the period of 1 June 2009 through the end of September 2009.
The cuts are small in the context of the total billings to date in the Lehman matter. In the case of Curtis Mallet, for instance, the committee, headed by Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's bailout pay czar, slashed the firm's $4.8m (£3.2m) bill for that four-month period by about $178,000 (£118,000).
The firm protested, saying the cuts were too large, and Feinberg agreed to put about $29,000 (£19,000) back onto the firm's bill, court records show.
Other firms made similar protests. Jones Day, which billed the Lehman estate $9m (£6m) over the same four-month period, objected to Feinberg's move to cut its bill by roughly $412,000 (£274,000). Among Feinberg's findings: the firm spent nearly $8,000 (£5,300) on business-class or first-class flights when its lawyers were supposed to fly economy, and the firm exceeded the $20 (£13.30) per person limit on overtime meals by nearly $2,500 (£1,660) over those four months.
But Jones Day refused to give up that money without a fight. The firm sent Feinberg detailed papers arguing the initial $9m bill should be slashed only by about $174,000 (£116,000), court records show. Feinberg again compromised, settling last week on a reduction of $293,000 (£183,000).
However, Jones Day filed papers on Tuesday (16 March) in which it labelled Feinberg's reasoning "opaque". This came on the same day as a Milbank motion in which the firms reserved their right to argue later on for the higher fee amounts.
The main dispute – in terms of controversy and dollars – centres on how much it costs firms to prepare their bills in the case. Jones Day's recent application for fees and expenses, for instance, ran nearly 700 pages. The costs for preparing bills are sent to Lehman's estate.
Of the $412,000 Feinberg removed from Jones Day's bill, about $122,000 (£81,000) covered the firm's work in preparing the fee application, court records show.
The firms that filed papers this week are arguing that Feinberg's committee is ignoring precedent by imposing a strict cap on how much firms can charge for the preparation of their bills. The committee had ruled earlier that the costs firms claim for the preparation of their bills could amount to no more than 1% of their total bill, court records show. The firms claim that is draconian, since judges typically set the cap at 2.5%-5% of a firm's total bill.
Feinberg has yet to respond to the papers filed this week, and the timetable for any resolution is unclear.
Despite the reduction, Lehman promises to be one of the most lucrative bankruptcy mandates in legal history with 15 firms having already billed the estate more than $300m. A bankruptcy filing in February showed that Weil Gotshal & Manges had billed $149.5m (£100m) in the 16 months since Lehman's 2008 collapse.
Lehman's bankruptcy hit the headlines again last week when a report by the court-appointed examiner criticised the bank's senior management and auditor Ernst & Young in connection with alleged accounting manipulation to flatter Lehman's finance strength. Attention has focused on Linklaters after it emerged that the firm provided an opinion letter under UK law, though there is no suggestion the firm acted unethically or was wrong in law.
The Am Law Daily is the website of The American Lawyer, Legal Week's US sister title.
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
© 2025 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 AllBig Law Heavyweights Wrestle in High-Stakes Sale of Venezuela’s Citgo
Cleary vs. White & Case: NYC Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Singapore's Drew & Napier Secures $3.5B Award in Civil Suit
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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