Suit Against DLA Piper Claims Firm's Mistaken Email Revealed 'Double Dealing'
After client Ferrellgas Partners contacted the firm about the email, DLA said it conducted an internal investigation, the suit claims.
June 17, 2020 at 01:22 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
A propane supplier is suing DLA Piper for breaching fiduciary duties and "double-dealing," citing an emailed invoice that the law firm mistakenly sent to the company last year revealing a conflict.
Ferrellgas and parent company Ferrellgas Partners, represented by Squire Patton Boggs, filed suit against DLA on Tuesday, alleging the mistaken email showed the law firm represented adverse interests engaged in a hostile bid to take over the company.
The complaint, filed in Kansas state court, alleges that after Ferrellgas received the mistakenly sent invoice and contacted the firm about it, DLA said it conducted an internal investigation. The firm did not deny that it represented an adverse client, only that it did not disclose Ferrellgas' confidential information, the suit claims.
Ferrellgas originally hired DLA Piper and global restructuring co-head Thomas Califano in July 2018 to advise in the restructuring of its subsidiary Bridger Logistics, a transportation firm the company acquired for $822 million in 2015, according to the complaint. As counsel, Califano and his DLA team had access to Ferrellgas' data room, debt documentation and knowledge of the company's restructuring strategy, according to the complaint.
DLA's active involvement in the restructuring effectively ended in November 2018, although neither party terminated the representation and Ferrellgas' restructuring efforts continued, the complaint says.
The following year, between July 2019 and November 2019, Ferrellgas' employee stock ownership plan trustee, GreatBanc Trust Co., engaged in a hostile takeover of Ferrellgas demanding that the company replace its board of directors, the complaint alleges. The takeover was ultimately quashed in Kansas federal court.
In November, DLA mistakenly sent Ferrellgas' general counsel an invoice for legal services, which laid out a $14,000 bill to an unknown client for research on Ferrellgas amid the takeover bid in October and signed by Califano, according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges that the invoice laid out specific tasks that made it clear that DLA and Califano were working for adverse interests.
Over the next few months, Ferrellgas reached out to Califano to find out who the invoice was meant for and whether DLA used confidential information gleaned from its representation of Ferrell during the Bridger restructuring, according to the complaint. DLA did not deny that it represented an adverse client, only that it did not disclose confidential information, the suit said.
Ferrellgas demanded that DLA return its client file. On June 5, DLA's assistant general returned the file in an email, adding that an internal investigation found no evidence that the file was accessed in connection to work with another client, the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs claim that DLA still maintains a copy of the file.
The plaintiffs and their Squire Patton counsel are seeking a preliminary injunction to "prevent any ongoing and future misuse of Ferrellgas' confidential information as well as permanent injunctive relief for DLA's alleged breach of contract and fiduciary duty."
"DLA's breach of its fiduciary duties is obvious. DLA put itself on both sides of Ferrellgas' restructuring efforts," the complaint alleges, having received highly confidential information from Ferrellgas and advising on its restructuring strategy and then accepting the representation of an undisclosed entity with an adverse interest in Ferrellgas' restructuring.
The suit said it seeks to hold DLA "responsible for the violation of fiduciary and contractual obligations to its client Ferrellgas and its improper conduct in advising one or more clients in matters directly adverse to Ferrellgas."
Attorneys for the plaintiff declined to comment on the case. A DLA spokesperson and Califano did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
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 AllMoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
Amid the Tragedy of the L.A. Fires, a Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors
Litigators of the Week: Shortly After Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan’s Retirement, Quinn Emanuel Scores Appellate Win for Vimeo
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
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