Headhunting Firm Seeks to Boost Claims Against Simpson Thacher
Boston Executive Search Associates said Simpson Thacher & Bartlett not only failed to pay a percentage of a recruited partner's expected $3.75 million first-year pay, but also a portion of the partner's $1 million signing bonus.
May 18, 2018 at 05:42 PM
6 minute read
A recruiting agency that is suing Simpson Thacher & Bartlett for withholding a placement fee on a lateral partner now says its alleged damages have expanded, based on learning that the law firm may have paid the partner a $1 million signing bonus.
Boston Executive Search Associates, a recruiting firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts, sued Simpson Thacher last December to recover a placement fee when Michael Torkin, previously a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, joined Simpson Thacher's restructuring practice.
In a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Boston Executive alleged it introduced the firm and Torkin to one another and arranged their initial meeting, leading to Simpson Thacher's hiring of Torkin last year. Accordingly, it claimed, Simpson Thacher owes it a standard recruiting fee of 25 percent of Torkin's expected first-year compensation, believed to be about $3.75 million, equaling $937,500. Still, Simpson Thacher has balked at paying any fee, according to its complaint.
Since discovery in the lawsuit started this year, Boston Executive claims it has learned new details that increase its alleged damages. In particular, discovery documents show Simpson Thacher “recognized that it needed to fortify its restructuring practice in 2015,” and at the time, the firm's executive committee authorized Sandeep Qusba, head of its bankruptcy and restructuring practice, to undergo a search process, according to Douglas Salvesen, attorney for Boston Executive, in court papers filed Thursday.
Qusba first engaged another recruiting firm, New York-based Corrao Miller Wiesenthal Legal Search Consultants Inc., to present lateral candidates, with an agreed upon fee of 25 percent of the first year of a successfully placed attorney's compensation, the agency said. Ultimately, the agency's effort was unsuccessful, Salvesen said.
Discovery documents also disclose an Oct. 20, 2017, offer letter to Torkin in which Simpson Thacher said it expected Torkin's share of the partnership would result in an annual compensation of $3.75 million and also referenced “a previously undisclosed additional payment” of a $1 million signing bonus to Torkin.
Boston Executive said it now wants to file an amended complaint to adjust its claim for damages. The agency also wants to include allegations that Simpson Thacher's request that it present lateral candidates “was part of an ongoing effort by the firm to shore up its restructuring practice, that defendant was aware of—and had expressly agreed with another search firm—to pay the standard fee” of 25 percent and that the amount expected to be paid to Torkin included the signing bonus.
Salvesen said defense counsel at Simpson Thacher want to have part of the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint and attachments filed under seal, even though Salvesen said he thought that was unnecessary.
'No such agreement'
Simpson Thacher has said it intends to move to dismiss. In a Feb. 9 letter, Simpson Thacher's defense counsel, partner Alan Turner, said there was no written contract between Simpson Thacher and Boston Executive. Only after Torkin joined Simpson Thacher did the agency seek to enter into contractual relations, sending Simpson Thacher a proposed “Agreement for Recruiting Services,” Turner noted, citing the complaint.
The fact that Boston Executive belatedly sought a written agreement—“never once contending that Simpson and [Boston Executive] were already bound by an oral agreement—further confirms that there was no such agreement,” Turner said.
Turner argued that what Boston Executive is seeking “is the benefit of a bargain it never made; payment of a fee that it never sought until after the fact, and that Simpson never agreed to pay.”
In response, Boston Executive said in court papers that its introduction of Torkin to the firm was not unsolicited. Over the years, an agency recruiter spoke often with Qusba and presented various lateral candidates, not to mention that Boston Executive itself had recruited Qusba years earlier when he moved his practice to White & Case.
In March 2017, Qusba told a Boston Executive recruiter that Simpson Thacher was interested in a lateral partner who had a specialty in handling bankruptcy and restructuring matters for private equity and hedge fund clients, said the agency's attorney, Salvesen. Within a few days, the agency identified Torkin, and after speaking with Torkin, presented him to the firm.
“Simpson Thacher's apparent suggestion that it requested [Boston Executive] to locate a lateral partner who met Mr. Qusba's criteria, to make the introduction to that candidate, to consult with both parties regarding the anticipated compensation, to arrange for the initial meetings, and to stay in touch while the parties continued their negotiations—all without an actual expectation of paying [Boston Executive],” Salvesen said, “is ridiculous.”
Still, in March, Boston Executive dropped its breach of contract claim and is pursuing damages against Simpson Thacher only under unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Simpson Thacher said it denies any and all liability.
While the parties battle over whether Boston Executive can amend its claims, they are going forward with depositions. In court papers, Boston Executive said it expects to depose Qusba and Torkin and others with knowledge of the negotiations between Torkin and the firm and those with knowledge of any financial benefits at Simpson Thacher due to his hiring. For its part, Simpson Thacher said it will seek to depose four employees who have knowledge relevant to the claims.
Before the suit was filed, the parties said they had “limited settlement discussions” but are now not seeking a settlement conference. The case is before U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield of the Southern District of New York.
Turner, the firm partner defending Simpson Thacher, did not return a call seeking comment. Nor did Salvesen, a partner at Boston-based firm Yurko, Salvesen & Remz.
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
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