DOCSLIB.ORG

The National Law Journal's Largest Verdicts of 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The National Law Journal's Largest Verdicts of 2001 The National Law Journal's largest verdicts of 2001 Also: Top Defense Wins Where case names are hotlinked, click to see the full case report from VerdictSearch.com. RANK AMOUNT CASE TYPE CASE NAME PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY DEFENSE ATTORNEY STATUS Maurice A. Leiter and Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc. Michael J. Piuze John L. Carlton 1 $3,006,000,000 Products liability Los Angeles Super. Ct., No. BC Law Offices of Michael J. Piuze, Reduced, on appeal Arnold & Porter, Los 226593 (June 6, 2001) Los Angeles Angeles Grefer v. Alpha Technical Gregory C. Weiss; Stuart H. Smith and Jack W. Patricia E. Weeks Services Inc. 2 $1,060,000,000 Environmental Damage Harang Weiss & Eason, New On appeal Orleans Parish, La., Dist. Ct., No. Smith & Harang, New Orleans Orleans; The Weeks Firm, 97-15004 (May 22, 2001) New Orleans Larry S. Stewart; Robert Allapattah Services v. Exxon Eugene E. Stearns; Jay S. G. Abrams Corp. Solowsky 3 $540,000,000 Breach of contract class action Stewart, Tilghman, Fox & On appeal Stearns Weaver Miller, Miami; S.D. Fla., No. 91-0986 (Feb. 20, Bianchi, Miami; Howrey Pertnoy Solowsky, Miami 2001) Simon, Washington, D.C. Mark A. Dombroff and Cassoutt v. Cessna Aircraft Co. Arthur Alan Wolk and Richard E. Henry B. Goddard Jr. 4 $480,000,000 Products liability Escambia Co., Fla., Cir. Ct., No. 91-Genter On appeal Dombroff & Gilmore, 2939-CA-01 (Aug. 15, 2001) Wolk & Genter, Philadelphia Washington, D.C. COC Services Ltd. v. CompUSA Mark T. Josephs; Inc. Mark S. Werbner Theodore W. Daniel Part reversed, on 5 $454,500,000 Breach of contract Dallas Co., Texas, Dist. Ct., No. 00-Sayles, Lidji & Werbner, Dallas Jackson Walker, Dallas; appeal 8358-F (Feb. 8, 2001) Jenkens & Gilchrist, Dallas Universal Express Inc. v. Select Capital Advisors Inc. Arthur W. Tifford 6 $388,910,000 Fraud No one at trial Pending collection Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct., No. Solo practitioner, Miami 98-08358 CA 01 (July 25, 2001) Fuqua v. Horizon/CMS H. Dustin Fillmore III and Cynthia Shea Goosen and Healthcare Corp. Charles W. Fillmore 7 $312,710,000 Nursing home negligence R. Brent Cooper Settled The Fillmore Law Firm, Fort Worth, N.D. Texas, No. 4-98CV1087Y Cooper & Scully, Dallas (Feb. 9, 2001) Texas Jenkins v. Ranger Construction Roy R. Watson; Brian Industries Inc. Christian D. Searcy Boysaw 8 $256,000,000 Personal injury Palm Beach Co., Fla., Cir. Ct., No. Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Adams, Coogler, Watson, Part settled 98009025AN, No. CL0000169AN Shipley, West Palm Beach, Fla. West Palm Beach; Ryles & (July 11, 2001) Boysaw, West Palm Beach David Barfield; Mary Johnson v. AC&S Manufacturing Isaac K. Byrd Jr.; Timothy W. Wells Inc. Porter 9 $150,000,000 Asbestos personal injury Barfield & Associates, In motions Byrd & Associates, Jackson, Miss.; Holmes Co., Miss., Cir. Ct., No. Jackson; Wells Anderson & Porter & Malouf, Jackson 2000-181 (Oct. 27, 2001) Race, Denver Potamkin v. Reinke Richard A. Sprague and Joseph 9 $150,000,000 Malicious prosecution Philadelphia Ct. C.P., Sept. 1998 R. Podroza Jr. No one at trial Seeking collection Term. No. 0005 (Sept. 24, 2001) Sprague & Sprague, Philadelphia Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Timothy J. Malloy; Robert K. John J. Swenson; Denis Stanley R. Salmon Jude Medical Inc. 11 $140,000,000 Patent infringement McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, In motions S.D. Ind., No. IP96-1718-CH/G Chicago; Baker & Daniels, Los Angeles; Gibson, Dunn (July 3, 2001) Indianapolis & Crutcher, Palo Alto, Calif. Peter E. Moll; Stanley Maris Distributing Co. v. Willie E. Gary and Madison B. Cushman Anheuser-Busch Inc. McClellan Howrey Simon Arnold, 12 $139,700,000 Breach of contract Remitted, on appeal Alachua Co., Fla., Cir. Ct., No. Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Washington, D.C.; Scruggs 97CA22 (Aug. 3, 2001) Lewis, Stuart, Fla. & Carmichael, Gainesville, Fla. Donald E. Godwin; D. Bell v. Dresser Industries Inc. Glenn W. Morgan; Karl E. Novak Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, Ferguson McNiel III 13 $130,000,000 Asbestos personal injury Orange Co., Texas, Dist. Ct., No. A- On appeal Beaumont, Texas; Ness Motley, Godwin Gruber, Dallas; 920,961-SC19 (Sept. 12, 2001) Charleston, S.C. Vinson & Elkins, Houston William F. Devine; Laura X-It Products v. Walter Kidde Robert Tata and Benjamin B. Bernstein Luger Portable Equipment Inc. 14 $116,000,000 Patent infringement Madison III Hofheimer Nusbaum, In motions E.D. Va., No. 2:00-CV-513 (Aug. Hunton & Williams, Norfolk, Va. Norfolk; Moore & Van Allen, 17, 2001) Durham, N.C. Evans v. St. Mary's Hospital of Henry Shaub Stephen E. Erickson Brooklyn Shaub, Ahmuty, Critrin & 15 $114,870,000 Medical malpractice Pegalis & Erickson, Lake Success, In motions Spratt, New Hyde Park, New York Co., N.Y., Sup. Ct., No. N.Y. 4038/91 (Nov. 9, 2001) N.Y. Horace C. Hall III and J. de Ayala v.Brittingham Peter Houtsma; Carlos Zaffirini Alberto Alarcon 16 $108,240,000 Fraud Webb Co., Texas, Dist. Ct., No. 98- Holland & Hart, Denver; Zaffirini & Reversed Quintanilla & Alarcon, CVQ-01092-D3 (May 17, 2001) Castillo, Laredo, Texas Laredo Ballinas v. New York City Health Thomas A. Moore Kenneth R. Larywon and Hospitals Corp. 17 $107,800,000 Medical malpractice Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore, Martin, Clearwater & Bell, In motions Bronx Co., N.Y., Sup. Ct., No. New York New York 7709/94 (May 14, 2001) James D. Shannon; Edward Christy D. Jones; Robert Rankin v. Janssen Blackmon Jr. L. Johnson III Pharmaceuticals Inc. 18 $100,000,000 Products liability Shannon Law Firm, Hazlehurst, Butler, Snow, O'Mara, In motions Claiborne Co., Miss., Cir. Ct., No. Miss; Blackmon & Blackmon, Jackson, Miss.; Natchez, 2000-20 (Sept. 28, 2001) Hazlehurst Miss. Residential Funding Corp. v. Stephen D. Susman, Philip S. Beck and Jeffrey A. Hall DeGeorge Financial Corp. Jonathan J. Ross 19 $96,400,000 Breach of contract Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & On appeal D. Conn., No. 3:00CV202 (Sept. Susman & Godfrey, Scott, Chicago 24, 2001) Houston Vincent J. Bartolotta Jr.; David Border Business Park Inc. v. Anthony J. Shanley and B. Casselman City of San Diego Richard Alan Ostrow 20 $94,500,000 Breach of contract Thorsnes, Bartolotta, San Diego; Reduced, in motions City attorney's office, City of San Diego Co., Calif., Super. Ct., Wasserman, Comden, Tarzana, San Diego No. 69279 (Jan. 2, 2001) Calif. Bell v. Farmers Insurance Lee T. Paterson and Steven C. Zieff Exchange Jessie A. Kohler 21 $90,010,000 Employment class action Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, Oakland, On appeal Winston & Strawn, Los Alameda Co., Calif., Super. Ct., Calif. No. 774013 (July 10, 2001) Angeles Palmas y Bambu v. E.I. du Pont Janet L. Humphreys and Adam de Nemours & Co. John A. Boudet M. Moskowitz 22 $88,500,000 Civil RICO Greenberg Traurig, In motions Miami-Dade Co., Fla., Cir. Ct., No. Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Orlando, Fla. 97-12186CA23, 97-12185CA23 Miami (Aug. 10, 2001) Benefield v. Halmar Corp. Peter J. Madison Howard R. Borowick 23 $85,640,000 Personal injury Orange Co., N.Y., Sup. Ct., No. Adelson, Slater & Madison, In motions Sacks & Sacks, New York 6520/94 (June 8, 2001) New City, N.Y. Ernst v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare George W. Mauze II Charles R. Dunn Corp. 24 $82,000,000 Nursing home negligence Law Offices of George W. Mauze Dunn, Kacal, Adams, Settled Bexar Co., Texas, Dist. Ct., No. 99- II, San Antonio Pappas & Law, Houston CI-08116 (Feb. 23, 2001) John G. Adami; Don Elizondo v. Tradco Corp. Anthony F. Constant Francis Lighty 25 $80,000,000 Products liability Jim Wells Co., Texas, Dist. Ct., No. Constant & Vela, Corpus Christi, Adami, McNeill, Alice, Settled 98-11-37092 (Jan. 27, 2001) Texas Texas; Stevens, Baldo, Beaumont, Texas Bennie Lazzara Jr.; Brian David Sauer v. Advocat Inc. Darren O'Quinn and Reddick 26 $78,430,000 Nursing home negligence David A. Couch On appeal Polk Co., Ark., Cir. Ct., No. CIV- Wilkes & McHugh, Tampa, Fla.; Dover & Dixon, Little Rock 2000-5 (June 22, 2001) Wilkes & McHugh, Little Rock, Ark. Hico Inc. v. St. Paul Fire Gregory Copeland and James D. Shannon Insurance Co. Thomas C. Gerity 27 $77,500,000 Breach of contract Shannon Law Firm, Hazlehurst, On appeal Copeland, Cook, Taylor & Copiah Co., Miss., Dist. Ct., No. 99-Miss. 0400 (Feb. 27, 2001) Bush, Jackson, Miss. Moody v. Summers Valorie W. Davenport and Tim Phillip T. Bruns and Scott Galveston Co., Texas, Dist. Ct., 28 $75,400,000 Securities fraud Yusef Humphries Pending motions No. 99CV0471 (Dec. 4 and 5, Davenport Legal Group, Houston Gibbs & Bruns, Houston 2001) Antunes v. County of Nassau E. Gordon Haesloop Steven C. Pepperman Bartlett, McDonough, 29 $75,000,000 Medical malpractice Nassau Co., N.Y., Sup. Ct., No. In motions Bauman & Kunkis, New York Bastone & Monaghan, 13780/98 (May 16, 2001) Mineola, N.Y. Biomedical Systems Corp. v. GE John M. Bray; Chilton Gerard T. Carmody and Douglas Daus Varner Marquette Medical Systems Inc. 29 $75,000,000 Breach of contract W. King King & Spalding, On appeal E.D. Mo., No. 4:99CV01590 (April Bryan Cave, St. Louis Washington, D.C.; King & 9, 2001) Spalding, Atlanta Joseph H. Bocock; Keith Bridenstine v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Robert N. Barnes; Douglas E. F. Sellers Co. Burns 31 $73,760,000 Breach of contract class action McAfee & Taft, Oklahoma In motions Barnes & Lewis, Oklahoma City; Texas Co., Okla., Dist. Ct., No. CJ- City; Sellers & Bryant, Douglas E. Burns, Oklahoma City 2000-1 (Nov. 7, 2001) Tulsa, Okla. Royal Palm Resort v. Mitsui Richard T. Williams and Robert Mark N. White Construction Co. Ltd. 32 $73,400,000 Breach of contract L. Ivey Pillsbury Winthrop, San Awaiting punitives Guam Super. Ct., No. CV1885-93 Holland & Knight, Los Angeles Francisco (Dec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons Learned from Law Firm Failures
    ALA San Francisco Chapter Lessons Learned from Law Firm Failures Kristin Stark Principal, Fairfax Associates July 2016 Page 0 About Fairfax Fairfax Associates provides strategy and management consulting to law firms Strategy & Performance & Governance & Merger Direction Compensation Management Strategy Development and Partner Performance and Governance and Merger Strategy Implementation Compensation Management Firm Performance and Operational Structures & Practice Strategy Merger Search Profitability Improvement Reviews Market and Sector Merger Negotiation and Pricing Partnership Structure Research Structure Client Research and Key Process Improvement Alternative Business Models Client Development Merger Integration Page 1 1 Topics for Discussion • Disruptive Change • Dissolution Trends • Symptoms of Struggle: What Causes Law Firms to Fail? • What Keeps Firms From Changing? • Managing for Stability Page 2 How Rapidly is the Legal Industry Changing? Today 10 Years 2004 Ago Number of US firms at $1 billion or 2327 4 more in revenue: Average gross revenue for Am Law $482$510 million $271 million 200: Median gross revenue for Am Law $310$328 million $193 million 200: NLJ 250 firms with single office 4 11 operations: Number of Am Law 200 lawyers 25,000 10,000 based outside US: Page 4 2 How Rapidly is the Legal Industry Changing? Changes to the Law Firm Business Model Underway • Convergence • Dramatic reduction • Disaggregation in costs • Increasing • Process Client commoditization Overhead improvement • New pricing Model efforts models • Outsourcing
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Law Firm Organizational Form and Capitalization Structure
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2013 Rethinking the Law Firm Organizational Form and Capitalization Structure Edward S. Adams University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward S. Adams, Rethinking the Law Firm Organizational Form and Capitalization Structure, 78 MO. L. REV. 777 (2013), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/90. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rethinking the Law Firm Organizational Form and Capitalization Structure EdwardS. Adams 1. INTRODUCTION The recent bankruptcy of large law firms has energized the debate over the viability of the traditional partnership model. Dewey & LeBeouf filed for bankruptcy in May 2012, becoming the largest law firm bankruptcy in U.S. history.' At its peak, Dewey employed 1,400 lawyers in several offices across the globe, causing some to ask whether Dewey's collapse was an iso- lated product of poor management or a symptom of greater systemic prob- lems. 2 But Dewey's bankruptcy was not the first to result in the dissolution of a large firm. The financial downturn of 2008 deeply affected the legal profession, and several firms went under. Many have already questioned the traditional business structure of the law firm in light of these bankruptcies and the manner in which they oc- curred.4 Partner defections and limited capital place criticism squarely on the partnership model as a major factor in these bankruptcies.
    [Show full text]
  • LA Office Pivotal to Jenner's Steady Growth
    LOS ANGELES www.dailyjournal.com WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2012 LAW FIRM BUSINESS LA office pivotal to Jenner’s steady growth By Casey Sullivan River,” said Jenner’s firm wide managing “Many firms profess to have ‘synergy’ Daily Journal Staff Writer partner Susan Levy of the office’s impor- with laterals but when put to the test tance. “Opening in Los Angeles really of tracking import/export of work, fall ince setting its stake in Los Ange- solved those problems and assisted us with short. Jenner has a remarkable track re- les three years ago with a pair of existing client relationships.” cord of lawyers in L.A. exporting work Slateral hires from Kirkland & Ellis In 2011, the firm picked up insurance to other offices.” LLP, Chicago litigation shop Jenner & practice leaders Jerry Oshinsky and Linda Los Angeles managing partner Rick Block LLP has built a venerable platform Kornfeld from Dickstein Shapiro LLP and Richmond refuses to rest on his laurels, around the city’s middle market with an Mary Calkins from Howrey LLP. Later however, and is looking at further lateral aggressive expansion strategy, industry that year, it raided Hogan & Lovells US prospects. He has reached out to various experts say. LLP’s Los Angeles office, which saw its headhunters throughout the city with Lawyers at the firm’s Los Angeles office headcount slashed in half, for a group hopes of attaining litigators in several will raise their glasses on Thursday night of litigators led by entertainment heavy- practices. to celebrate its growth in the region at its weight Rick Stone.
    [Show full text]
  • Tier 1 Law Firms Tier 2 Law Firms
    U.S. News & World Report – Best Lawyers in America 2011-12 listed more than 160 law firms in its ranking of Intellectual Property Litigation Firms. Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP is proud to have been ranked a Tier 1 Firm. The following lists all firms named, and the Tier under which each is listed. TIER 1 LAW FIRMS Covington & Burling LLP Winston & Strawn LLP Fenwick & West LLP Alston + Bird LLP Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Chaz De La Garza & Assoc., LLC Fish & Richardson P.C. Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP Foley & Lardner LLP Debevoise & Plimpton LLP K&L Gates LLP DLA Piper LLP Kenyon & Kenyon LLP Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP McDermott Will & Emery LLP Greenberg Traurig LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP Holland & Knight, LLP Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP Howrey LLP Perkins Coie LLP Jones Day Sidley Austin LLP Kirkland & Ellis LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Susman Godfrey LLP WilmerHale Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP TIER 2 LAW FIRMS Akerman Senterfitt LLP Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Bingham McCutchen LLP Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Proskauer Rose LLP Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Ropes & Gray LLP Dechert LLP Vinson & Elkins LLP Faegre & Benson LLP Woodcock Washburn LLP Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto Abelman Frayne & Schwab Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Goodwin Procter LLP Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A. Holland & Hart LLP Arnold & Porter LLP Kaye Scholer LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP Keker & Van Nest LLP Baker Botts L.L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine Dan
    The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine 2015 Volume VII No. 26 The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine Dan Teplin, J.D. Candidate 2015 Cite as: The Uncertain Future of the Unfinished Business Doctrine, 7 ST. JOHN’S BANKR. RESEARCH LIBR. NO. 26 (2015). Introduction It is no secret that the legal industry has experience financial difficulty following the great recession. Many law firms have been less profitable, and in some extreme circumstances, have filed for bankruptcy. The worlds largest law firms are of no exception to this recent phenomenon. The collapses of the mega-firms Dewey & LeBoeuf,1 Coudert Brothers LLP,2 Heller Ehrman LLP,3 Howrey LLP,4 Thacher Proffitt & Wood LLP,5 and Thelen LLP6 are prime examples. Since most law firms, especially large firms, do not reorganize in bankruptcy, a bankruptcy trustee will often be appointed to administer the firm’s estate. In order to maximize 1 The End of an Era: Why Dewey & LeBoeuf Went Under, FORTUNE (May 29, 2012) http://fortune.com/2012/05/29/the-end-of-an-era-why-dewey-leboeuf-went-under/. 2 Jones Day Prevails in Coudert Brothers “Unfinished Business” case in unanimous New York Court of Appeals Ruling, (July 2014) http://www.jonesday.com/jones-day-prevails-in-coudert-brothers-unfinished-business-case-in- unanimous-new-york-court-of-appeals-ruling/. 3 Recession Batters Law Firms, Triggering Layoffs, Closings, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Jan. 26, 2009) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123292954232713979. 4 Why Howrey Law Firm Could Not Hold It Together, THE WASHINGTON POST (Mar.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court, S.D. California. QUALCOMM
    Untitled Document 2/28/10 4:30 AM United States District Court, S.D. California. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff. v. BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendants. Broadcom Corporation, Counter-Claimant. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Counter-Defendant. Civil No. 05CV1662-B(BLM) May 2, 2006. Barry Jerome Tucker, Heller Ehrman, San Diego, CA, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Heller Ehrman, New York, NY, Gregg A. Duffey, Peter J. Chassman, Howrey Simon Arnold and White, Houston, TX, Richard S. Taffet, Bingham McCutchen, New York, NY, William K. West, Jr., Howrey LLP, Washington, DC, Aaron Schur, Chad Russell, Rianne E. Nolan, Bingham McCutchen, San Francisco, CA, David E. Kleinfeld, Heller Ehrman, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff. Amy R. Schofield, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brian C. Smith, Heath A. Brooks, James L. Quarles, III, Jonathan Frankel, Juliana Maria Mirabilio, Nathan Mitchler, Thomas Olson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, DC, Elizabeth M. Reilly, John J. Regan, Richard W. O'Neill, Wayne L. Stoner, William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Boston, MA, Maria K. Vento, Mark D. Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Palo Alto, CA, Robert S. Brewer, Jr., James Sullivan McNeill, McKenna Long and Aldridge, San Diego, CA, for Defendants. William K West, Jr., Howrey LLP, Washington, DC, Aaron Schur, Chad Russell, Rianne E. Nolan, Bingham McCutchen, San Francisco, CA, David E. Kleinfeld, Heller Ehrman, San Diego, CA, for Counter- Defendant. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR UNITED STATES PATENT NUMBER 5,682,379 RUDI M. BREWSTER, Senior District Judge. Pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), on April 18, 2006, the Court conducted a Markman hearing concerning the above-titled patent infringement action regarding construction of the disputed claim terms for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • HOWREY LLP, 14-Cv-04887-JD 9 14-Cv-04888-JD Appellee
    Case3:14-cv-04882-JD Document13 Filed06/03/15 Page1 of 19 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Case Nos. 14-cv-04882-JD 6 14-cv-04883-JD Appellant, 7 14-cv-04884-JD v. 14-cv-04885-JD 8 14-cv-04886-JD HOWREY LLP, 14-cv-04887-JD 9 14-cv-04888-JD Appellee. 14-cv-04889-JD 10 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW ORDER ON APPEAL 11 PITTMAN LLP, 12 Appellant, 13 v. 14 HOWREY LLP, 15 Appellee. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, 16 Appellant, 17 v. United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 HOWREY LLP, 19 Appellee. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case3:14-cv-04882-JD Document13 Filed06/03/15 Page2 of 19 PERKINS COIE LLP, 1 Appellant, 2 v. 3 HOWREY LLP, 4 Appellee. 5 NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP, 6 Appellant, 7 v. 8 HOWREY LLP, 9 Appellee. 10 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & 11 FRIEDMAN LLP, 12 Appellant, 13 v. 14 HOWREY LLP, 15 Appellee. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & 16 HAMPTON LLP, 17 Appellant, United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 v. 19 HOWREY LLP, 20 Appellee. JONES DAY, 21 Appellant, 22 v. 23 HOWREY LLP, 24 Appellee. 25 26 27 28 Case3:14-cv-04882-JD Document13 Filed06/03/15 Page3 of 19 1 Eight law firms that provided legal services to former clients of debtor Howrey LLP appeal 2 the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motions to dismiss.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago's Competition
    STATE SURVEY: ILLINOIS James Mutchnik Robert Bloch Tom Frederick Amy Manning Chicago’s competition bar Over the past few years, Chicago’s federal court has become one of the busiest antitrust litigation forums in the country. Ron Knox meets the Windy City’s leading competition lawyers HANDFUL of decisions handed down recently by the Seventh says Kirkland & Ellis partner James Mutchnik PC, who is nominated Circuit court of appeals have fuelled the perception that to The International Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers and Chicago is a fitting home for courtroom warriors embroiled Economists. in some of the largest and most complex antitrust cases in The changes do not end there. Two years ago, Kirkland & Ellis Athe country. Practitioners here predict a future where even more began transitioning from separate (albeit good) offices and antitrust plaintiffs’ lawyers set up shop or expand their practices, putting teams around the country to a truly integrated national practice. more cases before Chicago courts and calling the prominent defence Before, Mutchnik says, the practice was a vertical one for the most bar into action. part. “We’re beyond that now,” he says. The firm has now identified Of course, Chicago firms still handle their share of mergers and and connected a core team of litigators from each office to help government investigations. But many antitrust practices here rank boost its private antitrust litigation ability. Partner Daniel Laytin themselves and their competitors by the number of multi-district leads the way in Chicago and says that with the firm’s client base litigations (MDLs) they’re involved in.
    [Show full text]
  • I:\Chambersdm\Chambers 22 E-Ordersnew\Orders to Be Converted\Howrey\Howrey
    Entered on Docket September 09, 2014 EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 Signed and Filed: September 9, 2014 2 3 4 5 ________________________________________ DENNIS MONTALI 6 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 In re ) Bankruptcy Case 10 ) No. 11-31376DM HOWREY LLP, ) 11 ) Debtor. ) Chapter 11 12 ___________________________________) ALLAN B. DIAMOND, Chapter 11 ) Adversary Proceeding 13 Trustee for Howrey LLP, ) No. 13-3093 DM ) 14 Plaintiff,) ) 15 v. ) ) 16 JONES DAY LLP, ) ) 17 Defendant.) ___________________________________) 18 19 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Plaintiff Allan B. Diamond, chapter 11 Trustee (“Trustee”) 22 for debtor Howrey LLP (“Howrey” or “Debtor”), filed multiple 23 nearly identical complaints for avoidance and recovery of actual 24 and constructive fraudulent transfers and for an accounting and 25 turnover and other relief, seeking to recover from several law 26 firm defendants the value of profits received by them with respect 27 to unfinished business that previously had been handled by Debtor. 28 Relying on District of Columbia law which in turn relies on Jewel -1- Case: 13-03093 Doc# 48 Filed: 09/09/14 Entered: 09/09/14 17:42:15 Page 1 of 13 1 v. Boxer, 156 Cal. App. 3d 171 (1984), Trustee seeks to recover 2 profits realized or to be realized by the defendant law firms from 3 Debtor’s unfinished business (“Howrey Unfinished Business”). 4 Trustee alleges that pre-petition waivers executed by Howrey 5 partners relieving them of their duty to account for profits made 6 on the Howrey Unfinished Business (the “Jewel Waiver”) constituted 7 fraudulent transfers, and that the defendant law firms are liable 8 as subsequent transferees.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Law Firms Collapse
    Why Law Firms Collapse John Morley1 Law firms don’t just go bankrupt—they collapse. Like Dewey & LeBoeuf, Heller Ehrman, and Bingham McCutchen, law firms often go from apparent health to liquidation in a matter of months or even days. Almost no large law firm has ever managed to reorganize its debts in bankruptcy and survive. This pattern is puzzling, because it has no parallel among ordinary businesses. Many businesses go through long periods of financial distress and many even file for bankruptcy. But almost none collapse with the extraordinary force and finality of law firms. Why? I argue that law firms are fragile because they are owned by their partners, rather than by investors. Partner ownership creates the conditions for a spiraling cycle of withdrawals that resembles a run on the bank. As the owners of the business, the partners of a law firm are the ones who suffer declines in profits and who have to disgorge their compensation in the event the firm becomes insolvent. So if one partner leaves and damages the firm, it is the remaining partners who bear the loss. Each partner’s departure thus has the potential to worsen conditions for those who remain, meaning that as each partner departs, the others become more likely to leave as well, eventually producing an accelerating race for the exists bank. This kind of spiraling withdrawal is sometimes thought to be an unavoidable consequence of financial distress. But if law firms were not owned by their partners, this would not happen. Indeed, the only large law firm in the history of the common law world that has ever survived a prolonged insolvency is also one of the only large law firms that has ever been owned by investors.
    [Show full text]
  • New Partners 031609.Indd
    SPECIAL SECTION NEWPARTNERS 2009 LIST P.24 THE THE STORY P.18 SURVEY P.20 THE NEWPARTNERS 2009 We sent our anonymous online survey to about 300 new partners. Excerpts of their answers follow. Forty-one responded: 44% percent are women and 56 percent are men; almost two- thirds are Caucasian; and one-fourth are Asian, Indian/South Asian or Latino/Hispanic (an- other 12 percent declined to describe their ethnicity). The size of their firms runs the gamut, from 1 to 25 to more than 1,000 lawyers. Their estimates of the associate-to-partner track at their firms also vary widely: The majority offered lengths of seven, eight or nine years, but the spectrum ran from three to four years at the low end to eight to 12 years at the high end. They represent more than a dozen practice areas. 1. What do you think was the most important factor in your IN THEIR making partner? “My ability to manage others” “My work ethic” “An excellent and supportive mentor” “Perceived value I could bring to the firm” “My specialty” OWN WORDS “One of the most important factors was having a profitable client” “Becoming the go-to guy in my practice area and development of client trust” “My business development skills and making my hours” “Performing at partner level while still an associate” “Relationships with supportive partners” “Solid all-around litigation skills” “Relationships (within and outside of firm) and personal skills and industry name recognition” Reflections from California’s “Being a necessary and critical part of the practice group” “Hard work; teamwork; commitment to the firm” “I became more knowledgeable than the partners in a few critical areas” new partners, from our “Longevity at the firm” “Quality of work and opportunities to work with many partners within the firm.” “Analytical skill” annual anonymous survey “Earning the trust and respect of my colleagues” “Attention to details” “Having an ‘ownership mentality’ every day as an associate” 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Large Law Firm Mergers Successful?
    EDITOR September 2003 James Wilber Principal Report to Volume 30, Number 12 Altman Weil CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Ward Bower Principal Legal Management OUR 29TH YEAR Altman Weil William F. Brennan Consultant Are Large Law Altman Weil David G. Briscoe Firm Mergers Senior Consultant Altman Weil Successful? Thomas S. Clay Principal By Ward Bower Altman Weil assisted by Debra L. Rhodunda Ward Bower James D. Cotterman t a recent meeting of the executive Þrm data here to protect the conÞdentiality Principal Altman Weil committee of an AmLaw 100 Þrm of those Þgures provided to us by our law A discussing merger as a strategy, Þrm clients. Daniel J. DiLucchio, Jr. one member challenged me to Òname one We selected 17 law Þrm mergers involving Principal Altman Weil successful merger of large law firms,Ó 300 or more lawyers over the last ten years. and then went on to say, ÒI am not aware of The 17 selected mergers involved 33 Þrms Virginia Grant Consultant a single success.Ó Taken aback, I cautiously (one firm was involved in two of the Altman Weil responded that it was my impression that mergers). The average size of the ÒleadÓ Marci M. Krufka most major law firm mergers would Þrm (larger of the two) was 441 lawyers at Consultant be considered successful, at least in the time of merger. The average ÒacquireeÓ Altman Weil financial terms. was 169 lawyers, for an average total Charles A. Maddock That question resonated with me over merged Þrm size of 610. The largest merger, Principal subsequent weeks and inspired me to team measured by total numbers of lawyers Altman Weil with Altman Weil consultant Debbie involved, was Clifford Chance/Rogers and Alan R.
    [Show full text]