Heller - Sues - GT Heller V Greenberg Traurig

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CHRISTOPHER D. SULLIVAN (148083) MATHEW R. SCHULTZ (220641) KENNETH J. BRUNETTI (156164) TREPEL GREENFIELD SULLIVAN & DRAA LLP 150 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 283-1776 Email: csullivan@tgsdlaw.com mschultz@tgsdlaw.com kbrunetti@tgsdlaw.com Special Litigation Counsel for Heller Ehrman LLP
GREGORY C. NUTI (151754) KEVIN W. COLEMAN (168538) SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 364-6700 Email: gnuti@schnader.com kcoleman@schnader.com Co-Special Litigation Counsel for Heller Ehrman LLP
JEFFREY T. MAKOFF (120004) ELLEN RUTH FENICHEL (172142) VALLE MAKOFF LLP 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2370 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-8001 Email: jmakoff@vallemakoff.com efenichel@vallemakoff.com
Co-Special Litigation Counsel for Heller Ehrman LLP, by and through Michael Burkart, Plan Administrator
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re: HELLER EHRMAN LLP,
Case No. 08-32514 DM Chapter 11 Adv. Proc. No. Liquidating Debtor. COMPLAINT FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; ATTORNEYS FEES FOR THE TORT OF ANOTHER; RECOVERY OF PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER; AND DISGORGMENT OF FEES
HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Liquidating Debtor, Plaintiff, v. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, a New York limited liability partnership; Leslie D. Corwin, an individual, Defendants.
Complaint For Professional Negligence, Etc.
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 1 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Comes now plaintiff Liquidating Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP, by and through Michael Burkart, in his capacity as the duly appointed plan administrator under the Plan of Liquidation confirmed in this case, and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Liquidating Debtor Heller Ehrman LLP (Debtor or Plaintiff) brings this
action against the law firm Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Greenberg) and one of its partners, Leslie D. Corwin, to recover millions of dollars in losses the Debtor incurred as a result of the negligent conduct of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg during the course of their representation of Heller Ehrman, LLP (Heller) in the months prior to December 28, 2008, when the Debtor filed for bankruptcy. 2. As Heller faced increasingly dire financial problems, Greenberg and Corwin
assumed the mantle, in Greenbergs own words, of acting as Hellers lead counsel in connection with the firms dissolution. From the outset, though, Greenberg failed to live up to its fiduciary obligations. To begin with, Greenberg concealed a fundamental conflict of interest at the time it was retained and throughout the Heller engagement Greenberg represented Bank of America, a party obviously adverse to the firm as the bank was its major lender and was asserting it held a security interest in virtually all of Hellers assets. No disclosure was made to Heller and no consent to the conflict was sought or obtained. Then, Greenberg failed to take a routine and necessary step the firm neglected to conduct a routine check of UCC security filings. Had it done so, it would have discovered that its other client (Bank of America) had terminated its security interest in Hellers property. Had Heller been alerted to this key fact at the time of its dissolution, Heller could have filed for bankruptcy and prevented its banks from seizing tens of millions from the firm and forcing Heller to try to wind-down in a chaotic, disorderly posture. Moreover, shortly after Heller adopted a Plan of Dissolution, a third party specifically advised Greenberg about the UCC termination, but again Greenberg failed to act. Finally, Greenberg tried to sweep its misconduct under the rug and mischaracterize the scope of its earlier representation of the Heller firm in order to secure employment as
1
Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 2 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
the Debtors bankruptcy counsel. Fortunately, the facts underlying Greenbergs negligence did not escape the notice of Hellers creditors and the creditors were able to insist that the claims against Greenberg be preserved and steps taken to allow this lawsuit to be prosecuted. 3. Mr. Corwin and Greenbergs basic failure to discover that Bank of America
had terminated the banks UCC financing statement a year earlier is hard to understand and irreconcilable with its standard of care. They failed to conduct a routine lien search of Hellers assets even after the banks declared a default under their loan agreement with the firm and seized control of all of Hellers deposit accounts and accounts receivable. Armed with the information readily available from a simple lien search, that Bank of America had terminated the financing statement under which the security interest in the Heller loans was perfected, Heller would have realized that the banks had no enforceable security interest in the firms deposit accounts and accounts receivable. Armed with that information Mr. Corwin and Greenberg could have and should have immediately advised Heller to file for bankruptcy or take some other measures to immediately re-take control of their accounts. Had Heller filed for bankruptcy prior to the time the banks re-perfected their security interest on October 2, 2008, the banks would have been treated as unsecured creditors and the Debtor could have wrested control of their deposit accounts and accounts receivable from Bank of America. If that had occurred, or if the firm had threatened to do so and negotiated a proper resolution at that time and/or taken control of their accounts, not only would the Debtor have been able to conduct an orderly liquidation, which would have generated millions of additional dollars in collections, it would have prevented Bank of America and Citibank from paying themselves $56 million, which is what they did during in the months after issuing their default notice to Heller in September, 2008. 4. The conduct of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg is particularly negligent because
shortly after the banks had re-perfected their security interest on October 2, 2008, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg were advised both in a telephone call and by email that Bank of America had terminated the banks security interest some fourteen months earlier. Alerted
2
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 3 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
to this information, Mr. Corwin instructed an associate to conduct an independent lien search, which she did. That independent lien search revealed that indeed Bank of America had filed a termination statement in August 3, 2007, and that the bank had filed a new financing statement re-perfecting the banks lien a mere few days earlier -- on October 2, 2008. Armed with this information, Mr. Corwin should have immediately explored the notion of having Heller file for bankruptcy as soon as possible, to avoid the re-perfection of the bank loans, treat the banks as unsecured creditors, and to have Heller re-take control of its deposit accounts and accounts receivable and attempt to negotiate a resolution at that time with the Bank of America. Had this happened the Debtor would have saved millions through an orderly liquidation and could have prevented the banks from paying themselves the $56 million they paid themselves during the months after issuing their default notice to Heller in September, 2008. At a minimum Mr. Corwin should have advised the banks that he discovered that the banks had terminated their lien in Hellers assets and that the firm had the ability to avoid the newly perfected lien. The situation had completely changed, legally. Yet, Mr. Corwin did nothing. He asked an assistant to place the results of the lien search in the files. The banks continued to control Hellers accounts for the next few months, controlling every single payment that the firm made, resulting in a very disorderly liquidation. 5. In addition to the other negligent acts and omissions committed by Mr.
Corwin and Greenberg, they breached their duties to the law firm partnership and were negligent to include language in a dissolution agreement they prepared for the firm under which Heller agreed to waive any rights and claims the firm might otherwise have been able to assert against its departing shareholders under the doctrine of Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal. App. 3d 171 (1984). As a result of that waiver the Debtor has been harmed. More specifically, in the course of prosecuting Jewel claims against former shareholders, Heller will be required to show that the creation of the Jewel waiver was in fact an actual or constructive fraud under 11 U.S.C. 548, which may include the additional requirement of having to establish that Heller was insolvent as of the September 26, 2008, the date the
3
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 4 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plan of Dissolution was approved. Had Mr. Corwin and Greenberg not included the Jewel waiver in the Heller dissolution agreement, the Debtor would not have avoided these additional costs. 6. Greenberg is liable to Heller for all of Hellers attorneys fees in connection
with certain litigation that Heller was required to prosecute or defend as a result of Greenbergs professional negligence. To the extent that a party incurs attorneys fees in litigation with a third party as a result of another partys tortious conduct the tortfeasor can be held liable for such attorneys fees under the well accepted tort of another doctrine. Here, Heller incurred significant attorneys fees as a result of Greenbergs professional malpractice. First, Heller had to defend against a lawsuit by former Heller employees after the firm was forced by Bank of America to terminate the employees without the requisite 60-days notice required under the federal WARN Act. Had Greenberg not committed malpractice and discovered the filing of the Termination Statement it could have prevented Bank of America from taking control of Hellers assets and the firm would not have been forced to terminate these employees without appropriate notice. Further, as a direct and proximate cause of the conduct of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg Heller was forced to prosecute the preference lawsuit against Bank of America and Citibank, for which it incurred over $3 million in fees and costs. Greenberg and Mr. Corwin are liable for those fees and costs. Finally. as a direct and proximate cause of the conduct of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg in inserting the Jewel waiver into the Plan of Dissolution, Heller incurred increased attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with prosecuting the Jewel lawsuits against its former Heller Shareholders and the law firms in which they took Heller unfinished business. 7. Greenberg is also liable to Heller for the repayment of approximately $1.46
million which was paid to Greenberg in the ninety days preceding the Petition Date December 28, 2008. Such payments constitute preferential payments to Greenberg on account of an antecedent debt and can be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 547. The Liquidating Trustee may recover all of these payments under 11 U.S.C. 550.
4
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 5 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
8.
Finally, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg were negligent when they agreed to act
as the Debtors bankruptcy counsel in the weeks leading up to the December 28, 2008 bankruptcy filing when they knew or should have known that there was an irreconcilable conflict between Greenberg and the Debtor as a result of the potential claims the Debtor had against Mr. Corwin and Greenberg. Not only did Mr. Corwin and Greenberg ignore these potential claims -- they apparently tried to cover up these potential claims by, among other things, misleadingly stating to the Bankruptcy Court that Greenberg had done no bankruptcy work for Heller prior to December of 2008. In affidavits it filed with the Bankruptcy Court in support of its application to be retained, Greenberg stated that it did not begin performing bankruptcy-related services until December 10, 2008. That is belied by the record, which shows that Greenberg did provide bankruptcy-related advice and materials in the months prior to December, 2010. Knowing that it had performed bankruptcy-related work prior to December, 2008, and that this work in part led to the aforementioned claims against Greenberg, the firm should not have undertaken the work in preparing for Hellers bankruptcy filing. The firm should have known that the conflict was irreconcilable and that another bankruptcy firm should have been retained. 9. As a result of the negligent conduct of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg, the
Debtor suffered tens of millions in damages, including but not limited to unrecovered amounts of the $56 million that was paid to Bank of America and Citibank in the months prior to the bankruptcy filing, uncollected accounts receivable that resulted from the disorderly liquidation and control over Hellers management by the banks, including acts resulting in the termination of key employees that were responsible for collections, the costs of attorneys fees and costs incurred by the Debtor in prosecuting its preference claim against the banks, damages for increased attorneys fees incurred by the Debtor in prosecuting Jewel lawsuits against former shareholders as a result of the inclusion of the Jewel waiver in the Heller dissolution agreement, and damages for attorneys fees paid to Greenberg for bankruptcy work performed by the firm in preparation for the Chapter 11 filing when the firm knew that it had a potential conflict and should not have performed
5
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 6 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
that work. THE PARTIES 10. Heller is a California limited liability partnership, formerly engaged in the
practice of law, which filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on December 28, 2008 (the Petition Date). 11. On August 9, 2010, Debtor and the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors filed in this Court the Joint Plan of Liquidation of Heller Ehrman LLP (the Plan). On August 16, 2010, this Court entered its order confirming the Plan, which order became effective on September 1, 2010. Under the terms of the Plan, Plaintiff has all right, title and interest of Debtor in the causes of action alleged herein. 12. Michael Burkart is the duly appointed administrator under the Plan (Plan
Administrator). 13. Defendant Greenberg Traurig, LLP is a New York limited liability
partnership practicing business in numerous jurisdictions, including San Francisco, California. 14. Defendant Leslie D. Corwin is a shareholder with Greenberg, who holds
himself out as skilled in bankruptcy and partnership dissolution issues and with respect to the legal representation of law firms, including representation of law firms in liquidations, dissolutions and bankruptcies. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. The District Court has jurisdiction over this action because the amount in
controversy herein exceeds $75,000 and because this action is between citizens of different states. More specifically, Heller Ehrman LLP, Liquidating Debtor is a citizen of California. Greenberg is a citizen of New York. Upon information and belief Mr. Corwin is a citizen of New York. 16. The Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding under
28 U.S.C. 157 and 1334 in that the issues in dispute arise in and/or are related to the underlying Title 11 case.
6
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 7 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
17.
This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A),
(O) and is filed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rule 7001. As such, the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to hear and to determine this proceeding and to enter an appropriate order and judgment. Any claims alleged herein that are not core proceedings are legally and factually related to the core proceedings, and are related to Debtors bankruptcy case such that it is lawful, appropriate and economical to join such claims. 18. Venue is proper in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of
California under 28 U.S.C. 1409, as the Debtors bankruptcy case is pending in this judicial district. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19. In business for more than 130 years before its dissolution and ultimate
bankruptcy in December 2008, Heller Ehrman LLP (Heller) was a prominent international law firm with approximately 700 lawyers and offices through the world in places such as California, New York, Washington, D.C., the United Kingdom and Asia. 20. At the time of its dissolution in 2008, Heller was organized as a limited
liability partnership under the laws of the state of California under a Partnership Agreement dated January 1, 1994, as amended (Partnership Agreement). 21. Under 2.2 of the Partnership Agreement, Hellers purpose was to engage in
the practice of law. 22. Five professional corporations originally served as Hellers partners: Heller
Ehrman (California), a professional corporation; Heller Ehrman (Washington) P.S.; Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe (Oregon) P.C.; Heller Ehrman (Alaska) P.C; and William R. Mackey, a California professional corporation. By subsequent amendments to the Partnership Agreement, certain additional professional corporations were admitted as partners to the partnership, in particular Heller Ehrman, P.C., a District of Columbia professional corporation; Richard L. Cassin, P.A., a Florida professional corporation; and
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 8 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Heller Ehrman (New York), a professional corporation (collectively, with the original partners, the Heller PCs). 23. Each of the Heller PCs in turn had shareholders. These shareholders were
required, under the terms of certain Shareholders Agreements, to be eligible and admitted to practice law in one or more jurisdictions where Debtor practiced law (Heller Shareholders). The Bank of America Loan and Terminated Financing Statement 24. Since 1991, Bank of America, N.A. (BOA), as agent for itself and
Citibank N.A. (BOA and Citibank are hereinafter referred to as the Banks), was the primary lender to Heller up until the time of the firms dissolution, beginning in September 2008. The Banks provided loans to Heller pursuant to a Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of May 1, 2007, as amended by the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated April 1, 2008, and the Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2008 (collectively, the Credit Agreement). 25. Through the Credit Agreement, as amended, the Banks provided Heller with
a revolving line of credit up to $50 million, letter of credit commitments of $20 million, and a term loan of $10 million. 26. Loans made to Heller under the Credit Agreement were purportedly secured
under a Security Agreement, dated as of December 1, 2001, as amended on December 1, 2004 (collectively, the Security Agreement), under which Heller purported to grant BOA, as a lender and as agent for itself and Citibank, a security interest in substantially all of Hellers personal property (the Collateral), including receivables, and all proceeds from the same. 27. BOA purportedly perfected its security interest in the Collateral by filing a
UCC-1 Financing Statement with the California Secretary of State on January 3, 1991, Filing No. 91-001275 (the Original Financing Statement), which was amended and continued in subsequent UCC filings over the years before 2007.
8
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 9 of
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28.
On August 3, 2007, BOA terminated the Original Financing Statement when
one of its authorized employees caused to be filed with the California Secretary of State a UCC Financing Statement Amendment (the Termination Statement). On the Termination Statement, Box No. 2 Termination was checked after which appeared the following statement: Effectiveness of the Financing Statement identified above with respect to security interest(s) of the Secured Party authorizing this Termination. Box No. 1a identified the Initial Financing Statement to which the Termination Statement applied as filing No. 91-001275, or the Original Financing Statement. 29. The Banks filing of the Termination Statement could have been discovered
at any time by a simple UCC public records search. 30. By letter dated September 19, 2008, BOA provided Heller with formal
notice of default (Default Notice) under the Credit Agreement, terminating the commitment of the Banks to provide any additional credit, declaring all unpaid principal, interest and other amounts owed under the Credit Agreement immediately due and payable, declaring that default rate interest to be in effect, stating that BOA was taking possession of Hellers deposits and proceeds and advising Heller that all accounts receivable constituted cash collateral and could not be used without BOAs consent. At that time, Heller owed the Banks approximately $56 million. 31. On or about September 25, 2008 Heller publically announced that it was
dissolving as a firm. Beginning on September 26, 2008, the Heller Shareholders voted to dissolve the firm. 32. On September 30, 2008, BOA conducted a lien search with the California
Secretary of State and discovered that the Termination Statement had been filed some fourteen months earlier by a BOA employee who was no longer working for the bank. 33. On October 1, 2008, having discovered the filing of the Termination
Statement, BOA filed a Financing Statement Amendment (Correction Statement) with the California Secretary of State. The Correction Statement contained the following language: The Termination Statement was filed in error and as a result of a clerical error
9
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and the Initial Financing Statement filed with the California Secretary of State on January 3, 1991, and assigned Document No. 91001275, as subsequently amended and continued, remains in full force and effect. 34. On October 2, 2008, BOA filed a new UCC Financing Statement with the
California Secretary of State, Filing No. 08-7174165847 (the New Financing Statement), purporting to reaffirm the perfection of BOAs security interest in the Collateral. Hellers Retention of Greenberg 35. Heller retained Greenberg to perform legal services for Heller pursuant to a
retainer letter agreement dated June 11, 2008 (the Retainer Agreement). The Retainer Agreement specified that Heller had retained Greenberg to render advice and consult with the Heller Executive Committee and Policy Committee in connection with its current Partnership Agreement and matters relating to its affairs, including potential issues regarding a combination and/or restructuring. The Retainer Agreement further provided that [w]hile this letter is intended to deal with the specific legal services provided above, these terms and conditions will also apply to any additional legal services that we may agree to provide that are outside the initial scope of representation. 36. Greenberg itself declared in an affidavit filed with the Bankruptcy Court
that, Since June 2008, Greenberg Traurig has served as the Debtors lead counsel in connection with the firms dissolution and has continued to serve as lead counsel throughout the dissolution process. 37. When it was retained, Greenberg had a severe undisclosed, and likely
disabling conflict of interest. Greenberg represented Bank of America, which, as Hellers primary lender, was likely to become, and soon became, adverse to Heller. Greenberg failed to obtain informed written consent for this severe conflict of interest. 38. Greenberg thus violated Rule 3-310(C)(3) of the California Rules of
Professional Conduct, which states, (3) A member shall not, without the informed written consent of each client: . . . (3) Represent a client in a matter and at the same time
10
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
in a separate matter accept as a client a person or entity whose interest in the first matter is adverse to the client in the second matter. 39. Between June 10, 2008 and June 27, 2008, Greenberg provided a variety of
legal services to Heller related to the latters partnership structure, including tasks such as reviewing governing documents, researching deferred compensation and unfunded pension liability under California law, as well as reviewing and researching partnership issues. Expanding Focus of Greenbergs Legal Services 40. Beginning on August 5, 2008, Greenberg ramped up its work for Heller,
expanding the legal services it was providing and shifting more from restructuring Hellers partnership structure and/or advising on a potential combination and/or restructuring to grappling with Hellers looming financial failure. Around this time Greenberg began drafting a plan of dissolution and advising Heller regarding the various components of liquidating the firm. 41. By at least August 5, 2008, Heller advised Greenberg that it was considering
dissolving the firm and requested that Greenberg draft a plan of dissolution for the firm. On or about August 8, 2008, Greenberg began drafting a plan of dissolution. 42. In addition to drafting a plan of dissolution, Greenberg reviewed Hellers
various governing documents to determine the votes needed to approve of a liquidation, explored the creation of a dissolution committee, worked on a timeline for dissolution, reviewed insurance agreements, malpractice policies and various benefit plans to see how they would be impacted by a dissolution and reviewed leases and the effect of their termination. 43. On at least seven occasions in August, 2008 (August 5, 6, 8, 13, 18, 21 and
26), Greenberg attorneys participated in conference calls with certain Heller Shareholders, during which they discussed, among other things, a potential liquidation of the firm. Based on these calls, and many other factors, Greenberg must have understood that the legal services they were requested to perform on behalf of Heller included services related
11
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
to a potential liquidation of the firm, including drafting a plan of dissolution and also including evaluating a possible bankruptcy filing. 44. On September 12, 2008, Greenberg attorneys participated in respective
conference calls with Hellers Policy Committee and Executive Committee. In the meeting with the Executive Committee one of the issues discussed was the rejection of a merger with Heller by the law firm Mayer Brown LLP as well as the potential dissolution of Heller. 45. On September 13, 2008, Greenberg attorneys participated in more
conference calls with certain Heller Shareholders as well as with the Executive Committee. Upon information and belief, among the other issues discussed in both of these meetings were the potential dissolution of Heller and a potential bankruptcy filing by the firm. 46. On September 15, 16 and 17, 2008, Leslie Corwin, a senior level
shareholder at Greenberg, met with various Heller Shareholders at the Heller offices in San Francisco, including but not limited to the Policy Committee. Again, the potential dissolution of Heller and a potential bankruptcy filing by the firm would have been understood. 47. At the time these meetings were taking place in San Francisco (from
September 15 through September 17, 2008), other attorneys at Greenberg were providing services in connection with the dissolution of the firm, including but not limited to continuing to draft and update the Heller plan of dissolution, drafting resolutions authorizing the dissolution of the firm, researching the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) and its implication for Heller employees, evaluating potential employee issues related to the overseas offices, evaluating leases, looking into various issues related to the Banks, and exploring potential termination agreements with staff. 48. On September 18, 2008, the chairman of Heller specifically raised the need
to talk with Greenberg and Mr. Corwin about contested bankruptcy risks.
12
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
49.
Based on the various meetings and telephone calls described above, as well
as on emails exchanged between certain Heller Shareholders and Greenberg attorneys, Greenberg understood that by the middle of September, 2008, the legal services they were requested to perform on behalf of Heller, and which they were in fact performing at the time, were primarily services related to a potential liquidation of the firm, and also including evaluating a possible bankruptcy filing. 50. Not later than September 18, 2008, at least two Greenberg attorneys were
specifically researching bankruptcy law issues, including but not limited to outstanding wages in bankruptcy and administrative claim issues. 51. 52. the latest. 53. On September 19, 2008, following Hellers receipt of the Default Notice On September 19, 2008, BOA sent Heller the Default Notice. There is no doubt that Heller was actively adverse to BOA at this time, at
several Greenberg attorneys participated in numerous telephone calls with certain Heller Shareholders about the Default Notice and strategy in response. Upon information and belief, among other topics discussed during these calls was a potential Heller bankruptcy filing. 54. On September 20, 2008 two Greenberg partners, Mr. Corwin and Alan
Annex, participated in a telephone conference call with Hellers Policy Committee discussing key issues raised by Hellers impending financial failure. Upon information and belief, among other topics discussed during these calls was a potential Heller bankruptcy filing. 55. On September 21, 2008, a third Greenberg attorney began researching
additional bankruptcy issues, including but not limited to lease rejection issues. 56. On September 22, 2008 Mr. Annex drafted the text of a proposed
memorandum to be sent to Heller Shareholders. The text was included in an email sent to Maria Spampanato, an administrative assistant working in Greenbergs New York City office. Mr. Corwin was also ccd on the email. The text of the draft memo was entitled
13
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Heller Ehrman, LLP Frequently asked questions. One of the questions listed in the draft memo was, Will we filing (sic) for bankruptcy protection? The response to the question read as follows: We are attempting to conduct a dissolution and liquidation outside of a formal bankruptcy proceeding. There is a risk that if we are not successful in monetizing our assets and in minimizing our liabilities that we will need to file for bankruptcy protection. If we do there is a risk that all payments to shareholders in the year prior to filing could be subject to recapture by the firm. (Emphasis added.) 57. The draft Frequently Asked Questions memo was revised and presented to
the Heller Shareholders in final format on September 25, 2008. 58. Over the course of the next few days following September 21, 2008, various
Greenberg attorneys continued researching various aspects of bankruptcy law in anticipation of a possible Heller bankruptcy filing. On or about September 22 and 23, 2008, a memorandum was prepared by Greenberg attorneys examining various bankruptcy law issues. 59. From September 22, 2008 through September 24, 2008 various Greenberg
attorneys, including Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex, participated in numerous calls with various Heller Shareholders, including the Heller Policy Committee, Dissolution Committee, Real Estate Groups and various individual Heller Shareholders. Upon information and belief, among other topics discussed during these calls was a potential Heller bankruptcy filing. 60. Greenberg attorneys continued drafting and revising a plan of dissolution,
resolutions of the Heller PCs approving of the dissolution, the Question and Answer memo referred to above, WARN Act notices and various other dissolution documents through September 26, 2008. 61. On September 25, 2008, Mr. Corwin attended meetings in San Francisco
with the Policy Committee and other Heller Shareholders to discuss the dissolution of the firm. Upon information and belief, among other topics discussed during these meetings
14
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
was a potential Heller bankruptcy filing. 62. In an email sent to Heller on October 1, 2008, Mr. Annex advised several
Heller shareholders regarding the effect of a bankruptcy filing on the firms ongoing ability to provide services to its clients 63. In preparation for a Heller Dissolution Committee meeting held on October
3, 2008, Mr. Corwin distributed an agenda. The last item appearing on the agenda is Bankruptcy (Keith Shapiro of GT-Chicago). Upon information and belief, Mr. Corwin consulted with Mr. Shapiro, a bankruptcy attorney practicing in Greenbergs Chicago office, regarding a potential Heller bankruptcy filing. Mr. Corwin was also regularly communicating with the Dissolution Committee about Hellers financial failure at numerous other Dissolution Committee meetings held around that time. 64. Despite all the work Greenberg was undertaking in light of Hellers
unfolding financial collapse, preparing for its dissolution, researching bankruptcy issues, and responding to the BOAs notification of default, Greenberg never took the simple and basic step of conducting a standard UCC security-filings search. Had Greenberg undertaken this basic step it would have discovered that the Termination had been filed by Bank of America a year earlier and that in fact the Banks security interest in Hellers property was unperfected. Hellers Approval of the Plan of Dissolution 65. On September 20, 2008 the Heller Policy Committee created the Heller
Dissolution Committee that would eventually constitute the Dissolution Committee under the Plan of Dissolution. 66. On September 25, 2008, Heller issued a press release announcing the
dissolution of the firm. 67. On September 26, 2008, Mr. Corwin attended a Heller Shareholder meeting
in San Francisco, at which he presented the Frequently Asked Questions memo, the plan of dissolution, dated as of September 26, 2008 (the Plan of Dissolution) and draft resolutions approving the Heller dissolution, among other documents. At this meeting the
15
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Heller PCs, through the Heller Shareholders voted to approve the Plan of Dissolution and dissolve the firm. 68. The Plan of Dissolution specifically contemplated the firm filing for
bankruptcy and authorized the Dissolution Committee under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code if the Dissolution Committee deemed such a filing advisable. 69. On or about September 26, 2008, Heller sent out WARN Act notices to all
non-essential employees that the Dissolution Committee had deemed were not needed to assist the firm in its dissolution. The notices provided sixty days notice of termination and indicated that the employees would be paid the equivalent of sixty days salary from the notice date. BOAs Possession and Control Over Hellers Assets 70. BOA sent the Default Notice to Heller on September 19, 2008. Mr. Corwin
was copied on the Default Notice and he received a copy of the Default Notice via electronic mail on September 19, 2008. 71. Following the issuance of the Default Notice, BOA took possession and
control of all of Hellers deposit accounts held at the bank. Because all of Hellers primary bank accounts were held at BOA, the bank had possession and control over virtually all of Hellers cash deposits. Heller was prohibited from drawing on any of its accounts without BOAs consent. 72. Further, as stated in the Default Notice, BOA claimed that all of Hellers
accounts receivable and any proceeds thereof constituted BOAs cash collateral and it instructed Heller that it could not use any of such proceeds without BOAs consent. In short, Heller had no access to cash without first obtaining the consent of BOA. 73. On September 22, 2008 an outside attorney representing BOA, David
Minnick, sent Mr. Corwin an email in which he stated that BOA had taken control of [Hellers] deposit accounts and proceeds of the banks collateral. As a result the firm is not able to make wire transfers and other payments without the consent of the banks.
16
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Further, in the same email Mr. Minnick said that the banks had elected to engage George Nicolais & Associates, Inc. to monitor and evaluate the situation at the firm to give us a better understanding of how things are developing and the factors that affect the banks decisions with respect to the firm, the loans and the banks collateral. In the same email Mr. Minnick stated that George and his people should be in San Francisco tomorrow to commence their assignment. 74. On September 23, 2008 George Nicolais and a colleague of his, George
Buys, arrived at Hellers San Francisco offices where they met with certain Heller Shareholders and began reviewing Hellers finances. Over the course of the next three months Mr. Nicolais and Mr. Buys spent significant time monitoring Hellers finances and, working with BOA and its outside counsel, effectively controlling Hellers ability to make any payments to anyone, whether it be employees, shareholders, landlords or outside vendors. 75. As a result of BOAs having taken control of Hellers accounts, Heller could
not make any payments to anyone without first obtaining the prior approval of BOA. 76. In or about late September and early October, 2008, BOA rejected Hellers
request to pay accrued but unpaid vacation pay for terminated employees at the time of their termination. Further, at or about the same time BOA rejected the firms request to pay terminated employees sixty days of wages as Heller believed it should do under the WARN Act. 77. In response to BOAs rejection of Hellers request to pay accrued but unpaid
vacation and/or sixty days wages to terminated employees Heller sent at least two emails to its employees advising them of the policy mandated by BOA. The result was extreme displeasure and loss of morale on the part the affected employees. This displeasure was displayed in the form of threats of litigation, absenteeism, lack of productivity and early termination of certain key employees. Among employees affected by the Banks policy were certain employees in charge of collection of Hellers accounts receivable. 78. On October 6, 2008, Mr. Corwin sent a letter to Mr. Minnick advising him
17
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
of the various disruptions that the Banks policies were having on Hellers orderly dissolution and the effect it was having on Hellers remaining employees. However, BOA did not change its position with respect to vacation pay and sixty days salary for terminated employees. 79. Based on its actions of taking control over Hellers accounts and requiring
pre-approval of every single check written or wire transfer made by Heller, BOA effectively took over control of key aspects of the ultimate management of the firm for the three months from the notice of the Default Notice (September 19, 2008) until Heller filed its voluntary bankruptcy petition (December 28, 2008). The result was a disorderly winddown of Heller. As a result of this disorderly process, Heller could not maximize its ability to pursue collections during this three-month period, generally considered the most important period for collecting accounts receivable. 80. Moreover, the threats of litigation made by Hellers terminated employees
were real as they ultimately filed a lawsuit, Biggers et al., v. Heller Ehrman LLP. Adversary Proceeding No. 09-03058 (the WARN Act Class Action). The WARN Act Class action sought substantial wages, statutory penalties and attorneys fees arising from Hellers failure to comply with WARN Act procedures for notice when a large employer lays off a substantial portion of its staff. Ultimately, the WARN Act Class Action resulted in a settlement requiring maximum payments of (1) an administrative claim totaling $950,000; (2) priority wage claims totaling $4.6 million; (3) general unsecured claims totaling $7.4 million; and (4) subordinated allowed unsecured claims of $7 million. These damages could have been avoided if the Banks had permitted Heller to comply with WARN Act procedures, less the amount that Heller would have been required to pay under the WARN Act. 81. Further, Heller could have avoided the attorneys fees and costs it incurred
in defending against the WARN Act Class Action had the Banks permitted Heller to comply with WARN Act procedures. 82. During the period from September 19, 2008, when it issued the Default
18
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Notice, to December 28, 2008, BOA, while controlling Hellers accounts, paid itself and Citibank $49.6 million. An additional $6.6 million was paid to the Banks post-petition. Greenbergs Failure to Conduct a Lien Search Prior to October 2, 2008 83. At no time from the date of its retention on June 11, 2008 to October 2,
2008, the date BOA filed the New Financing Statement, did Greenberg conduct a simple lien search to determine if in fact the Banks security interest in the Heller Collateral was perfected. 84. Had Greenberg conducted a lien search at any time prior to October 2, 2008,
it would have discovered that the Original Financing Statement filed by BOA had been terminated and in fact the Banks security interest in the Collateral was unperfected. 85. On September 18, 2008, Paul Sugarman, a Heller Shareholder, sent Mr.
Corwin an email forwarding an email from the general counsel of the firms grouppractice malpractice carrier, MPC Insurance, Ltd., stating that MPC intended to exercise its rights to file a UCC financing statement to shore up its position in the event Heller was required to fund its self-insured retention obligations under the policy. In a response email sent the same day, Mr. Corwin wrote, Paul I understand the issue have dealt with it before and am not surprised your response was certainly appropriate. Incredibly, the fact that another entity intended to file a UCC financing statement against Heller did not cause Mr. Corwin to conduct a lien search for Heller, even though Mr. Corwin said he understood the issue and had dealt with it before. 86. Had Greenberg discovered that the Original Financing Statement was
terminated at any time during the three and a half months that it has been working for Heller prior to October 2, 2008, it could have, and likely would have, advised Heller to immediately file for bankruptcy before BOA filed the New Financing Statement and.or taken other steps with the same effect. Heller, as a debtor-in-possession, would have had a superior claim to its deposit accounts and accounts receivable (and all of the Collateral) as a hypothetical lienholder under 11 U.S.C. 544(a). Pursuant to California Commercial Code section 9317(a)(2), a security interest is subordinate to any rights of a pre-existing
19
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
judicial lien creditor. Moreover, the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(4) would have prohibited BOA from filing the New Financing Statement after any bankruptcy filing. 87. Alternatively, even if Heller had chosen not to file for bankruptcy, it could
have informed the Banks of its legal position and or take other steps and refused to allow the Banks to take control of Hellers accounts, money and accounts receivable. 88. Had Greenberg discovered that the Original Financing Statement was
terminated prior to October 2, 2008, and had Heller filed for bankruptcy prior to that date, or taken other action to enforce its legal position, the Banks would have been in effect unsecured creditors and Heller would have had control of all of its accounts, money and accounts receivable. In that case Heller could have undertaken an orderly liquidation, retained key employees that were crucial to collection of accounts receivable, collected a significantly higher amount of accounts receivable than the amount it collected in the months following BOAs taking control of Hellers accounts, and avoided the WARN Act Class Action and the damages it incurred as a result of that lawsuit, including attorneys fees. 89. Further, Heller would have avoided damages in the form of the total amount
of money that was paid to the Banks following September 19, 2008, when BOA issued the default notice, less the amount that the Banks returned to Heller under the settlement of the Preference Action, described below, plus attorneys fees. If Heller had been in control of its money, including its deposit accounts and accounts receivable, it would not have paid it over to the Banks. Instead, it would have used the money to finance its orderly liquidation and, ultimately, to pay over to all unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis. Greenbergs Failure to Take Any Immediate Action Following its Discovery that the Original Financing Statement Had Been Terminated 90. In early October, 2008, as part of its dissolution, Heller was in the process
of negotiating a deal in which the law firm Perkins Coie LLP (Perkins) would
26
essentially acquire the entirety of Hellers Madison, Wisconsin office, including taking
27
over the lease, purchasing all leasehold improvements and tangible personal property, and
28
hiring all non-Shareholder employees (the Madison Transaction). Perkins had informed
20
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Heller that before it could complete the Madison Transaction it would first require, among other things, the consent of all of Hellers secured creditors. 91. As part of its due diligence in connection with the Madison Transaction,
Perkins conducted a UCC lien search with the California Secretary of State in or about early October, 2008. As a result of the search, Perkins discovered that BOA filed the Termination Statement on August 3, 2007 and also that BOA filed the Correction Statement on October 1, 2008. 92. During a telephone conference call held on October 7, 2008 between several
Perkins partners and several Heller Shareholders, as well as Mr. Corwin from Greenberg, one or more of the Perkins attorneys informed the others on the call about the result of Perkins lien search. Specifically, the Perkins attorney(s) informed the Heller Shareholders and Mr. Corwin that the Termination Statement had been filed on August 3, 2007, and that the Correction Statement had been filed on October 1, 2008. On information and belief the Perkins attorney(s) questioned the validity and/or effect of the Correction Statement during this call. 93. On the same day, October 7, 2008, following the telephone call described
above, Al Smith, a Perkins partner who participated in the telephone call referred to above, sent an email to Mr. Corwin and several Heller Shareholders, including Peter Benvenutti. The subject line of the email was Madison Lien Search and other matters. In the email Mr. Smith said: Nice speaking with everyone this afternoon. Im glad we made contact and I look forward to continuing the discussions. . . . Attached as promised are a few pages from the lien search: . . . initial summary pages . . . 2007 termination . . . 10/1/08 correction statement/amendment. The email then went to discuss other issues related to the Madison Transaction. Attached to the email was a summary of the results of the lien search as well as copies of the Termination Statement and Correction Statement. 94. Corwin received and read Al Smiths October 7, 2008 email. A few minutes
after receiving it Mr. Corwin forwarded the email to Nellie Graverson, an administrative
21
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
assistant in Greenbergs New York office, with the instructions, Please print out and put in a folder labeled Heller Ehrman-Madison office. 95. A few minutes after that Mr. Corwin responded to Al Smiths email. In this
email Mr. Corwin acknowledged receiving it by stating, Nice speaking with you as well. Mr. Corwin then went on to discuss other issues related to the firms malpractice policy but did not mention anything about the results of the lien search, the Termination Statement or the Correction Statement. 96. On October 8, 2008, upon information and belief, either Mr. Corwin or Mr.
Annex, or both, instructed an associate in Greenbergs New York office Julia Engel -- to conduct an independent lien search of Heller. Ms. Engel contacted an outside lien search company on October 8, 2008 and October 10, 2008. 97. In an email dated October 10, 2008, Ms. Engel sent Mr. Corwin and Mr.
Annex an email with an attachment containing a summary of the results of the Heller lien search. The summary reflected the filing of the Termination Statement, the Correction Statement as well as the October 2, 2008 filing of the New Financing Statement. Ms. Engel stated in her email that [t]here will be more coming. However, it is uncertain whether Ms. Engel ever provided Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex with any further results. 98. In response to Ms. Engels October 10, 2008 email, on the same date, Mr.
Corwin forwarded the email to Ms. Graverson with the instructions, Please print out and place in a labeled folder thanks. 99. Having learned about the filing of the Termination Statement as well as the
Correction Statement and the New Financing Statement, neither Mr. Corwin, Mr. Annex, nor anyone else at Greenberg, took any further action for almost two months. Greenberg did not look into the circumstances surrounding the filing of the Termination Statement and it did not undertake any legal analysis of what Heller could do to take advantage of the filing of the Termination Statement. 100. Had Greenberg looked into these issues it would have concluded, as the
firm concluded two months later, that Heller could have filed for bankruptcy and voided
22
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
the filing of the New Financing Statement as a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. 547. As such, Greenberg also would have concluded, or should have concluded, and advised Heller accordingly, that the firm should file for bankruptcy immediately. The reason for this conclusion and advice is that after filing for bankruptcy Heller could then seek an immediate judicial determination by the bankruptcy court that the money held in its accounts with BOA, as well as its accounts receivable, did not constitute the Banks cash collateral, in that the perfected lien created by the filing of New Financing Statement was a voidable transfer under 11 U.S.C. 547. 101. Alternatively, Heller could have confronted the Banks and attempted to
negotiate a deal or in any event it could have taken control of its accounts, money and accounts receivable and conducted an orderly dissolution. Notably, the outstanding amount on the bank loans was significantly higher than it was in December of 2008, after the third party landlord alerted Heller to the issue. Heller lost considerable leverage between early October 2008 and December 2008 because the banks were draining the value of Hellers accounts receivable to pay off the secured loan. 102. Had Greenberg investigated these issues and advised Heller accordingly,
and had Heller filed for bankruptcy shortly after discovering the filing of the Termination Statement on October 7, 2008, or taken other steps to protect its financial interests, Heller immediately could have obtained control of its money, accounts and accounts receivable. In that case Heller could have undertaken an orderly liquidation either in or out of bankruptcy, retained key employees that were crucial to collection of accounts receivable, collected a significantly higher amount of accounts receivable than the amount it collected in the months following BOAs taking control of Hellers accounts, and avoided the WARN Act Class Action and the damages it incurred as a result of that lawsuit, including attorneys fees. Further, Heller would have avoided damages in the form of a significant portion of the approximately $56.2 million that was paid to the Banks following October 2, 2008 when the New Financing Statement was filed, less the amount that the Banks returned to Heller under the settlement of the Preference Action, described below, plus
23
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
attorneys fees. If Heller had been in control of its money, including its deposit accounts and accounts receivable, it would not have paid it over to the Banks. Instead, it would have used the money to finance its orderly liquidation and, ultimately, to pay over to all unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis. A Third Party Informs Heller About the Filing of the Termination Statement and Hellers Resultant Bankruptcy Filing 103. On November 28, 2008, in a telephone call between Heller Dissolution
Committee member Mr. Benvenutti and Mike Brody, an attorney representing the landlord for Hellers San Francisco offices at 333 Bush Street, Mr. Brody told Mr. Benvenutti that he had undertaken a UCC search and discovered the August 3, 2007 filing of the Termination Statement, as well as the October 1, 2008 filing of the Correction Statement and the October 2, 2008 filing of the New Financing Statement. Mr. Brody told Mr. Benvenutti that based on this discovery he believed that the Banks security interest in Hellers Collateral was voidable if a bankruptcy was filed within ninety days of the October 2, 2008 filing of the New Financing Statement. He also requested that Mr. Benvenutti agree not to pay down the Banks any further until the issue was sorted out. 104. Also on November 28, 2008, after their telephone conversation, Mr. Brody
sent Mr. Benvenutti a fax containing copies of the Termination Statement, the Correction Statement and the New Financing Statement. 105. On November 28, 2008, after his call with Mr. Brody, Mr. Benvenutti sent
an email to Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex in which he described his conversation with Mr. Brody, stating that if it was in fact correct the banks security interest could be avoided in a bankruptcy case filed within 90 days after October 2, and asking Whats the story here? He also stated that he had agreed that until the issue was sorted out Heller would not initiate any further pay-downs to the banks. 106. On November 29, 2008, Greenberg began to focus in earnest for the first
time on the issues surrounding the filing of the Termination Statement and whether in fact the Banks lien on Hellers Collateral was in fact voidable. In addition to talking to Mr. Benvenutti, Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex reviewed the earlier email sent to them on
24
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
October 10 by Julia Engel attaching the results of her UCC search. Mr. Annex sent this October 10 email to Mr. Benvenutti and Mr. Corwin. In addition, Mr. Corwin and/or Mr. Annex apparently gave an assignment to a Greenberg associate, Kristin Rinaldi, who immediately began to research the legal issues surrounding the Termination Statement, the effect of the Correction Statement and related issues surrounding the Banks lien. 107. Over the next few days a flurry of activities took place, including further
discussions between Mr. Corwin, Mr. Annex and Mr. Benvenutti, discussions between Mr. Corwin and Mr. Brody, discussions between Greenberg attorneys and the Dissolution Committee and numerous internal discussions among Greenberg regarding the Termination Statement and whether the Banks lien in Hellers collateral was voidable. 108. On December 7, 2008, Greenberg provided to the Heller Dissolution
Committee a memorandum, from Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex, regarding the issue of whether the Banks lien was voidable under bankruptcy. The conclusion of this memo was that the filling of the Termination Statement rendered the Banks lien unperfected until it re-perfected it on October 2, 2008. The memo further concluded that [a]ssuming a bankruptcy proceeding is commenced on behalf of the Firm by December 30, 2008, the Banks perfection should be subject to preferential avoidance. 109. The December 7 memo, with work performed in connection with the memo,
and other work performed by Greenberg that the firm was providing bankruptcy services to Heller before December 10, 2008 appear to make it indisputable that Greenberg had been providing bankruptcy related services to Heller for several months by early December, 2008. 110. Greenberg provided no explanation in the memo or otherwise why they
failed to examine the issues and draw the conclusions they drew in the December 7 memo until two months after they became aware that the Termination Statement had been filed, or why Greenberg had not undertaken a lien search on its own initiative. 111. Over the course of the next few weeks Heller, with Greenbergs assistance,
engaged in negotiations with the Banks in attempt to have the latter return money to
25
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Heller and reach a settlement without Heller having to resort to a bankruptcy filing. The negotiations were not successful. 112. In December, 2008, Greenberg intensified preparation for a bankruptcy
filing. On December 28, 2008, Heller filed its Chapter 11 petition. Hellers Preference Lawsuit Against the Banks and Settlement 113. On April 23, 2009, Heller, by and through its authorized representative, the
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Heller (the Committee), filed an adversary proceeding against the Banks to avoid the perfection of the Banks lien in Hellers Collateral and to avoid and recover all of the money that had been transferred by Heller to the Banks in the ninety days prior to the Petition Date (the Preference Action) in excess of $56 million. 114. Litigation between Heller and the Banks took place over the course of
almost two years, with substantial discovery taking place, including extensive written discovery and at least nine depositions in San Francisco, Southern California and New York. The costs to the Heller estate of litigating the case exceeded $3 million. 115. The outcome of the Preference Action was uncertain. One of the primary
reasons for the uncertainty was that Heller would have been required to go through the process of establishing the firms insolvency as of October 2, 2008, the date of the filing of the New Financing Statement, an element required to establish a preference claim under 11 U.S.C. 547(b). 116. On February 24, 2011, at a mediation held in San Francisco, Heller (now
being represented by the Liquidating Trustee) and the Banks settled the Preference Action. The terms of settlement were that the Banks would pay the Heller estate $20 million and would dismiss their proof of claim against the Heller estate and waive with prejudice any and all claims they have against Heller. In turn, Heller would dismiss the Preference Action with prejudice. 117. Considering that the Bank has waived any and all claims against the estate,
the value of the settlement to the Heller estate is significantly higher than $20 million,
26
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
though the true value cannot be determined until it is ultimately determined what the final payout will be to unsecured creditors. Creation of the Jewel Waiver 118. Greenberg was hired by Heller LLP to provide legal services to the
partnership, not to the individual Heller Shareholders. As such, Greenberg had an obligation to provide legal services to Heller not to the Heller Shareholders. 119. As retained counsel for Heller, Greenberg owed a duty of care and a duty of
loyalty to Heller, not the individual Heller Shareholders. 120. During the course of representing Heller, after Greenberg was assigned the
task of drafting the Plan of Dissolution, it was determined by certain Heller Shareholders and Greenberg to include language in the Plan of Dissolution under which Heller would agree to waive any rights and claims the firm might otherwise have been able to assert against its departing Shareholder under the doctrine of Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal. App. 3d 171 (1984) (the Jewel Waiver). 121. The Jewel Waiver was beneficial to the Heller Shareholders and detrimental
to Heller in that it caused the firm to waive valuable potential future claims against the Heller Shareholders. 122. The Jewel Waiver ultimately caused harm to Heller in that it made it more
difficult for Heller to assert claims under Jewel v. Boxer, in that Heller must go through the process of proving that the creation of the Jewel Waiver was in fact an actual or constructive fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. 548, which may include the additional step of establishing that Heller was insolvent or operating with unreasonably small capital as of the September 26, 2008, the date the Plan of Dissolution was approved. While Heller is likely to be successful in proving that the firm was insolvent or operating with unreasonably small capital as of this date, it will be more expensive to go through this process in that expert witnesses as to this issue will be required. More significantly, Heller has settled the Jewel actions for less than it would have collected had the Jewel Waiver not been inserted by Greenberg into the dissolution plan due to Greenbergs
27
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
failure to meet the standard of care. 123. Heller has been damaged by Greenbergs act of including the Jewel Waiver
in the Plan of Dissolution in that the amount of attorneys fees and expert witness fees incurred by the firm in prosecuting the various Jewel lawsuits will be greater than it would have been if Heller were not required to first establish that the Jewel Waiver is a fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. 548. Moreover, if Heller is required to establish insolvency Hellers fees and costs, including expert witness costs, will be greater than if no Jewel Waiver existed. If the Jewel Waiver had not been included in the Plan of Dissolution, liability under Jewel v. Boxer would be a foregone conclusion and Heller would only be required to establish damages. The additional element of proof Heller must establish directly translates into increased attorneys fees and costs to Heller. 124. Debtor also asserts a claim for Greenbergs negligence with respect to other
actions in the run-up to the bankruptcy, including any failure of Greenberg to adequately cement an agreement the Debtor had reached with a broker regarding the surrender of the lease of Hellers New York office. The Debtor is informed and strongly believes that the broker agreed in writing to provide its services for $325,000 based upon, among other things, an invoice from the broker dated October 15, 2008 stating the agreed amount due was $325,000 and a letter from Mr. Corwin dated October 21, 2008, to the debtors secured lenders and the debtor stating that the amount of the commission owed was $325,000. However, the Broker alleges that the Debtors agreement to the $325,000 was not communicated and, as a result, that the commission was $2,939,496. While the Debtor vehemently disputes the broker contentions, Greenberg should have handled the transaction in a manner that would have avoided the brokers contentions on this issue. If it is determined that the broker is entitled to a commission in excess if $325,000, the Debtor is informed and believes that such increase in the commission shall be attributable to a failure of Greenberg to adequately cement an agreement regarding the commission. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Professional Negligence)
28
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(Against All Defendants) 125. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in each of
the previous paragraphs alleged above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
A.
Failure to Discover Termination Statement Before Bank Re-filed Financing Statement.
126.
Mr. Corwin and Greenberg were hired to provide legal services to Heller on
June 11, 2008. The scope of the legal services to be provided initially was to render advice and consult in connection with its current Partnership Agreement and matters relating to its affairs, including potential issues regarding a combination and/or restructuring. 127. The legal services Mr. Corwin and Greenberg were providing expanded in
August, 2008, to concentrate on legal services in connection with the dissolution of Heller, including the drafting of a plan of dissolution and advice concerning a potential liquidation of the firm, including bankruptcy issues. In August and September, 2008, the legal services Greenberg was requested to perform on behalf of Heller, and which it was in fact performing at the time, were primarily services related to a potential liquidation and/or because of the firm evaluating a possible bankruptcy filing. 128. As such, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg should have known to conduct a lien
search of Heller to determine the degree to which secured creditors had perfected security interests against the firm and to ensure that the Banks liens were perfected. 129. At no time from the date of its retention on June 11, 2008 to October 2,
2008, the date BOA filed the New Financing Statement, did Mr. Corwin or Greenberg conduct a lien search to determine if in fact the Banks security interest in the Heller Collateral was perfected. 130. On September 19, 2008, BOA sent the Default Notice to Heller, a copy of
which was sent to Mr. Corwin, and stated therein that BOA immediately was taking possession of Hellers deposit accounts and stating that all accounts receivable constituted the Banks cash collateral and not to use any of it for any purpose without BOAs prior approval. Even in response to this, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg failed to conduct a lien search to confirm that the Banks had a valid security interest in Hellers deposit accounts
29
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and accounts receivable. 131. Even after Heller informed Mr. Corwin that its insurance carrier, MPC,
would be filing a UCC financing statement with respect to Heller, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg still did not conduct a lien search of Heller. 132. Had Mr. Corwin and Greenberg conducted a lien search at any time prior to
October 2, 2008, they would have discovered that the Original Financing Statement filed by BOA had been terminated on August 3, 2007 and in fact the Banks security interest in the Heller Collateral was unperfected. 133. Had Mr. Corwin and Greenberg known that the Banks security interest in
the Heller Collateral was unperfected they could have advised Heller to immediately file for bankruptcy protection, which would have prevented the Banks from filing the New Financing Statement under 11 U.S.C. 362. Alternatively, they could have attempted to negotiate with the Banks or take other steps to enforce Hellers legal rights and prevent BOA from filing the New Financing Statement, to regain control over its money, accounts and accounts receivable. 134. Had Mr. Corwin and Greenberg undertaken a lien search prior to October 2,
2008 and discovered that the Banks security interest in the Heller Collateral was unperfected, and had Heller subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection prior to October 2, 2008, when the New Financing Statement was filed, the Banks would have been in effect unsecured creditors and Heller would have had control of all of its accounts, money and accounts receivable. 135. If Heller had filed for bankruptcy at the time the Banks were unperfected, or
had the firm taken other steps to protect its financial interests, Heller could have undertaken an orderly liquidation, retained key employees that were crucial to collection of accounts receivable, collected a significantly higher amount of accounts receivable than the amount it collected in the months following BOAs taking control of Hellers accounts, and avoided the WARN Act Class Action and the damages it incurred as a result of that lawsuit, including attorneys fees.
30
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
136.
As attorneys for Heller Mr. Corwin and Greenberg owed a duty of care to
provide legal advice and services of the skill, prudence and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 137. In failing to conduct a lien search with respect to Hellers property, and as a
result of its failing to discover that the Banks security interest was unperfected, and that Heller could have filed for bankruptcy or taken other legal steps and in effect rendered the Banks unsecured creditors, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg breached their duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 138. As one prominent San Francisco bankruptcy attorney stated in a quote
printed in a June 3, 2009 in the San Francisco Recorder, Ive been practicing for nearly 30 years and I have never begun a debtor representation without pulling the UCC run. In failing to conduct a UCC lien search on Hellers property Mr. Corwin and Greenberg fell below the standard of care, skill, prudence, and diligence that members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 139. As a direct and proximate cause of Mr. Corwins and Greenbergs failure to
conduct a lien search and to advise Heller to file for bankruptcy protection, or take other appropriate legal steps, at a time when the Banks lien in the Heller Collateral was unperfected, Heller suffered harm. Instead of being able to control its own accounts and accounts receivable, and to conduct an orderly liquidation, Heller was instead essentially put under the control of the Banks and underwent a disorderly liquidation. Instead of treating the Banks as unsecured creditors, which Heller could pay in the same manner as all other unsecured creditors, the Banks took control over Hellers deposit accounts and accounts receivable, and caused Heller to transfer in excess of $56 million to the Banks. Further, Heller suffered harm in the form of a disorderly liquidation under the control and management of the Banks, which resulted in lower collections during the three-month
31
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
period after the Banks issued the Default Notice, the loss of key personnel, some of whom were responsible for collections and the filing of the WARN Act Class Action against Heller. 140. Heller suffered actual damages as a direct result of Mr. Corwins and
Greenbergs failure to conduct a lien search and to advise Heller to file for bankruptcy or take other appropriate legal steps prior to October 2, 2008. The damages suffered include the total amount paid over to the Banks following the issuance of the September 19, 2008 Default Notice (in excess of $60 million), less the $20 million paid to Heller under the settlement of the Preference Action, plus attorneys fees. In addition, Heller suffered damages based on the significantly reduced amount of accounts receivable it collected as a result of the disorderly liquidation caused by the control exercised by the Banks over Heller and its deposit accounts and accounts receivable. Heller also suffered damages caused by the WARN Act Class Action, including the amounts it paid under the settlement of that suit, minus the amount it would have been required to pay under the WARN Act, plus attorneys fees. But for Mr. Corwins and Greenbergs negligent conduct as alleged herein, Heller would not have suffered these damages.
B.
Failure to Alert Heller to the Significance of the UCC Termination.
141.
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in each of
the previous paragraphs alleged above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 142. On October 7, 2008, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg became aware that the
Termination Statement had been filed and that only a few days earlier BOA had filed the Correction Statement. Greenberg, and specifically, Mr. Corwin, became aware of both of these filings because he had been told this in a telephone conversation that day with, among others, Alan Smith, a partner at Perkins Coie. 143. Further, on the same date, October 7, 2008, Alan Smith sent an email to Mr.
Corwin, among others, with attachments showing the results of a UCC lien search for Heller and a copy of the Termination Statement and Correction Statement. Mr. Corwin
32
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
forwarded these materials to an administrative assistant and requested that she place them in a file. 144. On October 8, 2008, Mr. Corwin and/or Mr. Annex instructed an associate
in Greenbergs New York City office to conduct an independent lien search of Heller. 145. The independent lien search confirmed not only the filings of the
Termination Statement and the Correction Statement but also that another UCC financing statement (the New Financing Statement) had been filed on October 2, 2008. 146. Upon receiving the materials from his associate confirming that the
Termination Statement had been filed on August 3, 2007, the Correction Statement on October 1, 2008 and the New Financing Statement on October 2, 2008, Mr. Corwin instructed an assistant to place the materials in a folder. Upon information and belief Mr. Corwin took no further action following his discovery of these filings and did not communicate with anyone at Heller about these filings until late November, 2008, when Heller Shareholder Benvenutti raised the issue with Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex. 147. Upon learning about the filing of the Termination Statement, and that for
more than a year the Banks lien against the Heller assets until very recently, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg should have advised Heller to immediately file for bankruptcy, stop paying down the bank loan, or take other steps to protect the firms interests. Mr. Corwin and Greenberg failed to make any such recommendation until December, 2008. 148. If Heller had filed for bankruptcy or taken other steps to protect its interests
in October, 2008, shortly after Mr. Corwin and Greenberg discovered the existence of the Termination and New Financing Statement filings, it could have sought to void the filing of the New Financing Statement as a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. 547, or otherwise. Moreover, Heller could have sought an immediate judicial determination by the bankruptcy court that the money held in its accounts with BOA, as well as its accounts receivable, did not constitute the Banks cash collateral, in that the perfected lien created by the filing of New Financing Statement was a voidable transfer under 11 U.S.C. 547. Alternatively, Heller could have negotiated with the Banks armed with the information
33
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
that the banks were effectively an unsecured creditor and that Heller could avoid the Banks lien through a bankruptcy filing. 149. In failing to take any action after discovering the filing of the Termination
Statement and the New Financing Statement on October 7, 2008, other than to place evidence of the filings in a file, and in failing to advise Heller to immediately file for bankruptcy immediately, or take other steps to protect Hellers interests, or to even communicate with Heller about the filings, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg breached their duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 150. As a direct and proximate cause of Mr. Corwins and Greenbergs failure to
advise Heller to file for bankruptcy shortly after learning about the UCC filings in October, 20008, Heller suffered harm. Had Mr. Corwin and Greenberg investigated these issues and advised Heller accordingly, and had Heller filed for bankruptcy shortly after Greenberg had learned about the UCC filings on October 7, 2008, or taken other steps to protect its legal interests, Heller immediately could have obtained control of its accounts and accounts receivable. In that case Heller could have undertaken an orderly liquidation in or out of bankruptcy, retained key employees that were crucial to collection of accounts receivable, collected a significantly higher amount of accounts receivable than the amount it collected in the months following BOAs taking control of Hellers accounts, and avoided the WARN Act Class Action and the damages it incurred as a result of that lawsuit, including attorneys fees. Further, Heller would have avoided a damages in the form of a significant portion of the approximately $56.2 million that was paid to the Banks following October 2, 2008 when the New Financing Statement was filed, less the amount that the Banks returned to Heller under the settlement of the Preference Action, plus attorneys fees. If Heller had been in control of its money, including its deposit accounts and accounts receivable, it would not have paid it over to the Banks. Instead, it would have used the money to finance its orderly liquidation and, ultimately, to pay over to all unsecured creditors on a pro rata basis.
34
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
151.
Heller suffered actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Mr.
Corwins and Greenbergs failure to advise Heller to file for bankruptcy in October, 2008, or take other steps to protect the firms legal interests. The damages suffered include the total amount paid over to the Banks following the issuance of the September 19, 2008 Default Notice (in excess of $60 million), less the $20 million paid to Heller under the settlement of the Preference Action, plus attorneys fees. In addition, Heller suffered damages based on the significantly reduced amount of accounts receivable it collected as a result of the disorderly liquidation caused by the control exercised by the Banks over Heller and its deposit accounts and accounts receivable. Heller also suffered damages caused by the WARN Act Class Action, including the amounts it paid under the settlement of that suit, minus the amount it would have been required to pay under the WARN Act, plus attorneys fees. But for Mr. Corwins and Greenbergs negligent conduct as alleged herein, Heller would not have suffered these damages.
C.
Jewel Waiver.
152.
Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in each of
the previous paragraphs alleged above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 153. Mr. Corwin and Greenberg knew that Greenberg had been retained by
Heller under the June 11, 2008 retainer agreement between Greenberg and Heller. As such, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg knew that they owed a duty of care and loyalty to Heller, not the individual Heller Shareholders. 154. By not advising against including the Jewel Waiver in the Plan of
Dissolution Mr. Corwin and Greenberg were acting in the best interest of the Heller Shareholders, not the Heller firm itself. The Jewel Waiver allowed Heller Shareholders to take unfinished business that lawfully belonged to Heller to other law firms and to try and keep the profits from that unfinished business either for themselves or for themselves and their new firms. The Jewel Waiver caused harm to Heller in that it waived valuable claims for profits from such unfinished business.
35
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
155.
By not advising against including the Jewel Waiver, an act detrimental to
Heller, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg, violated their duty of care and loyalty to Heller. As such, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg breached their duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 156. Alternatively, in not advising against including the Jewel Waiver, Mr.
Corwin and Greenberg aided and abetted the Heller Shareholders in usurping rights and property that belonged to Heller in favor of the Heller Shareholders. As such, Mr. Corwin and Greenberg breached their duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 157. Greenberg also failed to document the broker agreement so as to avoid a
dispute, as outline above. If the broker is able to establish a claim greater than the agreed upon amount it will be due to the fault of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg for failing to adequately document in writing the agreement to accept a reduced commission for negotiating a surrender agreement. 158. The Jewel Waiver ultimately caused harm to Heller in that it made it more
costly for Heller to assert claims under Jewel v. Boxer, in that Heller must go through the process of proving that the creation of the Jewel Waiver was in fact an actual or constructive fraud under 11 U.S.C. 548, which may include having to show that Heller was insolvent as of the September 26, 2008, the date the Plan of Dissolution was approved. 159. Heller has been damaged by Mr. Corwins and Greenbergs act of including
the Jewel Waiver in the Plan of Dissolution in that the amount of attorneys fees and costs that will be incurred by Heller will be greater than it would have been if Heller were not required to first establish that the Jewel Waiver is a fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. 548. The additional element of proof Heller must establish directly translates into increased attorneys fees, expert witness fees and other costs to Heller.
36
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 37
1 2 3
D.
Failure to Disclose Interest Adverse to the Debtor and That Heller Had Actual And Potential Causes Of Action Against It For The Preference Period Payments.
160.
4 5
On January 12, 2009, Greenberg filed with the Bankruptcy Court on behalf
of the Debtor an Application authorizing the employment of Greenberg as co-counsel for the Debtor in the bankruptcy case (the Application). In support of the Application
6
Greenberg submitted an affidavit of one of its shareholders, Keith Shapiro (the 2014
7
Declaration) in accordance with Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
8 9
(the Bankruptcy Rules) and 11 U.S.C. ' 110(h)(2). 161. In the 2014 Declaration, Greenberg declared under penalty of perjury that
10
Greenberg does not hold any interests adverse to the Debtor or its chapter 11 estate.
11
While the firm mentioned that it received certain payments from Heller prior to the
12
Bankruptcy Petition, it did not disclose that Greenberg could be liable for having received
13
preferential payments with respect to some or all of the $1.47 million as compensation for
14
attorneys fees and costs billed by Greenberg in 2008 and during the 90-day period
15
preceding the Debtors bankruptcy filing (the Preference Period) hereinafter

16
(Preference Period Payments).

17
162.
18 19
Some or all of the Preference Period Payments met all the requirements for
avoidance under 11 U.S.C. 550 as the payments: (a) were on account of an antecedent debt owed by Greenberg to Heller;
20
(b) made at the time that the Debtor was insolvent as that term is meant under
21
11 U.S.C. 547(b) and.

22
(c) as a result of being paid the aforementioned payments by Heller, Greenberg

23
received more than it would have received if:

24
i.Heller were a debtor under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States

25
Code;
26
ii. The payments had not been made by Heller to Greenberg; and
27
iii. Greenberg received the same payment as other unsecured creditors as

28
provided for under Chapter 7.

37
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
163.
Accordingly, at the time of the Application and 2014 Declaration, Heller, as
the liquidating Debtor, was entitled to avoid any such payments made by Heller to Greenberg that exceed the hypothetical amount Greenberg would have been paid had it not been paid and this was a case under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code. 164. As an experienced bankruptcy counsel, Greenberg knew, or should have
known, at the time of the Application and 2014 Declaration and thereafter, the Debtor had actual and potential claims against Greenberg for these Preference Period Payments. 165. Yet, Greenberg did not advise the Debtor that the Debtor had a potential
claim for the Preference Payments. 166. Nor did Greenberg ever disclose the actual conflict of interest between itself
and the Debtor due to these potential claims. 167. As stated in In re Park-Helena Corp., 63 F.3d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1995):
A fee applicant must disclose, the precise nature of the fee arrangement, and not simply identify the ultimate owner of the funds. Debtors counsel [must] lay bare all its dealings . . . regarding compensation. Counsels fee revelations must be direct and comprehensive. Coy, or incomplete disclosures . . . are not sufficient. The burden is on the person to be employed to come forward and make full candid, and complete disclosure. 168. Rather, than comply with these duties, Greenberg made misrepresentations
and failed to disclose the potential claims against it to the Bankruptcy Court. In the Application and 2014 Declaration, Greenberg stated that it does not hold, or represent any entity having an adverse interest in connection with this case. 169. In failing to fully advise the Debtor concerning the Debtors claims against
it for the Preference Payments or the conflict of interest arising therefrom and by making misrepresentations in the Application and 2014 Declaration concerning the lack of any adverse interest with respect to the Debtor, Greenberg breached its duty to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as members of the legal profession commonly, and purported bankruptcy specialists particularly, possess and exercise. 170. Had Greenberg disclosed its potential exposure on a preference claim, it
would have had to overcome the holding of In re Pillowtex, 304 F.3d 246 (3d. Cir. 2002),
38
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
in order to become employed by the estate. 171. Greenbergs errors, omissions, and misrepresentations have caused
proximately and actually caused Heller injury in the form of additional attorneys fees, interest, and delay in the Debtors ability to obtain the Preference Payments. 172. These injuries damaged Heller in an amount to be proven at trial. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Attorneys Fees for Tort of Another) (Against All Defendants) 173. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in each of
10
174.
11 12
As a direct and proximate cause of the tortious acts of Mr. Corwin and
Greenberg as alleged above, Heller has incurred significant attorneys fees in connection with defending the WARN Act Class Action.
13
175.
14 15
Further, as a direct and proximate cause of the tortious acts of Mr. Corwin
and Greenberg as alleged above, Heller has incurred significant attorneys fees in connection with prosecuting the Preference Action against the Banks that it would not
16
have incurred but for the tortious acts of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg.
17
176.
18 19
and Greenberg as alleged above, Heller has incurred significant additional attorneys fees in connection with prosecuting the Jewel cases against former Heller Shareholders and the
20
law firms in which they took Heller unfinished business, that it would not have incurred
21
but for the tortious acts of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg.

22
177.
23 24
and Greenberg as alleged above, Heller has incurred significant attorneys fees in connection with objecting to the CB Richard proof of claims, that it would not have
25
incurred but for the tortious acts of Mr. Corwin and Greenberg.
26
178.
27 28
Under both New York and California law, to the extent a plaintiff incurs
attorneys fees in prosecuting or defending an action against a third party that is the proximate and natural consequence of a defendants tortious conduct, the plaintiff is
39
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
entitled to collect its attorneys fees incurred in such third party litigation. 179. As such, Heller is entitled to collect from Mr. Corwin and Greenberg the
attorneys fees Heller incurred in connection with the WARN Act Class Action, the Preference Action, the Jewel lawsuits and in connection with objecting to the CB Richard proof of claim. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Recovery of Preferential Payments) (Against Greenberg) 180. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in each of
10
11
181.
12 13
During the ninety day period prior to December 28, 2008, Heller paid
Greenberg an amount of in excess of $1.48 million as compensation for attorneys fees and costs billed by Greenberg.
14
182.
15
The payments made by Heller to Greenberg were for the benefit of
Greenberg.
16
183.
17 18
The payments made by Heller to Greenberg were on account of an
antecedent debt owed by Heller to Greenberg. 184.

19 20
The payments made by Heller to Greenberg were made at a time in which
Heller was insolvent as that term is meant under 11 U.S.C. 547(b). 185.
21 22
As a result of being paid the aforementioned payments by Heller, Greenberg
received more than it would have received if: (a) Heller were a debtor under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code;
23
(b) The payments had not been made by Heller to Greenberg; and
24
(c) Greenberg received the same payment as other unsecured creditors as

25
provided for under Chapter 7.

26
186.
27 28
Heller, as the liquidating Debtor, is entitled to avoid any such payments
made by Heller to Greenberg that exceed the hypothetical amount Greenberg would have been paid had it not been paid and this was a case under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the
40
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
United States Code. 187. Under 11 U.S.C. 550, to the extent that the payments made to Greenberg
described above are avoided, Heller is entitled to recover from Greenberg the full amount of any such avoided payments. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Disgorgement of Fees) (Against Greenberg) 188. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations set forth in each of
the previous paragraphs alleged above, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 189. On January 12, 2009, Greenberg filed with the Bankruptcy Court on behalf
of the Debtor an Application authorizing the employment of Greenberg as co-counsel for the Debtor in the bankruptcy case (the Application). In support of the Application Greenberg submitted an affidavit of one of its shareholders, Keith Shapiro (the Shapiro Affidavit). 190. In the Application and the Shapiro Affidavit, Greenberg claimed that since
approximately December 10, 2008, Greenberg Traurig has advised the Debtor in regards to bankruptcy-related matters. However, in fact Greenberg had performed bankruptcyrelated services for Heller for several months prior to December 10, 2008, including bankruptcy consulting services. Included within this work was a memorandum dated December 7, 2008, authored by Mr. Corwin and Mr. Annex, in which Greenberg effectively recommended that Heller file for bankruptcy protection in order to avoid Bank of Americas October 2, 2008 re-perfection of its lien in Hellers assets with the filing of the New Financing Statement. Further, as alleged in detail above, Heller had been providing bankruptcy related services to Heller for several months prior December 10, 2008. Thus, the statement that Greenberg had not begun providing bankruptcy related services to Heller until December 10, 2008 was not accurate. As such, Greenberg failed to comply with Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure by failing to fully and accurately disclose the nature of Greenbergs relationship with the Debtor.
41
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
191.
In the Application and the Shapiro Affidavit, Greenberg also failed to
disclose that it had a serious conflict of interest with the Debtor in that at the time the Debtor had potential claims against Greenberg for professional negligence. Specifically, as a result of Greenbergs failure to conduct a lien search either prior to the October 2, 2008 filing of the New Financing Statement by BOA, or the failure of Greenberg to take any action when it became aware of the filing of the Termination Statement and New Financing Statement in earlier October, 2008, Heller incurred significant damages as described in detail above. Heller had potential claims against Greenberg for professional negligence as a result of these damages. Greenberg was obligated to describe these potential claims against it under 11 U.S.C. 329 and Rule 2014. Had Greenberg disclosed these potential claims to the Bankruptcy Court as it was required to do the Court could have rejected Greenbergs Application. 192. Greenberg was well aware at the time it filed the Application that Heller had
potential claims against Greenberg and as such it never should have acted as Hellers bankruptcy counsel. Further, Greenberg was well aware that it had a conflict with Heller in that it was then representing BOA in other matters and could not represent the Debtor in what would inevitably be a major aspect of the bankruptcy case, namely litigation against BOA. Instead, Greenberg should have advised Heller to seek independent bankruptcy counsel. 193. Nor did Greenberg ever disclose the actual conflict of interest between itself
and the Debtor due to the potential preference claims discussed above. 194. The Bankruptcy Court has the authority to disgorge fees paid to professional
persons under 11 U.S.C. 329 and Rule 2014 for failure to fully and adequately disclose the professional persons relationship with a debtor, the scope of work performed on behalf of a debtor, and any adverse interest the professional person has with a debtor. Here, Greenberg failed to fully and adequately describe its relationship with Heller and the potential claims Heller had against Greenberg. For these reasons the Court should disgorge all fees paid to Greenberg by Heller during its entire representation of Heller
42
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
during the year prior to the December 28, 2008 bankruptcy filing as well as any and all fees paid post-petition. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: 1. to: (a) Judgment against Greenberg for damages in the amount to be determined at trial; (b) (c) (d) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the extent allowed by law; and For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. As to the First Claim for Relief for Professional Negligence, Debtor is entitled
2.
As to the Second Claim for Relief for Attorneys Fees for the Tort of Another,
Debtor is entitled to: (a) The amount of Hellers attorneys fees and costs it incurred in connection with defending the Warn Act Class Action, in connection with prosecuting the Preference Action against the Banks, in connection with prosecuting the Jewel cases against former Heller Shareholders and the law firms in which said Shareholders took Heller unfinished business, and in connection with objecting to CB Richards proof of claim. (b) (c) (d) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the extent allowed by law; and For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
3.
As to the Third Claim for Relief for Recovery of Preferential Payments,
Debtor is entitled to: (a) Judgment against Greenberg for amounts paid to Greenberg within ninety
43
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
days prior to December 28, 2008, with said amount to be determined at trial; (b) (c) (d) 4. to: (a) Judgment against Greenberg for amounts paid to Greenberg for professional fees and costs within a year prior to December 28, 2008, as well as any fees paid to Greenberg post-petition, with said amount to be determined at trial; (b) (c) (d) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the extent allowed by law; and For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; Reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit to the extent allowed by law; and For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. As to the Fourth Claim for Relief for Disgorgement of Fees, Debtor is entitled
DATED: October 31, 2011
TREPEL GREENFIELD SULLIVAN & DRAA LLP
By:
/s/ Christopher D. Sullivan Christopher D. Sullivan
Special Litigation Counsel for Liquidating Debtor, Heller Ehrman LLP
44
Case: 08-32514
Doc# 2711
Filed: 10/31/11 of 45
Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59
Page 45

Heller - Sues - GT Heller V Greenberg Traurig

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heller - Sues - GT Heller V Greenberg Traurig

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: HELLER EHRMAN LLP,

Complaint For Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A),

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

On August 3, 2007, BOA terminated the Original Financing Statement when

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.

Entered: 10/31/11 15:42:59

Complaint for Professional Negligence, Etc.