Thaler Law Firm PLLC
  • Home
  • About the Firm
  • Firm News
  • Professionals
    • Andrew M. Thaler
  • Practice Areas
    • Bankruptcy >
      • Considering Bankruptcy
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Creditors' Rights
    • Mediation
    • Trustee Representation
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Potential Debtor
    • Potential Creditor
  • Blog

Second Circuit Weighs in On "Unfinished Business Doctrine" in Law Firm Bankruptcies

8/8/2014

0 Comments

 
​On August 6, 2014, after receiving the response of the New York Court of Appeals to two certified questions, the Second Circuit issued its decision in Geron v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (In re Thelen LLP), affirming the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that, under New York law, the "unfinished business doctrine" does not apply to a dissolving law firm's pending hourly matters, and that a partnership does not retain any property interest in such matters upon the firm's dissolution.
The partners of Thelen LLP voted to dissolve the firm on October 28, 2008. As part of the dissolution, the partners adopted an amended partnership agreement and dissolution plan. The partnership agreement provided that it was governed by California law and included an "Unfinished Business Waiver." After Thelen's dissolution, eleven partners joined Seyfarth Shaw LLP, bringing unfinished matters from Thelen with them. Ten of these eleven partners joined Seyfarth's New York office. Seyfarth billed the clients of the transferred matters for their services. 

On September 18, 2009, Thelen filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Southern District of New York, and Yann Geron was appointed as the chapter 7 trustee of Thelen's bankruptcy estate. Geron sought to avoid the "Unfinished Business Waiver" as a fraudulent transfer under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and California state law and recover the value of Thelen's unfinished business for the benefit of Thelen's bankruptcy estate. Geron argued that the pending hourly matters were among Thelen's assets and that Thelen's partners fraudulently transferred those assets to individual partners without consideration when they adopted the Unfinished Business Waiver on the eve of dissolution. Seyfarth moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that New York law applied to the issue of whether Seyfarth received any property interest of Thelen and that, under New York law, it did not. 

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed that New York law governed the issue and found that, under New York law, the "unfinished business doctrine" does not apply to a dissolving law firm's pending hourly matters. Therefore, a partnership does not retain any property interest in such matters upon the firm's dissolution. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Seyfarth's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and then sua sponte certified its order for interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed that New York law governed the issue. The Second Circuit then certified two unresolved questions of New York law regarding the scope and applicability of the "unfinished business doctrine" to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Is client matter that is billed on an hourly basis property of a law firm such that, upon dissolution, the law firm is entitled to the profit earned on such matters?; and (2) If so, how does New York law define a "client matter" for the purposes of the "unfinished business doctrine" and what proportion of the profit derived from an ongoing matter may the new law firm retain? 

On July 1, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals answered the first question in the negative, holding that no law firm has a property interest in future hourly legal fees because they are too contingent in nature and speculative to create a present or future property interest. The New York Court of Appeals declined to answer the second certified question in light of its response to the first question. After receiving the response of the New York Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As a result of this decision, partners from failed law firms, and the firms that they later join, can rest assured that a bankruptcy trustee cannot later recover the fees that the new firm billed on the matters that a partner brought from his or her failed firm. Unfortunately for the trustees administering the bankruptcy estates of failed law firms, this decision effectively forecloses their ability to pursue valuable avoidance actions to recover fees from matters taken from the failed firms.
0 Comments

July Bankruptcy Filings down 12% from 2013

8/6/2014

0 Comments

 
​As reported by the American Bankruptcy Institute, total bankruptcy filings nationwide declined 12% in July 2014 as compared to the previous year. Specifically, consumer filings declined 11%, and commercial filings declined 21%.

Samuel J. Gerdano, Executive Director of the American Bankruptcy Institute, opined that high filing costs and low interest rates have caused consumers and businesses to choose against pursuing bankruptcy to obtain financial relief. Mr. Gerdano also suggested that total bankruptcy filings for 2014 might fall below one million for the first time since 2007
0 Comments

    Authors

    This blog is maintained by:
    Andrew M. Thaler

    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Spiros Avramidis
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Categories

    All
    Bankruptcy Cases
    Bankruptcy Filings
    Bankruptcy General
    Bankruptcy/Matrimonial
    Bankruptcy/Personal Injury
    Bankruptcy/Real Estate

    Archives

    November 2021
    June 2021
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    September 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014

    RSS Feed


Thaler Law Firm PLLC
675 Old Country Road
Westbury, New York 11590
Phone: (516) 279-6700 | Fax: (516) 279-6722

Disclaimer
Thaler Law Firm provides the information and materials on its website and blog for informational purposes only. The information is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.
Further, the use of this information, and the sending or receipt of such information and materials, does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. Prior results do not guarantee a future or similar outcome.

The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Accordingly, the information is provided with the understanding that the authors are not herein engaged in rendering legal, accounting, tax,
or other professional advice and services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional accounting, tax, legal or other advisers.

Materials and information in this presentation is proprietary in nature belonging to Thaler Law Firm and may only be reproduced in its entirety (without modification) for the individual reader’s personal or educational use and must include
this notice of our proprietary interest and the prohibition of reproduction

TLF is considered a debt relief agency.
TLF helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Attorney Advertising | Copyright © 2015 Thaler Law Firm PLLC | All rights reserved
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.