§Why CasetextPricing

In re: Coudert Brothers LLP, Debtor. <br />--------------------------------<br /> Development Specialists, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, <br />--------------------------------<br /> K&L Gates LLP et al., Appellants-Respondents, <br />--------------------------------<br /> Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Geron ex rel. Estate of Thelen LLP v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (In re Thelen LLP)

    736 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2013)   Cited 257 times
    Holding that partnership's status as a registered California entity did not alter conclusion that New York law should apply to fraudulent transfer claims

  2. Santalucia v. Sebright Transp., Inc.

    232 F.3d 293 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 102 times
    Finding waiver when adjudicating fee dispute after the settlement of an underlying suit

  3. Palladino v. CNY Centro, Inc.

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2378 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 36 times
    Finding Martin applied in a suit brought by a member of the defendant union

  4. Beckman v. Farmer

    579 A.2d 618 (D.C. 1990)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that “pending contingent fee cases are partnership property and, therefore, assets subject to distribution on dissolution”

  5. Ederer v. Gursky

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9960 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that New York's limited liability partnership legislation "eliminated the vicarious liability of a general partner"

  6. Ruby v. Abington Memorial Hosp.

    2012 Pa. Super. 114 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]n Pennsylvania, the quasi-contractual doctrine of unjust enrichment (quantum meruit ) does not apply when a written agreement or express contract exists between the parties"

  7. Geron v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 93845 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 13 times

    2013-12-12 In re THELEN LLP. Yann Geron, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Thelen LLP, Appellant, v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Respondent. See736 F.3d 213. Certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of this Court's Rules of Practice, accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT, RIVERA and ABDUS–SALAAM concur.

  8. Shandell v. Katz

    217 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 29 times
    In Shandell, for example, the plaintiff had voluntarily withdrawn from a law partnership, taking with him 14 contingent fee cases, and eventually recovering $1.6 million.

  9. Heller Ehrman LLP v. Jones Day (In re Heller Ehrman LLP)

    Bankruptcy Case No. 08-32514DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014)   Cited 6 times

    Bankruptcy Case No. 08-32514DM Adversary Proceeding No. 10-3221DM 01-28-2014 In re HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Debtor. HELLER EHRMAN LLP, Plaintiff, v. JONES DAY, Defendant. DENNIS MONTALI __________ U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Chapter 11 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VALUE OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS TO BE RECOVERED I. INTRODUCTION On November 6, 2013, the court heard oral argument on four motions filed by Heller Ehrman LLP ("Heller"), by and through Michael

  10. Robinson v. Nussbaum

    11 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1997)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the “crux of the Beckman opinion” was that “dissolution of a law partnership does not terminate existing contracts with its clients” and “former partners who honor these existing contracts do so as fiduciaries for the benefit of the former partnership”