Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63993.1 DEBTOR’S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL
John D. Fiero (CA Bar No. 136557) Kenneth H. Brown (CA Bar No. 100396) Miriam P. Khatiblou (CA Bar No. 178584) Teddy M. Kapur (CA Bar No. 242486) PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 150 California Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4500 Telephone: 415/263-7000 Facsimile: 415/263-7010
E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Heller Ehrman LLP, Debtor and Debtor in Possession
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
In re: Heller Ehrman LLP,1 Debtor
Case No.: 08-32514 Chapter 11 DEBTOR'S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL [NO HEARING REQUIRED]
Heller Ehrman LLP, debtor and debtor in possession in the above-referenced case (the
“Debtor”), hereby submits this application (the “Application”) to employ Folger Levin & Khan LLP
(the “Firm”), whose business office is located at 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA
94111, as special malpractice counsel. The Debtor seeks to employ the Firm nunc pro tunc to
December 28, 2008. This Application is brought pursuant to section 327(e) of title 11 of the United
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the
“Bankruptcy Rules”), and the Guidelines of the Office of the United States Trustee, Region 17
(“UST Guidelines”). In support of the Application, the Debtor respectfully represents as follows:
1 The Debtor’s address is 333 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, Federal Tax I.D. No. 94-1217308.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 1 of 6
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63993.1 2 DEBTOR’S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Description of the Debtor
On December 28, 2008 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor has continued in possession of its property
and is operating and managing its business as debtor-in-possession pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and
1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Debtor, a 118 year-old international law firm, is currently winding down its business and
affairs following the adoption of a Plan of Dissolution by the shareholders of the Debtor’s limited
partners in September, 2008. Although the Debtor is no longer engaged in the practice of law, there
remain a substantial number of unperformed, yet necessary, tasks relating to winding down the
business, maximizing the value of the Debtor’s assets for the benefit of its creditors and equity
interest holders, and discharging the Debtor’s obligations to its former clients. Thus, the Debtor still
maintains a workforce of approximately 54 employees to provide these necessary services, and
incurs routine business expenses (including payroll, employee benefits, office space and equipment,
insurance, and costs for other goods and services) as part of the winding down process. Among
other things, winding down the Debtor’s business includes pursuing the collection of at least $35
million in outstanding accounts receivable, coordinating and managing the transition and securing of
client and firm business records, assisting in negotiations with key creditor constituencies, and
performing a number of bookkeeping, office and administrative services.
B. The Debtor’s Assets and Liabilities
As of the Petition Date, the Debtor’s principal assets were $3.7 million in cash, accounts
receivable with a face amount of $52 million and an estimated recoverable value of $35 million (or
more), as well as various office fixtures, furniture and equipment and other receivables, and a $7
million equity investment in the Debtor’s errors and omissions insurer.
As of the Petition Date, the Debtor’s liabilities consist primarily of the $5.7 million in
obligations to Bank of America, NA, the Agent, under a pre-petition secured credit facility,2
2 The Debtor believes that this security interest is avoidable.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 2 of 6
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63993.1 3 DEBTOR’S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL
approximately $10 million in accounts payable, $4 million in taxes, pension and deferred
compensation claims and claims by former employees for accrued vacation time.
C. The Debtor’s Prepetition Retention of the Firm
The Firm has extensive experience in various areas of law including, antitrust, banking,
corporate finance and securities, environmental, labor and employment, professional liability,
intellectual property, and securities litigation to name a few.
The Firm commenced rendering pre-petition services to the Debtor in or about September
2003 in connection with the merger between the Debtor and the Firm’s pre-existing client, the
Venture Law Group. Over the ensuing years the Firm periodically rendered services to the Debtor in
connection with professional liability advice, counseling, and representation. The Debtor has not
paid the Firm for all amounts due to the Firm for its pre-petition services and thus there remains the
total amount of $13,416.95 outstanding.
The Firm has not received a retainer from the Debtor during the one year period prior to the
Petition Date and the Firm has not received any payment of its fees during the 90 day pre-petition
period.
II.
THE COURT SHOULD AUTHORIZE THE DEBTOR TO RETAIN THE FIRM AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to section 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor seeks Court authority to retain
the Firm as special malpractice counsel to perform limited legal services set forth below. The
Firm's depth of experience in the matters for which it has been engaged and the Firm’s accumulated
knowledge of the Debtor gained through the Firm’s prior representation of the Debtor makes it
amply qualified to represent the Debtor. Additionally, the Firm’s attorneys who will be rendering
services to the Debtor are highly experienced litigators with extensive experience in professional
liability matters. The Debtor therefore believes that the Firm's retention is in the best interest of the
estate.
Subject to further order of this Court, and without being exhaustive, the Firm proposes to
render the following types of limited legal services to the Debtor:
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 3 of 6
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63993.1 4 DEBTOR’S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL
(a) to assist, advise and represent the Debtor in connection with matters involving claims or potential professional liability claims against the Debtor, in particular the defense and/or prosecution of matters in which the Debtor is owed legal fees by former clients who may have or who may assert claims of professional liability against the Debtor or its former attorneys. 3
A copy of the engagement letter for services in this chapter 11 case, dated February 19, 2009,
between the Firm and the Debtor is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The Debtor is informed that the Firm has undertaken a thorough review of its computerized
database that contains the names of clients and other parties of interest with respect to certain
matters, and that the Firm has run the following parties through its conflicts system: (a) the Debtor,
(b) the members of the Dissolution Committee; (c) the Debtor’s secured creditors and potential
lienholders; (d) the Debtor’s landlords; (e) the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; and (f)
the Debtor’s top thirty unsecured creditors. The Firm’s investigation has not revealed any actual or
potential conflicts of interest with respect to the matters for which the Firm seeks to be employed.
The Firm does not represent any other entity having an adverse interest in connection with this
Chapter 11 case and to the best of the Debtor’s knowledge and except as disclosed in the
Declaration of Daniel Sharp In Support of Application to Employ Folger Levin & Khan as Special
Malpractice Counsel (the “Sharp Declaration”), no attorney at the Firm has any connection with the
Debtor, its creditors, any other party in interest, its respective attorneys and accountants, the United
States Trustee, any person employed in the office of the United States Trustee, or any insider of the
Debtor.
The Debtor proposes to pay the Firm the hourly rates set forth in the engagement agreement
that is Exhibit A, which are no less favorable than the Firm’s customary rates in effect, and to
reimburse the Firm for its expenses according to its customary reimbursement policies. I am the
attorney at the Firm who is expected to have primary responsibility for this case. My hourly rate for
this engagement is $450; Risa Morris, an associate at the firm with experience in professional
liability matters, is also expected to assist the Debtor in these matters and her hourly rate for this
engagement is $350.00; Jason Horst, a junior associate, will also be assisting the Debtor in this
engagement at an hourly rate of $285.00. Other attorneys who may provide assistance to the Debtor
3 The post-petition services that the Firm proposes to provide are unrelated to the matters in which the Firm rendered pre-petition.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 4 of 6
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63993.1 5 DEBTOR’S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL
are Ethan Schulman and Douglas W. Sullivan, both of who are partners with substantial relevant
experience, whose hourly rate for this engagement will be $540 per hour. Each of the foregoing
rates is no less favorable than the Firm’s customary rates in effect at this time for the services of
each of the attorneys listed. At present, the Firm charges hourly rates in a range from $130 to $185
for paralegals. The resumes of the professionals who are expected to provide services in this case
are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The Firm understands that its compensation in this case is subject to prior approval of the
Court, after notice and a hearing, in accordance with section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code, Rule 2016
of the Bankruptcy Rules, and Local Rule 2014-1. The Firm may seek interim compensation during
the case at the times and in the amounts permitted by Bankruptcy Code section 331 and Bankruptcy
Rule 2016.
There are no agreements or understandings between the Firm and any entity for the sharing
of compensation received or to be received for services rendered in or in connection with the case,
except among the members or regular associates of the Firm.
WHEREFORE, the Debtor requests that this Court approve the employment of the Firm,
pursuant to section 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, nunc pro tunc to December 28, 2008, as its
special collections and employment litigation liaison counsel, to render the limited legal services
described above, with compensation to be paid by the estate as an administrative expense in such
amounts as this Court may hereafter determine and allow.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 5 of 6
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63993.1 6 DEBTOR’S APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KHAN AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL
Dated: February 20, 2009 HELLER EHRMAN LLP
By /s/ Peter J. Benvenutti Peter J. Benvenutti Its Chair of the Dissolution Committee Submitted by: PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP
By /s/ John D. Fiero John Fiero (CA Bar No. 136557)
Kenneth H. Brown (CA Bar No. 100396) Miriam Khatiblou (CA Bar No. 178584) Attorneys for Heller Ehrman, LLP, Debtor and Debtor in Possession
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit A
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 1 of 5
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 2 of 5
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 3 of 5
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 4 of 5
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 5 of 5
Exhibit B
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 1 of 15
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.986.2800 Facsimile 415.986.2827
Los Angeles Office: 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone 310.556.3700 Facsimile 310.556.3770
www.flk.com
J. Daniel Sharp [email protected]
Practice Areas: Legal Profession AppellateComplex Litigation
Education:University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1987, Order of the Coif; Editor-in-Chief, The Hastings Law Journal)
University of Virginia (B.A. in English Literature, 1981, with high distinction)
J. Daniel Sharp is a litigation partner in FLK’s San Francisco office, and chair of its legal profession and appellate practice groups. Mr. Sharp’s practice involves representation of attorneys and law firms, complex commercial litigation, and appellate proceedings.
Mr. Sharp joined FLK in 1989 after clerkships with Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Charles A. Legge, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Representative Matters
Representing a prominent Silicon Valley law firm in a legal malpractice action involving a lucrative merger between the firm’s client and a publicly traded company. Obtained summary judgment in favor of the law firm, and affirmance of the judgment in the California Court of Appeal.
Representing a prominent national law firm in various lawsuits and claims of professional liability.
Representing a prominent high technology law firm in legal malpractice litigation.
Representing a life insurance company on appeal. Obtained reversal of $6 million jury verdict for negligence, bad faith, and breach of contract.
Representing a private investment manager in commercial arbitration proceedings resulting in recovery of a $24 million award for breach of contract, conversion, and
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 2 of 15
J. Daniel Sharp Page 2
breach of fiduciary duty, including substantial punitive damages.
Representing a financial institution in contract and tort litigation with developers over 13 residential real estate projects. Obtained a $64 million judgment in favor of the client after a combined jury/bench trial, and affirmance of the judgment on appeal.
Representing a multi-billion dollar private company in contract litigation. Obtained summary judgment in favor of the company, and affirmance of the judgment on appeal.
Representing a private real estate investor in a contract and partnership dispute involving a portfolio of office buildings. Obtained summary judgment in federal district court, and affirmance of the judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Representing a guarantor in judicial foreclosure proceedings brought by a commercial finance company. Obtained a judgment of nonsuit at a bench trial, and negotiated a favorable settlement on appeal.
Representing the California Judicial Council in appellate proceedings.
Memberships
Member, American Bar Association, Center for Professional Responsibility
Member, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL)
Articles
Goldstein v. Lees Revisited: The Current State of the Law in California Regarding Claims for Disgorgement of Attorneys’ Fees
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 3 of 15
J. Daniel Sharp Page 3
Community Service
Volunteer member, Mediation Panel, United States District Court, Northern District of California
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 4 of 15
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.986.2800 Facsimile 415.986.2827
Los Angeles Office: 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone 310.556.3700 Facsimile 310.556.3770
www.flk.com
Risa J. Morris [email protected]
Practice Areas: Labor and Employment Class Action Complex Litigation Plaintiffs’ Litigation
Education:Stanford Law School (J.D., 2002, with distinction, Law Review).
University of California, Berkeley (B.A. in History, 1997, highest honors, Phi Beta Kappa, Regents Scholar).
Risa Morris is a litigation associate in FLK’s Los Angeles office. Ms. Morris’ practice includes employment litigation, employment consulting and complex commercial disputes. Ms. Morris joined FLK in 2002.
Representative Matters
• Defending employers in all types of employment disputes, including wrongful termination claims and WARN Act litigation, both in federal and state court.
• Providing pre-litigation counseling and advice to clients nationwide on employment-related issues including harassment, discrimination, wage-and-hour issues, WARN Act compliance, and labor and employee relations.
• Representing businesses in California and nationwide in complex commercial litigation, both in state and federal court.
• Providing counseling to attorneys regarding professional responsibility issues, including successful representation of a prominent law firm in a legal malpractice claim that resulted in a highly favorable settlement.
• Defeated plaintiffs’ attempt to certify nationwide and statewide classes and obtained summary judgment of all claims in a WARN Act lawsuit filed against a major national law firm.
• Won dismissal of RICO action against radio broadcasters, twice. Eight days after judgment was entered following our successful motion to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit reversed precedent relied upon in our motion. We
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 5 of 15
Risa J. Morris Page 2
defeated plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, obtaining an even more favorable order of dismissal.
• Won motion for summary judgment in class action lawsuit brought against national car rental company alleging deceptive and unfair business practices, which was affirmed by state Supreme Judicial Court.
• Represented former shareholders in a prominent entertainment law firm in dispute arising out of their departure from the firm. Our clients’ former co-shareholders sought nearly $20 million in damages, but after a six-week bench trial our clients were not required to pay anything.
Memberships
• Member, American Bar Associations, Sections on Litigation and Employment Law
• Member, California Bar Association, Sections on Litigation and Employment Law
• Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
• Member, Professionals in Human Resources Association
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 6 of 15
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.986.2800 Facsimile 415.986.2827
Los Angeles Office: 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone 310.556.3700 Facsimile 310.556.3770
www.flk.com
Jason M. Horst [email protected]
Practice Areas: Complex Litigation
Education:University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 2006)
Brandeis University (B.A. in Politics and Sociology, with honors, 2000)
Jason Horst joined FLK’s San Francisco office in 2006 as a litigation associate.
Mr. Horst graduated in the Spring of 2006 from the University of San Francisco School of Law where he was awarded the Academic Excellence Award for his graduating class. While in law school, Mr. Horst worked as a comments editor on the USF Law Review, earned the Dean’s Scholarship, and was a member of the McAuliffe Honor Society. He also served as an extern law clerk for Judge Jeffrey S. White, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Publications
Blogging at www.iplawobserver.com, a web log of intellectual property law developments.
The Meaning of “Life”: The Morning-after pill, the Question of When Life Begins, and Judicial Review, 16 TEX. J. WOMEN & L. (forthcoming Summer 2007).
Comment, Imaginary Intent: The California Supreme Court’s Search for a Specific Legislative Intent that Does Not Exist, 39 USF. L. REV 1045 (2005).
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 7 of 15
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.986.2800 Facsimile 415.986.2827
Los Angeles Office: 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone 310.556.3700 Facsimile 310.556.3770
www.flk.com
Ethan P. Schulman [email protected]
Practice Areas: AppellateLegal Profession Complex Litigation Class Action EducationalOrganizations
Education:Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 1983, Order of the Coif)
Princeton University (A.B. cum laude in Politics and Economics, 1978; Certificate in Russian Studies)
Fulbright-HaysScholar, Tchaikovsky State Conservatory of Music, Moscow, USSR (1978-1979)
Ethan P. Schulman is a partner in the San Francisco office, and co-chair of FLK’s appellate practice and legal profession groups.Mr. Schulman’s practice involves appeals, representation of public entities, representation of attorneys and law firms, and complex commercial litigation.
Mr. Schulman joined FLK in 2008 after practicing for many years as a litigation partner in a prominent San Francisco law firm. He is AV Peer Review Rated and has been selected as a Northern California Super Lawyer each year since 2004.
Representative Matters
• Successfully representing prominent law firm in case resulting in California Supreme Court decision that plaintiffs in legal malpractice action could not recover punitive damages they allegedly lost due to the negligence of their attorneys in the underlying litigation. Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 30 Cal. 4th 1037 (2003).
• Successfully representing law firm and individual lawyers in trial court and on appeal in $8.1 million legal malpractice action. Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for clients.
• Successfully representing law firm and partners on appeal from $690,000 award of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing lessor in lease dispute. Court of Appeal reversed fee award in its entirety.
• Successfully representing twelve court-appointed class counsel in litigation arising out of objections to $1.55
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 8 of 15
Ethan P. Schulman Page 2
billion settlement of antitrust claims and $60 million attorneys’ fees award. District court dismissed action and awarded $45,000 in sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel and Ninth Circuit affirmed.
• Lead trial lawyer for Insurance Commissioner of the State of California in three-week arbitration. Arbitrator ruled in Commissioner’s favor on all claims, awarding $295 million to policyholders, plus $4.5 million in attorneys’ fees.
• Successfully representing employer on petition for review of remedy imposed by National Labor Relations Board for unfair labor practices. Sever v. NLRB, 231 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2000).
• Successfully representing University of California in defense of environmental impact report for large-scale biomedical research laboratory project, resulting in landmark decisions by the California Supreme Court under the California Environmental Quality Act. LaurelHeights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376 (1988) and 6 Cal. 4th 1112 (1994).
• Successfully representing University of California in pending challenge to constitutionality of state law entitling undocumented immigrant students to pay in-state tuition. California Supreme Court recently granted review.
• Successfully representing Hastings College of the Law in pending constitutional challenge to law school’s denial of recognition to Christian student group for violating non-discrimination policy by denying membership to gay and lesbian students. District court granted College’s cross-motion for summary judgment; upcoming oral argument in Ninth Circuit (March 2009).
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 9 of 15
Ethan P. Schulman Page 3
Presentations
• “Is the Freedom to Associate A Freedom to Discriminate?,” St. John’s University Law Review 3rd Annual Constitutional Law Panel Discussion, New York (March 2009)
• “Appellate Law for Trial Lawyers,” Bridgeport Continuing Education, San Francisco (January 2008) and Los Angeles (April 2008)
• “Recent Developments in California Law on Conflicts and Privilege,” CLE International, San Francisco (2007)
• “Do Student Organizations Have A Constitutional Right to Discriminate? Attacks by Religious Student Groups on University Nondiscrimination Policies,” National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA), Washington, D.C. (April 2006) and Orlando, Florida (June 2005)
Memberships
• Member, American Bar Association
• Member, State Bar of California and admitted to practice in federal courts throughout California including U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Member, Bar Association of San Francisco, Appellate Practice Section
Certificates and Honors
• Certified appellate specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization, 2003 to present
• Member, California Academy of Appellate Lawyers
• Vice Chair, Bar Association of San Francisco, Appellate Practice Section
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 10 of 15
Ethan P. Schulman Page 4
Community Service
• Member and former chair, Legal Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, 1996 to present
• Volunteer mediator for the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, 2002 to present
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 11 of 15
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone 415.986.2800 Facsimile 415.986.2827
Los Angeles Office: 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone 310.556.3700 Facsimile 310.556.3770
www.flk.com
Douglas W. Sullivan [email protected]
Practice Areas: Arbitration Complex Litigation Construction Law Environmental Healthcare Industry Insurance Coverage Intellectual Property Legal Profession Plaintiffs’ Litigation
Education:University of Virginia, School of Law (J.D., 1979).
Indiana University (B.A. with distinction, 1975, Phi Beta Kappa).
Douglas Sullivan is a partner who works out of FLK’s San Francisco and Los Angeles Offices and who specializes in complex commercial litigation, including mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property, entertainment, partnership disputes and dissolutions, construction, real estate, environmental, insurance and securities litigation.
Mr. Sullivan has significant trial experience in state and federal courts, having acted as lead counsel in approximately 15 trials.
Representative Matters
• Represented companies in the telecommunications, computer, wood products and healthcare industries in connection with failed mergers and acquisitions, including: NorthPoint Communications Group, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. (San Francisco County Superior Court, 2002), in which our client recovered $175 million as part of a settlement; Coram Healthcare Corp. v. Caremark Int’l (San Francisco County Superior Court, 1997), in which our client recovered $165 million of the $310 million purchase price.
• Represented companies in connection with intellectual property disputes, including: Advanced Fibre Communications, Inc. v. Calix Networks, Inc. (District Court, Travis County, Texas, 2001), in which we obtained a defense verdict for Calix following a court trial in connection with alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by former employees; Alcatel v. Calix Networks, Inc.(Sonoma County Superior Court, 2001), in which Calix successfully defended against claims that approximately 40 former Alcatel employees misappropriated trade
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 12 of 15
Douglas W. Sullivan Page 2
secrets in developing a competing telecommunications product; Phase Metrics v. Magnetic Recording Solutions, Inc. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., 2000), in which our client, Phase Metrics, obtained a two year injunction preventing former employees and their new company from competing against Phase Metrics; LiquidEnvironmental Solutions of Texas v. U.S. Oil Recovery(Harris County, Texas, 2003), in which our client successfully pursued claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of confidentiality agreements against former employees and their new company.
• Represented law firms and lawyers in connection with firm break ups, lawyer departures and malpractice claims, including a two month trial in Hirsch Wallerstein, et al. v. Jackoway, Tyerman (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2006), in which we obtained a decision in favor of entertainment lawyers who were sued by their former partners for more than $15 million.
• Represented companies in real estate, construction and engineering disputes, including: Forest City v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1995), in which our client, Prudential, obtained a jury verdict following a three month trial of claims brought by Forest City in excess of $50 million for a failed real estate development stemming from environmental contamination; represented nationwide contractors, engineers and owners in connection with construction and engineering defects in commercial complexes, office buildings, power plants, manufacturing facilities, broadcast facilities, housing developments, and hotels.
• Represented companies in pursuing and defending cost recovery actions related to environmental contamination, including United Airlines, Prudential Financial, Louisiana Pacific Corporation, The Deutsch Company, and others.
• Represented companies in pursuing insurance coverage in connection with environmental, securities, errors and omissions, asbestos, and construction disputes, including:
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 13 of 15
Douglas W. Sullivan Page 3
Deutsch Company v. Chubb (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1993), in which our client obtained a jury verdict for bad faith against the insurance carrier relating to environmental coverage; Louisiana Pacific Corporation v. Hartford (Sacramento County Superior Court, 1998), in which our client successfully recovered millions of dollars of insurance coverage related to environmental claims; Advanced Fibre Communications v. National Union Fire Insurance (American Arbitration Association, 2004), in which our client, AFC, obtained a multi million dollar award for coverage for securities claims, including attorney’s fees for bad faith; Per Se Technologies v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London (Los Angeles County Superior Court, 2004), in which our client successfully pursued a multi million dollar recovery for errors and omissions related to medical billing and collection in the healthcare industry.
Publications
• Author, “Techniques of Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Contractor’s Handbook of Business and Law, 1992.
Presentations
• Lecturer, “Engineering Professional Responsibility,” Stanford University Civil Engineering Department, 1996-1999, 2005-2006.
• Lecturer, “Minimizing Liability of Construction Lenders,” San Francisco Bar Association program, June, 1987.
• Lecturer, “The Mechanics of Arbitration,” California State Bar Association, 1989.
• Panelist, “Ethics in Environmental Law,” University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1985.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 14 of 15
Douglas W. Sullivan Page 4
Memberships
• Member, American Bar Association, Sections on Litigation, Natural Resources and Environment and Intellectual Property.
• Member, Bar Association of San Francisco.
• Member, State Bar of California
Arbitration and Mediation
• Member, American Arbitration Association National Roster of Neutrals, 1985 to present; Mediator, San Francisco Superior Court, Early Settlement Program.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 15 of 15
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63995.1
John D. Fiero (CA Bar No. 136557) Kenneth H. Brown (CA Bar No. 100396) Miriam P. Khatiblou (CA Bar No. 178584) Teddy M. Kapur (CA Bar No. 242486) PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 150 California Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4500 Telephone: 415/263-7000 Facsimile: 415/263-7010
E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Attorneys for Heller Ehrman LLP, Debtor and Debtor in Possession
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
In re: Heller Ehrman LLP, Debtor
Case No.: 08-32514 Chapter 11 DECLARATION OF J. DANIEL SHARP IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF DEBTOR TO EMPLOY FOLGER LEVIN & KAHN, LLP, AS SPECIAL MALPRACTICE COUNSEL [NO HEARING REQUIRED]
I, J. Daniel Sharp, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in the State of California and before the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California. I make this declaration in
support of the Debtor’s Application to Employ Folger, Levin & Kahn, LLP as special malpractice
counsel (the “Application”).
2. I am a partner at Folger Levin & Kahn, LLP (the “Firm”). All attorneys in the Firm
who will be working on this matter are duly admitted and licensed to practice in the State of
California and are admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 1 of 4
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63995.1 2
3. The name, address, telephone number, and facsimile number of the Firm is:
Folger Levin & Kahn LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone 415.986.2800 Facsimile 415.986.2827
4. The Firm has extensive experience in various areas of law including, antitrust,
banking, corporate finance and securities, environmental, labor and employment, professional
liability, intellectual property, and securities litigation to name a few.
5. The Firm commenced rendering pre-petition services to the Debtor in or about
September 2003 in connection with the merger between the Debtor and the Firm’s pre-existing
client, the Venture Law Group. Over the ensuing years the Firm periodically rendered services to
the Debtor in connection with professional liability advice, counseling, and representation. The
Debtor has not paid the Firm for all amounts due to the Firm for its pre-petition services and thus
there remains the total amount of $13,416.95 outstanding.
6. Subject to further order of this Court, and without being exhaustive, the Firm
proposes to render the following types of legal services to the Debtor:
a. to assist, advise and represent the Debtor in connection with matters involving
claims or potential professional liability claims against the Debtor, in particular the defense and/or
prosecution of matters in which the Debtor is owed legal fees by former clients who may have or
who may assert claims of professional liability against the Debtor or its former attorneys.
7. The post-petition services that the Firm proposes to provide to the Debtor are with
regard to matters unrelated to the matters in which the Firm rendered pre-petition services.
8. Subject to Bankruptcy Court approval, the Firm and the Debtor have entered into an
engagement letter for services to be rendered by the Firm post-petition. A copy of the engagement
agreement for services in this chapter 11 case dated February 19, 2009 is attached as Exhibit “A” to
the Application. In connection with the engagement letter, the Firm has not been paid a retainer.
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 2 of 4
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63995.1 3
9. There are no arrangements between the Firm and any other entity for the sharing of
compensation received or to be received in connection with the case, except insofar as such
compensation may be shared among the members and associates of the Firm.
10. The Firm has undertaken a thorough review of its computerized database that
contains the names of clients and other parties of interest with respect to certain matters. The Firm
has run the following parties through its conflicts system: (a) the Debtor, (b) the members of the
Dissolution Committee; (c) the Debtor’s secured creditors and potential lienholders; (d) the Debtor’s
landlords; (e) the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors; and (f) the Debtor’s top thirty
unsecured creditors. The Firm’s investigation has not revealed any actual or potential conflicts of
interest with respect to the matters for which the Firm seeks to be employed. The Firm does not
represent any other entity having an adverse interest in connection with this Chapter 11 case and to
the best of my knowledge, and except as otherwise disclosed herein, no attorney at the Firm has any
connection to the Debtor, its creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and
accountants, the United States Trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States
Trustee.
11. The Debtor proposes to pay the Firm the hourly rates set forth in the engagement
agreement that is Exhibit A, which are no less favorable than the Firm’s customary rates in effect,
and to reimburse the Firm for its expenses according to its customary reimbursement policies. I am
the attorney at the Firm who is expected to have primary responsibility for this case. My hourly rate
for this engagement is $450; Risa Morris, an associate at the firm with experience in professional
liability matters, is also expected to assist the Debtor in these matters and her hourly rate for this
engagement is $350.00; Jason Horst, a junior associate, will also be assisting the Debtor in this
engagement at an hourly rate of $285.00. Other attorneys who may provide assistance to the Debtor
are Ethan Schulman and Douglas W. Sullivan, both of who are partners with substantial relevant
experience, whose hourly rate for this engagement will be $540 per hour. Each of the foregoing
rates is no less favorable than the Firm’s customary rates in effect at this time for the services of
each of the attorneys listed. At present, the Firm charges hourly rates in a range from $130 to $185
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 3 of 4
PA
CH
UL
SK
I S
TA
NG
ZIE
HL
& J
ON
ES
LL
P
AT
TO
RN
EY
S A
T L
AW
S
AN
FR
AN
CIS
CO
, C
AL
IFO
RN
IA
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
35685-001\DOCS_SF:63995.1 4
for paralegals. The resume of the professionals expected to provide legal services to the Debtor are
attached as Exhibit “B” to the Application.
12. The Firm understands that its compensation in this case is subject to prior approval of
the Court, after notice and a hearing, in accordance with section 330 of title 11 of the United States
Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), Rule 2016 of the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
(“Bankruptcy Rules”), and Local Rule 2014-1. The Firm may seek interim compensation during the
case at the times and in the amounts permitted by Bankruptcy Code section 331 and Bankruptcy
Rule 2016.
13. The Firm does not employ any person who is related to a judge of this Court or the
United States Trustee for the Northern District of California. To the best of my knowledge, after
conducting or supervising the investigation described above, I believe the Firm is eligible for
employment by the Debtor pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 327(e).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on the 19 day of February, 2009, at San Francisco, California
/s/ J. Daniel Sharp J. DANIEL SHARP
44014\2005\634129.1
Case: 08-32514 Doc #: 168 Filed: 02/23/2009 Page 4 of 4