Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Law Firm Bankruptcies
With globalization and the increasing number of mergers; with the opening of more branch offices by the national firms; and with record number of lawyers leaving law firms, competition in the legal profession has become more intense and cutthroat. As a result, are there more law firm bankruptcies on the horizon? If so, what are the ramifications? What procedures must be followed? The goal of this article is to provide an overview of the basic issues likely to surface in a law firm bankruptcy case.
Finley Kumble, Gaston & Snow, Altheimer & Gray, Arter & Hadden, Brobeck Phleger & Harrison, all prominent law firms in their prime that wound up in bankruptcy. See: In re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, 85 B.R.13 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y., filed March 2, 1988); In re Gaston & Snow, Case No. 91-B-14594 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y., filed Oct. 10, 1991); In re Altheimer & Gray, Case No. 03-B-43547 (Bankr. D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2003); In re Arter & Hadden, LLP, Case No. 03-23293 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio, filed Oct. 6, 2003); In re Brobeck Phleger & Harrison, LLP, Case No. 03-32715 (Bankr. N.D. Cal., filed Sept. 17, 2003).
The ability of a law firm partnership to operate as a going concern may be called into question for a variety of reasons. For example, overly-rapid expansions, over-leveraging, industry specific problems, the cyclical nature of our economy, mismanagement, and fraud have all had a catalytic effect on the need for companies to seek the protections afforded by the Bankruptcy Code (United States Code Title 11). Although historically less common than their corporate counterparts, partner attrition in the wake of the “dot-com” crash and in light of the growing merger trend among professional service firms have contributed to an increase in the incidence of law firm partnership bankruptcies.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?