Litigation and Trial - Max Kennerly : Philadelphia Trial Lawyer Max Kennerly : Business and Commercial Litigation : Civil Attorney : The Beasley Firm : Philadelphia Pennsylvania

Warren Buffet often gets credit for coining the phrase "skin in the game" — even though it's not his — and his definition is, shall we say, on the money. "Skin in the game" makes a difference:

Mutual funds whose directors have "skin in the game" significantly outperform their competitors, according to a study by Syracuse University Prof. David Weinbaum. His results confirm the commonly held belief that directors who are invested in the funds that they oversee act as better stewards than directors who don't have any money on the line.

It's not the first time Prof. Weinbaum has shown that.

I'm a big believer of "skin in the game" — virtually all of my clients are on a contingent fee — and have written before about how contingency fees reduce frivolous litigation and how third-party investment in lawsuits can level the playing field against well-funded defendants.

So I was happy to read Why Investment Bankers Should Have (Some) Personal Liability at The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation:

We have written a short paper for a symposium on the work of Adolf Berle in which we advocate reintroducing some measure of personal liability for bankers, as was the case in Berle’s day, and indeed up through the 1980’s. We describe in our paper the broad outlines of a proposal to impose some measure of personal liability for a bank’s debts on the most highly paid bankers. The proposal would revive two mechanisms that imposed personal liability in an earlier era: general partnership, which was common for investment banks prior to the 1980s, and assessable stock, which was relatively common in corporations including some commercial banks through the 1930s.

It is difficult to imagine the investment banking business returning to the partnerships of old. General partnership – with the illiquidity and liability it imposes on general partners and the constraints it imposes on a bank’s ability to raise capital – probably will not be considered a viable option. It is also difficult to imagine corporations in the financial services industry issuing assessable stock to all of their shareholders or regulators seeking to require them to do so.

Our objective is to design another way to impose some of the risks of unlimited liability on the most highly compensated managers and other decision makers at investment banks and other financial services and trading firms. We seek to do so without requiring the firm itself to switch to general partnership form or to make any other change in its organizational or capital structure. We discuss below two alternatives, each one based on historical precedent.

We could argue all day about whether the theoretical incentives investment bankers have are good enough to keep them from crashing the whole financial system — a whole cottage industry has developed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Forbes and Business Week to do just that. But the facts are undeniable: our banking industry is broken, dangerously so.

I don't see how we can fix that without giving the bankers some "skin in the game."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I’ve written before, health care is “one of the ugliest businesses in America.” Health care litigation is often just as contentious.

Today’s example comes from Robotics v. Deviedma, No. 09-cv-3552, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112077 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2009), which denied in part and granted in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The facts:

Health Robotics, S.r.L. ("HRSRL") is an Italian company that designs, develops, markets and licences robotic medical preparation products. Plaintiff, Devon Robotics, signed two agreements with HRSRL for the distribution of two robotic medication preparation products for hospitals and health care facilities, i.v.Station and CytoCare. … At the time these agreements were negotiated and signed, Mr. DeViedma, one of the Defendants, served as General Counsel for HRSRL. These contracts between Devon Robotics and HRSRL contained an identical arbitration clause which requires all disputes arising from the agreement to be arbitrated in Switzerland.

Plaintiffs claim that on March 1, 2009, Mr. DeViedma was hired as Devon Robotics' Chief Operating Officer ("COO"). In his position as COO, DeViedma was solely responsible for the management of sales, marketing, support and installation of CytoCare robots on Devon's behalf. All of Devon Robotics' employees reported directly to DeViedma. Additionally, Mr. DeViedma served as the primary contact between Devon and HRSRL.

* * *

In December 2008, Devon Robotics began negotiating a contract with McKesson Corporation, another defendant, which would give McKesson the right to distribute CytoCare within a certain territory in the United States. DeViedma played a key role in negotiating the contract as Devon Robotics' COO. On December 22, 2008, Devon Robotics and McKesson entered into a Confidential Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement prohibiting McKesson from divulging or using any confidential information for any purpose other than analyzing its deal with Devon. After executing the agreement, McKesson engaged in extensive due diligence. According to Plaintiffs, around March 2009, McKesson and Devon reached an oral agreement regarding the material terms of the Exclusive Distribution, Licensing, Services and Support Agreement. The only thing that was needed to finalize the agreement was to allow McKesson's due diligence of HRSRL in Italy. However, DeViedma, in his capacity as an officer of HRSRL, refused to permit McKesson representatives to visit Italy and complete the due diligence.

Later, after McKesson and Devon Robotics failed to come to an agreement, HRSRL terminated the CytoCare Agreement with Devon Robotics on July 30, 2009. Then on August 10, 2009, McKesson and HRSRL entered into a five year agreement granting McKesson distribution rights with regard to CytoCare in various areas in North America which had previously been controlled by Devon Robotics.

Naturally, Devon sued everyone, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with current and prospective contractual relations, defamation, and conspiracy.

Defendants first moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss on the grounds that the Devon/HRSRL agreements compelled arbitration:

[A]s this Court noted in Miron, the presumption of arbitrability has never been extended to claims by or against non-signatories. Miron v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 342 F. Supp. 2d 324 (E.D. Pa. 2004); see, e.g., Medtronic Ave Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 367 F.3d 147, 100 Fed. Appx. 865 (3rd Cir. 2004) (quoting Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress International, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639, 642 (7th Cir. 1993)). Because arbitration is a matter of contract, exceptional circumstances must apply before a court will impose a contractual agreement to arbitrate on a non-contracting party. AT&T Tech., 475 U.S. at 650. However, as this Court again noted in Miron, there are five established theories under which non-signatories may be bound to the arbitration agreements of others: (1) incorporation by reference; (2) assumption; (3) agency; (4) veil-piercing/alter ego; and (5) estoppel. Thomson-CFS v. American Arbitration Association, 64 F.3d 773, 776 (2d Cir. 1995). Furthermore, where the party seeking enforcement of the arbitration clause is a willing non-signatory an alternative theory of reverse estoppel may apply. Thomson-CFS, 64 F.3d at 779.

The only theory under which DeViedma may be able to enforce the arbitration clause is the alternative estoppel theory. The alternative estoppel theory binds a signatory to arbitrate at a non-signatory's insistence where there is an obvious and close nexus between the non-signatories and the contract or the contracting parties. E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199. The two-part test for alternative estoppel requires a court to determine whether there is a 'close relationship between the entities involved,' and examine the 'relationship of the alleged wrongs to the nonsignatory's obligations and duties in the contract.' E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199 (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779); see also Bannett, 331 F. Supp. 2d at 360. To satisfy the second part of the test, the non-signatory seeking enforcement of an arbitration agreement must show that the claims against them are 'intimately founded in and intertwined with' the underlying obligations of the contract to which they were not a party. E.I. DuPont, 269 F.3d at 199 (citing Thomson-CSF, 64 F.3d at 779).

The essential question in situations such as these is whether plaintiffs would have an independent right to recover against the non-signatory defendants even if the contract containing the arbitration clause were void. 'The plaintiff's actual dependence on the underlying contract in making out the claim against the nonsignatory defendant is therefore always the sine qua non of an appropriate situation for applying equitable estoppel.' Price Plaintiffs v. Humana Ins. Co., 285 F.3d 971, 976 (11th Cir. 2002) (rev'd on other grounds, PacifiCare Health Sys. v. Book, 538 U.S. 401, 123 S. Ct. 1531, 155 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2002)). In In re Humana, the Eleventh Circuit held that equitable estoppel was inappropriate where plaintiffs brought a RICO suit against a non-signatory defendant, because the RICO claims were based on a statutory remedy apart from any available remedy for breach of the underlying contract. In re Humana, 285 F.3d at 976."

Robotics v. Deviedma, No. 09-cv-3552, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112077, at *11–13 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2009). Three strikes, one hit for the defendants:

It is not proper to dismiss this claim in favor of arbitration because the breach of fiduciary duty claim does not arise out of the various agreements between Devon Robotics and HRSRL. …

Plaintiffs' claim of tortious interference with current and prospective contractual relations is not subject to the arbitration clauses in the various agreements between Devon Robotics and HRSRL. Count V of Plaintiffs claim is based on DeViedma's alleged interference with various validation contracts. These contracts are not intimately intertwined with the i.v.Station and CytoCare agreements. …

Plaintiffs' claim of defamation is not subject to the arbitration clauses in the various agreements between Devon Robotics and HRSRL. …

To the extent that Plaintiffs' claim of conspiracy is based on the termination of the CytoCare agreement, their claim is dismissed. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that the Defendants conspired to wrongfully terminate the CytoCare agreement. The determination as to whether the agreement was wrongfully terminated will be intimately related to the terms of the agreement. Additionally, there is an extremely close nexus between the non-signatory parties and Devon Robotics.

Id. at 13–16.

Defendants next moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claims on the merits, with three strikes (on the breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with current contractual relations, and defamation claims) and hits on the rest. Most notably, “Devon Robotics has pled that it had several validation contracts with different hospitals, that DeViedma purposefully interfered with those contracts for his own benefit, without justification, and that as a result, Devon lost substantial amounts of business. These pleadings are sufficient to establish a claim for tortious interference with existing contractual relations.”

Though the Court “grant[ed] Plaintiffs leave to amend their tortious interference with prospective contractual relations to include any claims related to the McKesson negotiations,” it added the caveat that “Although the Court granted leave to amend the tortious interference claim and Plaintiffs may choose to attempt to amend their conspiracy claim, it should be noted that the Court likely lacks jurisdiction over any underlying torts asserted in support of the conspiracy claim based on the CytoCare or i.v.Station agreements due to the arbitration clauses in the agreements.”

A big win for Devon Robotics and a guide for future plaintiffs — in the face of an arguably applicable arbitration agreement, they kept alive the core of their suit: breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and defamation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At Legal Ethics Blog, Professor Andrew Perlman posts a hypothetical:

I was recently a panelist at the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual conference, and someone in the audience posed an interesting hypothetical.

Imagine that in-house counsel is conducting an internal investigation and speaks with an employee whose conduct may have been unlawful. 

Let me interrupt to point out that the above hypothetical is one of the classical examples used to teach professional responsibility to law students. Employees are frequently confused about the role of the company's lawyers in internal investigations, and frequently do not understand that the lawyer there represents solely the company and not the employees themselves. The context of these interviews — typically involving nothing more than the lawyer coming into the employee's workplace — heightens the likelihood of confusion.

As such, corporate lawyers are under a duty (under Model Rule 1.13(f)) to explain the distinction whenever they deal with directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other corporate constituents.

But Perlman's hypothetical is a bit different:

The employee does not have her own counsel, so the in-house lawyer makes clear to the employee that the lawyer represents the company and not the employee herself. So far, so good.

But now let's imagine that the employee is reluctant to speak with the lawyer. The lawyer then says to the employee, "You are subject to the company's employment policies, which require you to speak with me about this matter."

Several audience members were convinced that such a statement was both commonplace and ethically permissible. It was my position that such a statement, which appears to be giving legal advice to an unrepresented (and potentially adverse) party regarding her obligations under the employment policy, could be unethical under Rule 4.3. What do you think?

Here's the whole text of Rule 4.3:

In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. The lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person, other than the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the client.

It's an interesting question. As I responded in the comments [with minor edits here], I think it comes down to context. If the context has made it clear to the employee that the employee's interests are, or could be adverse, then there is not much problem in the lawyer advancing the views of the company, since the concern about "misunderstanding" expressed by the rule is inapplicable.

If, however, the impression created is one of a neutral investigator, then it seems to be legal advice given to an adverse unrepresented party.

The precise wording also creates a problem for the attorney, because they did not merely assert that the company could do if the employee did not cooperate (e.g., terminate and/or sue them), but instead outright told the employee what their legal obligations were under the employment agreement. That's the essence of legal advice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Recorder reports:

Michael Ross was fired and blamed for two corporate scandals at Atmel Corp. -- but now the former general counsel is fighting back.

Ross has filed a lawsuit, claiming the San Jose, Calif., semiconductor company ruined his reputation when it pointed the finger at him and others for the company's stock option backdating problems, which led to a $125 million financial restatement. Having been fired along with other Atmel executives in 2006 after an investigation into the misuse of travel funds, Ross became an easy scapegoat when the company faced a mounting backdating mess a year later, his lawyers say.

Many lawyers in Ross' position bore the brunt of the blame for the backdating scandal that swept Silicon Valley's tech companies. They were fired; they were pursued by the government for overseeing the illegal practice of fudging dates to grant stock options at low prices and not properly accounting for it. But few have fought back with lawsuits like this.

* * *

When it released the results of its internal probe to the world, it laid the blame squarely on Perlegos and Ross in an April 2007 press release.

"Mr. Ross was aware of, and participated in the backdating of, stock options," the release blared, although the company's audit committee conceded that Ross may have not understood the tricky accounting implications of backdating until 2002. It also leveled accusations that Ross backdated his own stock options.

In his lawsuit, Ross said the press release damaged his career and counts as defamation: "As a result of the reckless, false and misleading comments made by Atmel regarding Ross' culpability in Atmel's stock option troubles, Ross has had significant difficulty obtaining employment commensurate with his experience and background."

As the story continues, after the travel investigation, Atmel went through one of the most bitter corporate struggles for control in recent Silicon Valley memory, resulting in the ouster of the brothers who founded the company, with whom Ross was close.

Most interesting to me, however, is how Atmel covered its bases dealing with the travel scandal, but not the backdating scandal. Take note:

An internal investigation of Davani led to the Perlegos brothers, Ross and another executive.

Daniel Bergeson and his team found that the executives had been paying small amounts in return for lots of travel on the company's dime ...

In the end, the executives contested the travel scandal findings, claiming it was a ploy to oust the management. The company got Morrison & Foerster to double-check Bergeson's investigation -- and the MoFo lawyers concluded it was fair.

"Double-check." Reminds me of a recent derivative suit here in Pennsylvania, which the company got dismissed because it had hired outside counsel to conduct an independent investigation.

Which is exactly what Atmel did for the travel funds but not, apparently, for the backdating. Now, they might pay the price.

Hiring independent counsel for an investigation is expensive. It's inconvenient. It may end up being unnecessary, or it may end up revealing troubling facts and recommending painful remedies. But it is, bar none, the best prophylactic a company can take when it finds itself in trouble.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link