WSJ on "Unfinished Business" Claims

I posted about it earlier (and linked to a Beazley Brief on the issue). The WSJ has this post about a recent ruling on the "unfinished business" rule as applied to the Coudert Brothers estate. Under that rule, an insolvent firm's bankruptcy estate can claim revenues earned at other firms on matters that moved from the bankrupt firm to the other firm. (This ruling puzzles me from a LGL point of view. If the original firm goes insolvent and is no longer able to fulfill the duties it undertook, thereby forcing the client to find a new firm, why should the insolvent firm have a claim to the revenue?)

Comments

[Rick Underwood]

There is a "no additional compensation rule." Has that been imported into the BR context. I agree with you that it doesn't seem to make sense in the BR context. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable that I will opine.