Perella Weinberg Partners 10-K/A

Item 3. Legal Proceedings On October 20, 2015, Professionals GP, PWP MC LP, PWP Equity I LP and Perella Weinberg Partners Group LP (collectively, the “PWP Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Michael A. Kramer, Derron S. Slonecker, Joshua S. Scherer, Adam W. Verost (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) and Ducera Partners LLC (together with the Individual Defendants, the “Defendants”) in New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division (the “Court”). The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants, three former partners and one former employee of the PWP Plaintiffs, entered into a scheme while still at PWP to lift out the PWP Plaintiffs' restructuring group to form a new competing firm that they were secretly forming in breach of their contractual and fiduciary duties to the PWP Plaintiffs. The complaint contains fourteen causes of action, and seeks declaratory relief as well as damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' breaches of their obligations under the PWP Plaintiffs' partnership and employment agreements, and from Defendants' unfair competition and tortious interference with the PWP Plaintiffs' contracts and client relationships. On November 9, 2015, the Defendants filed an Answer, Counterclaims, Cross-claims and a Third-Party Complaint, which contained 14 causes of action. On July 17, 2016, the Court issued a decision, dismissing half of the Defendants' counterclaims and cross-claims with prejudice. On August 18, 2016, the Defendants filed an Amended Answer, Counterclaims, Cross-claims and Third-Party Complaint, which contained only seven counterclaims and cross-claims. On December 12, 2016, the Defendants appealed the dismissal of three of their counterclaims and cross-claims to the New York Appellate Division, First Department (the “First Department”). On August 29, 2017, the First Department issued a decision denying the Defendants' appeal in its entirety other than allowing one Defendant to proceed with his breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim. On October 27, 2017, the Defendants moved the First Department for leave to appeal its decision to the New York Court of Appeals. On December 28, 2017, the First Department denied the Defendants' motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. On April 24, 2018, the Defendants filed a Second Amended Answer, Counterclaims, Cross-claims and Third-Party Complaint, which contains eight counterclaims and cross-claims. The Defendants are seeking declaratory relief and damages of no less than $60 million, as well as statutory interest. Discovery is complete. Both the PWP Plaintiffs and the Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment. As of March 20, 2020, the parties had completed briefing their respective motions for summary judgment. The PWP Plaintiffs moved affirmatively for summary judgment on each of their 14 claims and also moved for dismissal of each of the Defendants' remaining eight counterclaims and cross-claims. The Defendants moved affirmatively for summary judgment on four of their eight counterclaims and cross-claims and also moved for dismissal of each of the PWP Plaintiffs’ 14 claims. The Court held oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on May 27, 2021. The Court has yet to issue a decision on the motions for summary judgment. In addition, on January 19, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for leave to renew one of their counterclaims brought under the New York Labor Law that the Court dismissed in 2016 (the dismissal of which was affirmed by the First Department in 2017). That motion was fully briefed as of February 3, 2022. We believe that our 14 causes of action are meritorious. Further, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to the Defendants’ remaining counterclaims and cross-claims and plan to vigorously contest them. Litigation, however, can be uncertain and there can be no assurance that any judgment for one or more of the Defendants or other outcome of the case would not have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, even if we prevail in the litigation and are awarded damages, we do not know if we will be able to fully collect on any judgment against any or all Defendants. We are now, and from time to time may in the future be, named as a defendant in legal actions relating to transactions conducted in the ordinary course of business. We may also become involved in other judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of our businesses. Some of these matters may involve claims of substantial amounts. 54 For further details on the current legal proceedings, refer to Note 18—Commitments and Contingencies in the notes to consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures Not applicable. 55 PART II.