Item 3. Legal Proceedings
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 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 14 causes of action, and seeks declaratory relief as well as damages resulting from the Individual Defendants’ contractual and fiduciary breaches and from Defendants’ unfair competition and tortious interference with the PWP Plaintiffs’ contracts and client relationships.
27
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’ -claims with prejudice. On August 18, 2016, the Defendants filed an Amended Answer, Counterclaims, Cross-claims and Third-Party Complaint, with seven 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 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. 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. Defendants are seeking declaratory relief and damages of no less than $60.0 million, as well as statutory interest. In addition, on January 19, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for leave to renew their New York Labor Law counterclaim that the Court dismissed in 2016. On June 30, 2023, the Court issued a decision denying Defendants’ motion for leave. On January 29, 2024, Defendants appealed to the First Department the June 30, 2023 decision denying their motion for leave. On April 16, 2024, the First Department denied Defendants’ appeal.
After the completion of discovery, both the PWP Plaintiffs and the Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment. On March 20, 2020 the parties completed briefing of their respective motions (the “Summary Judgment Decision”). The Court granted the PWP Plaintiffs motion with respect to the restrictive covenants in the PWP Plaintiffs’ agreements, finding that they are valid and enforceable, and otherwise denied the motion. The Court denied Defendants’ motion in its entirety. On July 25, 2023, Defendants appealed parts of the Summary Judgment Decision. On August 30, 2024, the First Department issued a decision granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ appeal. The First Department granted Defendants’ appeal only to the extent it found that the PWP Plaintiffs could not pursue a client solicitation claim against two specific clients. The First Department denied Defendants’ appeal to the extent it found that the PWP Plaintiffs’ restrictive covenants were reasonable and enforceable, and Defendants’ counterclaim for deferred compensation needed to be decided at trial.
A bench trial took place from January 24, 2025 through March 14, 2025. The court has yet to issue a decision.
We believe that our 14 causes of action are meritorious. Further, we believe that we have meritorious defenses to 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 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.
For details on the current legal proceedings, refer to Note 17—Commitments and Contingencies in the notes to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
28
PART II.