coudert brothers v easyfind international

Statek's allegations are roughly as follows.įrom 1984 until 1996, Statek was controlled by Hans Frederick Johnston. 1 Statek's claim is based on an asserted tort, legal malpractice, committed by Coudert against Statek during the course of their attorney-client relationship. The claimant is one of Coudert's former clients, Statek Corporation. BackgroundĬoudert, the debtor in this case, was for over a century one of the world's leading international law firms. The district court with instructions to remand the case to the bankruptcy court and, in so doing, instructing the bankruptcy court to apply the choice of law rules of Connecticut to decide Statek's motion for reconsideration.

We therefore VACATE the district court's order and REMAND the case to 1274, 108 L.Ed.2d 443 (1990), we hold that in a case such as this one, where: (1) the claim before the bankruptcy court is wholly derived from another legal claim already pending in a parallel, out-of-state, non-bankruptcy proceeding and (2) the pending original, or “source,” claim was filed in a court prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case, bankruptcy courts should apply the choice of law rules of the state where the underlying prepetition claim was filed. Extending the well-established rule of Van Dusen v. § 1404(a), the practical effect of filing a proof of claim in the bankruptcy court was to transfer the case from Connecticut federal court to New York federal court. Although the case was not technically transferred under 28 U.S.C. The bankruptcy court should not have applied the choice of law rules of New York, the state in which it sits, but instead the choice of law rules of Connecticut, where Statek filed its pre-bankruptcy action seeking damages that later constituted its claim against the bankruptcy estate. 06–12226 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.) and affirming the denial of Statek's motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court's order. Tannenbaum, on the brief), Stern Tannenbaum & Bell LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee.īefore: NEWMAN, CALABRESI and HALL, Circuit Judges.Īppellant Statek Corporation appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Drain, J.) disallowing its claim against the estate of Coudert in In re Coudert Brothers LLP, Case No. Cahill, on the brief), Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.Īrgued: April 29, 2011.

In re COUDERT BROTHERS LLP, Debtor.Statek Corporation, Appellant,ĭevelopment Specialists, Inc., Plan Administrator for Coudert Brothers LLP, Appellee.

Coudert brothers v easyfind international