HTML Document View

Full title: Objection (related document(s): 428 Motion (REDACTED) Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition and Assignment of the Estate's Interests in the Mesh Litigation to Nadrich & Cohen LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC, Free and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Se filed by Trustee Elissa Miller (TR), 429 Notice of motion/application filed by Trustee Elissa Miller (TR)) Filed by Interested Party Erika Girardi (Borges, Evan) (Entered: 07/07/2021)

Document posted on Jul 6, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 10 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

By the Motion, the chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) seeks to assign the interests of the 3 estate of debtor Girardi Keese (“GK”) in 52 client cases (“Clients”) involving personal injury 4 claims arising from the use of pelvic mesh products – that is, 30 cases for Clients against Johnson 5 & Johnson, et al.Under California community property law, to the extent Mr. Girardi’s services to GK 26 over the 20 years of the marital community generated value to equity, Ms. Girardi has a 27 community property interest in any distributions due to Mr. Girardi as equity.Without 23 understanding (i) the terms of GK’s pre-existing contractual rights (as well as the potential value 24 of those rights), or (ii) the percentage of fee allocation between the GK estate and N&O, it is 25 impossible to understand the amount of value that the Trustee is asking that the GK estate give up26 and why.Without knowing what work 3 remains to be done on the Clients’ cases to obtain recoveries for the Clients, or the nature of 4 services already rendered by GK to get to this point, it is impossible for the Court, creditors, or 5 parties in interest to evaluate why the GK estate should be giving up rights to payment of fees and6 reimbursement of costs, and if so, in what amount.The Motion Does Not Explain What Relevant Legal Industry Experts, If Any, 8 Have Advised the Trustee on the Transition Agreement and the Value of GK’ 9 Interest in the Mesh Litigation Cases As to Which GK Has a Right to Paymen10 of Fees and Reimbursement of Costs.

List of Tables

Document Contents

1 EVAN C. BORGES, State Bar No. 128706 EBorges@GGTrialLaw.com 2 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 3 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (949) 383-2800 4 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801 5 Attorneys for Party-in-Interest Erika Girardi 6 7 8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES DIVISION 10 In re Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 11 GIRARDI KEESE, Chapter 7 12 Debtor. OBJECTION OF PARTY-IN-INTEREST ERIKA GIRARDI TO CHAPTER 7 13 TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION AND 14 ASSIGNMENT OF THE ESTATE’S INTEREST IN THE MESH LITIGATION 15 TO NADRICH & COHEN LLP AND THE OSHMAN FIRM, LLC FREE AND 16 CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS AND INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 17 363 18 [Related to ECF Nos. 428 and 429] 19 Date: TBD Time: TBD 20 Ctrm: 1668 255 E. Temple Street 21 Los Angeles, CA 90012 22 Judge: Hon. Barry Russell 23 24 Party-in-Interest Erika Girardi (“Ms. Girardi”) hereby objects to the chapter 7 trustee’s 25 Motion for Order Authorizing the Transition of the Estate’s interest in the Mesh Litigation to 26 Nadrich & Cohen LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC Free and Clear of Liens, Claims and Interest27 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (ECF Nos. 428 and 429) (the “Motion”) on the following grounds:

1

1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2 By the Motion, the chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) seeks to assign the interests of the 3 estate of debtor Girardi Keese (“GK”) in 52 client cases (“Clients”) involving personal injury 4 claims arising from the use of pelvic mesh products – that is, 30 cases for Clients against Johnson 5 & Johnson, et al. (“J&J Litigation”) and 22 cases for Clients against Boston Scientific Corporatio6 (“BSC Litigation”) – all of which the Trustee proposes assigning to two law firms, Nadrich & 7 Cohen LLP and The Oshman Firm, LLC (collectively, “N&O”). The Motion refers to the J&J 8 Litigation and BSC Litigation together as the “Mesh Litigation.” N&O are currently representing9 other plaintiffs in the Mesh Litigation and, according to the Motion, seek to substitute in as 10 counsel for GK’s Clients. 11 As discussed below, the Motion does not provide critical factual information and related 12 analysis necessary to determine whether, by the Motion, the Trustee is maximizing value for the 13 GK estate or improvidently giving away value. In addition, to address the confidentiality concern14 raised in the Motion about not disclosing certain terms of the proposed Transition Agreement to 15 defense counsel in the Mesh Litigation, Ms. Girardi and her counsel are willing to sign a non-16 disclosure agreement with the Trustee, to allow us to understand the material terms of the 17 Transition Agreement that are not disclosed in the Motion. 18 For context, Ms. Girardi notes the following two foundational points: 19 A. Ms. Girardi Shares the Trustee’s Goal of Maximizing the Value 20 of the GK Estate. 21 Ms. Girardi has a 12th grade education, was never a GK attorney, and had no role in the 22 operation or management of GK. Ms. Girardi was, however, married for approximately 20 years 23 to Thomas Girardi, whom we understand is the 100% equity holder of GK. Ms. Girardi filed a 24 petition for divorce from Mr. Girardi on or about November 3, 2020; and there was no pre-nuptial25 agreement. Under California community property law, to the extent Mr. Girardi’s services to GK 26 over the 20 years of the marital community generated value to equity, Ms. Girardi has a 27 community property interest in any distributions due to Mr. Girardi as equity. Stated differently,

2

1 legitimate creditors (including victims of GK), given that if after payment of all legitimate debt 2 claims, assets remain for equity, Ms. Girardi would have a community property right to a portion 3 of those equity assets. 4 B. The Value of the GK Portfolio of Cases. 5 Based on a preliminary investigation, the undersigned counsel is informed, based on input 6 from experienced mass tort/plaintiff’s attorneys who were and are competitors of GK, that the GK7 portfolio of cases should be extremely valuable, and potentially sufficient to pay all legitimate 8 creditors in full, including victims of GK, leaving a surplus for equity. To conduct this analysis, i9 is imperative for the estate to retain experts in the field (i.e., other mass tort/plaintiff’s lawyers), a10 well as evaluate and understand the amount of costs advanced already by GK in pending 11 cases. As the Court is aware, typically, contingent fee agreements provide that the attorney is 12 entitled to reimbursement in full of all costs advanced, along with payment of the applicable 13 contingent fee (depending on the specifics of each fee agreement). 14 II. OBJECTIONS TO MOTION AND TRANSITION AGREEMENT 15 A. The Motion Does Not Disclose the Allocation of Fees Between the GK Estate 16 and N&O. Further, the Motion Provides No Information on the Terms of the 17 Pre-Bankruptcy Agreements that the Motion Seeks to Modify by the Propose18 Transition Agreement. Thus, It is Impossible to Tell From the Motion What 19 Rights of GK Are Being Given Up Under the Motion, And Why the GK 20 Estate’s Rights Should Be Given Up or Compromised. 21 The Motion, as well as the Transition Agreement it asks the Court to approve, are silent on22 the terms of the pre-bankruptcy contingent fee agreements between the Clients and GK. Without 23 understanding (i) the terms of GK’s pre-existing contractual rights (as well as the potential value 24 of those rights), or (ii) the percentage of fee allocation between the GK estate and N&O, it is 25 impossible to understand the amount of value that the Trustee is asking that the GK estate give up26 and why. 27 The Motion does not disclose the terms of the proposed allocation of fees between the GK

3

1 result if the defendants learn this information. These economic terms are the cornerstone of the 2 Transition Agreement. As noted above, Ms. Girardi and her counsel are willing to sign a non-3 disclosure agreement with the Trustee to understand the terms of the Transition Agreement for 4 which the Motion seeks approval. 5 Without disclosure of the allocation of recovered fees in the Transition Agreement, 6 creditors and parties in interest have no means of determining whether the Transition Agreement i7 in the best interest of the GK estate. As noted, the Motion also does not provide information 8 regarding the terms of the pre-bankruptcy engagement agreements between GK and Clients, whic9 the Motion seeks to compromise by giving up value. 10 By way of example, and hypothetically speaking, if each of the 52 Clients was to obtain a 11 recovery of close to $1 million for an assumed total recovery of approximately $50 million, and if12 the pre-bankruptcy engagement agreements provided for GK to receive a 40% contingent fee, the13 separate from the issue of reimbursement of costs advanced, GK would have a right to a total 14 contingent fee of approximately $20 million. Similarly, if the Transition Agreement provides for 15 a 50/50 allocation percentage between the GK estate and N&O, the GK estate would recover only16 $10 million dollars and will have given up a potential right to an additional $10 million. Thus, it 17 is essential to understand the terms of the pre-bankruptcy agreements and the Transition 18 Agreement to know what the GK estate is being asked to give up. Without this information, 19 creditors and parties in interest are left only to guess on whether the Transition Agreement is in th20 best interests of the estate. 21 B. The Motion Provides No Information on What Additional Work, If Any, 22 Needs to Be Performed to Earn an Entitlement to Fees and Costs. Thus, the 23 Motion Provides No Information or Rationale as to Why the GK Estate 24 Should Relinquish the Value of Rights to Payment of Fees and/or Costs 25 Otherwise Due to the GK Estate. 26 The Motion is also silent about the stage of the Mesh Litigation and what work, if any, 27 remains to be performed by counsel for the Clients prior to a recovery and entitlement of GK (and

4

1 The Motion states, with no context or explanation, that Nadrich & Cohen LLP already has settled 2 approximately 250 mesh related cases. See Mot. at p. 2:18-21. Without knowing what work 3 remains to be done on the Clients’ cases to obtain recoveries for the Clients, or the nature of 4 services already rendered by GK to get to this point, it is impossible for the Court, creditors, or 5 parties in interest to evaluate why the GK estate should be giving up rights to payment of fees and6 reimbursement of costs, and if so, in what amount. 7 C. The Motion Does Not Explain What Relevant Legal Industry Experts, If Any, 8 Have Advised the Trustee on the Transition Agreement and the Value of GK’ 9 Interest in the Mesh Litigation Cases As to Which GK Has a Right to Paymen10 of Fees and Reimbursement of Costs. 11 The Motion is also silent as to whether the Trustee has received any expert advice from an12 attorney experienced in the value of the mass tort/plaintiff’s cases in the GK portfolio. It is 13 imperative that the Trustee obtain this advice, to avoid needlessly giving away value in the GK 14 estate to other law firms, as opposed to maximizing that value for creditors. 15 III. CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Girardi objects to the Motion and the Transition Agreemen17 as to which the Motion seeks this Court’s approval. 18 19 DATED: July 7, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 20 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 21 22 By: 23 Evan C. Borges Attorneys for Party-in-Interest Erika Girardi 24 25 26 27

5

1 PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT 2 I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 3 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 4 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 5 A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): OBJECTION OF PARTY-IN-INTEREST ERIKA GIRARDI TO CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR ORDER 6 AUTHORIZING THE TRANSITION AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE ESTATE’S INTEREST IN THE MESH LITIGATION TO NADRICH & COHEN LLP AND THE OSHMAN FIRM, 7 LLC FREE AND CLEAR OF LIENS, CLAIMS AND INTERESTS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 363 will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 8 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 9 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and 10 hyperlink to the document. On July 7, 2021, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to 11 receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: 12 Service information continued on attached page 13 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: 14 On July 7, 2021 I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope 15 in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the 16 document is filed. 17 Service information continued on attached page 18 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL 19 (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (dateJuly 7, 2021, I served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or 20 (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the 21 judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. 22 Service information continued on attached page 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. 24 July 7, 2021 Cheryl Winsten 25 Date Printed Name Signature 26 27

6

1 In re GIRARDI KEESE Case No. 2:20-bk-21022-BR 2 U.S.B.C. Central District of California Los Angeles Division 3 4 1. SERVED VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): 5 The following is the list of parties who are currently on the list to receive email notice/service forthis case. 6  Kyra E Andrassy kandrassy@swelawfirm.com, 7 lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 8  Rafey Balabanian rbalabanian@edelson.com, docket@edelson.com 9  Michelle Balady mb@bedfordlg.com, leo@bedfordlg.com 10  Ori S Blumenfeld Ori@MarguliesFaithLaw.com, 11 Helen@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithLaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaihLaw.com 12  Evan C Borges eborges@ggtriallaw.com, cwinsten@ggtriallaw.com 13  Richard D Buckley richard.buckley@arentfox.com 14  Marie E Christiansen mchristiansen@vedderprice.com, 15 ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,marie-christiansen-4166@ecf.pacerpro.com 16  Jennifer Witherell Crastz jcrastz@hrhlaw.com 17  Ashleigh A Danker Ashleigh.danker@dinsmore.com, SDCMLFiles@DINSMORE.COM;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com 18  Clifford S Davidson csdavidson@swlaw.com, jlanglois@swlaw.com;cliff-davidson-19 7586@ecf.pacerpro.com 20  Lei Lei Wang Ekvall lekvall@swelawfirm.com, lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;gcruz@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 21  Richard W Esterkin richard.esterkin@morganlewis.com 22  Timothy W Evanston tevanston@swelawfirm.com, 23 gcruz@swelawfirm.com;lgarrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 24  Jeremy Faith Jeremy@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Vicky@MarguliesFaith25 aw.com 26  James J Finsten , jimfinsten@hotmail.com 27  Alan W Forsley alan.forsley@flpllp.com, awf@fkllawfirm.com,awf@fl-

7

1  Eric D Goldberg eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, eric-goldberg-1103@ecf.pacerpro.com 2  Andrew Goodman agoodman@andyglaw.com, Goodman.AndrewR102467@notify.bestcase.com 3  Suzanne C Grandt suzanne.grandt@calbar.ca.gov, joan.randolph@calbar.ca.gov 4  Steven T Gubner sgubner@bg.law, ecf@bg.law 5  Marshall J Hogan mhogan@swlaw.com, knestuk@swlaw.com 6  Sheryl K Ith sith@cookseylaw.com, sith@ecf.courtdrive.com 7  Razmig Izakelian razmigizakelian@quinnemanuel.com 8  Lillian Jordan ENOTICES@DONLINRECANO.COM, 9 RMAPA@DONLINRECANO.COM 10  Lewis R Landau Lew@Landaunet.com 11  Daniel A Lev dlev@sulmeyerlaw.com, ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com;dlev@ecf.inforuptcy.com 12  Elizabeth A Lombard elombard@zwickerpc.com, bknotices@zwickerpc.com 13  Craig G Margulies Craig@MarguliesFaithlaw.com, 14 Vicky@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Helen@MarguliesFaithlaw.com;Angela@MarguliesFaithaw.com 15  Peter J Mastan peter.mastan@dinsmore.com, 16 SDCMLFiles@dinsmore.com;Katrice.ortiz@dinsmore.com 17  Edith R. Matthai ematthai@romalaw.com, lrobie@romalaw.com 18  Kenneth Miller kmiller@pmcos.com, efilings@pmcos.com 19  Elissa Miller (TR) CA71@ecfcbis.com, 20 MillerTrustee@Sulmeyerlaw.com;C124@ecfcbis.com;ccaldwell@sulmeyerlaw.com 21  Eric A Mitnick MitnickLaw@aol.com, mitnicklaw@gmail.com 22  Scott H Olson solson@vedderprice.com, scott-olson-2161@ecf.pacerpro.com,ecfsfdocket@vedderprice.com,nortega@vedderprice.com 23  Carmela Pagay ctp@lnbyb.com 24  Leonard Pena lpena@penalaw.com, 25 penasomaecf@gmail.com;penalr72746@notify.bestcase.com 26  Michael J Quinn mquinn@vedderprice.com, ecfladocket@vedderprice.com,michael-quinn-2870@ecf.pacerpro.com 27  David M Reeder david@reederlaw.com, secretary@reederlaw.com

8

1  Ronald N Richards ron@ronaldrichards.com, morani@ronaldrichards.com 2  Kevin C Ronk Kevin@portilloronk.com, Attorneys@portilloronk.com 3  William F Savino wsavino@woodsoviatt.com, lherald@woodsoviatt.com 4  Kenneth John Shaffer johnshaffer@quinnemanuel.com 5  Richard M Steingard , awong@steingardlaw.com 6  Philip E Strok pstrok@swelawfirm.com, gcruz@swelawfirm.com;1garrett@swelawfirm.com;jchung@swelawfirm.com 7  Boris Treyzon jfinnerty@actslaw.com, sgonzales@actslaw.com 8  United States Trustee (LA) ustpregion16.la.ecf@usdoj.gov 9  Eric D Winston ericwinston@quinnemanuel.com 10  Christopher K.S. Wong christopher.wong@arentfox.com, yvonne.li@arentfox.com 11  Timothy J Yoo tjy@lnbyb.com 12 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: 13 Debtor: 14 Girardi Keese 1126 Wilshire Blvd 15 Los Angeles, CA 90017 16 ABIR COHEN TREYZON SALO, LLP, a California limited liability partnership ACTS 17 16001 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 18 Encino, CA 91436 19 IDiscovery Solutions 535 Anton Blvd, Ste 850 20 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 21 James W. Spertus 22 Spertus Landes & Umhoffer LLP 1990 South Bundy Dr Ste 705 23 Los Angeles, CA 90025 24 Neil Steiner 25 Steiner & Libo, Professional Corp 11845 W. Olympic Blvd Ste 910W 26 Los Angeles, CA 90064 27 Andrew W. Zepeda Lurie, Zepeda, Schmalz, Hogan & Martin

9

1 1875 Century Park East Ste 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 2 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY: 3 U.S. Bankruptcy Court: 4 U.S. Bankruptcy Court Hon. Barry Russell 5 255 E. Temple Street, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90012 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

10