Claims and DQ News — Firm Faces Big Claim for Conflict and Negligence, Cannabis Dispensary Owners Seek Firm DQ


Walkers to Face $500M Professional Negligence Claim in Court” —

  • “A professional negligence claim worth more than $500 million against offshore law firm Walkers is due to be heard in court next year, in one of the largest claims ever brought against an offshore firm.”
  • “The firm is being sued by a prominent Brazilian family as part of a long-running dispute that began in 2014. It centres on Walkers acting for the judicial administrator of the bankruptcy estate of Petroforte Brasiliero de Petroleo and the Petroforte Economic Group, which used disclosure obtained through Cayman proceedings to gain the assets from the claimants.”
  • “The case was initially set aside after the claimants failed to provide $4.25 million in security for Walkers’ costs in 2022. Following an appeal, the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal gave them a further six weeks to pay, in a judgment handed down in October 2025. The case is now scheduled to be heard in 2027.”
  • “The firm, which had represented the Rabello family in the Cayman Islands for 25 years, accepted instructions from a Brazilian bankruptcy administrator, Dr Afonso Braga, who then confiscated assets from the claimants amounting to hundreds of million of dollars in 2010, according to documents filed in the claim in the grand court of the Cayman Islands.”
  • “The claim form says: ‘The defendant now accepts it should never have acted for Dr Braga. Acting for Dr Braga put the Defendant in the position where it was acting not only with a potential conflict of interest but with an actual conflict and directly against the interests of its own clients.’”
  • “The claim form also alleges that Walkers failed to disclose that the judicial administrator, Dr Braga, was entitled to 6% of some of the assets confiscated and that Brazilian attorneys were entitled to receive 20-30% of some assets. However, according to the defendants, Dr Braga was under no obligation to disclose his fee arrangements due to them being sanctioned by the Brazilian courts.”
  • “The claimants allege that Walkers breached its duty in failing to carry out conflict of interest procedures adequately and acting for the administrator whilst also acting for the claimants.”
  • “The claim amounts to $500 million, with the claimants also looking to claim the interest on the assets lost as a result of the matter.”
  • “Walkers has more than 100 lawyers in the Cayman Islands, according to Law.com Compass. Its next biggest offices are Dublin, London and Hamilton in Bermuda, according to the database. It also has operations in Hong Kong, Singapore, Tortola in the British Virgin Islands and Dubai.”
  • “Late last year, it announced it had agreed to take private equity investment. Private equity firm Vitruvian will share ownership of the firm’s non-legal services arm, Walkers Professional Services.”

Dispensary Owners Want Blank Rome DQed From Loan Suit” —

  • “The owners of a New Jersey dispensary are asking a California federal court to disqualify Blank Rome LLP and its attorneys from representing a lender in a $1.6 million loan dispute, because the firm represented them as well and used confidential information in the lender’s suit.”
  • “In a motion filed Wednesday, Charis and Luke Burrett, who own The Medicine Woman Group LLC, said they had retained Blank Rome to resolve a dispute with a landlord and in forming a special purpose vehicle with the owner of AuxoCAP JC LLC. Blank Rome had invoiced them for legal services just before filing the present suit on behalf of AuxoCAP, they said.”
  • “This creates a conflict of interest that cannot be reconciled through a waiver, the Burretts argued, particularly as the present suit is based on confidential financial information that they handed to Blank Rome as part of the previous suit.”
  • “According to the motion, the Burretts’ business, as it struggled to launch, was bailed out by investor Matthew Taetsch through his lending company, AuxoCAP LLC, in exchange for an ownership share, executive title and access to other records. Taetsch also introduced the pair to Blank Rome, as one of its partners, Craig Weiner, was a ‘trusted personal friend.’”
  • “AuxoCAP JC, an affiliate of AuxoCAP, later extended a loan to The Medicine Woman, on which the company later defaulted. AuxoCAP JC sued — represented by Blank Rome — claiming that The Medicine Woman and the Burretts committed fraud and other torts, according to court documents.”
  • “The Burretts said that Blank Rome had served as principal negotiator and architect of a settlement and new lease with their landlord in New Jersey, and that it relied on confidential financial information in that process, and the relationship continued, with Blank Rome also representing them in forming an SPV with AuxoCAP.”
  • “And while the Burretts signed a waiver allowing Blank Rome to represent both them and AuxoCAP for the $1.6 million loan at issue and the formation of the SPV, that waiver explicitly said Blank Rome would not represent AuxoCAP in connection with a loan offer or other transactions, and the Burretts signed the waiver with the understanding that it applied only to the formation of the SPV, they argued.”
  • “The same subject matter, parties, and information are at issue both in Blank Rome’s previous representation of the Burretts and the present suit, according to the memorandum, and that previous relationship gave it access to confidential information that it is now using in the present suit.”
  • “The Burretts also said that Blank Rome can’t rely on ‘screening’ to save its representation, given Weiner had such a close relationship to the issues, and the firm hasn’t shown that the attorneys representing it here were cordoned off from him. Weiner has even been copied on emails with those attorneys, they said.”



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Learn the difference between accountability and responsibility — and why building a more accountable team starts with what you do as a leader.

Do you want your team to be more accountable?

If you’re like most of the CEOs I work with, you do.

You want clear ownership. You want clear communication. You want consequences for missing targets.

But here’s what most CEOs miss: holding accountability is your responsibility, not theirs.

In this essay, I’ll explain the difference between accountability and responsibility, and share the questions you need to ask to make sure you’re doing your part.

What is accountability?

I define accountability as the ability to account for one’s actions and decisions.

There are two sides to accountability: 

  • Being accountable: that’s the person giving an account.
  • Holding someone accountable: that’s the person they are giving it to.

The most common form of accountability is a report that shows:

  1. The numbers
  2. The story behind them. 

In fact, the word account can refer to numbers (think accounting) or stories (an account of what happened).

Reporting is powerful because it forces people to check in on their goals, what they’ve done, and what to do next. And great reports can create a self-managing system where the report does a lot of the heavy-lifting.

Accountability has benefits: it helps people remember and focus on their goals, and it can maximise their learning. Plus, it keeps stakeholders informed.

However, accountability is only half of the equation.

The other part is responsibility, and without it, accountability isn’t nearly as helpful.

What is responsibility?

I define responsibility as the ability to respond with effective actions and decisions.

So is the manager or the teammate responsible for getting results? 

This needs to be crystal clear:

  • Your team is responsible for getting results.
  • You are responsible for the team itself.

Your team is responsible for planning their work, making commitments, and solving problems in order to get results.

However, you are responsible for selecting the right people, communicating expectations, and supporting them as best you can.

Accountability is a service. It’s goal is to increase a person’s level of responsibility.

Haven’t you craved some accountability so you followed through on something important?

It actually starts with you, not them.

The first step in driving accountability is to check in with your responsibilities first: 

  • Have you selected the right people? 
  • Have you communicated expectations? 
  • Have you supported them and provided them with accountability?

Because the consequences you want aren’t actually on them, they are on you.

Answering these questions? That’s accountability.

Actually doing something about them? That’s taking responsibility.

Related Reading: 

Originally published on February 25th, 2026

 

How do top founders actually scale?

I’ve coached CEOs for 10,000+ hours—here’s what works.
Join 17,000+ founders learning how to scale with clarity.

Unsubscribe any time.





Source link