Thoughts: initial thoughts on the Alix-McKinsey lawsuit
The compliant alleges some damming stuff. McKinsey brushes it all off as an anti-competitive ploy. It seems to me that the biggest risk to McKinsey is that the failure to disclose can itself be the basis for an order to disgorge fees.
Even if McKinsey might have been retained in these cases if it had made disclosure up front – I don't necessarily agree with the Alix complaint that the alleged connections would have been, in all cases, fatal to their retention – failure to disclose is itself a serious problem. Bankruptcy professionals always have to disclose more than what is required by section 327's adverse interest/disinterested standard, because ultimately what counts as a problem for section 327 purposes is a question for the court, not the professional, to decide.
And I wonder why the courts approved McKinsey's retention applications in the first place. And where was the US Trustee? It is alleged that many of their retention applications stated that McKinsey had no relevant conflicts to disclose. As in none. For a company of the size and importance of McKinsey, that frankly is not plausible.
The allegations in paragraphs 120 to 122, which I have cut out in the image, are deeply troubling. In short, Jay Alix alleges that McKinsey recommended law firms to clients, and the law firms in turn recommended McKinsey for retention in the case. Not only might this be illegal, as Alix says, but this sort of relationship would have to be disclosed in the McKinsey (and law firms) retention applications even if not illegal.
I assume the UST was too busy chasing down some consumer debtor's flat screen TV.
Posted by: Adam Levitin | May 15, 2018 at 05:11 PM