When one looks back in retrospect, certain patterns might become clear.  Napoli Bern, a hugely successful mass torts firm has imploded.   Christine Simmons of the NYLJ writes:  “The feuding equity partners of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik have engaged Mark Zauderer, a partner at Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, to mediate their partnership dispute and adjourned a contempt hearing that was scheduled Wednesday.

Paul Napoli and Marc Bern, equity partners in Napoli Bern and several related firms, have filed breach of contract claims against each other, alleging that the other’s conduct has harmed the partnership. In November, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Eileen Bransten appointed former Nassau County Justice Ira Warshawsky as temporary receiver to oversee finances for the Napoli Bern firms.”

Late last year, the fen-phen settlement fell apart when claims of deceit surfaced.  Appel-Hole v Wyeth-Ayerst Labs.  2014 NY Slip Op 33170(U)
November 21, 2014  Supreme Court, New York County  Docket Number: 105122/09  Judge: Charles E. Ramos describes some of the issues.

“In November 2001, the Original Action was settled, and the settlement approved by a predecessor court, by Justice Helen Freedman. At or around this time, the concern was raised that the settlement and disbursements obtained had been manipulated and misallocated by settling counsel, defendants herein, Napoli Bern & Kaiser, LLP (NKB), to clients other then those referred to by Parker & Waichman, LLP (P&W). At the time that P&W referred clients, NKB agreed to represent them and to share attorneys’ fees with P&W. Shortly after approval of the settlement, P&W commenced an action against NKB alleging misrepresentations in connection with that settlement, entitled P&W v Napoli, and bearing the index number 605388/01 (P&W Action) . This Court largely dismissed the action on the ground that P&W lacked standing to assert claims of breach of contract between the referred clients and NKB, and because it constituted a collateral attack on the settlement, which was affirmed (Parker & Waichman, 29 AD3d 396 [1st Dept 2006]). A claim for an accounting remains in the pending P&W Action. In 2003, P&W and 389 of its referred clients commenced another, closely related action entitled Abramova v Napoli, and bearing the index number 601332/03 (Abramova Action). This action is stayed while most of the referred clients pursue their claims in this action. In 2006, P&W and proposed intervenor plaintiffs sought the Court’s permission to commence this action against NKB and its three named partners, Paul Napoli, Gerald Kaiser, and Marc Bern, in order to assert claims for fraud and violation of Judiciary Law§ 487. ”

“For instance, the third amended intervenor complaint alleges that John Bagglio repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the settlement amount being offered via NKB, and requested that NKB renegotiate a better settlement offer. Nonetheless, in a series of communications with John Bagglio, NKB misrepresented that he “had no case,” that his case faced “serious consequences” if he did not return the release form and accept the settlement amount being offered, and that he would “get nothing” if his case went to court. NKB also allegedly misled him concerning the settlement procedure, how the settlement offer was arrived at, and falsely put him in fear of losing any potential recovery if he did not accept a lower settlement amount, which the complainant relied upon in accepting a low settlement amount. The allegations of the remaining intervenor plaintiffs which defendants maintain are insufficient contain either a greater or lesser level of detail, describing the manner in which the defendants misrepresented how each individual settlement was arrived at, and how plaintiffs were pressured into settling the case based on terms which were false. Taking the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the Court concludes that, under the circumstances, sufficient facts are alleged to permit a fact-finder to infer that the intervenor defendants falsely represented how each settlement was arrived at and the settlement process itself. True, with respect to many of the complainants, intervenor plaintiffs have not alleged specific details of each individual intervenor defendants’ conduct. Nonetheless, the third amended intervenor complaint alleges the basic facts to establish the elements of fraud, and adequately informs the defendants of the complained-of incidents (see Eurycleia Partners, L.P., Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). ”