In a recent legal development, law firm Holland & Knight is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit accusing it of inadvertently transferring $3.1 million to hackers through a Hong Kong account linked to a furniture store. The firm, however, contends that it lacks jurisdiction in the matter.
Background of the Dispute
Holland & Knight was representing a company in a $130 million acquisition deal when it allegedly received an email purportedly from two significant shareholders in the target company, as per claims made in a third-party complaint. These shareholders were associated with nonprofit foundations founded by billionaire James Sorenson.
Deceptive Instructions Lead to the Transfer
According to the allegations cited in the complaint, the email directed Holland & Knight to wire the $3.1 million intended for the shareholders to a Hong Kong account under Wemakos Furniture Co. Ltd. instead of the intended Zion Bank in Utah.
Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.
Despite engaging in email correspondence to resolve issues with the documentation, no phone calls were made during the process, as outlined in Reuters’ account of the allegations. Subsequently, the money was transferred as instructed.
Unraveling the Scheme
Following the transfer, it was discovered that the computer systems of the Sorenson foundations had been breached. Hackers, who remain unidentified, exploited a seemingly legitimate Sorenson email address to deceive Holland & Knight into transferring over $3 million. The funds disappeared without a trace.
Legal Action and Forum Selection Challenge
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan filed a third-party complaint on behalf of Holland & Knight’s former client, Graduation Alliance, and the acquiring company, KKR subsidiary Tassel Parent. This complaint was lodged in Delaware chancery court, where an underlying suit by the Sorenson Foundations against Graduation Alliance and Tassel Parent is already pending due to a forum selection clause in the merger agreement.
Holland & Knight disputes its inclusion in the forum selection clause, asserting that it was not a party to the merger agreement. Additionally, the firm lacks offices in Delaware, and the involved lawyers were based in Virginia and Florida, communicating with a Utah-based executive.
Response and Further Developments
Despite the severe nature of the allegations, Holland & Knight has not commented to Reuters, and the ABA Journal’s request for comment remains unanswered. The legal dispute underscores the increasing challenges and risks associated with cybersecurity breaches in financial transactions.
As the case unfolds, it poses critical questions about the responsibility of legal entities in preventing cybercrime. It raises concerns about the efficacy of forum selection clauses in complex legal scenarios. The outcome of this legal battle will likely have implications for future cases involving cyber fraud and jurisdictional challenges within the legal landscape.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.