Add RSS RSS

Former Heller Ehrman Building Forfeit to Lenders

Heller Ehrman small logo.jpgSince it has been so long since Heller Ehrman collapsed, it’s easy to forget that the firm’s dissolution continues to affect so many. Today, the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the owners of the building that housed Heller will now have to forfeit that property:

The owners of a premier San Francisco office tower plan to forfeit the property to their lenders, the city’s second distressed transaction involving a major commercial building in recent weeks and another sign of the growing pressures in the sector.

Hines and Sterling American Property decided to transfer their interest in 333 Bush St. to the original financers, following the surprise dissolution of law firm Heller Ehrman in September, according to a letter Hines sent to local real estate brokers and obtained by The Chronicle. The 118-year-old law firm defaulted on its 250,000-square-foot lease, leaving the nearly 550,000-square-foot property 65 percent vacant.

That’s one hell of a jingle mail.

How are former Heller associates and partners doing these days? Have people put the Heller experience behind them? Or is the pain still too near to talk about it?

S.F. tower’s owners will forfeit it to lender [San Francisco Chronicle]

Earlier: WilmerHale Hires Operational Wisdom, From Heller Ehrman

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:40 PM

First to say that I don't bother reading posts when the heading is so grammatically unsound.

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:40 PM

first

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:40 PM

Thirdsy!

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:43 PM

I wish I lived on Bush St.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:46 PM

To be fair:
it appears the building was already 20% vacant before Heller left; their departure only cleared out 45% of total space. Not exactly a booming establishment.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:46 PM

Heller is recruting Suffolk 3Ls at OCI! Get your apps ready!

avatar
7 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:47 PM

4 -

Better yet on the corner of Filmore & Bush.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:49 PM

I caught a glimpse of PE about an hour ago at Rick's Cabaret. He was drooling over two hot chicks dancing to Bubba Sparxxx's "Ms. New Booty." Very hillarious. That old fucker knows how to party. Props on the burgandy silver tie. Very pimpish PE.

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:51 PM

i have a 250,000 sq ft wife in texas

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:58 PM

Mystal, I know you are hungry, but the whole building! Damn, brutha, homeboy can get his eat on.

Your cousin, Marvin.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:59 PM

Elie -- Slight grammatical correction. You put a period instead of a comma in the first sentence.

You wrote, "Since it has been so long since Heller Ehrman collapsed. it's easy to forget that the firm's dissolution continues to affect so many."

I believe it should read, "Since it has been so long since Heller Ehrman collapsed, it's easy to forget that the firm's dissolution continues to affect so many."

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:00 PM

"Since it has been so long since Heller Ehrman collapsed. it's easy to forget that the firm's dissolution continues to affect so many. "

MsTTTal strikes again.

avatar
13 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:02 PM

Grammatical correction on 12. It should read, "MysTTal strikes again" not, "MsTTTal strikes again."

Please moderate.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:08 PM

Grammatical correction on 13. It should read, "MysTTTal strikes again" not, "MysTTal strikes again."

Please moderate.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:13 PM

14 wins. 13 loses. 12 neither wins nor loses.

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:14 PM

Grammatical correction on 14: It should read, ""MysTTTal strikes again," not ," not ""MysTTTal strikes again" not."

Please moderate.

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:17 PM

8=PE, obviously

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:43 PM

I have been preaching for years that cap rates on commercial real estate move in tandem with treasury rates.

And yes I saw PE getting a lap dance this afternoon.

avatar
19 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:51 PM

Substantive correction on 13, 14, and 16: They should read "Spelling correction on . . .," not "Grammatical correction on . . . ."

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:02 PM

I actually saw PE shining shoes today at Grand Central Station.

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:02 PM

Substantive correction on 19: It should read "Substantive correction on 13, 14, and 16: They should read "Spelling correction on . . .," not "Grammatical correction on . . . ." Please moderate," not "Substantive correction on 13, 14, and 16: They should read "Spelling correction on . . .," not "Grammatical correction on . . . ."

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:03 PM

From what I've heard, the partners are all doing fine. Most of the associates were taken care of (i.e., given comparable jobs at new firms), but a not insignificant number of associates and staff have not been properly looked after. Somewhat surprising coming from a firm that always touted "it's the people."

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:17 PM

And yet another reason the Mets are doing nothing at the trading deadline. Aside from blowing $700MM on Madoff, the Wilpons blew money on Heller. Sterling is owned by the Wilpons (among others), who own the Mets.

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:28 PM

Excuse me, who was "properly looked after"? Must be nice for them.

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:35 PM

So is Heller NOT coming to Suffolk OCI's to see 3Ls?

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:36 PM

"but a not insignificant number of associates and staff have not been properly looked after"
______
Where to begin?

triple negative? really?

ending your sentence with a preposition?

associates were "given" new jobs?

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:45 PM

22, 24 -- Partners all made out fine, and landed at new firms (though I understand they didn't get a dime of their capital contribution back). Experienced associates generally landed at their partners' new firms. Staff and younger associates, aside from a few in IP litigation, were generally left behind. Many are still looking for work, nearly 10 months later.

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:56 PM

partners at quinn forget that the firm's dissolution continues to affect so many all the time. it is no big deal.

(dissolute) quinn stud

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:19 PM

27, yeah, landed at firms like Cooley. That's working out gloriously. More confirmed and rumored partner defections there continue.

Ship be sinking?

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:19 PM

So wait, does this mean that Heller will NOT be coming to interview Suffolk 3Ls at OCIs?

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:23 PM

26: care to enlighten us on the "triple negative"?

How would you have phrased the sentence to avoid ending with the preposition? I'm not sure "after" is even a preposition in that instance.

And I suppose you are technically correct that associates weren't "given" jobs--job offers were extended to them.

Thanks for picking up on the substance of the comment, douchebag (actually, calling you a douchebag is an insult to vaginas).

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:27 PM

27- they probably should have been required to have made even larger capital contributions to cover the vacation/WARN payments they failed to make to associates and staff.

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:41 PM

Side note - someone explain the capital contributions. Surely nobody put external capital into the firm. More likely they had PPP reduced rather than taking it as a distribution, in which case the money was never really theirs anyway right? Am I seeing this correctly or do partners actually inject their own external money?

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:16 PM

33. Please read the following:

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter/lawArticleCareerCenter.jsp?id=1202424736610

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:12 PM

Junior associates did not get taken care of especially well, though it varied by practice area. A handful of incoming 2008 associates were brought along to new firms, and last year's summer associates who received offers fared even worse.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:40 PM

Sterling American Properties, the co-owner of this property, is the same outfit that owns the Mets and lost hundreds of millions with Madoff.

Simply stated: they are having a really, really bad year.

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:09 PM

Confirmed - Heller doing OCI for 3Ls at Suffolk. Only accepting those in the bottom 20% of the class, so don't even try if you are unqualified.

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:13 PM

After Heller folded, I joined Bendt, Ohver & Asfuct. It's really great. I work my own hours, choose my own matters, even pay my own salary! Thanks guys!

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:36 PM

38: LOL. Classic.

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:13 AM

Judging by the ridiculously juvenile remarks consistently in these threads, I don't think law firms are going to miss the "new talent" at all.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:38 AM

Heller shareholders paid a about 7% of every dollar of income into a capital account (after-tax). The total payment over years was typically several hundred thousand dollars. Heller shareholders will most likely never see that money again. And the debtor's counsel is now threatening lawsuits against them. It's hard to generalize about associates and staff -- some did fine, some left out. For the most part, everyone affected suffered (including landlords, shareholders, etc.) -- all because of management's incompetence.

avatar
42 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 30, 2009 11:32 AM

27, 22, thank you so much. It makes my heart glad to know that "all of the partners made out fine." I was really concerned there that they wouldn't take care of themselves first.

avatar
43 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 30, 2009 12:35 PM

Yes, 42, it sure puts one's mind at ease. It would have been a shame if partners had to sell (or worse, lose) their homes and struggle to eventually find less lucrative jobs. Fortunately that was reserved for the associates and staff.

avatar
44 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:17 PM

Breaking news - Heller is only doing resume collect for Suffolk 3Ls, which the recruiting officer will read in a rented out bungalow in Tahiti.

avatar
45 Posted by guest | Permalink Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:13 PM

@ 40, lighten up.

@ 41, if I hear the "we all got fucked" speech again from some dildo shareholder with some comparable job elsewhere and no appreciable loss of earning capacity, I'll puke. Blame "management" all you want, you can bet you had a hell of a lot more say in how that place was run than anyone still looking for work. Stick your piety and your self-righteous rhetoric up your ass.

avatar
46 Posted by guest | Permalink Friday, July 31, 2009 12:07 AM

45 - word!

avatar
47 Posted by guest | Permalink Saturday, August 1, 2009 6:43 PM

32 - Yeah, there's that. You'd think that should have been presented to the partners. And also on that note, they shouldn't have taken a loan to inflate their PPP.

Post Your Comment