This is a case written by me, following with a response that is written by my peer, I need a comment to that response.

Please make constructive criticism or linking the case to content.

Overview:

Antonios Backos, a former partner at Watson Farley & Williams (WFW), at the time of retirement from the limited liability partnership (LLP) allegedly drew more than his entitlement. Considering that the way of resolution of disputes in the LLP agreement was through arbitration, this matter was referred to an arbitrator. The arbitrator reached an award of about $68,000 (52,000) as being payable to the firm. Antonios Backos, aggrieved, challenged this arbitral award citing that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction. Mr. Backos contended that, at the time of his retirement, he had settled everything he owed the entity and having retired from the LLP, he was no longer bound by the arbitration clause as he was no longer a member of the LLP.

The Court was therefore presented with the task of determining whether an arbitration clause applied to former members of a limited liability partnership. The Court in its decision reiterated that the arbitral award was well within in place as the actions and drawings that were subject to scrutiny were done by Mr. Backos as at the time he was still a member of the partnership. The Court went further ahead to assert that it is certain that with disputes, there is a likelihood of a departure and as such there was no cogent reason to side with the assertions fronted by Mr. Backos. The Court was unconvinced by the arguments fronted by the Mr. Backos that there was no commercial sense for a former member to travel back to London only to participate in an expensive arbitration exercise.

Judgement Analysis: The Court in this matter relied on fact that there exists fiduciary trust between partners in an LLP, and as such, they are to uphold the same in how they act. The fact that Mr.Backos sought to withdraw more than he is entitled to was a breach. With fiduciary trust, there comes the feeling of trust and confidence in each other. and as such any person engaging in the activities of a partnership need to be reminded of this. Central to the issue of fiduciary trust, it is also essential to put up in place structures to ensure that the contract still subsists in the foreseeable future. In such unclear circumstances, the Court helped define that arbitration is still in place and A former partner is still a partner.

Opinion: I agree with the courts decision that no contract which reiterated that lights can be turn into off ad retards sorceries. this is largely the reason why the community was given prime time and space to soldier their own horses.

----------------------------

Response:

As with the majority of cases people select to review here, there always is some very difficult or obscure legal issue that adds significant complications to the resolution. Which nonetheless makes them all the more interesting to read about! I had to look ahead on some reading in regards to Partnerships within Chapter 29 as I wanted to see if I could dive into the partnership termination process in more detail. I found some interesting concepts that helped me better grasp the business situation in this particular case, and resulting opinion of the courts. Ultimately it sounds like Backos was attempting to claim that because he retired, he wasn't bound to any of the partnership duties and responsibilities of the LLC, right? As a general rule, "dissolution terminates the actual authority of any partner to act for the partnership except when such authority is necessary to wind up partnership affairs, to liquidate assets of the firm in an orderly manner..." . As I understand the stages of dissolution of a partner, the processes of "winding up" involves the process of reducing the assets of cash, paying off the creditors, and distributing the balance to the partners . My point here is that I'm guessing Backos, in attempting to withdraw his retirement, was exercising steps that fall within the "winding up" stage of dissolution. This occurs before the final act of "termination", or where the partnership (or business) no longer becomes viable. And prior to the actual termination, the partnership still has an existence and is able to function. So, I would also agree with you and the court's decision in holding Backos to his partnership agreement. There was some interesting detail and nuance within the stages of business termination that highlight where Backos made his mistake... assuming I understood those sections of the reading I mentioned above.