Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP is engaged in a legal battle to recover approximately $30 million in fees from its former client, Desktop Metal Inc., following the enforcement of a merger agreement with Nano Dimension Ltd. The dispute centers on whether the case should be adjudicated in Massachusetts state court or transferred to the Texas bankruptcy court overseeing Desktop Metal’s Chapter 11 proceedings.
In early 2025, Desktop Metal retained Quinn Emanuel to litigate against Nano Dimension, alleging breach of a 2024 merger agreement. The Delaware Chancery Court ruled in favor of Desktop Metal, ordering Nano Dimension to complete the merger, which was finalized on April 2, 2025. Quinn Emanuel’s engagement terms included a discounted hourly rate, with a provision for a 120% rate if the firm succeeded in enforcing the merger. The firm now claims it is owed nearly $30 million in unpaid fees and costs. ([masslawyersweekly.com](https://masslawyersweekly.com/2025/08/14/quinn-emanuel-30m-merger-fee-dispute/?utm_source=openai))
Quinn Emanuel filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court in Massachusetts against Nano Dimension and its CEO, Ofir Baharav, alleging tortious interference and unfair trade practices. The firm contends that Nano Dimension, after gaining control of Desktop Metal, orchestrated a scheme to avoid paying the legal fees by stripping Desktop Metal of assets and preparing for bankruptcy. ([masslawyersweekly.com](https://masslawyersweekly.com/2025/08/14/quinn-emanuel-30m-merger-fee-dispute/?utm_source=openai))
On July 28, 2025, Desktop Metal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, Nano Dimension removed the Massachusetts state court case to the U.S. District Court in Boston. Quinn Emanuel has moved to remand the case back to state court, while Nano Dimension seeks to transfer it to the Texas bankruptcy court. ([dockets.justia.com](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1%3A2025cv12159/287515?utm_source=openai))
Nano Dimension argues that Quinn Emanuel’s attempt to claim an attorney’s lien is an effort to circumvent the bankruptcy proceedings, asserting that the fee dispute should be resolved within the framework of Desktop Metal’s Chapter 11 case. ([law360.com](https://www.law360.com/bankruptcy-authority/articles/2387503/quinn-emanuel-s-30m-fee-bid-flouts-ch-11-co-says?utm_source=openai))
The outcome of this jurisdictional dispute will determine the venue for resolving Quinn Emanuel’s fee claims, with potential implications for the firm’s ability to recover the alleged unpaid fees.