Lawyers Vow to Fight Dismissal of Case Against Bayrock, Law Firms
An attorney who sued Kramer Levin; Akerman; Nixon Peabody; and other firms is promising to challenge the dismissal of his case, even while he reportedly remains under criminal investigation.
October 30, 2017 at 05:01 PM
4 minute read
An attorney who brought a lawsuit against several law firms and real estate development firm Bayrock Group is promising to challenge the dismissal of the case, even while he reportedly remains under a criminal contempt investigation.
The now dismissed suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court in 2015 and unsealed last year, was brought as a whistleblower action under New York's qui tam law and filed by solo practitioners Frederick Oberlander and Richard Lerner. The state of New York declined to intervene.
Defendants in the qui tam suit included Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel; Akerman; Nixon Peabody; Duval & Stachenfeld; and Roberts & Holland. Other defendants included Bayrock Group and ex-Bayrock executive Felix Sater. The suit claimed that certain law firms facilitated an alleged tax fraud.
Their lawsuit alleges certain defendants failed to account for $100 million of income and failed to account for and pay a real estate transfer tax. When the case was unsealed last year, Oberlander and Lerner had said President Donald Trump, who worked with Bayrock on real estate deals, was a “material witness” in the matter.
Oberlander and Lerner were previously co-counsel on a similar suit filed seven years ago in federal court and in the meantime have faced intense scrutiny by federal court judges, including one who referred them to authorities for a criminal contempt investigation. They have been accused of disclosing sealed information about Sater's cooperation with the government.
Despite the contempt investigation being initiated several years ago, the investigation hasn't ended, according to Sater's defense attorney, Robert Wolf, a partner at Moses & Singer. “I called and spoke to the assistant United States attorney in the district that's conducting the grand jury investigation, and he confirmed that it's still pending,” Wolf last month told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos at a court conference in the qui tam case.
Defense attorneys during the conference in the state case argued the complaint incorporated large portions of the federal suit, which ultimately had to be revised because, they said, it included privileged information that Oberlander improperly obtained from an ex-Bayrock employee. “You cannot take the fruits of your wrongdoing and use it for the basis of your complaint,” said Walter Saurack, an attorney to Bayrock, during the conference before Ramos. Saurack is a partner at Satterlee Stephens.
“The movant [the defense] is taking the position that the complaint in this action … is predicated in part, or in whole, upon the 400 stricken allegations in the federal case, the Southern District case. Is that true?” Ramos said to Oberlander. “How could I hear it, or entertain it?”
“Obtaining this information, whether you did anything wrong or not, those documents were privileged,” Ramos told Oberlander at another point. “The complaint is dismissed in its entirety. On the merits. I never want to see this case again.”
Ramos expressed impatience toward the case during the conference. “Cases like this I like to drop back 15 and punt the ball,” he said, according to the transcript.
According to a Monday order, the judge dismissed the case without prejudice to the rights of the state.
In an interview, Oberlander said “there seems to be no clearly discernable basis” for the dismissal and he intends to challenge the order “by any and all means appropriate,” such as through reargument, reconsideration or an appeal.
Saurack, Bayrock's attorney, said in a statement that he was gratified by the ruling and he has “maintained throughout that the lawsuit was without merit and based on stolen confidential materials.”
Wolf, Sater's attorney, said the case's dismissal “reflects the court's recognition that the tax fraud claims were a baseless perpetuation of extortionate litigation efforts.”
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York, which has reportedly handled the contempt investigation, declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLong Island Midsize Firm and Managing Partner Sued for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination
6 minute readKing & Spalding Adds Veteran Antitrust Litigator From White & Case in New York
3 minute readTroutman Pepper Accused of Inattentive Case Management in $59M Malpractice Suit
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250