|
Commercial Litigation
My name is Lauren Van Hemert. I am the daughter of Larry Feingold and have written this short summary of my father's career in Commercial Litigation. I have always been proud of my Father's accomplishments particularly when he was asked to leave private practice to become fulltime City Attorney of Miami Beach.
Notwithstanding Dad's great service as City Attorney, I have always felt that it was in the area of Litigation where Dad's star shone the brightest. To put it simply, Dad spoke and the judge and jury listened.
COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
Commercial Litigation has been the mainstay of the Laurence Feingold practice since 1962. It stems from Larry's extensive prior background in business particularly the hospitality and travel industry since 1953. While other young adults pursued more frivolous pleasures, Larry actually operated resorts, hotels and travel agencies before he was 30 years old. He frequently chartered entire steamships of World Wide Cruises before he was 35 years old.
Upon entering law practice in 1962 with Bernard C. Fuller, Larry was immediately asked to represent the National Airlines of Panama, Mexico and Peru. Zim Lines, the Israeli Steamship also became a client. Shortly thereafter, Larry became an Attorney and Director of Italian Line Steamship Company, (" Italia " Societa Di Navigazione De Genoa).
Larry's resort hotel background was so extensive that in 1977, Larry was asked to take a leave of absence from Fuller and Feingold by the Teamsters Union Pension Fund to operate Miami's Everglades Hotel and Miami Beach's Montmarte Hotel. Both of these Hotels were acquired be the Pension Fund in foreclosure litigation wherein the Teamsters were represented by the same Larry Feingold.
Other Contested foreclosures requiring Larry's representation involved the Palm Beach Biltmore, the Desert Inn in Daytona Beach, the Causeway Inn in Tamps and the Castle Hilton (Konover) in Miami Beach.
These Teamsters Union forclosures were anything but routine because the Hotel Owners always were claiming as their defense that they had bribed Teamster Officials to secure their mortgage so the mortgages were never fully funded.
Notwithstanding the negative cloud hanging over these cases, particularly from media publicity, Feingold won all the above foreclosures cases.
So, what is the Commercial Litigation that Larry Feingold has excelled in for 45 years? Commercial Litigation simply put is any lawsuit or arbitration relating to the conduct of business. Some examples of Commercial Litigation are:
- COLLECTIONS
- FORECLOSURES
- CONTRACT DISPUTES
- SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION
- LITIGATION BETWEEN CORPORATIONS
- LITIGATION BETWEEN CORPORATION AND A GOVERNMENT ENTITY PREVENTING CORPORATE ACTIVITIES
- ANTITRUST ACTIONS
- REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
- CONDOMINIUM LITIGATION BETWEEN UNIT OWNERS AND THE DEVELOPER
- SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FOR REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS
- BANKING LITIGATION
- LENDER LIABILITY CASES
- ENFORCEMENT OF INSURANCE POLICIES
- CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
- TRUST AND ESTATE LITIGATION
- SECURITIES LITIGATION
- COMMON CARRIER LITIGATION
- TAXATION LITIGATION
- CREDITOR'S RIGHTS
- CONSUMER RIGHTS
This list of what constitutes Commercial Litigation could go on and on adinfinitum. The excitement of Commercial Litigation for LARRY FEINGOLD is that unlike Personal Injury Slip and fall and Automobile case...no two Commercial Litigation Cases are entirely alike
Commercial Litigation Cases handled by LARRY FEINGOLD include:
- Rekant v. Desser and World Wide Realty. In this case,
LARRY FEINGOLD represented Rekant, Who owned only 8
Shares of World Wide Realty. He charged Desser, the
President of World Wide with fraudulently issuing shares and
corporate notes to himself in violation of SEC Rule 10(b)5.
The Successful Appellate Opinion in Rekant is attached hereto as (Exhibit One)
- Miami International Realty v. Pathway Financial. This
was a lender libility suit charging the LenderBank with
breach of Contract. The Final Judgment of $ 3.5 Million
Dollars is attached hereto along with Jury's question to the
judge asking if they could award Feingold's client more
money then they asked for (Exhibit Two)
- Mr. Richard v. Burns Security. This case involved a
burglary of a jewelry store where the alarm sounded but
Burns never did come to the premises nor did they call the
Police or Mr. Richard, the Store Owner. The defense of
Burns was that Mr. Richard had signed a Contract stating
that Mr. Richard had limited the liability of Burns to $ 250.00
when Burns was at fault. The Limited Liability Clause of the
Burns Contact had always been honored by the Courts. In
this Landmark Case, the Jury ignored the $ 250 Limitation of
Libility and awarded Mr. Richard full damages for his loss.
Attached hereto is a news article on this Landmark case.(Exhibit Three)
- Landsea Tours v. Chandris (Celebrity Cruise Lines)
This was Arbitration in London between a Tour Operator and
a Steamship Company. The Tour Operator had chartered
the Victoria for a Mediterranean Cruise the following year
wherein the ship was to become a Floating Hotel in Haifa,
Israel for eight days to Celebrate Easter and Passover.
There was a problem defining the quality of the food on this 21
day cruise so Landsea specified that the food would be
identical quality as on prior Caribbean Cruise of the
Victoria out of San Juan. The food was not identical as
promised. It was horrible. At each port Feingold's clients
went to buy groceries for the passengers so they would have
edible food. This issue was litigated for 5 years in arbitration
in London resulting in a favorable settelment to the Tour
Operator
- Current Commercial Litigation cases in Florid handled by
Feingold involve suits seeking return of deposits to Buyers of
luxury condominum apartmants. Since the market has
collapsed, many purchasers simply cannot afford to
complete their purchaser. However, in numerous cases, it
can be found that the developer has not followed Florida's
Condominium Act. Thus a Buyer sometimes may get his
down payment back even if the Buyer's motivation to cancel
the deal may be for an entirely different reason.
- In Cadime v. Santa Catalina Homes, we have exactly the
opposite situation wherein a Condominium Buyer does not
seek his deposit back. in this case; Mr. Cadime only wanted;
to close on his Condominium Townhouse. Santa Catalina
said Cadime forfeited his deposit when he tried to sell his
unit berfore he closed. Santa Catalina claimed that the listing
of the Unit for sale by Cadime on his incomplete unit
changed Cadime's status from a resident to an investor in
violation of the sales contract. Thus according to Santa
Catalina, the contract was void and Cadime lost his deposits,
Feingold sued Santa Catalina in Federal Court alleging that
the action of forfeiting the contract was unconscionable.
Shortly before trial,the case was settled and cadime was
able to purchase his townhouse at his original "Pre-
Construction" price under the contract without losing his deposit
CONCLUSION
I hope you have enjoyed my short summary of my father's history in Commercial Activities and Commercial Litigation. If you have seen the pictures of Larry Feingold on this Web Page, I think you will agree at 73 years of age, he is not ready to retire.
|
