Manhattan Club Lawsuit

I must have missed it. But if Irene won against 3 attorneys, it bodes well for a lawsuit.

As far as I understand, she won. Don't know if she actually collected whatever was awarded. That is the kicker, you can go to small claims court and win, but collecting the winnings is another matter and up to the winner to make happen.

arlenea39 wrote:

One other question: Does anyone on this website know what the outcome was of Irene's Small Claims lawsuit against TMC?

The NY AG's purpose was to prove fraud, and to penalize TMC, Eichner and associates for that fraud. (whether the penalty was severe enough is a different question) His case was never a lawsuit against TMC to gain compensation for the owners. Irene sued Eichner and TMC and WON her case, one women against 3 of Eichner's attorneys. So far, she is the only one who has pursued a lawsuit to be compensated for her losses.

Class Action Lawsuits take years and years to wend their way through the courts. Most of the compensation is eaten up by legal fees and court costs. No one is obligated to participate, and no one should participate if they have reservations, but I do think that what Mr. Zimmerman is proposing, a regular lawsuit, has a great deal of merit.

Did Irene ever post that she won? I just remember an email where she said she was to have her hearing and that she would share with an owner what steps she had taken if the owner paid her a fee. Was there a later posting that I missed?

Dennis, above, seems to recall that she won. In any case, she has not written on this website in many weeks. Anyone out there in touch with her?

I am replying to the question about WHO is this lawyer and why do they think they can win. I am one of two owners (me and Margo) who spoke to Mr Zimmerman in detail about the issue and after many many hours of my own time here, I feel this is a very good shot for all of us. I have spent countless hours of my own time and so has Margo tracking down information, answering facebook posts, private messages and trying to keep Redweek updated. Here is the post from FEBRUARY.

Jean Marc Zimmerman reply (2/26/18): "It is exactly because we are not “specialists” in real estate law that we are able to look that this case and see the flaws in the prior efforts made to secure recovery against the Eichners.

We are indeed intellectual property lawyers, but we both have significant experience handling various types of cases. Mr. Hoffberg is of counsel to Tully Rinckey PLLC, which has extensive experience representing individuals against adversaries with far greater resources, and doing so in a manner where the amount at stake for the individual client does not justify a big-law firm approach. I have decades-long success asserting claims in complicated cases against large corporations represented by some of the largest law firms in the nation.

We see a key feature in the unsuccessful prior efforts brought against the Eichners to have been a lack of diligence in failing to secure evidence at the commencement of the action to address and overcome the Eichners’ Motions to Dismiss such efforts. Indeed, we believe that this type of evidence is available, but must be harnessed. Another key feature is to treat each claimant as an individual, requiring the Eichners to address dismissal of each claimant’s defenses individually. Further, because the interests of the claimants may be distinct, it may be possible to assert claims in such a way that the Eichners are forced to assert inconsistent positions in responding to such claims.

We never indicated that this would be an easy case, and have every reason to believe that the contest will be vigorous. But, the so-called “experts” in real estate law have all failed before, precisely because they play by the same losing rulebook, and failed to invest in the key pre-filing investigation and amassing of evidence that we hope to complete. Also, Schneiderman’s case provides us with valuable admissions, at least for a limited period of time, that were unavailable in prior cases.

Finally, our strategy is to at least consider asserting claims against other parties than those involved in prior cases, such as the Timeshare Association and its Board of Directors (especially the non-sponsor directors), the room resellers, and others who were at least peripherally involved in the alleged frauds at issue.

We invite the various owners to select counsel they feel most comfortable with, and indeed our strategy is not to run a class action lawsuit, but rather to move forward with sets of claims that permit us to move toward “reasonable” settlements that meet the owner’s respective interests. In doing so, we are cognizant of the fact that this case involves real people who have suffered real losses, and given the failed efforts by others, we seek to therefore employ innovative approaches and strategies in order to maximize each owner’s recovery.

As for cost, we make no pretense that the owners will not incur some legal fees, and perhaps fund investigation of blind alleys. However, as a group whose resources can be pooled, the cost to each individual owner will be limited. Although we are unable to guarantee a particular result, we believe that our multi-pronged approach focusing both on the variety of wrongs committed by various actors associated with The Manhattan Club and the inherent value of the Manhattan Club Building itself will enable us to prevail in our efforts on your behalf.

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Thanks, JM

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090 Tel: (908) 768-6408 Fax: (908) 935-0751

schneiderman should have been much better prepared: he should have figured out, before the litigation, how incredibly smart, crafty and how legally prepared eichner and crew were, represented by their brilliant new york attorneys. he did not. yes, scheiderman was ill-prepared. with all of the incriminating evidence he collected, including his undercover and taped fraudulent sales presentations and all of TMC owners' survey information requested by schneiderman, this case should have been tried in criminal court. perhaps schneiderman had other more pressing issues to deal with. if the case were tried in the appropriate court, eichner would be drinking champagne and eating caviar with bernie madoff for a long time, and TMC owners probably would have been made appropriately, financially whole.

mr zimmerman (who hasn't answer my emailed question as to which type of court he would propose to try his case against eichner) it seems, is leaving salient information about procedural issues out of his proposal to try the case. i would need to think twice (or more times) before investing more dollars, especially upfront, concerning TMC legal issues. i am not convinced he's the lawyer for our case.

dennisc283 wrote:

It would cost an enormous sum (e.g. tens of thousands of hours) to fight the billionaire titan. Perhaps after watching the NYSAG with virtually unlimited resources and power of the state, battle for years, and come away with so little, was too intimidating.

Mr. Zimmerman’s fee needs to be scaled and capped. If all 16,000 owners signed up, his retainer would >$22 MILLION. Of course there will be far fewer that engage him. Let him set a max, e.g., $500,000 retainer. So is only 400 sign on, they each pay $1250. But if 1200 engage him, the retainer for each comes down to about $415–much more likely to attract many plaintiffs. Next, whatever the retainer is, it should be deducted from the 30% contingency fee if the retainer is exceeded by the contingent fee. That is fair to all and keeps the attorney motivated to get the best result. (I’m an attorney).

@stevenw317. +1 very similar to what I sent to Mr. Zimmerman directly. Also, I'd be far more likely to put up the $1,250 if it were placed in escrow and not available to Mr. Zimmerman's firm until after a settlement was signed by TMC/Eichers. Glad to know I think like an attorney, as I'm not one, nor do I play one on TV ;)

RedWeek has done a lot of independent research in recent months, including meeting with owners and attorneys, to keep track of all the various threads that are spreading. One thread remains constant. Lots of owners on this forum still angry about their experience with the club and seeking revenge, refunds, restitution. Not sure, given their tone in recent posts, that they will ever be satisfied with what may happen. Only real recent development is the involvement of a new group of attorneys, led by Mr. Zimmerman, who are proposing some new legal approaches to get redress for owners. Not surprising that some owners are skeptical of the fees and benefits, given their dissatisfaction with everything involving the club. But for now, this new legal development appears to be the ONLY thing on the horizon for owners, unless they can find a way to challenge the HOA board's control of all activities and budgets at the club. We have reported on other HOA's where unhappy owners took control of their resort by challenging their board, running independent candidates and campaigning, aggressively, to pursue their claims. That is one piece missing from all the Manhattan Club activities. We will report on this and more in an upcoming Special Report on the Manhattan Club, four years after the AG supposedly addressed so many of the issues that bothered owners.

I searched att. Jean Mark Zimmerman records on NY Supreme court public website and got confused with the data returned. "Jean Mark Zimmerman" name returned 0 (ZERO) records though 99 records were returned for att. Andrew Zimmerman under the "Zimmerman Law PLLC" group.

In regards to the att. Jean Mark Zimmerman's proposal for the law suite (it's not going to be a class action!) I'd say it looks grandiose. When the plan projects grandeurs it says that it would take number of long years to achieve the goal.

I do not support J.M.Zimmerman's desire to find a new buyer for MC and to crash the MC under my name while being a plaintiff. That has been already established by the AG settlement.

I would appreciate att. J.M Zimmerman will disclose their strategy for the following: 1. which court att. J.M Zimmerman is planning to apply; 2. what is the background for a civil RICO (which might apply to the criminal law) 3. what is the background for violations of NY State's non-profit law.

At the end I would like to thank att. J.M Zimmerman for the his efforts to disclose the MC fraud.

Jeff thanks for following up on this issue. With regard to your suggestion of owners taking control of the property... unfortunately under the current HOA rules that is not possible. 3 of the 5 members of the board are appointed by the Eichner's. It's a glaring issue with the bylaws that was not addressed by the NYAG.

Also, the potential Zimmerman suit is not the ONLY option (as you'd suggested). The NYAG settlement forces the Eichner's to sell the property to another manger within 3 years of the settlement. There's a glimmer of hope that the new manager would see value in getting maintenance fees reduced and pulling several hundred (or thousand) non paying members back into the fold. There's also hope that any new buyer would be transparent with current owners in their operations and open to input. The glimmer of hope is fading for every day that goes by without the buyer coming forward. According to the settlement documents there was a buyer identified. The settlement implied the property was in some sort of extended escrow.

The fear is the sale is via nepotism to someone close to the Eichner's.

So waiting on the sidelines for another 25 months from now (I believe July of 2020 will be the sunset of the settlement agreement with the NYAG) is a valid option.

First of all: we're the owners. The AG has given the Eichners 3 years to make the changes that were ordered. I thought the biggest thing was to get NEW Management. When we have a management company they will orchestrate with us the changes that need to be made. With a good new management company we should be able to change a lot of the things that are necessary.

I wouldn't fuss about another suit right now. Let's have a little patience.

Waiting 25 months is not the answer and may invalidate potential lawsuit against TMC. Remember restitution is only for those who bought during 2011-2014 period and were denied access to booking at TMC during that time who are current with dues, plus a very few others. The Eichner's admissions of wrongdoing were only during that short period. It is a concern that the Eichners will not find a buyer who is not a corporation hidden under the corporate veil privately owned and/or funded by the Eichners who will still send $6M privately to the Eichners each year. It's too easy for the Eichner's lawyers to do it and it would take court orders and the FBI years to unravel it all. Who trusts them to do what's right by us? They didn't start TMC out of the goodness of their hearts and in my opinion don't mind who gets hurt. In my opinion, it's about money to them, not people. I don't know the statute of limitations for their admitted guilt, but waiting for even one minute can hurt us all. If you don't have a problem with TMC, stop writing here because you sound like TMC trollers trying to dissuade those who want out of restitution. $1,250 is nothing compared to the annual dues which will keep rising FOREVER. If you thing in 25 months the Eichners will be gone and some benevolent owner is going to pour fairy dust on this issue, then you must believe in fairy tales. Good luck to those, but if you're at all interested in getting out or getting restitution for this fraud, then think about joining the Zimmerman case now.

In response to fibon re search of NY Supreme Court database returning zero. Note correct spelling; the lawyer's name is Jean-Marc Zimmerman.

br

Has anyone taken a look at the 2019 budget? I don't claim to know much about budgets, but have a few questions that might be relevant and would like to discuss them with someone before I jump to conclusions. The immediate questions are these. Why would $10M reserve for bad debts be in the operating budget? Seems like that's a capital item that accumulates over time. As it is, it becomes a major part of the annual fee, doesn't it?. Second, I infer from the footnotes that 2019 will be the last year that the 20% management fee will be limited to $6.48M; in future years, it will jump to 20% of $52.7M, or over $10M. Is that right, and isn't 20% way excessive for this kind of service? Finally, is there any way to know how much of the $9.4M Miscellaneous Income is from rentals to the public? Thanks.

bettyl171 wrote:

In response to fibon re search of NY Supreme Court database returning zero. Note correct spelling; the lawyer's name is Jean-Marc Zimmerman.

br

Sorry for the mistake in my POST. I made a new search on the NY Supreme Court website for the attn. Jean-Marc Zimmerman and no data was returned. This time I looked into the cases and found out that other lawyers whose the last name Zimmerman pursued the cases (see the names below*). My guess, that does not mean attn. Jean-Marc Zimmerman did not practice but the attn. took his cases to the other courts.

Further research on the web produces next to nothing, just a couple law suites, where the clients are big companies and look "VIPs" ; many articles describe the unsuccessful case when the attn. was sanctioned for violation of Rule 11 in Eon–Net's and Zimmerman's law suite at the United States Court of Appeals and the Order was admitted "nonprecedential". In another case (April 5, 2017) Eastern District of Texas chastised a lawyer for a series of missteps that had “exceeded the bounds of mere inadvertence,” and the judge was considering sanctions against the lawyer.

What else might be found? The NJ tax records state that the owners of the private property on 233 WATCHUNG FORK WESTFIELD, NJ 07090 are ZIMMERMAN, JEAN-MARC & BETHANY. Search for the address disclaims there is a law office for the Auto Damages. Mr. J-M Zimmerman mentioned he is not a RE attorney but did not say what is the area of his expertize. And, speaking sincerely, the attn.' website https://www.zimllp.com is unimpressive and uninformative.

Like many other owners I am on the way to make a decision: to be a part of attn. J.-M. Zimmerman suite or not to be. That's still a question. Maybe we stop individual searches and get straight info? I would appreciate Jeff's disclosure on the attn. successful practices.

*Copied from the NY Supreme Court records: ZIMMERMAN LAW, PLLC - located in Huntington, NY; Michael A. Zimmerman | The Zimmerman Law Firm, P.C. - located in NY, NY; Michael Zimmerman, Managing Partner - David and Zimmerman Law - Fairfax, Virginia; DIANE ZIMMERMAN PRO SE; LYNN POSTER-ZIMMERMAN; WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN - Prose ; CLAIRE ZIMMERMAN DURST, ESQ.; AARON ZIMMERMAN, ESQ. ; ZIMMERMAN, HEATHER; WEINSTEIN, ZIMMERMAN & OHLIGER - MILFORD, PA

Right on target on your post. I am indeed skeptical of this attorney......very skeptical

I offer the following comments for consideration….. Jean-Marc Zimmerman is a partner of a small firm generally specializing in U.S. & international patent and copyright law with limited resources. Representing Eichner is Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. A mega firm of over 1200 lawyers specializing in real estate among other matters with tremendous resources. The above comparison is the reason anything from small claims, class action or other suits are not worth the cost or time. Eichner has Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP on annual retainer. The law firm has many junior assistants that are on call for the sole purpose to do something that will justify the annual retainer fees Eichner pays. In other words, it doesn’t cost Eichner anything more to be represented or go to court than he already has paid. It’s like a legal insurance plan to cover any and all issues during a given year. If you are not represented by a law firm of equal or greater size and resources….you are literally burning time and dollars. During my career, I have witnessed the above scenario on numerous occasions at all levels both here and abroad with the same predictable outcome(s). The proposed initial fee of $1250….even if every TMC owner joined the suit is peanuts.