Manhattan Club Lawsuit

mitchb10,

i'm inclined to fully agree with your skepticism of zimmerman. that i recall, he offered no historical precedents of winning cases, especially those similar to THE MANHATTAN CLUB. his comments in this forum seemed very cautionary as in---- "past performance is no guarantee of future results......." that's true of any new litigation: there's nothing cut and dry. however, it seems that he's pushing that possibility. perhaps he's not too confident in what he intends to attempt in his participants' behalf.

mitchb10 wrote:

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

for my own personal circumstances and situation, what i am seeking (perhaps in addition to other side issues) is a SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION in maintenance payments. by SUBSTANTIAL i mean a 35 to 40% reduction. we were promised at the initial (fraudulent and lie-ridden) sales presentation that the maintenance fee would remain stable or increase slightly after the initial purchase. IS A 400% INCREASE SLIGHT?

i like most things about the physical amenities offered by TMC. if eichner would get out of the management/chairman/owner position, WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE VIA COURT ORDER, WE MIGHT NOT BE BEARING THE ALBATROSS OF THE EXORBITANT MAINTENANCE FEES (last week i asked someone in the financial dept if eichner was still in charge: the answer i got was "yes, as far as i know.") wasn't part of the court settlement agreement that eichner would no longer be associated with those positions at TMC? please amend my statements and questions here if there are errors in my assumption about eichner's TMC position.

I'm curious from those that are skeptical of a lawyer who is asking a very reasonable up front fee .....if you feel he or his team cannot compete against Eichners large law firm, what are you going to do ? are you going to find your own lawyer? go to small claims court? wait for Eichner to at some point vacate and hope you get some $$ amount back?? (i feel any amount received back from the original settlement issued would be hardly anything anyway - and with the Better Business Bureau doing the admin of the settlement - it may take years - there was no timeframe specified for completion of that right?).

If you find your own lawyer or even pay one to go with you to small claims court - they do charge you for the prep time and the court time. I'm going to say this again....any good lawyer is 350+ per HOUR./NYC lawyers probably close to 500/hour. Do you realize how long it would take any firm of lawyers to weed thru case history on this, precedents? You would spend thousands before anything would even happen in court. This lawyer may be our BEST option right now - but of course everyone needs to decide for themself how to proceed. I for one, can't spend years complaining and writing on here hoping something changes. Actions speak louder than words and it's time for a real lawsuit to be brought against this place.

Thank you

We, like others, are at a loss of what to do. Do we pay a lawyer who may or may not succeed, if it even happens in our lifetime. We feel if he is so confident of success 30% of what he recovers should be what he gets. Why an up front fee? Hasnt this cost us enough already? Should we continue to pay these exorbitant fees every year? We haven’t paid our fee yet for this year and are at a loss of what to do at this point. As we live out of state, difficult for us to pursue this locally. Has anyone just paid the tax portion of fee?

The lawyer has staff to pay, his time, his bills, his office rental, etc. - he cannot do this for free. I am presently suing a NYC brokerage company who cost me around $80,000 due to unauthorized trades. I hired a law firm and this matter has not even gotten into court and I have already shelled out $46,000 in legal fees - in legal fees. This is a job for the attorney - he is not going to do it for free - he'd be out of business pronto if he did. So , each has to make a decision - do you want to take a chance with this attorney, or find your own attorney, or continue whining and pondering how you got yourself in this atrocious predicament.while you do nothing. I'm confused too - I think we need to ask attorney Zimmerman how many owners have to participate before he will proceed any further. And, I think many of us do not want to send him upfront money which is used in preparing for litigation only to find that so few have signed up, that attorney Zimmerman says he's sorry but he will not be able to continue with our litigation and thus we forfeit the money we have sent in to him. Any ideas? Also, does anyone know whether the stipulations about the TMC Board, how they are elected, the terms, etc. are spelled out - is it in the master deed or in the By Laws - it is possible to vote on amending those sections so that we as owners take control. Can someone research this?

Side note..... Do other owners know that reservations has shortened their hours again? It's frustrating enough paying over 400% increased fees, but decreased amenities (and there have been several), without any notification is VERY annoying. Apparently they now close one hour earlier. Today a manager tried telling me, that a notice was sent to owners a long time ago and the now 6pm closing has been all year. Neither is true from my knowledge.

Telling us to quit before we even start because Eichner has more attorneys on retainer is outrageous. How much is Eichner paying you to write this stuff on Redweek demeaning Zimmerman? I want out and for those unhappy with this situation with TMC, this is your best chance at the moment to get out. If you can afford paying TMC dues which is more than you'd pay on Hotels.com and easier to book, then you can afford entering this lawsuit. You either love TMC and want to overpay or you want change and it's not going to happen with this horrible NYAG outcome. What do you really have to lose? What do you really have to gain? I just think the courts with enough justifiable cause and Eichner's already admitted guilt can't help but decide in our favor. Those who try to tell you to quit before we all as a group start (and the more the merrier) isn't helping. This is our best shot; otherwise it's eternity with Eichner and his cronies.

Kevin631 -well.... I am hardly brow beating anyone. You have to post and repost on this site because so many ask the same questions. I know because I have answered the same question over 50 times about what is the lawyers email. I'm actually trying to help people and not waste my energy just posting for the next 5 years.

It's only been a week - Mr Zimmerman may have a handful of people saying yes but probably not many checks yet. I am not going to publicly document here how many are a part of the lawsuit - I don't think we lay out strategy and details on a public forum . I will not even say how many filled out the survey. I don't know who watches this info and that wouldn't be smart.

One other owner and I have spent hours speaking to this attorney about the situation, I have given up many nights trying to help over the past few months get people in touch with him, make sure people who wanted the survey got the survey, and finding documents for him. I put him in touch with Jeff from Redweek and urged him to meet with him (they did). I truly would like to see the best possible outcome for everyone, but I will move on with him whether or not anyone else does. I don't see anyone else giving other options of attorneys to hire.

what is zimmermans e-mail and phone #? thanks

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090

E: jmz@tmcsuit.com T: (908) 768-6408

I thought I posted a message but have never seen it. Patience is needed here. TMC was given 3 years to carry out the AG's demands. The most important thing is to find a new manager. Surely someone is overseeing all this. We are the owners. A new manager will have to tackle all the problems that we have here. We need, as homeowners, to have control of the Board of Directors.It needs to be an experienced manager. I don't think Eichner knew anything at all about managing. He had no interest in doing anything. He only was lining his pockets.

Agreed. Thanks for the voice of reason.

I am reluctant to retain counsel to bring suit at this point. Unless I have misunderstood, the AG has ordered the MC management to sell within three years of the settlement. Unfortunately, the AG cannot order someone else to buy. So nothing will happen until a buyer is found or the settlement Administrator forces a sale three years out. If a sale is forced earlier by Mr. Zimmerman, it will be designed to benefit him and his clients, not owners who have not retained him. So a forced sale might help his clients collect their damages if they win their suit; it might benefit Mr. Zimmerman if he is compensated for negotiating the sale of a prime piece of Manhattan real estate; but it may actually leave the rest of us even worse off.

I wish everyone would stop talking about SELLING. WE are the owners. the search is on for a good management company. It will happen.

My understand is that Eichner retained the management when the Manhattan Club was first offered as a time share. Isn't that what is being sold - the management company which is the entity Eicher and his cronies used to siphon off over $6,000,000 a year in management fees. The Attorney General only recouped around $6,000,000 to go back to the HOA. Eichner had pulled his scam for many, many years - a $6,000,000 "punishment" was nothing - he got to keep many, many millions of dollars that he had previously collected. We, as owners, got scammed again. So, I don't know how anyone can be made whole or compensated unless there is a new legal action against Eichner . The thinking is : A new suit would need to be brought on behalf of those clients who still feel that they have been wronged and who see no other path forward which would allow them to recoup their losses even when a new management company takes over. Things will never, ever return to what they should have been - too much money has been lost by the M.C. owners.

I would like to 'get rid' of my MC unit. I am not interested in hanging around until all this legal back and forth gets resolved. It could take years and we have already waited YEARS for the AG and nothing really came of that. If I can just 'give it away' without any legal fees or repercussions from not paying maintenance I would be gratified.

From attorney - Mr Zimmerman 6/7/2018:

I am writing to address issues raised over the last week in recent posts regarding my firm The Zimmerman Law Group (ZLG) and its proposed strategy for obtaining relief for aggrieved TMC timeshare owners.

ZLG is a small firm, whose main focus has been intellectual property litigation on behalf of plaintiffs in various federal courts. It is acknowledged that we have not previously handled timeshare or not-for-profit corporation cases, and have never claimed to have such experience. However, ZLG comes to this case with a different perspective than your typical real estate or corporate attorneys, and offers TMC timeshare owners an advantage as compared to the previous efforts. Specifically, ZLG seeks to use the extensive experience its attorneys have attained litigating complex commercial cases involving significant discovery, contract claims, fraud claims and civil RICO claims, against large financial institutions represented by large national law firms, to pursue various claims against the deep-pocketed Eichners.

One post referenced sanctionable conduct in the Eon-Net case. The conduct at issue was aggressive and diligent representation of a client in asserting a software patent against a bank, in a case that began in 2005 in Newark, New Jersey, ended in 2011 in Seattle, Washington, and involved two separate appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., during which time the legal climate turned decidedly against software patent owners, and in favor of patent challengers. I consider the opprobrium garnered from this case to be a badge of honor. You can read about that case at https://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-steven-levy-the-patent-problem/.

We have spent many hours reviewing the law, facts, and issues in this case, and have developed a credible strategy that can ultimately prevail. As noted by many, we have formidable adversaries. However, we have a potentially formidable group of clients, which, if they pool their resources, will enable us to counter and ultimately prevail over any tactics employed by the Eichners and their lawyers, even if that requires us to go to trial. A jury is exceedingly unlikely to be sympathetic to the Eichners. Our intention is to prepare and conduct this case as if we are going to trial. That is the best way to guarantee a favorable outcome.

A motion to dismiss is likely to be the first substantive legal tactic employed by the Eichners to defeat our case. However, given the detailed allegations we intend to include in the complaint, and given the admissions made by the Eichners in their settlement with NY State AG Schneiderman, such a motion is likely to fail. Discovery will then commence in earnest which may entail hundreds, if not thousands, of depositions, and the review of tens of thousands of pages of documents. The requested retainer of $1,250.00 is intended primarily to cover these discovery costs. Settlement discussions are also likely to begin if we defeat the motion to dismiss. The larger the number of owners who retain us, the less likely will be the need for any additional funds beyond the initial retainer. We therefore encourage you to convince your TMC co-owners to retain us to successfully fight this battle on your behalves.

We would prefer, and it is our intention, to not ask owners for any additional funds beyond the intial $1,250.00 retainer. However, the need for an additional retainer will ultimately depend on how many owners retain us. We cannot guarantee that additional money will not be required to properly fund this litigatation to prevent the Eichners from trying to defeat us by outspending us using legal tactics such as excessive discovery. We therefore expressly reserve the right to ask for an additional retainer. In any event, any call for replenishment of the retainer will likely not be necessary, if at all, until after the anticipated motion to dismiss filed by the Eichners is defeated. If a request for further retainer funds is declined by you, we may be unable to properly fund this litigation, which could diminish the prospects of obtaining particular compensation for your damages. With your support, we seek to take on this case because it is interesting and legally challenging, pits us against a Goliath, and offers the potential for a significant recovery.

As best we can tell, no law firm other than ZLG is willing to risk taking on the Eichners on the bases we have proposed. Previous class action efforts have been tried and failed. This resulted from various factors, not least of which is the very nature of a class action, which requires common issues of fact and law to be decided for the class as a whole. However, in this case, each client has had a separate experience, and bought a different unit at a different time. Therefore, a class action could not purport to cover all the issues for all the timeshare owners.

Further, the relief attained by former AG Schneiderman’s settlement with the Eichners has left most TMC owners as aggrieved as they were before his settlement and is therefore of little or no value to them.

We do not expect this case to be easy, we do not expect results overnight, and we do not expect this case to be without possible risks and/or setbacks. We do not expect or require all the TMC owners to share our vision and plan. Indeed, because the various forums we now have for communicating with potential clients are “public” and not protected by the attorney client privilege, we have not revealed our full plans. Also, the strategy continues to evolve, as we gain more insight into what has transpired. However, we have revealed a sufficient portion of our case to enable potential clients (and the Eichners) to consider its merits.

We are not seeking to simply sue the Eichners, in a litigation with no end in sight. We have a clear plan for resolution. The building has significant value of which the Eichners are currently the primary beneficiary. The Eichners must be removed, and they must compensate the TMC owners for their losses.

The best way to do this is to pursue a two-pronged approach: commencement of a lawsuit against the Eichners including a full range of allegations of wrongdoing, while simultaneously seeking to sell or otherwise repurpose the building, so that existing owners can attain liquidity for their investment, while being freed of the unreasonable obligation to pay exorbitant maintenance fees going forward.

In connection with this plan, our contingent fee of 30% applies to any recovery we obtain from a settlement, liquidation and/or damages award. It does not apply to any maintenance fees that an owner did not pay and which we are successful in having forgiven or otherwise absolved. As previously indicated, since we may represent or otherwise be aligned with a technically “adverse” party, such as a prospective buyer or broker to effectuate our plan, we will ask you to waive any potential conflict arising from such a scenario.

Finally, it is our intention to retain an independent forensic accountant to equitably allocate any settlement, liquidation and/or damages award among the owners who retain us, to account for the differences that exist amongst them. For example, owners who are current on their maintenance fees will be presumably entitled to a greater share of any recovery than those who are not current. Likewise, those owners who retain us and incur the time and expense of participating in the litigation will be eligible to receive damages and may preferentially receive proceeds from a disposition of the building, compared to those owners who do not retain us to represent them in the lawsuit.

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090 jmz@tmcsuit.com

This communication constitutes an advertisement under the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the practice of lawyers. Our past results are no guarantee of future performance.

Good response from the attorney. My one question remains, what happens to those owners who are content with current status and do not retain the attorneys and the property is sold or repurposed. Do we get compensated for our newly created losses, including fees paid for rci membership, when that loss was caused by the litigation.

sueo79 wrote:

From attorney - Mr Zimmerman 6/7/2018:

I am writing to address issues raised over the last week in recent posts regarding my firm The Zimmerman Law Group (ZLG) and its proposed strategy for obtaining relief for aggrieved TMC timeshare owners.

ZLG is a small firm, whose main focus has been intellectual property litigation on behalf of plaintiffs in various federal courts. It is acknowledged that we have not previously handled timeshare or not-for-profit corporation cases, and have never claimed to have such experience. However, ZLG comes to this case with a different perspective than your typical real estate or corporate attorneys, and offers TMC timeshare owners an advantage as compared to the previous efforts. Specifically, ZLG seeks to use the extensive experience its attorneys have attained litigating complex commercial cases involving significant discovery, contract claims, fraud claims and civil RICO claims, against large financial institutions represented by large national law firms, to pursue various claims against the deep-pocketed Eichners.

One post referenced sanctionable conduct in the Eon-Net case. The conduct at issue was aggressive and diligent representation of a client in asserting a software patent against a bank, in a case that began in 2005 in Newark, New Jersey, ended in 2011 in Seattle, Washington, and involved two separate appeals to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., during which time the legal climate turned decidedly against software patent owners, and in favor of patent challengers. I consider the opprobrium garnered from this case to be a badge of honor. You can read about that case at https://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-steven-levy-the-patent-problem/.

We have spent many hours reviewing the law, facts, and issues in this case, and have developed a credible strategy that can ultimately prevail. As noted by many, we have formidable adversaries. However, we have a potentially formidable group of clients, which, if they pool their resources, will enable us to counter and ultimately prevail over any tactics employed by the Eichners and their lawyers, even if that requires us to go to trial. A jury is exceedingly unlikely to be sympathetic to the Eichners. Our intention is to prepare and conduct this case as if we are going to trial. That is the best way to guarantee a favorable outcome.

A motion to dismiss is likely to be the first substantive legal tactic employed by the Eichners to defeat our case. However, given the detailed allegations we intend to include in the complaint, and given the admissions made by the Eichners in their settlement with NY State AG Schneiderman, such a motion is likely to fail. Discovery will then commence in earnest which may entail hundreds, if not thousands, of depositions, and the review of tens of thousands of pages of documents. The requested retainer of $1,250.00 is intended primarily to cover these discovery costs. Settlement discussions are also likely to begin if we defeat the motion to dismiss. The larger the number of owners who retain us, the less likely will be the need for any additional funds beyond the initial retainer. We therefore encourage you to convince your TMC co-owners to retain us to successfully fight this battle on your behalves.

We would prefer, and it is our intention, to not ask owners for any additional funds beyond the intial $1,250.00 retainer. However, the need for an additional retainer will ultimately depend on how many owners retain us. We cannot guarantee that additional money will not be required to properly fund this litigatation to prevent the Eichners from trying to defeat us by outspending us using legal tactics such as excessive discovery. We therefore expressly reserve the right to ask for an additional retainer. In any event, any call for replenishment of the retainer will likely not be necessary, if at all, until after the anticipated motion to dismiss filed by the Eichners is defeated. If a request for further retainer funds is declined by you, we may be unable to properly fund this litigation, which could diminish the prospects of obtaining particular compensation for your damages. With your support, we seek to take on this case because it is interesting and legally challenging, pits us against a Goliath, and offers the potential for a significant recovery.

As best we can tell, no law firm other than ZLG is willing to risk taking on the Eichners on the bases we have proposed. Previous class action efforts have been tried and failed. This resulted from various factors, not least of which is the very nature of a class action, which requires common issues of fact and law to be decided for the class as a whole. However, in this case, each client has had a separate experience, and bought a different unit at a different time. Therefore, a class action could not purport to cover all the issues for all the timeshare owners.

Further, the relief attained by former AG Schneiderman’s settlement with the Eichners has left most TMC owners as aggrieved as they were before his settlement and is therefore of little or no value to them.

We do not expect this case to be easy, we do not expect results overnight, and we do not expect this case to be without possible risks and/or setbacks. We do not expect or require all the TMC owners to share our vision and plan. Indeed, because the various forums we now have for communicating with potential clients are “public” and not protected by the attorney client privilege, we have not revealed our full plans. Also, the strategy continues to evolve, as we gain more insight into what has transpired. However, we have revealed a sufficient portion of our case to enable potential clients (and the Eichners) to consider its merits.

We are not seeking to simply sue the Eichners, in a litigation with no end in sight. We have a clear plan for resolution. The building has significant value of which the Eichners are currently the primary beneficiary. The Eichners must be removed, and they must compensate the TMC owners for their losses.

The best way to do this is to pursue a two-pronged approach: commencement of a lawsuit against the Eichners including a full range of allegations of wrongdoing, while simultaneously seeking to sell or otherwise repurpose the building, so that existing owners can attain liquidity for their investment, while being freed of the unreasonable obligation to pay exorbitant maintenance fees going forward.

In connection with this plan, our contingent fee of 30% applies to any recovery we obtain from a settlement, liquidation and/or damages award. It does not apply to any maintenance fees that an owner did not pay and which we are successful in having forgiven or otherwise absolved. As previously indicated, since we may represent or otherwise be aligned with a technically “adverse” party, such as a prospective buyer or broker to effectuate our plan, we will ask you to waive any potential conflict arising from such a scenario.

Finally, it is our intention to retain an independent forensic accountant to equitably allocate any settlement, liquidation and/or damages award among the owners who retain us, to account for the differences that exist amongst them. For example, owners who are current on their maintenance fees will be presumably entitled to a greater share of any recovery than those who are not current. Likewise, those owners who retain us and incur the time and expense of participating in the litigation will be eligible to receive damages and may preferentially receive proceeds from a disposition of the building, compared to those owners who do not retain us to represent them in the lawsuit.

Jean-Marc Zimmerman Zimmerman Law Group 233 Watchung Fork Westfield, NJ 07090 jmz@tmcsuit.com

This communication constitutes an advertisement under the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the practice of lawyers. Our past results are no guarantee of future performance.

How many $1250 contributors does Zimmerman require to proceed?