Murtha Means More

Lender Liability Litigation


Contact: Thomas S. Vangel

For more than 50 years, our lawyers have defended banks in lender liability litigation in Massachusetts and Connecticut state and federal courts.

Our attorneys provide the experienced counsel lenders need to efficiently evaluate and defend lender liability claims.  Our attorneys carefully analyze the facts, understand the issues and application of the law, and approach litigation pragmatically.  Often we are able to eliminate many of the claims on summary judgment and have been able to enforce jury waivers even against guarantors who did not sign them.  At Murtha Cullina, we aim to resolve claims as cost-effectively and expeditiously as possible.  Our lender clients truly value and trust our advice in this area.

We have a track record of obtaining favorable jury verdicts and bench decisions in our lender liability cases. Recently, our attorneys were successful in defending one of our bank clients in multi-day trials in two separate lender liability cases in New London, Connecticut and Boston.  These trials involved claims brought by a real estate developer alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive business practices.  The Court ruled in the bank’s favor on all claims and awarded judgments against the developer totaling in excess of $7 million.  The Connecticut case was affirmed on appeal.

Recent Representative Cases

After a seven day trial in Connecticut Superior Court to enforce development and construction loans, we successfully defended counterclaims by the developer that included claims of bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practice, misrepresentation and tortious interference.  The Connecticut Appellate Court sustained a judgment in favor of our client and rejected the developer’s allegations that our client had engaged in misconduct.  Webster Bank, N.A. v. GFI Groton, LLC, 157 Conn. App. 409 (2015).

We successfully obtained a judgment in favor of our client involving a failed 108-unit housing development.  After a ten-day trial, we recovered a $4.8 million judgment for our client, plus attorneys’ fees, and defeated entirely a $5.8 million counterclaim asserted by the developer alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A.  We previously eliminated a number of claims on summary judgment, and we won our motion to strike the jury claim.  Webster Bank, N.A. v. Steven E. Goodman and Village on the Common, LLC, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. 2011-0761-A (2014).

This case involved a complaint against individual guarantors on behalf of our client to recover a substantial deficiency balance arising from a foreclosure sale of two commercial office buildings.  Two of the guarantors asserted counterclaims against our client alleging failure to act with commercial reasonableness in conducting the foreclosure sale.  The Barnstable Superior Court granted our client’s summary judgment motion on all of its claims and on the counterclaims.  Customers Bank v. Gable, et al, Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No. 2013-00645 (2014).

 

Disclaimer: Each case has its own specific facts and legal issues. We cannot guarantee success in every individual matter.

 

Description

Contact: Thomas S. Vangel

For more than 50 years, our lawyers have defended banks in lender liability litigation in Massachusetts and Connecticut state and federal courts.

Our attorneys provide the experienced counsel lenders need to efficiently evaluate and defend lender liability claims.  Our attorneys carefully analyze the facts, understand the issues and application of the law, and approach litigation pragmatically.  Often we are able to eliminate many of the claims on summary judgment and have been able to enforce jury waivers even against guarantors who did not sign them.  At Murtha Cullina, we aim to resolve claims as cost-effectively and expeditiously as possible.  Our lender clients truly value and trust our advice in this area.

We have a track record of obtaining favorable jury verdicts and bench decisions in our lender liability cases. Recently, our attorneys were successful in defending one of our bank clients in multi-day trials in two separate lender liability cases in New London, Connecticut and Boston.  These trials involved claims brought by a real estate developer alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive business practices.  The Court ruled in the bank’s favor on all claims and awarded judgments against the developer totaling in excess of $7 million.  The Connecticut case was affirmed on appeal.

Recent Representative Cases

After a seven day trial in Connecticut Superior Court to enforce development and construction loans, we successfully defended counterclaims by the developer that included claims of bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practice, misrepresentation and tortious interference.  The Connecticut Appellate Court sustained a judgment in favor of our client and rejected the developer’s allegations that our client had engaged in misconduct.  Webster Bank, N.A. v. GFI Groton, LLC, 157 Conn. App. 409 (2015).

We successfully obtained a judgment in favor of our client involving a failed 108-unit housing development.  After a ten-day trial, we recovered a $4.8 million judgment for our client, plus attorneys’ fees, and defeated entirely a $5.8 million counterclaim asserted by the developer alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A.  We previously eliminated a number of claims on summary judgment, and we won our motion to strike the jury claim.  Webster Bank, N.A. v. Steven E. Goodman and Village on the Common, LLC, Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. 2011-0761-A (2014).

This case involved a complaint against individual guarantors on behalf of our client to recover a substantial deficiency balance arising from a foreclosure sale of two commercial office buildings.  Two of the guarantors asserted counterclaims against our client alleging failure to act with commercial reasonableness in conducting the foreclosure sale.  The Barnstable Superior Court granted our client’s summary judgment motion on all of its claims and on the counterclaims.  Customers Bank v. Gable, et al, Barnstable Superior Court, C.A. No. 2013-00645 (2014).

 

Disclaimer: Each case has its own specific facts and legal issues. We cannot guarantee success in every individual matter.

 

Back to Home Print Page Email Page
Follow Us
Facebook Linkedin Twitter