FOLLOW US

Cozen O’Connor claims Naselsky left their firm in 2006, before any wrongdoing occurred, and they were targeted only because Weinstein is insolvent. "Plaintiffs are clearly grasping for deep pockets to remediate the negative consequences of their poor investment decisions, and cynically have seized on an opportunity presented by the subsequent conviction of a former Cozen and Blank Rome attorney for wholly unrelated bad acts—of which Cozen itself was a victim," court documents allege.

Blank Rome claims that Naselsky’s involvement in the claimed conspiracy was limited to representation of Ravinder Chawla, who unbeknownst to Naselsky, was involved in perpetrating a fraud.  "Not only do plaintiffs have to prove that Naselsky acted knowingly in aiding and abetting the commission of a fraud, but they must establish that he substantially assisted in the commission of the alleged fraud,” the firm claims. “Once again, the record is devoid of any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence, that would support this element of plaintiffs' aiding and abetting fraud claim against Blank Rome.”

Cushman & Wakefield sought to be dismissed from the suit, claiming it did not inflate its appraisal of the value of the project or offer false guidance on the height-limit question, but a  federal judge in Pennsylvania disagreed and recently refused to remove the firm as defendants in the case.

The latest plan of attack?  Arguing that once the suit was moved to Pennsylvania, it was barred by the state’s two-year statute of limitations.

Berger’s side argues that since the lawsuit was originally filed in New York, that state’s six-year statute of limitation should govern. “A six-year statute of limitations applies to this action, and there is no legal basis for applying Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations” the plaintiffs allege. “This conclusion is surely bolstered by the fact that defendants waited some four and one half years to raise an issue they maintain is disposed of by choice of law and not dependent on factual discovery.”

(Berger et al. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Pennsylvania Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-05195, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.)