From today's article in AdvisorHub (newsletter for financial advisors), talking about PH1 @ Walker Tower: "A Morgan Stanley wealth manager can keep a luxury Manhattan penthouse he picked up at a discount after it was seized as part of the 1MDB money-laundering scandal. "The US Marshals Services sold the confiscated Walker Tower condo in Chelsea to Ron Vinder for $18.25 million in 2020. That set... [more]
From today's article in AdvisorHub (newsletter for financial advisors), talking about PH1 @ Walker Tower:
"A Morgan Stanley wealth manager can keep a luxury Manhattan penthouse he picked up at a discount after it was seized as part of the 1MDB money-laundering scandal.
"The US Marshals Services sold the confiscated Walker Tower condo in Chelsea to Ron Vinder for $18.25 million in 2020. That set off a battle with the tower’s condo board, which voted to void the sale and sued to eject Vinder and his family from the building.
"Vinder is a private wealth broker in New York City who leads an eponymous five-person practice. He managed $3.7 billion in assets as of April, according to Forbes, which ranked him at #32 on its list of the top 100 brokers in the country last year.
"The US seized more than $1 billion in assets tied to the 1MDB scandal. The Malaysian fund that was created to promote economic development was looted of more than $4.5 billion, with high-level officials using the money to buy real estate and other luxuries and even invest in Hollywood films.
"The Walker Tower board claimed its bylaws gave it the right of first refusal on any condo sale in the building. It also claimed the unit was sold at a 64% discount.
"New York Superior Court Justice Paul Goetz dismissed the condo board’s complaint on Friday. He concluded that it was flawed because it didn’t include the US government as one of the parties. Naming the government was necessary because it had a stake in the case as it would once again be the condo’s owner if Vinder were evicted, he said.
[less]
Response by inonada
over 3 years ago
Posts: 7931
Member since: Oct 2008
How is this different than the original ruling from ~2020, is it an appeal?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
over 3 years ago
Posts: 9876
Member since: Mar 2009
Any other ruling would have been hard since the Condo Board already lost the identical case in Federal Court. In my opinion this is another case of Coop/Condo attorneys encouraging litigation by Boards to run up fees.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by KeithBurkhardt
over 3 years ago
Posts: 2972
Member since: Aug 2008
It's interesting that the condo board was unable to exercise their right of first refusal.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Aaron2
over 3 years ago
Posts: 1693
Member since: Mar 2012
The board originally filed in Federal court, but after a federal judge dismissed the claims the board refiled its lawsuit in state Supreme Court (Manhattan). They indeed claim that they were going to exercise their right of first refusal, and were denied. On appeal it was ruled that relief had to be filed in state court.
The current judge also said that the board can't just refile because it "is merely dissatisfied with that forum’s decisions and seeks to re-litigate the issue in this court", and awarded Vinder costs and attorney's fees.
Unclear why the original case was first brought in federal court, unless it had to do with federal marshals being involved.
From the board's point of view, which is better: get a new owner who sets an $18m price point for the penthouses, or buy the unit for 18m, do some repairs (there were claims of deterioriation), and get a new owner who sets a substantially higher price point? (current sales indicate it could have been in the 30m range)
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
How is this different than the original ruling from ~2020, is it an appeal?
Any other ruling would have been hard since the Condo Board already lost the identical case in Federal Court. In my opinion this is another case of Coop/Condo attorneys encouraging litigation by Boards to run up fees.
It's interesting that the condo board was unable to exercise their right of first refusal.
The board originally filed in Federal court, but after a federal judge dismissed the claims the board refiled its lawsuit in state Supreme Court (Manhattan). They indeed claim that they were going to exercise their right of first refusal, and were denied. On appeal it was ruled that relief had to be filed in state court.
The current judge also said that the board can't just refile because it "is merely dissatisfied with that forum’s decisions and seeks to re-litigate the issue in this court", and awarded Vinder costs and attorney's fees.
Unclear why the original case was first brought in federal court, unless it had to do with federal marshals being involved.
From the board's point of view, which is better: get a new owner who sets an $18m price point for the penthouses, or buy the unit for 18m, do some repairs (there were claims of deterioriation), and get a new owner who sets a substantially higher price point? (current sales indicate it could have been in the 30m range)
Is the Board appealing the court decision ?