Commercial Litigation

Trusted, strategic, and dedicated legal representation

for complex commercial disputes.

Our attorneys have been called upon where a $1.5 billion development hung in the balance, tens of thousands of pounds of commodities needed to be frozen in their tracks, an America’s Cup race was being rigged, as well as numerous other thorny and complex issues in which corporate reputation, strategic business advantages, or small fortunes hung in the balance. We take pride in our thoughtful, careful, and strategic approach to every dispute, large and small, and our clients appreciate our careful and methodical approach to litigation as much as our outcomes. Let us have an opportunity to understand your interests, evaluate your dispute and provide our strategic assessment so that you can compare our initial evaluation with that of any other national firm.

High Stakes & Complex Commercial Disputes
  • Retained by shareholders regarding dispute over an asserted $100 million interest in a privately held high end jewelry company.
  • Trial court and appellate practice regarding an action seeking $16 million based on purported breaches of contract and fiduciary duty related to the construction of a steel plant in the Republic of Kazakhstan commenced to undercut an over $30 million English judgment awarded based on investment banking services provided for what was then the largest IPO in the London Stock Exchange history. (Garthon Business Inc. et al. v. Stein et al., Index No. 653715/2014 (N.Y. Supreme Court).)
  • Obtained temporary restraining orders requiring an international shipping company to not release a shipping container with over 70,000 pounds of cashews belonging to two Vietnamese suppliers, which quickly resulted in favorable settlements for our client in a dispute with the supplier. (Ultra Trading International Ltd. v. Intimex Group Joint Stock Company, No. 651672/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).); Ultra Trading International Ltd. v. Phuong Duy Co. Ltd, No. 655777/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).)
  • Achieved a confidential settlement agreement for our client concerning the breach of a distribution agreement with one of the world’s largest food manufacturers. (Adamba Imports International, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00729-SJ-VVP (E.D.N.Y.).)
  • Negotiated favorable settlement in an action against the seller, shipper, logistics company and freight forwarder regarding the conversion of over 3,000 high-end watches. (Delta Sales Group Co., Inc. v. Cargo Logistics Network Co. et al., No. 1:12-cv-03751-RJS (S.D.N.Y.).)
  • Represented major kosher poultry manufacturer in a multi-million dollar claim against the nation’s largest kosher poultry manufacturer that resulted in a confidential settlement. (MVP Kosher Foods LLC v. Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc., 14-CV-6072 (E.D.N.Y.).)
Real Estate Disputes
  • Obtained dismissal of an action claiming purported ownership of three large parcels in Astoria, Queens, recently sold for approximately $50 million, upon which there is a commenced $1.5 billion redevelopment project. (Compurun, Inc. d/b/a Rainbow Prime Products v. Famitech Inc. et al., No. 708713/2014 (Queens Sup. Ct.).)
  • Successfully defended Manhattan hotel, including on appeal at the ECB OATH (Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing), against the repeated unwarranted attempts by the City of New York Buildings Department to prohibit the transient use of a property based on the City’s mistaken belief that its SRO status prohibited such use.
  • Defended against an action claiming purported majority ownership in an entity which purchased two condominium projects in Florida for over $16 million, which included a precedent setting interlocutory appeal to the Third District Court of Appeals which clarified the standard in Florida for maintaining a lis pendens. (LED Trust, LLC et al. v. Schwartz et al., Case No. 2011-35999-CA-01 (Miami-Dade County Cir. Ct.).)
Challenging Regulations

Siri & Glimstad successfully sued to declare illegal and strike down a N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health regulation that would have fined day care centers up to $2,000 for each child attending day care without a flu shot. Siri & Glimstad then won a unanimous five judge affirmance of the strike down when the Dep’t of Health appealed. (Garcia et al. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Health et al., No. 161484/2015 (N.Y. Supreme Court).)

Broker Fraud & SIPC Claims

Successfully obtained large recovery from the Securities Investor Protection Corporation based on loss of millions of dollars by a broker-dealer. Siri & Glimstad also successfully froze all assets of an alleged broker-dealer in an action to recover millions of dollars involving a complex series of transactions and compelled disclosure of the details regarding the transfer of these funds. (Bak et al. v. Sledziejowski et al., No. 022232/2012 (Kings Supreme Court).)

Adversarial Proceedings in Bankruptcy Court

Represented victims in six separate adversarial proceedings seeking non-dischargeability of various debts arising from various complicated financial transactions and which resulted in judgments totaling over $5 million. (Adv. Pro. Nos. 13-08321; 13-08323; 13-08324; 13-08219; 13-08218; and 13-08220 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).)

America’s Cup

Extensive experience successfully litigating all aspects of an America’s Cup challenge under the Deed of Gift, including as to what constitutes an “organized yacht Club,” an “annual regatta,” an “ocean water course on the sea,” a “vessel propelled by sails only and constructed in the country to which the challenging Club belongs,” a “custom-house registry,” a “centerboard or sliding keel,” and a “friendly competition between foreign countries.” Each of these and many of the other requirements of the Deed of Gift have a long and intricate history and we have extensive experience to navigate these issues under a Deed of Gift challenge.

NYC Transient Use Laws and Certificate of Occupancy Disputes

The City of New York tried to claim that the transient use at a Manhattan hotel which had operated transiently for generations had suddenly become illegal because the building had the label of Single Room Occupancy.  Siri & Glimstad prevailed over the City’s repeated attempts, including on appeal at the ECB OATH (Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing), to prohibit the transient use at the building.