Vendor has switched lawyers, from Goldman Sloan Nash & Haber to Aird & Berlis. This can't possibly be good news.
 
Why would the developer switch law firms while they're in the process of getting their building permits, especially from a top-rated firm? The firm didn't declare bankruptcy or dissolve.

Unless they need a firm specializing in areas that they didn't initially consider when engaging the first one, i.e. litigation, insolvency, or perhaps the developer wants to make changes to the project after it was approved, i.e. change materials due to the recent price increases in material costs.

I honestly don't see any other reason to switch.

Perhaps members who have more experience in preconstruction projects could chime in?

How does that matter?
 
Why would the developer switch law firms while they're in the process of getting their building permits, especially from a top-rated firm? The firm didn't declare bankruptcy or dissolve.

Unless they need a firm specializing in areas that they didn't initially consider when engaging the first one, i.e. litigation, insolvency, or perhaps the developer wants to make changes to the project after it was approved, i.e. change materials due to the recent price increases in material costs.

I honestly don't see any other reason to switch.

Perhaps members who have more experience in preconstruction projects could chime in?

It could be as simple as the partner moving from one firm to the other and his client following her/him; it could be that a conflict developed or was discovered unexpectedly and the client had to move on. I wouldn't necessarily read too much into it.
 
The partner addressed is different between the letters. In any case, I hope I'll be proven wrong but given the constant delays and silence, I'm betting that this project won't go ahead in its current form.

It could be as simple as the partner moving from one firm to the other and his client following her/him; it could be that a conflict developed or was discovered unexpectedly and the client had to move on. I wouldn't necessarily read too much into it.
 
It could be as simple as the partner moving from one firm to the other and his client following her/him; it could be that a conflict developed or was discovered unexpectedly and the client had to move on. I wouldn't necessarily read too much into it.

But why jump to drastic conclusions like that when it could be something as simple as embezzlement of trust funds?


P.S. This is a joke. I don't actually think Goldman Sloan was embezzling trust funds. Don't libel suit me!
 
Harhay used Goldman Sloan Nash for their previous development, 111 Bathurst, which was a disaster.
They messed up on the closing figures for many of the purchasers, and there were issues with the poorly written condo docs. The residents has been very mad at the developer and their lawyer. Other than that I don't know what else would lead to their replacement.
 
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that the project was canceled or bankrupt. Hearing that. and seeing this post, it's got me wonderng. Anyone hear anything new?
 
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that the project was canceled or bankrupt. Hearing that. and seeing this post, it's got me wonderng. Anyone hear anything new?
If anyone knew anything it would be posted here already!
simpsons-car.jpg
 

Attachments

  • simpsons-car.jpg
    simpsons-car.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 913
I read somewhere, and I don't remember where, that the project was canceled or bankrupt. Hearing that. and seeing this post, it's got me wonderng. Anyone hear anything new?
New documents were posted on the Dev App site as recently as May 18. Unless something happened in the meantime between then and your post, I think this project is fine.
 
Will still be a while if and when the project gets started, especially when the Building Engineer assigned is "Refusal Notice" trigger-happy:

Are the lawyers involved in the permit submissions below?

BCap #1.PNG
BCap #2.PNG
BCap #3.PNG
BCap #4.PNG



New documents were posted on the Dev App site as recently as May 18. Unless something happened in the meantime between then and your post, I think this project is fine.
 

Attachments

  • BCap #1.PNG
    BCap #1.PNG
    26.4 KB · Views: 904
  • BCap #2.PNG
    BCap #2.PNG
    22.2 KB · Views: 878
  • BCap #3.PNG
    BCap #3.PNG
    22 KB · Views: 900
  • BCap #4.PNG
    BCap #4.PNG
    22.4 KB · Views: 905

Back
Top