preview

Case 3: Henry Gifford Et Al. V. USGBC

Decent Essays
Case 3: “Henry Gifford, et al. v. United States Green Building Council (USGBC), et al., 10‐7747 (filed October 8, 2010)”. Facts. In October 2010, U.S. Green Building Council and its high-ranking managers including the president, Rick Federizzi were put in a class-action lawsuit filed by Henry Gifford, a vocal critic of LEED, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. From his points, Gifford stated violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as monetary damages; however, in February 2011, he modified the complaints by adding three likewise situated partners as plaintiffs, dropping the RICO claim, and remaining the false advertising allegation under the Lanham Act and the customer…show more content…
In 2005, “Destiny USA”, a green-promised project of Destiny USA Holdings, considered as the borrower, was funded by three sources which are Destiny Holdings, bonds provided by the City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency (SIDA), and loans (nearly $155 million) issued by Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp as the lender. After that, the parties officially came into a construction loan agreement which clearly stated the roles and responsibilities of all parties in the project. Specifically, Citigroup would perform as a lender and an agent, in charge of funding money from the remaining parties ($365 million in total). After seventeen construction disbursements without any problems, the lender indicated Deficiencies under the agreement with the Tenant Improvement Costs (TI Costs) in its calculation. Subsequently, the lender started sending Deficiency notices to the borrower every month, and on May 20th, 2009, after sending an out-of-balance notice that the Deficiencies were over $15 million and getting no cure from the borrower within 10 business days, the lender stopped disbursing the remaining construction proceedings (at that time the project was almost 90% complete). Consequently, the borrower sued the lender in order to look for a preliminary injunction requesting the lender to maintain the funding for the
Get Access