Source: https://gs-lawfirm.com/attorney-profiles/lawrence-s-grossman/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:05:21+00:00

Document:
Larry graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 1994, where he was an Editor on the Moot Court Board, after being a Finalist in the Cardozo/BMI Moot Court Competition and a Finalist in the I. Maurice Wormser Moot Court Competition. He received an A.B. in both English and economics from Colgate University in 1982 and, for nine years, pursued a career in the financial services and insurance industries. Before joining Green & Sklarz, LLC, Larry practiced for 24 years with major commercial litigation and bankruptcy law firms in Connecticut.
He is admitted to the Connecticut Bar, as well as the United States District for the District of Connecticut (1996), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1998) and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1998). Larry was selected for inclusion in the annual listing of Connecticut Super Lawyers (2013-2018) in the area of business litigation. He is a member of the Connecticut Bar Association (Commercial Law & Bankruptcy and Litigation sections).
Lead trial counsel representing trustee of bankruptcy estate prosecuting multi-million dollar fraudulent transfer and preference claims arising from Ponzi scheme operated by debtors, pursuant to which the bankruptcy judge issued a decision recommending that the United States District Court enter judgment in favor of the trustee against various defendants in amounts in excess of $15 Million, including prejudgment interest. Berman v. Malley, et al., Adv. Proc. No. 10-2082 (Bankr. D. Conn., March 31, 2015).
Represented a limited partnership and individuals who had purchased real property from debtor in adversary proceeding in which assignee of trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover property or its value on theories of piercing the corporate veil, conversion, unjust enrichment and constructive trust. See Titan Real Estate Ventures, LLC v. J.C.C. Realty L.P., 348 B.R. 81 (In re Charles Atwood Flanagan), 348 B.R. 81 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2006).
Represented a mortgage originator and loan processor in federal court action claiming tortious interference with contractual relations, fraud, larceny and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act because the lender refused to continue their relationship, refused to pay the processor money owed for its operating expenses and attempted to use the threat of discontinuing funding to force the processor to capitulate to the lender’s demands; case successfully See New Horizon Financial Services, L.L.C. v. First Financial Equities, Inc., 175 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Conn. 2001) (denying in part and granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss).
Represented Connecticut biopharmaceutical company in defense of action seeking repayment of $10 million in loans, and in defense of replevin action concerning company’s personal property, including its intellectual property; successfully defeated application for prejudgment remedy by obtaining stay of Connecticut action until issues between the parties were resolved in previously filed New York action. See Emergent Manufacturers Operations Meriden, LLC v. Protein Sciences Corp., 2010 WL 2687317 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 20, 2010).
Represented special purpose entity formed by hedge fund that acquired four commercial notes and mortgages (and related loan documents) in foreclosure actions and in related post-judgment Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Successfully represented landlord of Chapter 11 debtor in adversary proceeding to enforce rights under lease. See Prologis Six Rivers L.P. v. Gould (In re: Peter J. Gould), 363 B.R. 45 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2007); 371 B.R. 6 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2007).
Represented defendant in successfully obtaining dismissal of federal court action based on lack of jurisdiction in which plaintiff sought to recover on claims of contractual indemnification, common law reimbursement, common exoneration, and quia timet arising out of surety bonds.
Trial counsel for defendant who successfully objected to settlement of adversary proceeding that would have been funded by a nonparty seeking to thwart defendants’ indemnification action pending in another forum. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Stanwich Financial Services Corp. v. Pardee (In re: Stanwich Financial Services Corp.), 377 B.R. 432 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2007).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.