Jill L. Forster’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including structured finance and complex financial products litigation. She has represented investment firms and corporations in actions involving a wide variety of issues, including contract disputes, commercial torts and bankruptcy matters.
Jill has been recognized as a Woman Worth Watching by Diversity Journal.
Work highlights
- Cascade Funding, LP-Series 6, an affiliate of asset manager Waterfall Asset Management, in securing summary judgment on Cascade’s breach of contract claim against The Bancorp Bank relating to Cascade’s valid exercise of a “market out” clause in connection with the purchase of a pool of $900 million in mortgage loan assets for securitization in a CRE CLO.
- Investment vehicles associated with Carl Icahn, one of Wall Street’s most successful investors and activists, in a case in Nevada state court against Rialto Capital Advisors for breach of contract and fraud in connection with Rialto’s servicing of a commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) trust secured by the Prizm Outlets mall in Primm, Nevada, which resulted in a loss of almost $73 million, plus almost $13 million in fees, the largest loss on a CMBS conduit loan since the 2008 financial crisis. Kasowitz successfully defeated Rialto’s motion to dismiss on all counts alleged in the complaint, and the case is proceeding with discovery.
- Kawa Capital Management in litigation concerning the administration of a securitization that issued auction rate bonds and was originally backed by over $1 billion in student loans.
- Davidson Kempner Capital Management, Cowell & Lee, Autonomy Capital, Hutch Capital, and other holders of $550 million in senior notes issued by China Fishery Group in connection with disputes arising from the bankruptcy of certain entities related to China Fishery Group, one of the world’s largest fishing companies.
- BD Hotels and Chelsea Hotel Owner LLC, owners of the iconic Hotel Chelsea, in successfully ending a two-year dispute with New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation & Development prompted by a vocal minority of hostile tenants objecting to the redevelopment of the historic hotel. After finding crucial evidence of an HPD exemption in the Department of Building’s files during an on-going trial against HPD -- that HPD had failed to turn over in discovery -- that undercut HPD’s jurisdiction over the building, and after seeking emergency relief from the trial court demanding the immediate dismissal of HPD’s case, HPD conceded by voluntarily dismissing its lawsuit and the Department of Buildings instantly lifted a stop work order that had stalled construction for more than two years.
Updated July 2024
