We protect the rights of small businesses and individuals when they are required to engage against large corporations to protect their interests.  For more than 50 years, we have represented the plight of the little  guy against corporate giants and the government.  The following results are representative of the types of cases we handle; results in any particular case will vary. 

Business Disputes

Commercial Litigation

Breach of Contract

Partnership Disputes


General Counsel Services

Tenant In Common (TIC)           Cases

Loan Workouts

Commercial Foreclosures

TIC Roll Ups

Commercial Landlord Tenant

Commercial Real Estate Transactions

Business Torts

Business Fraud

Employment Law

Legal Malpractice

Civil Rights

Intellectual Property



In re:  Southfield Office Building #14, LP. et.al., Austin, Texas


Southfield Office Building, Austin, Texas

Southfield Office Building, Austin, Texas

  • Reinstated Defaulted Loan
  • Reduced Interest Rate by 200 Basis Points
  • Reduced Reserve Requirements by 87%
  • Eliminated Loan Defeasance Fee/Prepayment Penalty
  • Extended Loan Maturity Date
  • Rolled Up 25 TIC Owners into a Single LLC
  • Preserved 100% of Equity of Owners

LOAN WORKOUT/FRIENDLY FORECLOSURE                            


D.V.P. v. IberiaBank, Saint Johns, Florida

A real estate developer owned a medical/retail project for the development of eleven office and retail buildings.  Financing was held by IberiaBank. When the developer did not get the market traction that was anticipated and the loan reserve began to erode, the bank eventually called a default. The developer entered into a “friendly foreclosure” whereby the bank simultaneously took ownership and transferred the project on the same day to allow for the original developers to exit from the transaction and be released from their personal guarantees. The construction and development seamlessly moved forward in the eyes of the tenants, thus allowing for the project to be able to continue with no prejudice to any party.  The key to structuring the transaction was that the bank agreed to a “take out” price of 40 cents on the dollar.

BREACH OF CONTRACT/PROPERTY MANAGER                            


Parthenon Realty TIC Investors v. Daymark Properties Realty, Norcross, Georgia

Parthenon was a group of 17 Tenant In Common owners that owned over 200,000SF of office buildings in a submarket of Atlanta. Daymark was managing the properties.  The owners decided to change property managers and Daymark refused to provide an accounting or turn over funds exceeding $300,000 to the new property manager. Daymark wrongfully transferred the funds to their parent company in California. Litigation ensued and Rubin & Rubin was successfully able to gain a return of 100% of the funds to their rightful owners before the necessity of a trial.

BREACH OF CONTRACT                            


Visagent Corporation v. Winn Dixie Corporation, Jacksonville, Florida

Visagent Corporation signed an exclusive contract with Winn Dixie to service and manage a specific portion of their wholesale distribution and supply chain.  Winn Dixie fulfilled its part of the agreement for the first two months of the three year contract before deciding to bring the process "in-house".  They told Visagent that they were not doing any business in the exclusive and restricted area but in fact, it was later discovered that they were.  In the interim, Winn Dixie declared bankruptcy but not before Rubin & Rubin filed a breach of contract action.  The case was vigorously litigated for over five years with depositions taken all over the country, all the while Winn Dixie maintained that it committed no bad acts.  Then, just before the trial was about to begin, the Defendants agreed to a settlement for the value of Visagent's claims, $6,000,000.



J.C. Irving, 122 West John Carpenter Office Building, Dallas, Texas

122 West John Carpenter Office Building, Dallas, Texas

122 West John Carpenter Office Building, Dallas, Texas


  • Saved Property from Going into Foreclosure
  • Created New Investment Vehicle with New Capital Partner
  • Allowed New Capital for Improvement of Property and to Retain Tenants
  • Created Optional Exit Event that Allowed Owners to Cash Out
  • Restructured Ownership to Allow TIC Owners to Stay in the Investment
  • Completed Roll Up for Investors that Elected to Stay in the Investment

LOAN WORKOUT/PRE FORECLOSURE                            


K.S.R. v. Bank of America, Jacksonville, Florida

Retail center in a marginal area, began to lose tenants and as a result cash flow decreased to the point where the loan payments could not be supported and eventually stopped.  The lender, Bank of America, did not want to work with the borrower and called for a default and threatened a foreclosure action.  The borrower threatened to file for bankruptcy, which resulted in a stalemate. Negotiations carried on for more than eighteen months but ultimately the owner was able to secure several new leases that made future cash flow more predictable and the financing more sustainable. The parties were able to renegotiate the loan terms with a reduction of the interest rate, waiver of delinquent interest, late fees and attorney’s fees.

Holcomb Place Office Building - Atlanta, Georgia

Holcomb Place Office Building - Atlanta, Georgia



Midori Holcomb TIC Investors v. Nantucket Parent, LLC., Atlanta, Georgia

A TIC ownership group leased a parking lot for the tenants of their office building in Atlanta, Georgia. Based upon the terms of the lease, the former owner of the property was required to reimburse the TIC owners up to $500,000 over the life of the lease out of a Holdback/Escrow Agreement. When the owners lost the property to foreclosure, Nantucket was still holding funds that should have been paid to the owners. Nantucket took the position that they no longer owed anything to the owners due to the foreclosure proceedings. Rubin & Rubin entered litigation to collect funds that rightfully belonged to the TIC owners.  100% of the funds in question were recovered in a settlement prior to trial.  

LOAN WORKOUT/PRE FORECLOSURE                            


N.B.S.C. v. Capital South Bank, Neptune Beach, Florida

Group of five doctors/investors purchased a medical building with financing by Capital South Bank. They intended to lease a portion of the building to themselves and lease the remainder to other medical practices.  They immediately ran into trouble when leasing did not take off as planned. Loan payments ceased almost at the beginning of the loan.  All of the principals were personal guarantors of the loan although they had differing financial profiles.  That led to infighting among the investors. Eventually, a workout that allowed for two of the principals to buy out the other three along with relief from the bank in the form of a forbearance in payments and waivers of fees and costs and personal guarantees for the exiting partners allowed for a successful restructure of the transaction.

Bucks County Office Building - King of Prussia, Pennsylvania

Bucks County Office Building - King of Prussia, Pennsylvania



TIC Bucks County Office, LLC. v. CMS Solutions, LLC., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

TIC Bucks County, a group of 37 Tenant In Common owners, hired CMS to assist in a workout for an $18,000,000 loan with Wells Fargo.  They placed a deposit as an advance payment for a future “success fee” with a title company selected by CMS.  However, when CMS failed to provide the services that were expected, the owners terminated contract.  CMS refused to allow the escrow funds to be returned to the owners.  A lawsuit was filed by CMS in Arizona and Rubin & Rubin defended the case for the owners.  A confidential settlement resulted in a significant portion of the funds being returned for the benefit of the owners.

LOAN WORKOUT/PRE FORECLOSURE                            


P.C. v. SunTrust Bank, St. Augustine, Florida

Group of twenty- two investors owned a six acre property including a retail center, bank and out-parcel with financing by SunTrust Bank.  Original financing was based upon a debt to equity ratio of 60/40. Although cash flowing and 62% leased, the valuation of the center decreased to par with the loan value. When the loan matured, the bank did not want to renew the loan unless the investors paid down a portion of the principal amount of the loan. The investor group as a whole did not want to increase their investment in the property and the bank therefore called a default and threatened to foreclose. A workout was structured with the bank that allowed for a minority group of the investors to form a NewCo to acquire the property at 75% of loan value. The NewCo group gained a majority interest in property and the original investors were diluted, but were allowed to retain some value by staying in the newly structured entity.