Schafer: Wilfs may rue how they treated N.J. partner

  • Article by: LEE SCHAFER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: August 14, 2013 - 10:17 AM

The Wilf family principals, Leonard, Mark and Zygi, took a pounding last week in a New Jersey courtroom. They had hung tough on a 21-year-old dispute with partners in an apartment deal, only to lose. Spectacularly.

  • 27
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
Steve SteveAug. 13, 13 9:11 PM

The State of Minnesota has no business making a deal with these crooks. The judge did our due diligence. Why would we be associated with someone found to have committed fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and also violated New Jersey’s civil racketeering statute? This was not news. The Star Tribune reported the beginning of this trial in May of 2011 (Old case against Wilfs claims 'books cooked'). It's time for us to cancel this deal.

73
10
RidakulousAug. 13, 1310:02 PM

Here's an idea: Let's NOT build this shiny monument to bad governance and corporate welfare. The Dome may not be the best stadium, but it's worked just fine for the last 30+ years and it still has a lot of life left in it - especially with the new roof and turf. Since the state is having such a tough time coming up with a reliable source of funds for it's commitment, now would be a good time to just call it quits and write this whole thing off as a case of bad judgment.

76
14
vh8131Aug. 13, 1310:49 PM

apparently you want them to move out of state and the state lose a ton of revenue. yes this whole thing is a crappy ordeal, but i still believe the stadium needs to get built.

13
73
craigaveryAug. 13, 1311:33 PM

Schafer referred to the litigation in his video clip as concerning "a small real estate development in New Jersey". My understanding is that the development is a 764 unit apartment development, not small by any standard. Schafer looses creditability by downplaying the significance of this project and the scope of illicit activity.

50
4
DufferHAug. 13, 1311:55 PM

Mr. Shafer:: This is a great piece. But the Wilf situation could be looked at in a different rather saying this is only one deal of perhaps thousands. It could also mean there is fraud and "evil" to be found in many of those other deals too. Guys like these fellows are unlikely to pull this stunt only once.

58
2
polymath234Aug. 14, 13 3:00 AM

Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas. The question is, do we want fleas?

54
1
RossbergAug. 14, 13 6:35 AM

None of the Wilfs' current partners are rushing to their defense nor have the Wilfs volunteered any information about their dealings other than to ask that we disregard this case. So there's no reason to believe this is just some obscure deal gone bad. I'm getting a strong feeling that they were expecting to be dealing with some local junior lawyer here, not be the subject of intense scrutiny by a nationally-known attorney who specializes in looking at these kind of people and situations. Now that the stadium approval is on hold I would not be a bit surprised to learn that they've decided to sell the team and make a quick exit from all this.

50
0
brocklander1Aug. 14, 13 8:17 AM

Did the writer of this piece actually read what the Wilfs did to defraud this partner? It's devious and deliberate stuff. Certainly stuff that should disqualify a person from benefiting from public funds. By explaining that we shouldn't be surprised by these findings because the Wilfs have engaged in a lot of previous business deals the writer sounds like a desperate woman trying to explain why she should marry her fiance even after finding out that he murdered a previous wife for an insurance settlement... Well that was just one relationship in his past....

41
1
kkjerAug. 14, 13 9:18 AM

So what it happened 21 years ago, who cares? Just one more distraction to build the on the cheap building in Minneapolis where it should never be built in the first place. Whenever I go to Minneapolis I have set my wrist watch back 30 years.

3
40
goldrush1970Aug. 14, 13 9:26 AM

If the Wilf's have a "right to be the developer" as stated in the agreement...why are we saying there will be a public process...just a dog & pony show again. If the state denies that right Wilf's will have legal recourse against the state if they in fact have that right. Either they do or they don't have it.

15
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT