Firm / Organisation

Mark Migdal & Hayden

Current View:

This content is provided by Mark Migdal & Hayden.

Managing Partners: Donald Hayden, Etan Mark and Joshua Migdal
Number of lawyers: 8
Languages: English, Hebrew, Spanish

Firm Overview:
Founded two years ago, Mark Migdal & Hayden (‘MM&H’) is a litigation shoppe focused on excellence in resolving a myriad of complex commercial litigation and cross-border disputes for its clients in a nimble and cost-effective manner. From its inception, its founders took the skills that they honed while practicing in national and regional Big Law environments (e.g. Weil Gotshal, Baker McKenzie, and Berger Singerman) and have addressed how to alleviate the two biggest complaints that clients have with their litigators: fee unpredictability and poor communication. Located in Miami, in its brief tenure, MM&H has found itself as counsel of choice in many of the high-profile matters in the state and federal courts of South Florida as well as arbitrations with a Florida situs. MM&H’s name partners have well over a half century of experience among them. They have strategically added to their bench individuals who have clerked at the federal district court and appellate levels. They know the judges, they know their adversaries and they know the law.

Main Areas of Practice:
A Litigation Boutique – through and through

While MM&H prides itself as true litigators ready, willing, and undisputedly capable of taking on any number of litigation assignments spanning a broad range of industry sectors and areas of focus, MM&H has developed certain ‘sweet spots’ for which it should be recognized.

Complex Commercial Litigation:
MM&H represents businesses in all manner of disputes, ranging from shareholder derivative actions, business torts, civil racketeering, civil theft and contractual breaches. These matters include:
■ Counsel to a potential class exceeding 75,000 members, adverse to international mega-corporation Herbalife, seeking more than $1 billion in damages. At the time of writing, claims are pending against Herbalife in federal courts in California and Florida and in arbitration tribunals throughout the United States
■ Through favorable motion practice as trial approaches, MM&H has favourably postured its client, the widow of a 50 % shareholder in the largest Florida property insurer, to obtain full recovery of the $30 million owed in the sale of her husband’s shares to his billionaire business partner. The case is presently set for trial in July
■ Obtained significant summary judgment on the eve of trial involving the critical contractual interpretation of a ‘waterfall’ provision in a high dollar claim relating to the breach of a settlement agreement between Spanish language media companies in Miami and Puerto Rico

International Arbitration/Cross Border Disputes:
MM&H stands at the crossroads of the Western Hemisphere and is counsel to parties in significant cross-border disputes, primarily in South and Central America. These matters include:
■ This last year, MM&H found itself in the center of a high-profile cross border dispute brought by David Boies and the law firm of Boies Schiller on behalf of a US Trust that was supposedly assigned the interests of PDVSA, the Venezuelan government-owned oil company, in an alleged multi-billion kickback scheme. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the PDVSA Trust claims were dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff was hit with significant fee awards totaling hundred of thousands as a result of discovery abuse. Both decisions are pending appeal
■ MM&H dissolved a freeze on US property and a full dismissal of all claims brought by a Japanese multi-national against its Brazilian CEO alleging a multi-million dollar claim of theft and usurpation of a corporate opportunity. The dismissal was based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens
■ Representing one of the former directors of Brazilian companies in high-profile fraud litigation brought by Cayman Island and Nevis trust companies who were major bondholders in those companies. This litigation arises out of one of the largest and most prolific fraud schemes in recent times

Corporate Divorces/ Shareholder Disputes:
A significant portion of MM&H’s cases involve corporate divorces among disaffected shareholders or members. As a result, MM&H has developed a niche in the litigation of derivative actions and other contentious intra-corporate disputes.
■ Last year, the 3rd District Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court verdict in favour of MM&H’s clients in a highly contentious shareholders rights claim by terminated management who also had minority membership interests in a global medical devices manufacturer. The appellate decision established new precedent in Florida for application of the Business Judgment Rule to officers and managers of Florida LLCs
■ MM&H is counsel in a highly contentious multimillion dollar corporate divorce involving claims among the partners for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and improper use of corporate funds as well as over reach by the court appointed trustee
■ MM&H represents the 50% owner of a popular arcade and gaming facility in Broward County, whose co-owner filed a shareholder derivative action against him. As a result of employing a strategy early of using the Florida LLC statute and the careful application of the mechanisms the statute provides, MM&H was able to secure an early and favorable resolution of the matter

Construction Defect & Real Estate Related Litigation:
Real estate is at the core of many disputes in South Florida, and MM&H has deep experience representing developers, building owners and homeowners’ associations in all manner of real estate litigation including:
■ Consistently obtained victories in trial court, appellate and parallel arbitration proceedings for a leading South Florida developer in a dispute in which Plaintiff alleged fraud and dangerous environmental contamination in a large residential home development in Broward County
■ MM&H is counsel to a homeowners’ association of a high-end condominium building located on South Beach. The association claims significant damages against the general contractor and several of the subcontractors for this prominent development to the structure as a result of structural deficiencies