Sullivan
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Sullivan website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.
Search
Portrait of Ryan M. Rosenblatt
Portrait of Ryan M. Rosenblatt

Biography

Ryan’s practice includes numerous types of litigation, including complex, commercial, land use, business and interpersonal torts, sports, and bankruptcy. He has represented a variety of commercial and individual clients in both State and Federal Courts, as well as in Bankruptcy proceedings, AAA Arbitration, Mediation, proceedings before the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board and administrative proceedings before the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance.

In addition, Ryan provides dedicated pro bono legal services to and volunteers in the Boston community. Ryan co-chairs Sullivan’s pro bono partnerships with the Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC) and with the Volunteer Lawyers Project (VLP), coordinating Sullivan’s Associates in taking on pro bono cases with each group. As part of that work, Ryan has overseen dozens of successful cases in which Sullivan assisted pro bono clients form VRLC in obtaining restraining orders from various Massachusetts Courts, and pro bono clients from VLP in receiving unemployment benefits in the face of resistant former employers. He also regularly takes on such cases himself, directly representing clients in both instances, including a case in which he successfully argued a motion in Massachusetts Superior Court to protect a sexual assault victim from being required to provide her medical and mental health records to the defendant in the criminal case against him. Ryan also volunteers for the Boston NextGen Group, which is associated with the Tina’s Wish organization. Tina’s Wish is a charity founded in 2008 in memory of the Honorable Tina Brozman, former chief justice of the SDNY Bankruptcy Court who died two years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

While attending Boston College Law School, Ryan was a member of the Journal of Law & Social Justice, won a Boston College Mock Trial Competition and participated in the school’s civil litigation clinic and its pro bono service trip to New Orleans. He also interned for Judge Raymond Brassard in the Massachusetts Superior Court and Judge Denise Casper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Education
  • Boston College Law School (J.D., magna cum laude)
  • Muhlenberg College (B.A., magna cum laude)
Bar & Court Admissions
  • Massachusetts
  • U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Professional Qualifications
  • American Bar Association
  • Boston Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Bar Association Business & Commercial Litigation Steering Committee
  • Member, Boston Bar Association Senior Associates Executive Steering Committee
Awards & Honors
  • Recognized as a Next Generation Partner by The Legal 500 U.S. (2026)
  • Recommended by The Legal 500 U.S. (2025)
  • ABA, On the Rise – Top 40 Young Lawyers Award (2023)
  • "Rising Star," New England Legal Awards (2025)
  • "Rising Star," Massachusetts Super Lawyers (2022-2026)
  • Best Lawyers in America® Ones to Watch (2026)
  • Boston Magazine Top Lawyers, Civil Law Litigation (2021-2025)
  • 2021 Up and Coming Lawyer, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Excellence in the Law Award
  • Volunteer Lawyers Project Denis Maguire Pro Bono Award Recipient (2020)
Community Engagement
  • Volunteer, Tina's Wish Boston NextGen Group
Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Massachusetts SJC Rules That Statute of Repose Does Not Bar Contractual Indemnification Claim Against Architect
On April 16, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) issued a decision concluding that a claim based on a negotiated contract providing for indemnification of damages caused by an architect’s negligence cannot be time barred under the statute of repose. The decision may noticeably impact negotiation and litigation of construction agreements going forward; parties in the construction industry need to pay careful attention to such provisions in their contracts. In the case, Trustees of Boston University v. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP[1], the defendant architect agreed to design a new athletic field for Boston University. As part of the agreement, the sophisticated parties negotiated an express indemnification provision pursuant to which the architect promised to indemnify the university for “any and all” expenses incurred by the university as a result of the architect’s “negligen[t]” design. The SJC noted that this provision is not part of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, AIA Document B101-2007 used by the parties. When the university began to experience problems with the field after it first opened in 2013, it demanded, pursuant to the indemnification provision, that the architect indemnify it for the expenses. More than six years after the field opened, the university sued. The architect moved for summary judgment, relying on the statute of repose, and the Superior Court allowed the motion. Boston University appealed, and the SJC, recognizing the importance of the issue, took the case on direct appellate review, bypassing the Appeals Court. The SJC noted that the statute of repose[2] provides an automatic, nearly inviolable bar to actions of tort for damages arising out of “any deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property” if brought more than six (6) years after the earlier of (1) the opening of the improvement to use; or (2) substantial completion of the improvement and the taking of the possession for occupancy by the owner. The statute of repose does not, however, apply to contract actions; it is a limitation expressly applicable to actions of tort. The SJC therefore analyzed whether the action, although styled a contract claim, was really one of tort. In its analysis, the court noted that it would look beyond labels to examine the “gist of the action” to determine whether the tort statute of repose bars the claim.  The court wrote that determining where the gist of a claim falls depends largely on where the standard of performance is derived from. In contracts, the standard of performance is set by the defendant’s promises, whereas in tort, it is set by law. For example, the court observed that it has previously determined that the tort statute of repose applies to a claim for breach of an implied warranty, since the duty is imposed by law, and that the elements for breach of implied warranty and for negligence claims are the same. In contrast, it cited Gomes v. Pan Am. Associates[3] as an example of a contractual indemnification clause upheld in spite of a negligence claim brought more than six years after the property opened for use, where the parties freely and intelligently entered into a comprehensive contract of indemnification. Because in the Boston University case, the architect’s duty to indemnify the university was not one imposed by law, but rather, a promise to which the architect freely and intelligently chose to be bound, the SJC held that the gist of the action sounded in contract.[4] As a contract claim, the statute of repose could not apply, and the prior grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Importance of the Decision As specifically noted in the SJC’s decision, the type of indemnification provision at issue, which included an indemnity for negligence, is not found in the standard AIA form most often used in construction contracting. That may change moving forward, but unless and until it does, the weight of negotiating such a clause into that type of contract has taken on additional importance. The statute of repose has long been a powerful shield for those in the construction industry to fend off lawsuits arising many years after completion of a project. There are very few ways to sue around a construction claim that arises more than six years after the project is complete. This decision now adds a meaningful sword to the arsenal of property owners for use in combating those protections. Relevant here, while the statute of repose is a strict six year limitation from completion of the project, the six year breach of contract limitation period only begins to run from the time of breach; in this case, that occurred when the architect refused to indemnify the university. Having that statute of limitations tolled pending a breach gives significant life to contract claims arising long after the project is completed. Parties on both sides of such construction contracts will need to consider how to approach negotiating indemnification provision moving forward. If they are not careful, construction professionals could find themselves liable for damages occurring decades after a construction project is completed. The Legislature’s response to the decision will be another intriguing area to watch. Caselaw is full of decisions noting the legislative intent in providing certainty and ironclad protections for construction professionals after six years, when they might otherwise forever be on the hook for latent defects in their work. Whether the Legislature takes action in response to this ruling remains to be seen; it may find that the SJC continued to honor its intent by only providing a carve out for those sophisticated parties willing to enter into a heavily negotiated indemnification provision, or it may feel that the loophole goes too far in adding pressure on construction professionals who may be forced to agree to provisions they would otherwise choose to reject. The Legislature’s response will be closely watched by the field. *** Sullivan’s Real Estate and Litigation teams are paying careful attention to these developments and stand ready to assist with the negotiation and litigation of such contracts and disputes. Please feel free to contact our attorneys with any questions on this significant development in construction law.    [1] 495 Mass. 682 (2025). [2] G.L. c. 260, § 2B, first par. [3] 406 Mass. 647, 648 (1990). [4] It further noted that, while not dispositive, because the complaint alleged breach of contract, the elements that the university would have to prove at trial differed from those in negligence, and supported the reading that the claim truly did sound in contract.
Massachusetts SJC Clarifies Law on Appellate Interest After Judgment Satisfied in Full Pending Appeal
On March 11, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) issued a decision concluding that once a losing party satisfies a judgment in full, postjudgment interest stops running even if the losing party then appeals. The decision stands to have a potentially significant impact for Massachusetts litigants’ strategic appellate decisions going forward. In the case, H1Lincoln, Inc. v. S. Washington St., LLC[1], the defendants, having lost at trial, paid the entire amount of the more than $20 million judgment against them, in full, and proceeded to appeal. They argued that their payment meant that the judgment should therefore have been considered fully satisfied regardless of their appellate rights, and so postjudgment interest should stop running. The Superior Court motion judge disagreed and ruled to allow postjudgment interest to continue to accrue pending appeal. In taking up the case, the SJC dealt with the issue in the context of a 2021 SJC decision (“Governo”)[2] which had held that conditional payments do not constitute full satisfaction of a judgment. In Governo, the defendants sought to deposit funds with the court (effectively in escrow) pending appeal. The defendant offered to release the deposited funds immediately if the plaintiff did not appeal, but to keep the deposit if an appeal proceeded. The SJC noted that such a conditional payment of a judgment cannot stop the accrual of postjudgment interest, as it prevents the plaintiff from having use of the funds unless it agreed to forfeit its right to appeal.   In H1 Lincoln, the evolved question therefore became: “whether a payment in full by a judgment debtor who intends to appeal is only a ‘conditional payment.’” The SJC concluded that “full payment of a judgment fully satisfies the [postjudgment interest] statutory requirement and terminates the accrual of interest, even if the judgment debtor pursues an appeal.” The SJC supported its rationale by reiterating the established premise that postjudgment interest is not punitive, but rather compensatory. It found support in the postjudgment interest statute’s history, noting that “the purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of money” when a judgment is not immediately paid. The statutory purpose thereby puts “the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor in the same position they would have enjoyed had the debtor paid the judgment promptly.”  Where the plaintiff in such circumstances is made whole by virtue of a fully satisfied judgment, the Court reasoned, there can be no further compensatory need to run the interest clock any further. The Court further noted that it would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent in a statute designed to encourage prompt payment to read the law in a way that would discourage judgment debtors who exercise their right to appeal from paying the entire judgment up front.   Importance of the Decision As Massachusetts litigators are well aware (but others may not be), statutory postjudgment interest in Massachusetts accrues at an incredible rate of 12% per annum. Such an unusually high interest rate can be a debilitating stumbling block to a party considering an appeal; after all, appeals can take upwards of a year (or more), during which time interest is steadily accruing. The skyrocketing cost of a potential loss plus 12% interest certainly complicates the decision on whether to pursue a meritorious appeal.  This new decision gives would-be appellants more strategic breathing room. If they so choose, such parties can now pay the judgment in full and then prosecute an appeal, knowing they will not be on the hook for endlessly accruing 12% interest. Of course, this strategy is only of interest to parties capable of paying the underlying judgment in the first place. Nonetheless, it adds a layer of flexibility for litigants who might have otherwise written off their appeal rights as prohibitively expensive.  The Natural Next Question – What if the Appeal Succeeds? The plaintiff in H1 Lincoln argued, unsuccessfully, that it should continue to accrue interest as it did not truly have full use and enjoyment of the judgment as-paid, “because the payment remains subject to risk and uncertainties of appeal.” The SJC was more persuaded by the defendants’ response: that defendants assumed a significant financial risk in paying the judgment because the plaintiff might dissipate all of the funds before the defendants had an opportunity to prevail on appeal.  In contemplating this point, the decision proceeded to mention, but not answer, the question of what does happen if the appeal is successful.  Clearly, a successful appeal is pointless if the previously paid judgment proves unrecoverable. Fortunately, courts have the inherent authority to order restitution, as recognized by the Restatement of Restitution § 74, and at least one unreported Massachusetts decision.[3] What remains murky is how such restitution would be handled and executed in practice. The refund process during a successful appeal therefore remains an important consideration for parties involved in both paying judgments and appealing them. * * * Ultimately, while the H1 Lincoln decision clarifies postjudgment interest considerations surrounding appellate rights, the issue of restitution in the event of a successful appeal remains a significant consideration for successful and unsuccessful litigants’ strategies in similar cases.            [1] SJC-13651, 2025 WL 757719 (Mass. Mar. 11, 2025). [2] Governo Law Firm LLC v. Bergeron, 487 Mass. 188 (2021). [3] Dombrowski v. Cronin, 2001 Mass. App. Div. 194, 2001 WL 1021054, at *2 (Mass. App. Div. Aug. 28, 2001).
News
All News
Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories
Ryan Rosenblatt was quoted in Law360's article, "Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories," which examines the legal, regulatory and policy disputes that emerged during the 2026 World Cup, including issues involving FIFA's disciplinary decisions, immigration challenges, public art protections and the legal dispute surrounding Gillette Stadium's hosting of World Cup matches. Discussing the agreement reached between FIFA's affiliate Boston 2026 and the Town of Foxborough over security fees and other costs associated with the matches, Ryan said the resolution reflected the challenges of pursuing immediate litigation. "Because parties can always fight over being reimbursed for something as part of slower, longer litigation, courts typically decline to issue restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in cases that boil down to who owes who," Ryan said. "Here, that acknowledgment ended up with cooler heads prevailing; the applicants did what they needed to do to get the permit issued, and the cost will be sorted out on the back end. It was the right outcome, and hopefully it teaches a lesson about the need for municipal cooperation to other future applicants for events like this."
Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026
Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester announced that its practice groups and attorneys have been ranked and recommended in the Legal 500 United States 2026. The firm’s Real Estate practice was newly ranked Tier 1 in the “Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m)” category and the firm maintained rankings across a variety of practice areas. Partners Nicole Crum and John Steiner were newly ranked as Leading Partners and Ryan Rosenblatt as a Next Generation Partner. Peers and more than 300,000 corporate counsel were surveyed and interviewed globally in the past 12 months to assess law firms’ overall visibility and reputation, culminating in detailed rankings and editorial. The Legal 500 is an independent guide, and firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit. Sullivan's lawyers received the following rankings: Leading Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Outstanding Lawyers Nationwide Benjamin Armour - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) Ameek Ashok Ponda - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)  Nicole Crum - Mutual/registered/exchange-traded funds Lewis Segall - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) John Steiner - Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m) Douglas Stransky - International Tax Joel Telpner - Fintech Next Generation Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Up-and-Coming Lawyers Nationwide Ryan Rosenblatt - General commercial disputes – mid-market ($250-500m) Sarah Wellings - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) Practice Areas Ranked and Attorneys Recognized Corporate Governance “Our lead partner, Nicole Crum, who leads the investment industry practice, is exceptional. She demonstrates strong industry knowledge yet is very personable and anticipates what we need to know or what we should consider doing to handle any matter. The team roll up their sleeves and provide recommendations as to how we as a board should handle any matter. Strong service commitment and work ethic!” “The team we have at Sullivan & Worcester has served our company for years and knows the management team, staff as well as our board members. They are extremely responsive and proactive and anticipate what we should be aware of, concerned about, excited about, and how to handle oversight, processes and protocols to ensure we are carrying out our fiduciary duties. The partners are experts in this industry.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: Howard Berkenblit, David Leahy Dispute Resolution/General Commercial Disputes “Diverse skillset. Client centric. Transparency. Urgency provided on all matters.” “I have worked with Gerry Silver for over 15 years and have found his pragmatic approach to complex matters refreshing. He understands our business, culture and market, and will give me his opinion in a digestible manner.” Next Generation Partner: Ryan Rosenblatt Recommended Lawyers: Gerry Silver, Patrick Dinardo, Laura Steinberg, Michael Sullivan, Amy Zuccarello, Erika Todd, Christopher Shields, Anna Lea McNerney Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and Retirement Plans: Design “The level of expertise is top shelf. David Guadagnoli seems to know all of ERISA and IRS rulings.” “David Guadagnoli and Amy Sheridan both have superior knowledge in their respective areas. I value the ability to raise issues whether simple or complex. The firm takes the same diligent approach across all spectrums of complexity.” Recommended Lawyers: David Guadagnoli, Amy Sheridan Environment: Transactional Fintech “Sullivan & Worcester is one of the finest firms with which I have worked.” “The lawyers are excellent, and the firm consistently provides the highest quality of customer service.” Leading Partner: Joel Telpner Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman, Benjamin Armour, Scott Kaufman, Harvey Bines, Christopher Curtis Land Use/Zoning Recommended Lawyers: Gregory Sampson, Ashley Brooks, Victor Baltera, Karen Kepler, Ashley Tan M&A: Corporate and Commercial: Venture Capital and Emerging Companies Recommended Lawyers: Scott Kaufman, Lewis Segall, Benjamin Armour, Michael Student M&A: Middle-Market ($0-250m) “The partner Lewis Segall has been working with our company for 15 years and we have a good working relationship with him. He knows our history and very attentive to our needs.” “Lewis Segall is very attentive to our needs. We very much value him.” Leading Partners: Benjamin Armour, Lewis Segall Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman Mutual/Registered/Exchange-Traded Funds “Sullivan & Worcester's practice is defined by its deep expertise in investment funds and its ability to deliver clear, commercially grounded advice across the full fund lifecycle—from formation and structuring to regulatory compliance and complex transactions.” “The team is highly experienced, collaborative, and excel in efficient execution and clear communication.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: David Leahy, David Mahaffey, Rachael Schwartz Real Estate Leading Partner: John Steiner Recommended Lawyers: Ashley Brooks, Karen Kepler, Gregory Sampson, Sharon Leifer, Louis Monti, Spencer Stone, Ashley Tan Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) “We have built multiple complex and sophisticated REIT platforms over the years and worked with many top-tier REIT specialists, but Sullivan’s REIT practice is by far the best, with Sarah Wellings.” Leading Partner: Ameek Ashok Ponda Next Generation Partner: Sarah Wellings Recommended Lawyers: Angela Gomes, Louis Monti, Shu Wei, Cameron Cosby International Tax “The international collaboration with S&W is exceptional.” “What really stands out is their willingness to engage, openness to different ideas and opinions, clearly expressed expectations, and clients' objectives.” Leading Partner: Douglas Stransky Recommended Lawyers: Lewis Greenwald, Eric Rietveld Tax > US Taxes: Contentious Recommended Lawyers: Richard Jones, David Nagle, Daniel Ryan, Caroline Kupiec Tax > US Taxes: Non-Contentious “Sarah Wellings is, quite simply, the best lawyer we have ever worked with. Her expertise extends far beyond tax and REIT matters, encompassing governance, financing, and complex commercial issues. Decades of experience and technical mastery make her an indispensable partner. Sarah is our central point of contact who makes everything seamless. Her in-house counsel background gives her a unique client perspective: she anticipates needs, solves problems before they arise, and delivers concise, well-structured updates that simplify even the most intricate issues. She coordinates effortlessly with all parties involved. Her judgment is exceptional. Sarah strikes the perfect balance between comprehensive academic rigor and practical, business-oriented advice. She combines technical REIT/tax excellence with commercial instincts, ensuring every recommendation is both legally sound and strategically smart. Her ability to translate complex law into clear, actionable guidance is unmatched. Sarah is incredibly responsive without ever sacrificing quality. She treats our matters as her own, demonstrating a rare ownership mindset and collaborative spirit. Her integrity is uncompromising, giving us absolute confidence in her counsel. In short, Sarah Wellings defines legal excellence: reliable, commercially minded, and client-focused. Working with her feels like being in the safest possible hands; she consistently exceeds expectations and orchestrates complex transactions with clarity and precision.” Recommended Lawyers: Ameek Ashok Ponda, Richard Jones, Douglas Stransky, Sarah Wellings About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier international law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best-in-class client service.

Ryan M. Rosenblatt

Ryan’s practice includes numerous types of litigation, including complex, commercial, land use, business and interpersonal torts, sports, and bankruptcy. He has represented a variety of commercial and individual clients in both State and Federal Courts, as well as in Bankruptcy proceedings, AAA Arbitration, Mediation, proceedings before the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board and administrative proceedings before the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance.

In addition, Ryan provides dedicated pro bono legal services to and volunteers in the Boston community. Ryan co-chairs Sullivan’s pro bono partnerships with the Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC) and with the Volunteer Lawyers Project (VLP), coordinating Sullivan’s Associates in taking on pro bono cases with each group. As part of that work, Ryan has overseen dozens of successful cases in which Sullivan assisted pro bono clients form VRLC in obtaining restraining orders from various Massachusetts Courts, and pro bono clients from VLP in receiving unemployment benefits in the face of resistant former employers. He also regularly takes on such cases himself, directly representing clients in both instances, including a case in which he successfully argued a motion in Massachusetts Superior Court to protect a sexual assault victim from being required to provide her medical and mental health records to the defendant in the criminal case against him. Ryan also volunteers for the Boston NextGen Group, which is associated with the Tina’s Wish organization. Tina’s Wish is a charity founded in 2008 in memory of the Honorable Tina Brozman, former chief justice of the SDNY Bankruptcy Court who died two years after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

While attending Boston College Law School, Ryan was a member of the Journal of Law & Social Justice, won a Boston College Mock Trial Competition and participated in the school’s civil litigation clinic and its pro bono service trip to New Orleans. He also interned for Judge Raymond Brassard in the Massachusetts Superior Court and Judge Denise Casper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Viewpoints
All Viewpoints
Massachusetts SJC Rules That Statute of Repose Does Not Bar Contractual Indemnification Claim Against Architect
On April 16, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) issued a decision concluding that a claim based on a negotiated contract providing for indemnification of damages caused by an architect’s negligence cannot be time barred under the statute of repose. The decision may noticeably impact negotiation and litigation of construction agreements going forward; parties in the construction industry need to pay careful attention to such provisions in their contracts. In the case, Trustees of Boston University v. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP[1], the defendant architect agreed to design a new athletic field for Boston University. As part of the agreement, the sophisticated parties negotiated an express indemnification provision pursuant to which the architect promised to indemnify the university for “any and all” expenses incurred by the university as a result of the architect’s “negligen[t]” design. The SJC noted that this provision is not part of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, AIA Document B101-2007 used by the parties. When the university began to experience problems with the field after it first opened in 2013, it demanded, pursuant to the indemnification provision, that the architect indemnify it for the expenses. More than six years after the field opened, the university sued. The architect moved for summary judgment, relying on the statute of repose, and the Superior Court allowed the motion. Boston University appealed, and the SJC, recognizing the importance of the issue, took the case on direct appellate review, bypassing the Appeals Court. The SJC noted that the statute of repose[2] provides an automatic, nearly inviolable bar to actions of tort for damages arising out of “any deficiency or neglect in the design, planning, construction or general administration of an improvement to real property” if brought more than six (6) years after the earlier of (1) the opening of the improvement to use; or (2) substantial completion of the improvement and the taking of the possession for occupancy by the owner. The statute of repose does not, however, apply to contract actions; it is a limitation expressly applicable to actions of tort. The SJC therefore analyzed whether the action, although styled a contract claim, was really one of tort. In its analysis, the court noted that it would look beyond labels to examine the “gist of the action” to determine whether the tort statute of repose bars the claim.  The court wrote that determining where the gist of a claim falls depends largely on where the standard of performance is derived from. In contracts, the standard of performance is set by the defendant’s promises, whereas in tort, it is set by law. For example, the court observed that it has previously determined that the tort statute of repose applies to a claim for breach of an implied warranty, since the duty is imposed by law, and that the elements for breach of implied warranty and for negligence claims are the same. In contrast, it cited Gomes v. Pan Am. Associates[3] as an example of a contractual indemnification clause upheld in spite of a negligence claim brought more than six years after the property opened for use, where the parties freely and intelligently entered into a comprehensive contract of indemnification. Because in the Boston University case, the architect’s duty to indemnify the university was not one imposed by law, but rather, a promise to which the architect freely and intelligently chose to be bound, the SJC held that the gist of the action sounded in contract.[4] As a contract claim, the statute of repose could not apply, and the prior grant of summary judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Importance of the Decision As specifically noted in the SJC’s decision, the type of indemnification provision at issue, which included an indemnity for negligence, is not found in the standard AIA form most often used in construction contracting. That may change moving forward, but unless and until it does, the weight of negotiating such a clause into that type of contract has taken on additional importance. The statute of repose has long been a powerful shield for those in the construction industry to fend off lawsuits arising many years after completion of a project. There are very few ways to sue around a construction claim that arises more than six years after the project is complete. This decision now adds a meaningful sword to the arsenal of property owners for use in combating those protections. Relevant here, while the statute of repose is a strict six year limitation from completion of the project, the six year breach of contract limitation period only begins to run from the time of breach; in this case, that occurred when the architect refused to indemnify the university. Having that statute of limitations tolled pending a breach gives significant life to contract claims arising long after the project is completed. Parties on both sides of such construction contracts will need to consider how to approach negotiating indemnification provision moving forward. If they are not careful, construction professionals could find themselves liable for damages occurring decades after a construction project is completed. The Legislature’s response to the decision will be another intriguing area to watch. Caselaw is full of decisions noting the legislative intent in providing certainty and ironclad protections for construction professionals after six years, when they might otherwise forever be on the hook for latent defects in their work. Whether the Legislature takes action in response to this ruling remains to be seen; it may find that the SJC continued to honor its intent by only providing a carve out for those sophisticated parties willing to enter into a heavily negotiated indemnification provision, or it may feel that the loophole goes too far in adding pressure on construction professionals who may be forced to agree to provisions they would otherwise choose to reject. The Legislature’s response will be closely watched by the field. *** Sullivan’s Real Estate and Litigation teams are paying careful attention to these developments and stand ready to assist with the negotiation and litigation of such contracts and disputes. Please feel free to contact our attorneys with any questions on this significant development in construction law.    [1] 495 Mass. 682 (2025). [2] G.L. c. 260, § 2B, first par. [3] 406 Mass. 647, 648 (1990). [4] It further noted that, while not dispositive, because the complaint alleged breach of contract, the elements that the university would have to prove at trial differed from those in negligence, and supported the reading that the claim truly did sound in contract.
Massachusetts SJC Clarifies Law on Appellate Interest After Judgment Satisfied in Full Pending Appeal
On March 11, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the “SJC”) issued a decision concluding that once a losing party satisfies a judgment in full, postjudgment interest stops running even if the losing party then appeals. The decision stands to have a potentially significant impact for Massachusetts litigants’ strategic appellate decisions going forward. In the case, H1Lincoln, Inc. v. S. Washington St., LLC[1], the defendants, having lost at trial, paid the entire amount of the more than $20 million judgment against them, in full, and proceeded to appeal. They argued that their payment meant that the judgment should therefore have been considered fully satisfied regardless of their appellate rights, and so postjudgment interest should stop running. The Superior Court motion judge disagreed and ruled to allow postjudgment interest to continue to accrue pending appeal. In taking up the case, the SJC dealt with the issue in the context of a 2021 SJC decision (“Governo”)[2] which had held that conditional payments do not constitute full satisfaction of a judgment. In Governo, the defendants sought to deposit funds with the court (effectively in escrow) pending appeal. The defendant offered to release the deposited funds immediately if the plaintiff did not appeal, but to keep the deposit if an appeal proceeded. The SJC noted that such a conditional payment of a judgment cannot stop the accrual of postjudgment interest, as it prevents the plaintiff from having use of the funds unless it agreed to forfeit its right to appeal.   In H1 Lincoln, the evolved question therefore became: “whether a payment in full by a judgment debtor who intends to appeal is only a ‘conditional payment.’” The SJC concluded that “full payment of a judgment fully satisfies the [postjudgment interest] statutory requirement and terminates the accrual of interest, even if the judgment debtor pursues an appeal.” The SJC supported its rationale by reiterating the established premise that postjudgment interest is not punitive, but rather compensatory. It found support in the postjudgment interest statute’s history, noting that “the purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing party for the loss of the use of money” when a judgment is not immediately paid. The statutory purpose thereby puts “the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor in the same position they would have enjoyed had the debtor paid the judgment promptly.”  Where the plaintiff in such circumstances is made whole by virtue of a fully satisfied judgment, the Court reasoned, there can be no further compensatory need to run the interest clock any further. The Court further noted that it would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent in a statute designed to encourage prompt payment to read the law in a way that would discourage judgment debtors who exercise their right to appeal from paying the entire judgment up front.   Importance of the Decision As Massachusetts litigators are well aware (but others may not be), statutory postjudgment interest in Massachusetts accrues at an incredible rate of 12% per annum. Such an unusually high interest rate can be a debilitating stumbling block to a party considering an appeal; after all, appeals can take upwards of a year (or more), during which time interest is steadily accruing. The skyrocketing cost of a potential loss plus 12% interest certainly complicates the decision on whether to pursue a meritorious appeal.  This new decision gives would-be appellants more strategic breathing room. If they so choose, such parties can now pay the judgment in full and then prosecute an appeal, knowing they will not be on the hook for endlessly accruing 12% interest. Of course, this strategy is only of interest to parties capable of paying the underlying judgment in the first place. Nonetheless, it adds a layer of flexibility for litigants who might have otherwise written off their appeal rights as prohibitively expensive.  The Natural Next Question – What if the Appeal Succeeds? The plaintiff in H1 Lincoln argued, unsuccessfully, that it should continue to accrue interest as it did not truly have full use and enjoyment of the judgment as-paid, “because the payment remains subject to risk and uncertainties of appeal.” The SJC was more persuaded by the defendants’ response: that defendants assumed a significant financial risk in paying the judgment because the plaintiff might dissipate all of the funds before the defendants had an opportunity to prevail on appeal.  In contemplating this point, the decision proceeded to mention, but not answer, the question of what does happen if the appeal is successful.  Clearly, a successful appeal is pointless if the previously paid judgment proves unrecoverable. Fortunately, courts have the inherent authority to order restitution, as recognized by the Restatement of Restitution § 74, and at least one unreported Massachusetts decision.[3] What remains murky is how such restitution would be handled and executed in practice. The refund process during a successful appeal therefore remains an important consideration for parties involved in both paying judgments and appealing them. * * * Ultimately, while the H1 Lincoln decision clarifies postjudgment interest considerations surrounding appellate rights, the issue of restitution in the event of a successful appeal remains a significant consideration for successful and unsuccessful litigants’ strategies in similar cases.            [1] SJC-13651, 2025 WL 757719 (Mass. Mar. 11, 2025). [2] Governo Law Firm LLC v. Bergeron, 487 Mass. 188 (2021). [3] Dombrowski v. Cronin, 2001 Mass. App. Div. 194, 2001 WL 1021054, at *2 (Mass. App. Div. Aug. 28, 2001).
News
All News
Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories
Ryan Rosenblatt was quoted in Law360's article, "Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories," which examines the legal, regulatory and policy disputes that emerged during the 2026 World Cup, including issues involving FIFA's disciplinary decisions, immigration challenges, public art protections and the legal dispute surrounding Gillette Stadium's hosting of World Cup matches. Discussing the agreement reached between FIFA's affiliate Boston 2026 and the Town of Foxborough over security fees and other costs associated with the matches, Ryan said the resolution reflected the challenges of pursuing immediate litigation. "Because parties can always fight over being reimbursed for something as part of slower, longer litigation, courts typically decline to issue restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in cases that boil down to who owes who," Ryan said. "Here, that acknowledgment ended up with cooler heads prevailing; the applicants did what they needed to do to get the permit issued, and the cost will be sorted out on the back end. It was the right outcome, and hopefully it teaches a lesson about the need for municipal cooperation to other future applicants for events like this."
Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026
Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition
Boston, MA – Sullivan & Worcester announced that its practice groups and attorneys have been ranked and recommended in the Legal 500 United States 2026. The firm’s Real Estate practice was newly ranked Tier 1 in the “Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m)” category and the firm maintained rankings across a variety of practice areas. Partners Nicole Crum and John Steiner were newly ranked as Leading Partners and Ryan Rosenblatt as a Next Generation Partner. Peers and more than 300,000 corporate counsel were surveyed and interviewed globally in the past 12 months to assess law firms’ overall visibility and reputation, culminating in detailed rankings and editorial. The Legal 500 is an independent guide, and firms and individuals are recommended purely on merit. Sullivan's lawyers received the following rankings: Leading Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Outstanding Lawyers Nationwide Benjamin Armour - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) Ameek Ashok Ponda - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)  Nicole Crum - Mutual/registered/exchange-traded funds Lewis Segall - M&A: Middle-Market (Sub-$500m); M&A: middle-market ($0-250m) John Steiner - Real estate – mid-market ($0-500m) Douglas Stransky - International Tax Joel Telpner - Fintech Next Generation Partners: The Legal 500’s Guide to Up-and-Coming Lawyers Nationwide Ryan Rosenblatt - General commercial disputes – mid-market ($250-500m) Sarah Wellings - Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) Practice Areas Ranked and Attorneys Recognized Corporate Governance “Our lead partner, Nicole Crum, who leads the investment industry practice, is exceptional. She demonstrates strong industry knowledge yet is very personable and anticipates what we need to know or what we should consider doing to handle any matter. The team roll up their sleeves and provide recommendations as to how we as a board should handle any matter. Strong service commitment and work ethic!” “The team we have at Sullivan & Worcester has served our company for years and knows the management team, staff as well as our board members. They are extremely responsive and proactive and anticipate what we should be aware of, concerned about, excited about, and how to handle oversight, processes and protocols to ensure we are carrying out our fiduciary duties. The partners are experts in this industry.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: Howard Berkenblit, David Leahy Dispute Resolution/General Commercial Disputes “Diverse skillset. Client centric. Transparency. Urgency provided on all matters.” “I have worked with Gerry Silver for over 15 years and have found his pragmatic approach to complex matters refreshing. He understands our business, culture and market, and will give me his opinion in a digestible manner.” Next Generation Partner: Ryan Rosenblatt Recommended Lawyers: Gerry Silver, Patrick Dinardo, Laura Steinberg, Michael Sullivan, Amy Zuccarello, Erika Todd, Christopher Shields, Anna Lea McNerney Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation and Retirement Plans: Design “The level of expertise is top shelf. David Guadagnoli seems to know all of ERISA and IRS rulings.” “David Guadagnoli and Amy Sheridan both have superior knowledge in their respective areas. I value the ability to raise issues whether simple or complex. The firm takes the same diligent approach across all spectrums of complexity.” Recommended Lawyers: David Guadagnoli, Amy Sheridan Environment: Transactional Fintech “Sullivan & Worcester is one of the finest firms with which I have worked.” “The lawyers are excellent, and the firm consistently provides the highest quality of customer service.” Leading Partner: Joel Telpner Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman, Benjamin Armour, Scott Kaufman, Harvey Bines, Christopher Curtis Land Use/Zoning Recommended Lawyers: Gregory Sampson, Ashley Brooks, Victor Baltera, Karen Kepler, Ashley Tan M&A: Corporate and Commercial: Venture Capital and Emerging Companies Recommended Lawyers: Scott Kaufman, Lewis Segall, Benjamin Armour, Michael Student M&A: Middle-Market ($0-250m) “The partner Lewis Segall has been working with our company for 15 years and we have a good working relationship with him. He knows our history and very attentive to our needs.” “Lewis Segall is very attentive to our needs. We very much value him.” Leading Partners: Benjamin Armour, Lewis Segall Recommended Lawyers: Natalie Lederman Mutual/Registered/Exchange-Traded Funds “Sullivan & Worcester's practice is defined by its deep expertise in investment funds and its ability to deliver clear, commercially grounded advice across the full fund lifecycle—from formation and structuring to regulatory compliance and complex transactions.” “The team is highly experienced, collaborative, and excel in efficient execution and clear communication.” Leading Partner: Nicole Crum Recommended Lawyers: David Leahy, David Mahaffey, Rachael Schwartz Real Estate Leading Partner: John Steiner Recommended Lawyers: Ashley Brooks, Karen Kepler, Gregory Sampson, Sharon Leifer, Louis Monti, Spencer Stone, Ashley Tan Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) “We have built multiple complex and sophisticated REIT platforms over the years and worked with many top-tier REIT specialists, but Sullivan’s REIT practice is by far the best, with Sarah Wellings.” Leading Partner: Ameek Ashok Ponda Next Generation Partner: Sarah Wellings Recommended Lawyers: Angela Gomes, Louis Monti, Shu Wei, Cameron Cosby International Tax “The international collaboration with S&W is exceptional.” “What really stands out is their willingness to engage, openness to different ideas and opinions, clearly expressed expectations, and clients' objectives.” Leading Partner: Douglas Stransky Recommended Lawyers: Lewis Greenwald, Eric Rietveld Tax > US Taxes: Contentious Recommended Lawyers: Richard Jones, David Nagle, Daniel Ryan, Caroline Kupiec Tax > US Taxes: Non-Contentious “Sarah Wellings is, quite simply, the best lawyer we have ever worked with. Her expertise extends far beyond tax and REIT matters, encompassing governance, financing, and complex commercial issues. Decades of experience and technical mastery make her an indispensable partner. Sarah is our central point of contact who makes everything seamless. Her in-house counsel background gives her a unique client perspective: she anticipates needs, solves problems before they arise, and delivers concise, well-structured updates that simplify even the most intricate issues. She coordinates effortlessly with all parties involved. Her judgment is exceptional. Sarah strikes the perfect balance between comprehensive academic rigor and practical, business-oriented advice. She combines technical REIT/tax excellence with commercial instincts, ensuring every recommendation is both legally sound and strategically smart. Her ability to translate complex law into clear, actionable guidance is unmatched. Sarah is incredibly responsive without ever sacrificing quality. She treats our matters as her own, demonstrating a rare ownership mindset and collaborative spirit. Her integrity is uncompromising, giving us absolute confidence in her counsel. In short, Sarah Wellings defines legal excellence: reliable, commercially minded, and client-focused. Working with her feels like being in the safest possible hands; she consistently exceeds expectations and orchestrates complex transactions with clarity and precision.” Recommended Lawyers: Ameek Ashok Ponda, Richard Jones, Douglas Stransky, Sarah Wellings About Sullivan Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a premier international law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best-in-class client service.

Ryan M. Rosenblatt

April 29, 2025

–Client Alert

Massachusetts SJC Rules That Statute of Repose Does Not Bar Contractual Indemnification Claim Against Architect

March 18, 2025

–Client Alert

Massachusetts SJC Clarifies Law on Appellate Interest After Judgment Satisfied in Full Pending Appeal

Sullivan Client Alert

January 24, 2025

–Client Alert

2025 Massachusetts Pay Transparency Requirements

August 21, 2024

–Client Alert

Texas Court Blocks Federal Non-Compete Ban, Setting Up Appellate Challenge

July 24, 2024

–Client Alert

Uncertainty Heightened as Two District Courts Reach Conflicting Conclusions on FTC Non-Compete Ban’s Enforceability

July 5, 2024

–Client Alert

Federal Court Blocks the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban, but Only for Named Plaintiffs

April 24, 2024

–Client Alert

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes

Sullivan Client Alert

January 2024

–Publication

Zoning and Development Newsletter

November 22, 2023

–Client Alert

New York City Bans Discrimination Based on Height and Weight

Sullivan Client Alert

July 2023

–Publication

Zoning and Development Newsletter

March 2023

–Publication

Zoning and Development Newsletter

November 28, 2022

–Client Alert

Zero Degrees Celsius: The Effects of a "Crypto Winter" and Celsius’ Bankruptcy on Crypto Customers

Sullivan Client Alert

July 22, 2022

–Client Alert

A Refresher on Legal Privileges for Client Communications

Sullivan Client Alert

May 17, 2021

–Client Alert

2020 Census Results Have No Impact on Boundaries of Opportunity Zones

Sullivan Client Alert

October 19, 2020

–Client Alert

Massachusetts COVID Spike Delays Trial Period for Jury Trials

Sullivan Client Alert

September 21, 2020

–Client Alert

SJC Orders a Trial Period for…Jury Trials

Sullivan Client Alert

October 9, 2019

–Publication

Here's an IDEA from the First Circuit: Let the Kid Have His Dog

The American Lawyer

Ryan M. Rosenblatt

July 17, 2026

–Quoted

Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories

Law360

June 15, 2026

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2026 Edition

Top Tier Firm, Legal 500 United States 2026

May 13, 2026

–News

Media Coverage – Suffolk Superior Court Allows City of Boston Commercial Property Class Action to Proceed

Multiple News Sources

May 13, 2026

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Obtain Superior Court Win in Class-Action Tax Case

April 17, 2026

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Selected to 2026 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

March 9, 2026

–Quoted

FIFA May Be No Match For Town In World Cup Permit Spat

Law360

February 24, 2026

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Announces Six Partner Elevations in Boston and New York

New Partners Enhance the Firm’s Capital Markets, Private Clients/Trusts & Estates, and Litigation Capabilities in New York and Boston

November 25, 2025

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Named to 2025 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

Boston Magazine

October 24, 2025

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Selected to 2025 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists

September 11, 2025

–Press Release

Ryan Rosenblatt Named 2025 New England Legal Awards “Rising Star”

August 21, 2025

–Press Release

44 Sullivan & Worcester Lawyers Named as “Best Lawyers” Award Recipients

Three Lawyers Recognized as “2026 Lawyer of the Year” and Five Recognized Among “Ones to Watch” in the U.S.

June 13, 2025

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Ranked in the Legal 500 United States 2025 Edition

February 27, 2025

–Quoted

10 Associates Talk Nerves, Preparation and Lessons Learned from Their First Arguments

Law.com

November 19, 2024

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan & Worcester Attorneys Named to 2024 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

September 27, 2024

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Named 2024 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Massachusetts Super Lawyers Magazine

May 14, 2024

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Joins Greater Boston Legal Services Associates Fund Drive for 16th Year

Greater Boston Legal Services

April 24, 2024

–Client Alert

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes

Sullivan Client Alert

November 21, 2023

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Named to 2023 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

Boston Magazine

October 12, 2023

–Firm Announcement

Sullivan Attorneys Named 2023 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

New England Super Lawyers Magazine

June 23, 2023

–Press Release

ABA Recognizes Ryan Rosenblatt as 2023 "On the Rise – Top 40 Young Lawyers Award" Honoree

May 9, 2023

–Press Release

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Adopts Position in Sullivan Amicus Filing on Behalf of The Boston Bar Association

A Plain Statutory Reading Requires Broadening Automatic Sealing of Criminal Records

November 22, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Named to 2022 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

Inc. Magazine

October 11, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Named 2022 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

New England Super Lawyers Magazine

September 26, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Receives Champion Award from Victim Rights Law Center

August 24, 2022

–Press Release

Sullivan & Worcester Files Suit Against Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association

Parent Asserts MIAA Violated Constitution, State Administrative Law In Preventing Her Child from Participating in Competitive Sports

November 24, 2021

–Press Release

Sullivan Attorneys Named to 2021 Top Lawyers List by Boston Magazine

May 12, 2021

–News

Sullivan Associate Recognized as 2021 Up & Coming Lawyer

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly - Excellence in the Law Awards

October 28, 2020

–Press Release

Sullivan Receives Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS) Pro Bono Champion Award

September 18, 2020

–News

Rosenblatt Wins Pro Bono Award

Boston College Law School Magazine

September 8, 2020

–Press Release

Ryan Rosenblatt Receives Volunteer Lawyers Project Annual Denis Maguire Pro Bono Award

Biography Matters Viewpoints News Events

Featured

Events
Financing the Future: From Defence to Critical Raw Materials

Geoffrey Wynne will participate in a panel discussion at ITFA's 52nd Annual International Trade and Forfaiting Conference alongside Ailsa McNeil, Director at Texel, and Hernan Mayol, Board Member and Representative of ITFA Americas and Chair of ITFA’s Latin America Regional Committee (LARC). The session, titled “Financing the future: From defence to critical raw materials,” will be moderated by Clarissa Dann, Editorial Director at Deutsche Bank AG.  The session will explore how trade

News
Sullivan Represents Fattal Hotel Group in Acquisition of The Blakely Hotel in Midtown Manhattan

Sullivan & Worcester represented Fattal Hotel Group, owner and operator of 329 hotels across 22 countries and based in Tel Aviv, in its acquisition and financing of The Blakely Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. The acquisition marks the client's first hotel investment in the United States and is a milestone in its evolution from a leading European hospitality operator into a global hotel group. The acquisition was completed on July 7,

Viewpoints
Hiring: Add a Colleague, Not a Liability

Hiring a new employee is typically a moment of optimism—and sometimes, the relationship really does go wonderfully for its entire length and ultimately ends on good terms. But when that hope is treated as an assumption, companies make themselves vulnerable. If a client-facing employee does not have a non-solicitation agreement, a business’s customers could be poached. A new employee, hired because of their great industry relationships, might actually have an

News
Sullivan Highlighted in Law360 Roundup of New York City's Largest Real Estate Transactions

Sullivan & Worcester was featured in Law360 Real Estate Authority's "NYC Real Estate Week In Review," which highlighted the largest New York City real estate transactions recorded during the week. The publication recognized Sullivan's representation of Fattal Hotel Group in its acquisition of the Blakely Hotel, a Manhattan hospitality property located at 136 West 55th Street. The approximately $38.5 million transaction was among the week's largest deals to hit public records.

News
Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories

Ryan Rosenblatt was quoted in Law360's article, "Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories," which examines the legal, regulatory and policy disputes that emerged during the 2026 World Cup, including issues involving FIFA's disciplinary decisions, immigration challenges, public art protections and the legal dispute surrounding Gillette Stadium's hosting of World Cup matches. Discussing the agreement reached between FIFA's affiliate Boston 2026 and the Town of Foxborough over security fees

Events
Basics of Estate and Trust Administration

Molly Depew will present “Basics of Estate and Trust Administration” at the American Bar Association (ABA)’s Skills Training for Estate Planners, a virtual conference taking place September 17–18 and sponsored by the ABA Real Property, Trust & Estate Law Section. The program offers a streamlined, practice-focused introduction to estate planning for attorneys building skills in trusts and estates. Ideal for young lawyers and those transitioning into the field, the course provides

Events
The Next Generation: Three Emerging Leaders, Three Ideas

Simon Cook, in his role as ITFA's Head of Education, will jointly moderate a Q&A on “The next generation: Three emerging leaders, three ideas”, together with Charlie O'Mulloy, chair of ITFA’s Emerging Leader Committee and Associate Banker at EBRD, at ITFA’s 52nd Annual International Trade and Forfaiting Conference in Split, Croatia on September 9. The Q&A will follow the presentations made by the finalists of the 2026 ITFA Emerging Leader

Viewpoints
Impact of 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act on Institutional Investor Ownership of Single-Family Rental Homes

The U.S. Congress passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (the “Housing Act”) and presented it to President Trump on June 29, 2026. At midnight on July 10, 2026, the Housing Act became law because the President did not return it to Congress within ten days (Sundays excepted). The Housing Act includes a wide range of housing reforms designed with the goal of making housing more available and affordable.  This alert

Viewpoints
SEC Establishes Retail Fraud Working Group to Combat Fraud Targeting Everyday Investors

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced on July 7, 2026, the creation of the Retail Fraud Working Group, a new initiative within the Division of Enforcement designed to identify and combat fraud targeting main street investors. The announcement formalizes a priority that SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock previewed in his May 13, 2026, remarks to the Managed Funds Association Legal & Compliance Conference, reflecting the current Commission’s broader

Viewpoints
International M&A and Joint Ventures: Key U.S. Taxation Issues

Douglas Stransky, leader of the firm’s Tax practice group, authored “International M&A and Joint Ventures: Key U.S. Taxation Issues” published by LexisNexis in June 2026. The practice-oriented treatise focuses on the U.S. tax implications of cross-border mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures and incorporates recent legislative changes and international tax developments. It includes practice aids and aims to provide professionals strategies in navigating the complexities of cross-border transactions in an evolving

Events
Financing the Future: From Defence to Critical Raw Materials

Geoffrey Wynne will participate in a panel discussion at ITFA's 52nd Annual International Trade and Forfaiting Conference alongside Ailsa McNeil, Director at Texel, and Hernan Mayol, Board Member and Representative of ITFA Americas and Chair of ITFA’s Latin America Regional Committee (LARC). The session, titled “Financing the future: From defence to critical raw materials,” will be moderated by Clarissa Dann, Editorial Director at Deutsche Bank AG.  The session will explore how trade

News
Sullivan Represents Fattal Hotel Group in Acquisition of The Blakely Hotel in Midtown Manhattan

Sullivan & Worcester represented Fattal Hotel Group, owner and operator of 329 hotels across 22 countries and based in Tel Aviv, in its acquisition and financing of The Blakely Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. The acquisition marks the client's first hotel investment in the United States and is a milestone in its evolution from a leading European hospitality operator into a global hotel group. The acquisition was completed on July 7,

Viewpoints
Hiring: Add a Colleague, Not a Liability

Hiring a new employee is typically a moment of optimism—and sometimes, the relationship really does go wonderfully for its entire length and ultimately ends on good terms. But when that hope is treated as an assumption, companies make themselves vulnerable. If a client-facing employee does not have a non-solicitation agreement, a business’s customers could be poached. A new employee, hired because of their great industry relationships, might actually have an

News
Sullivan Highlighted in Law360 Roundup of New York City's Largest Real Estate Transactions

Sullivan & Worcester was featured in Law360 Real Estate Authority's "NYC Real Estate Week In Review," which highlighted the largest New York City real estate transactions recorded during the week. The publication recognized Sullivan's representation of Fattal Hotel Group in its acquisition of the Blakely Hotel, a Manhattan hospitality property located at 136 West 55th Street. The approximately $38.5 million transaction was among the week's largest deals to hit public records.

News
Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories

Ryan Rosenblatt was quoted in Law360's article, "Upon Review: The 2026 World Cup's Biggest Legal Stories," which examines the legal, regulatory and policy disputes that emerged during the 2026 World Cup, including issues involving FIFA's disciplinary decisions, immigration challenges, public art protections and the legal dispute surrounding Gillette Stadium's hosting of World Cup matches. Discussing the agreement reached between FIFA's affiliate Boston 2026 and the Town of Foxborough over security fees

Events
Basics of Estate and Trust Administration

Molly Depew will present “Basics of Estate and Trust Administration” at the American Bar Association (ABA)’s Skills Training for Estate Planners, a virtual conference taking place September 17–18 and sponsored by the ABA Real Property, Trust & Estate Law Section. The program offers a streamlined, practice-focused introduction to estate planning for attorneys building skills in trusts and estates. Ideal for young lawyers and those transitioning into the field, the course provides

Contact Us
Boston, MA
New York, NY
London, UK
Washington, DC
Tel Aviv, Israel
1251 Avenue of the Americas
19th Floor
New York, NY 10020
212 660 3000
More
brand-overlay
This website does not track your personal or demographic information, only anonymous usage statistics. To ensure that you are not tracked, we have blocked all embedded content from third party sources like YouTube and SlideShare. Click "Accept Cookies" to enable third-party content. To learn more about our cookie policy, click here.
Accept CookiesNo Thanks