Paul Feldman practices in the Business Law, Litigation, and Real Estate and Environmental areas. He served as President of Davis, Malm & D'Agostine, P.C. for over ten years.
Paul's real estate practice involves all aspects of real estate work, including acquisition, leasing, permitting, and financing work. He represents several active and substantial real estate developers, and handles transactions in many parts of the country. He appears before municipal boards and state agencies as well as before all levels of the Massachusetts state court system.
Paul's environmental practice focuses on contamination matters, wetlands permitting, waterways licenses and MEPA. He has represented Fortune 100 companies in connection with several Federal Superfund sites and many smaller businesses with Chapter 21E matters. His practice involves governmental enforcement actions, regulatory compliance matters, and cost recovery litigation.
Paul's litigation practice involves primarily contract disputes, insurance coverage and other business disputes.
Recent matters include:
Obtained summary judgment in Superior Court against abutters challenged zoning approval of the rebuilding of a gasoline station, including construction of a convenience store and replacement of pumps and storage tanks. This case was important in clarifying the law on the issue of standing, which is pivotal in many zoning cases.
Represented buyer in a $100 million deal involving the purchase of 28 acres of vacant land and financing of a 400,000 square foot retail/office development in Gilbert, Arizona.
Represented buyer in a $55 million deal involving the purchase of 45 acres of vacant land in Phoenix, Arizona that will be developed in multiple phases and for multiple uses.
Obtained a Comprehensive Permit (Affordable Housing) for many residential developments, including a 250-unit condominium development, 240-unit apartment development, and 88-unit single family home community.
Represented sellers and buyers in many real estate transactions, including the sale of a three office building portfolio for $45 million, and the purchase of over $31 million of replacement properties regarding Section 1031 exchanges.
Represented the buyer in the purchase of a 136-unit apartment complex.
Handled a financing workout involving $84 million of debt with properties in California, Nevada and Massachusetts.
Represented Fortune 100 companies in several Region I Superfund sites, including Charles George, Palmer, and SRSNE in which the companies were potentially performing parties.
Handled 21E Compliance for sites in Middleboro, Worcester, and other Massachusetts communities.
Represented businesses responding to civil penalty orders of the EPA and MADEP.
Represented businesses in insurance coverage matters for property damage claims and environmental claims.
John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-Conant Properties, Inc., 322 F. 3rd 26 (1st Cir. 2003) — Procured the reversal of judgment and remand for new trial in Federal Copyright case brought by architect against developer client where the trial court had given improper jury instruction with respect to apportioning profits between copyright owner and party determined to have infringed on the copyright. The decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the First Circuit established important authority with respect to the criteria to be applied in apportioning profits in copyright suit.
Striar v. American Medical International, Inc., 45 Mass. App. Ct. 87 (1998) — Obtained a breach of contract judgment for client who was one of several sellers of two hospitals sold to a national hospital chain. Client was not a direct party to the medical services contract entered in connection with the sale of the hospitals, and held to have been breached, but was a party to the sales contract. Succeeded in establishing the client’s right to sue on the theory that the services contract was incorporated by reference into the sales contract and on third party beneficiary theory. Appeals Court affirmed.
Berkshire Power Development v. Agawam, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 828 (1997) — Successfully represented clients in opposing the construction of a power plant. After being denied approval at the local level, the developer appealed and argued that it never needed the permit which it had applied for. This case established that the ability to raise new issues on appeal was limited to the issues raised before a local board.