Court Dismisses Core Fraud Allegations in LuxUrban Securities Case per Per Stanford University Legal Report
This Op-Ed examines the legal record, contrasts it with Long’s reporting, and sets out a defense of LuxUrban and its leadership grounded in fact and law.
Stanford University Legal Reporters reported, “In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a mixed ruling in the investor class action against LuxUrban Hotels Inc. Yet, to read Ciara Long’s coverage in Bisnow, one would think the court had handed down a guilty verdict. Her articles presented LuxUrban as a company already condemned – highlighting allegations while omitting judicial findings that eliminated the most serious claims. Worse, the court itself cited Long’s reporting, despite portions of it being factually incorrect, incomplete, and arguably defamatory.”
The analysis issued through Stanford University’s collaboration with Cornerstone Research stands as a benchmark for credibility and analytical depth, grounded in data integrity, academic oversight, and transparent methodology. Their work reflects the rigor of institutional research, where conclusions are supported by verifiable evidence and peer-reviewed standards. This sharply contrasts with the reporting by Caira Longs on LuxUrban, which leans heavily on conjecture, selective interpretation, and unverified claims. While Stanford and Cornerstone Research produce findings that withstand scrutiny, Longs’ narrative appears designed more to provoke reaction than to inform. The distinction between disciplined, evidence-based inquiry and speculative journalism could not be more apparent.
For over thirty-five years, Cornerstone Research staff and experts have provided economic and financial analysis in all phases of commercial litigation and regulatory proceedings.
In LuxUrban’s case, the implications are significant. Independent, data-backed research—such as that emerging from Stanford and Cornerstone—underscores the company’s operational realities and financial positioning with objectivity that stands apart from agenda-driven narratives. Unlike speculative commentary aimed at undermining confidence, these analyses rely on verifiable metrics, audited disclosures, and established legal frameworks. LuxUrban’s performance and challenges are better understood through this lens of factual, institutional analysis rather than the fragmented portrayals circulated by Caira Longs. Where Longs seeks to sensationalize, Stanford and Cornerstone seek to clarify. The result is a clear divide between responsible research that informs the market and commentary that distorts it.
Further, based on court filings, publicly available documents reviewed by LawTechSpotlight.com, and a series of articles by Ciara Long and Bisnow (which interestingly suggest broader finding of corporate misconduct) LawTechSpotlight.com rules that the centerpiece of the complaint was expressly rejected by the court.
Judge Engelmayer’s July 25, 2025 opinion was not a validation of the plaintiffs’ theory – it was, in substance, a win for LuxUrban. Most importantly, the court dismissed in full the claims that LuxUrban’s Q1 2024 financial statements were accounting errors.
These accounting allegations were the centerpiece of the plaintiffs’ complaint: they suggested not just overly optimistic projections, but alleged falsification of core financial results. Had they survived, they could have posed existential exposure. By dismissing themƒ, Judge Engelmayer removed any specter of accounting misconduct.
What remains are narrower disclosure disputes – about whether describing certain hotels as “under lease” was premature. Long’s reporting never mentioned the dismissal of the accounting claims. Instead, she led with a broad-brush assertion that LuxUrban “likely made false statements,” giving readers the impression that accounting errors were all but established. For legal professionals, that omission is indefensible.
The Surviving Claims: Royalton and James Were Not “Phantom Hotels”
The pared-down case now centers only on whether LuxUrban’s language overstated its portfolio. Long cast the Royalton and James hotels as “phantom,” implying fabrication. The record tells a different story.
The Royalton Hotel – A Lease Executed and Disclosed
In a December 13, 2023 email, Fried Frank attorney Danielle Frank – counsel to the landlord – confirmed that “landlord and tenant have executed the Lease.” Under SEC rules, once a company enters a material definitive agreement, disclosure is required. LuxUrban disclosed the deal. The Royalton lease was real, executed, and acknowledged by both parties. Later disputes over escrow funds and conditions precedent are evidence of post-signing complexity.
The James NoMad – A Publicly Acknowledged Deal
In January 2024, LuxUrban announced a fully executed 15-year master lease for the James NoMad, supported by a $5 million security deposit. GFI Hospitality CEO Allen Gross, the landlord’s principal, went on record in a joint press release praising LuxUrban’s “support, professionalism, and vision in consummating this transaction.” This was not an imaginary hotel; it was an executed lease with landlord endorsement and a significant financial commitment behind it.
These facts were in the public record for nearly a year. They were ignored in Long’s reporting.
Court’s Reliance on Flawed Reporting
Even more concerning, Judge Engelmayer’s opinion cited Long’s reporting as part of the case background. Yet her articles echoed landlord rhetoric – such as accusations of “complete lack of basic competence” – without noting that several of those same landlord claims had already been dismissed or resolved. By importing one-sided reporting into the record, the court inadvertently amplified a flawed narrative.
LuxUrban now defends itself not only against plaintiffs, but against a skewed public perception – a perception fueled by incomplete journalism.
Defending the Executives
Long’s framing of executive departures as “under suspicious circumstances” was misleading. Brian Ferdinand’s March 2024 resignation was part of a planned succession. Shanoop Kothari’s later exit occurred during a restructuring tied to operational and financing pressures, not proven accounting errors.
Further, there were no insider stock sales during the alleged accounting errors period. Executives did not cash out; they increased their exposure and invested in the company. This is the opposite of classic securities bad actor behavior. Such exculpatory facts were left unreported.
The Defamation Risk of One-Sided Reporting
Reporters have latitude when quoting lawsuits or judicial opinions, but omission can be just as damaging as misstatement. Declaring that LuxUrban “likely lied,” while failing to report that the core financial claims were dismissed, creates a defamatory sting by implication.
The narrative that LuxUrban fabricated hotels is not only false, but refuted by executed leases, security deposits, and landlord press releases. Portraying them otherwise has caused tangible harm – to the company, its executives, its investors, and its employees.
Conclusion: This Case is Likely to Be Dismissed
With the financial-reporting claims already dismissed, and with compelling evidence confirming that the Royalton and James leases were real and executed, the remaining allegations reduce to disputes over timing and language. Those disputes lack the intent (scienter) needed to sustain a securities bad actor action.
Based on the evidence already in the record – and the exculpatory facts omitted from press coverage – this case is more likely than not to be dismissed in its entirety as it proceeds.
The law demands balance, and so should journalism. LuxUrban and its leaders deserve due process, not trial by headline. The truth – that executed leases and dismissed claims undercut the plaintiffs’ theory – must be part of the record. Anything less is not reporting. It’s advocacy.
0
0