Jane Goldman, Steven Gurney-Goldman Clash at Solil Management

The Goldmans are already bickering about the judge’s decision in their feud for control of Sol Goldman’s real estate empire.

Steven Gurney-Goldman’s attorneys wrote a letter Tuesday to Delaware Judge J. Travis Laster claiming that his aunt Jane Goldman had refused to turn over monthly financial updates.

“This request should have been non-controversial,” wrote Michael Barlow, Steven’s attorney at Quinn Emanuel. “The summary reports sought by Steven provide basic financial information regarding income and expenses for operating properties in which the estate holds a 25 percent interest.”

Jane’s attorney, Jason Cyrulnik of Cyrulnik Fattaruso, had responded to Steven’s request saying he hadn’t given a reason for requesting the documents, or how it fit within the narrow scope the court had allowed.

Cyrulnik told The Real Deal in a statement that Jane did not deny Steven’s request.

“After incorrectly claiming to be a member of the company — a position the court rejected — Steven is now incorrectly claiming he’s been denied information, without even having posed a proper request,” he wrote. “As confirmed at trial, Jane has always honored proper information requests.”

Steven’s attorneys asked the court for a conference to discuss the issue, and the judge scheduled one for next week.

The dispute stems from the court’s decision last month regarding a holding company that plays a key role in exercising control of the family company, Solil Management, though it’s buried deep in the Goldman property org chart.

Steven sued Jane in November seeking to gain influence inside the obscure LLC, SD Windsor, which holds shares in Solil split evenly between Sol Goldman’s four children: Jane, Amy Goldman-Fowler, Diane Goldman Kemper and Steven’s father Allan Goldman, who died in 2022 at the age of 78.

The judge’s decision, though, left some ambiguity, and both sides claimed victory.

The judge said Jane had to share management of SD Windsor with its members, and that Steven could exercise certain powers to settle his father’s estate and administer his father’s properties.

Steven believed that allowed him access to the company. Jane disagreed, saying it gave Steven only a small window.

The results of the case, being argued in Delaware, could have implications in New York, where the Goldman relatives are locked in a legal battle regarding another issue.

Steven sued Jane in November to challenge an appraisal Solil solicited to value some company properties. Steven and other relatives wanted to exercise put options to cash out their stakes in the company. Steven argued Jane had improperly influenced the appraisal to drive down its valuation — reducing the family members’ payouts.

Steven’s attorneys filed a copy of the Delaware judge’s opinion with the New York court, explaining that it refuted arguments Jane had made to get the New York case thrown out.

Even this letter was controversial.

Jane’s lawyers responded, telling the judge that Steven’s attorneys violated court rules that prohibit either side from sharing its interpretation of a court decision.

“Plaintiffs rushed to file their improper letter in an apparent attempt to pre-emptively spin the Chancery Court’s opinion, which rejected virtually all of their claims — and they did so in direct violation of the Rules,” Cyrulnik wrote.

He added that Jane and her team were eager to share their interpretation, but would respect the rule.

“We therefore will not respond in kind, unless the court requests otherwise,” he wrote.