I've got one against them on behalf of four LPs that goes to trial in October. The lack of communication and the deal going bust aren't the reasons for the lawsuit, though: they misrepresented the LTC (70% in the OM, ~82% actual), the initial DSCR (1.15 in the PPM, .95 in their internal models, and .63 actual), and told the LPs they personally guarantee every loan, but had only a limited recourse guarantee on this one.
The one that really blows my mind, though: they underwrote a 113% increase in year 1 NOI on a 1960s vintage Houston class C property that they were purchasing from a professional syndicator who had a good PM managing the property.
I don't think it's okay to represent to LPs that you are an experienced, knowledgeable RE investor when you don't realize that underwriting a 113% NOI increase in a highly competitive market that would still only get you to .95 DSCR means the deal is doomed from the start. And of course they used a floating rate 3 1 1 bridge w/ no rate cap.