From today:

IMG_1588.jpeg
 
NIL OMNI said:
Finally an update from the Receiver!
  • Pursuant to the SISP Approval Order of the Court granted on June 6, 2024, the Receiver and the Broker have conducted the SISP in accordance with its terms including the SISP milestones established therein.
  • The Receiver and the Broker received a number of Qualified LOIs for Development Proposals (for the construction, development and realization of value from the Project). The Receiver and the Broker did not receive any Qualified LOIs in respect of any Transaction Proposals (for an acquisition of, or investment in, the Project at this time).
  • Certain Qualified Bidders were advanced into Phase 2 of the SISP. During Phase 2, the Receiver, in consultation with the Broker, worked with the Phase 2 participants to further develop and improve the terms of their respective Development Proposals.
  • At this time, the Receiver is continuing to work with the lead Qualified Bidder, in consultation with the Broker and the Senior Secured Lenders, to finalize the terms of a Development Proposal.
  • Pursuant to the initial SISP milestones, the Receiver was to seek Court approval of the Successful Bid not later than the week of October 14, 2024, subject to Court availability (the “Court Approval Milestone”).
  • In accordance with the SISP, following consultation with the Broker and with the consent of the Senior Secured Lenders, the Receiver is extending the Court Approval Milestone to allow for further time to finalize the terms of the lead Qualified Bidder’s Development Proposal and related definitive transaction documentation, and will provide a further update at the appropriate time.
Click to expand...
As a buyer in this development, it would be nice if someone were communicating directly with us. Absolute crickets from everyone involved. The fact that I have to get my info on my $2M investment from my fellow forumers is disgusting. This process has been a real wake up call.
 
Domenico said:
Oh no! Another possible monkey wrench on this project - https://storeys.com/the-one-receiver-mappro-realty-lawsuit/
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a serious obstacle.

The presiding judge has set up a Case Management schedule that moves the earliest resolution date to May ' 25.

By which time the permit for road occupation will be down to 7 months left on it anyway.

***

They also have a valid permit in place for the pump through February 1st, 2026.

The pump is on City property. While I am not a legal expert, I would argue that IF they had any valid cause that would have to be against the City, rather than the receiver.

In addition, the Receiver has a federal legislative mandate which would be interfered with by a decision to halt construction/move the pump.

This seems like nuisance litigation designed to illicit a 'go-away' payment. Odd strategy when you're dealing with an asset in receivership......
 
Last edited:
Collingwoodbuildinglover said:
I'm still holding my breath for Pinnacle
Click to expand...
I think any developer with deep pockets would do at this point...since all the materials and construction is sorted out, they would be basically managing the tower to my understanding. So I suspect there might be little room to screw with the design in a VE sense. The question would be whether they would take this to the 91 story finishing line or not.
 
Northern Light said:
This seems like nuisance litigation designed to illicit a 'go-away' payment. Odd strategy when you're dealing with an asset in receivership......
Click to expand...
I don't see how this can delay the project in any way, since the city says they can operate the pump there, and nobody is going to grant an injunction. I think the only difference is that this argument lets Mappro get in line ahead of other creditors *if* they succeed in their lawsuit arguing that the One can't operate the pump there. I personally think it's laughable to argue that operating a concrete pump in the exact place the city granted you a special permit to operate it is "wilful misconduct", but I can see why the primary creditors want the Receiver to get the court to state expressly that they should keep running the pump rather than leaving that up in the air.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top