Northern Light said:
With the appropriate caveat that I am not a lawyer, and this is merely a lay person's interpretation.........

The judge is asserting that he will not approve the takeover of the project by Concord, under the terms and conditions proposed.

The judge, in the text of the decision outlines some of the principle reasoning for that; the high-level gist of which is that he's not convinced the proposal, as formulated is sufficiently fair
to everyone who is owed money, for a variety of reasons.

Concord and Cresford now have a few days to consider whether to reformulate their proposal in such as a way as to address the concerns of the judge.

Should they manage that, it may be approved.

Should they stick by what they have, the project will likely go through the trusteeship process. The result of which, we can't know, in terms of what would go ahead and on what terms; but we can safely assume it would delay restart of construction in any form by many months, at the very least.

****

There is a good deal more to it than that. But I would steer clear of trying to characterize the judge's remarks in any greater detail.

I think, even if you're not a lawyer or contractor, you can probably get the gist by reading the text of the judge's decision.
Click to expand...

okay that makes sense. Thank you.
 
Northern Light said:
With the appropriate caveat that I am not a lawyer, and this is merely a lay person's interpretation.........

The judge is asserting that he will not approve the takeover of the project by Concord, under the terms and conditions proposed.

The judge, in the text of the decision outlines some of the principle reasoning for that; the high-level gist of which is that he's not convinced the proposal, as formulated is sufficiently fair
to everyone who is owed money, for a variety of reasons.

Concord and Cresford now have a few days to consider whether to reformulate their proposal in such as a way as to address the concerns of the judge.

Should they manage that, it may be approved.

Should they stick by what they have, the project will likely go through the trusteeship process. The result of which, we can't know, in terms of what would go ahead and on what terms; but we can safely assume it would delay restart of construction in any form by many months, at the very least.

****

There is a good deal more to it than that. But I would steer clear of trying to characterize the judge's remarks in any greater detail.

I think, even if you're not a lawyer or contractor, you can probably get the gist by reading the text of the judge's decision.
Click to expand...
Didn't the majority of creditors approve of the proposal? If the proposal is not approved and YSL goes into bankruptcy, wouldn't that mean that creditors get nothing? Getting some of their money back seems more than fair.
 
dav said:
Didn't the majority of creditors approve of the proposal? If the proposal is not approved and YSL goes into bankruptcy, wouldn't that mean that creditors get nothing? Getting some of their money back seems more than fair.
Click to expand...

Read the judgement. The reasoning is outlined there.

****

Also, no, bankruptcy does not mean the creditors get nothing.

It means there is a process of sale, in which creditors will get a payout of the proceeds of sale, in accordance with their rank under the law. (secured vs unsecured etc.)
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Should they manage that, it may be approved.

Should they stick by what they have, the project will likely go through the trusteeship process. The result of which, we can't know, in terms of what would go ahead and on what terms; but we can safely assume it would delay restart of construction in any form by many months, at the very least.
Click to expand...
So tl,dr: We get a big shiney residential builing in the next couple of years...or we'll be staring at a big gaping excavation hole for the ages depending what the parties decide here?
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
So tl,dr: We get a big shiney residential builing in the next couple of years...or we'll be staring at a big gaping hole for the ages depending what the parties decide here?
Click to expand...

The 'hole' (for an extended period) is an unlikely outcome.

If you look at the process of sale that went on w/Cresford's other properties, two of the three are back in construction (with one just wrapping up); the third has workers on site, but isn't yet 'full steam ahead' likely because of some technical challenges on site.

In all probability, were this project put out to 'open bids' it would likely sell fairly quickly. The only probable question would be how existing buyers are treated (ie. purchase agreements nullified and deposits returned, vs contracts honoured). The only probable reasons for a longer delay would either be a total project re-design (unlikely in my judgement, but ya never know); or protracted litigation by one of the parties.

So what's really in the cards July 9th is whether re-start is relatively imminent (weeks to late fall); or whether trusteeship kicks in, a sale gets made likely early in the fall; and construction is put off to early 2022.

But that's all just speculation on my part.
 
Northern Light said:
The 'hole' (for an extended period) is an unlikely outcome.

If you look at the process of sale that went on w/Cresford's other properties, two of the three are back in construction (with one just wrapping up); the third has workers on site, but isn't yet 'full steam ahead' likely because of some technical challenges on site.

In all probability, were this project put out to 'open bids' it would likely sell fairly quickly. The only probable question would be how existing buyers are treated (ie. purchase agreements nullified and deposits returned, vs contracts honoured). The only probable reasons for a longer delay would either be a total project re-design (unlikely in my judgement, but ya never know); or protracted litigation by one of the parties.

So what's really in the cards July 9th is whether re-start is relatively imminent (weeks to late fall); or whether trusteeship kicks in, a sale gets made likely early in the fall; and construction is put off to early 2022.

But that's all just speculation on my part.
Click to expand...
Interesting. With that in mind Concord should provide a stronger proposal to the satisfaction of the creditors to avoid having to compete with other builders for the project.
 
dav said:
Interesting. With that in mind Concord should provide a stronger proposal to the satisfaction of the creditors to avoid having to compete with other builders for the project.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't say, I have no access to internal numbers associated with the development, and how much of a margin may be left on the table, nor what Concord would consider a reasonable ROI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dav
Even big hawk (sitting on top of Ysl lot over, cannabis banner railing) watching today who Will control Ysl lot, Is it Concord or big hawk?
1625854001365.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Great news:cool:, seems like they have the money to bail a lot fo these bankrupt projects..
.now please don't change any of the plans and listen to KPH
 
Just a random question. If a developer is building a skyscraper, when do they order the facade. I mean how long will it take to make all the glass panels? Do u guys think Cresford already placed an order for the glass panels? Or Concord is going to order the glass panels?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top