Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90

Thread: 383 Madison Avenue - former Bear Stearns Building - by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

  1. #61
    Forum Veteran Tectonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,673

    Default

    Sorry about the link. Lehman was supposed to be Rockefeller Plaza West


  2. #62
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    a more accurate name would be the new york fed building.

    anyway, assuming that jpm were to acquire at least some of what remains of bear, it's a large to step from there to conclude that jpm would no longer want/need the new building downtown.

  3. #63
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    my lord - $2 a share or $236 million to buy them. hard to believe how close this company got to being a net negative. to put things into perspective, bear's building had been roughly valued at $1.2 billion, so do the math if you're trying to value bear's business at close of this deal.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS...tearns.morgan/

  4. #64
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

  5. #65

  6. #66

    Default

    Showdown in Midtown! Lawsuit Takes Bear Stearns to Task Over 383 Madison

    by Dana Rubinstein | May 23, 2008

    C R via flickr

    JPMorgan Chase's takeover of one-time investment giant Bear Stearns just got that much messier.

    The Wall Street Journal reports today that 383 Madison LLC, the owner of the land on which Bear Stearns built its headquarters at 383 Madison Avenue, is suing Bear Stearns for violating a written agreement that allows the LLC to get first dibs on the building in the event of a sale:
    "At no time did Bear Stearns even attempt to honor its contractual duties to plaintiff, which would have required providing plaintiff with notice of the potential agreement with JPMorgan and engaging in negotiations with plaintiff relating to the purchase of the building," the lawsuit said.

    ...383 Madison LLC says the fair market value of the building exceeds $1.1 billion and it should be able to purchase the building for the same price J.P. Morgan Chase would pay.

    JPMorgan Chase is also named in the lawsuit, which was filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

    A spokesman for JPMorgan said the suit had "no merit." A Bear Stearns spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

    Read about the brouhaha here.

    http://www.observer.com/2008/showdow...reach-contract

    2008 Observer Media Group

  7. #67

    Default

    The interesting thing here is that the sale of Bear Stearns only happened as a result of many assurances being made by federal regulators that the deal would not face obstacles. The question here is: will the word of the fed supersede (or even have merit at all) in New York courts?

    JPM should be able to keep the building regardless of anything Bear had previously agreed to.

  8. #68
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    this is the type of thing that happens when you do dilligence after a deal instead of before it. how would you like to be a fly in dimon's office when he calls the govt and asks for indemnification in this suit? even if the plaintiff has a technical claim here i don't know what their remedy is as a practical matter - a court is not going to order that they get the building for 1.1bill. maybe the court would do a market appraisal and give the plaintiff anything over the 1.1bill.

  9. #69
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Could the Feds use Eminent Domain to take the BS Building and thereby cancel out the previous & seemingly legally-binding agreement

  10. #70
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    I suppose they could try...

  11. #71
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Could the Feds use Eminent Domain to take the BS Building and thereby cancel out the previous & seemingly legally-binding agreement
    "could" and "would" are very far apart in this instance. not going to happen.

  12. #72
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    So the JPM gang and their Fed friends will just have to go shopping for a friendly judge who will void the prior 383 Madison / BS agreement ...


  13. #73
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    force majeure

  14. #74
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    wishful thinking ^

    ... force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.

  15. #75
    Kings County Loyal BrooklynLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, planet Earth
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    wishful thinking ^

    ... force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.
    i've seen force majeure provisions drafted broadly enough to encompass catastrophes of the sort that lead to the bear buyout (run on the bank). anyway i doubt that things will come to this. we don't really know what the agreement says, and i suspect that jpm and bear looked into the building purchase carefully during the w/e that lead up to the announced deal. even with extremely compressed diligence, a component this central to the deal could have been analyzed thoroughly - each bank has RE groups that would've been loooking at this qustion almost exclusively.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 745 Seventh Avenue
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 27th, 2012, 09:05 PM
  2. 425 Fifth Avenue
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: September 11th, 2011, 03:24 PM
  3. Bear Stearns cancels Jersey City move
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 27th, 2003, 11:12 AM
  4. 101 West End Avenue
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 24th, 2003, 10:27 PM
  5. Special Issues for Merrill, the Landlord
    By Edward in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2002, 12:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software