Any Update on Silverstein's Lawsuit?

ladmo said:
His expected income or loss of income can only be attained by reconstructing the WTC. If he does not rebuild it, there is no loss of income. The WTC towers brought in $2M a month in rent receipts prior to 9/11.
Click to expand...
With the exception of WTC7 (that he owned), It would not be his choice to rebuild or not. He has to compensate the PA for the loss of their asset. It is possible for a business to insure for lost income due to insured losses. I have not seen his policy but, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some compensation for this built in (investors sometime require it)
 
DGM said:
With the exception of WTC7 (that he owned), It would not be his choice to rebuild or not. He has to compensate the PA for the loss of their asset. It is possible for a business to insure for lost income due to insured losses. I have not seen his policy but, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some compensation for this built in (investors sometime require it)
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree with you more... we need to see his policy. When I read the ruling, one of the footnotes was that he could not get compensation for loss of revenue unless he had plans to rebuild. What is confusing is that he did not own the Towers yet he was in the number one position on insurance. I own property and rent it out... I have the insurance for the dwelling not the renters.
 
ladmo said:
What is confusing is that he did not own the Towers yet he was in the number one position on insurance. I own property and rent it out... I have the insurance for the dwelling not the renters.
Click to expand...

That is very standard to have the renters add the owners to their policies in the commercial setting.
 
16.5 said:
That is very standard to have the renters add the owners to their policies in the commercial setting.
Click to expand...
Thanks mine is strictly residential.

Then who would be obligated or even if there is an obligation to rebuild? From all of my readings it is Larry Silverstein asking the government for help in rebuilding the site.
 
ladmo said:
Couldn't agree with you more... we need to see his policy. When I read the ruling, one of the footnotes was that he could not get compensation for loss of revenue unless he had plans to rebuild. What is confusing is that he did not own the Towers yet he was in the number one position on insurance. I own property and rent it out... I have the insurance for the dwelling not the renters.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to understand (I'm reading the court link you posted).

The appellants are numerous entities that have varying property interests in the WTC, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the "Port Authority"), which owns the property in fee simple, and Silverstein Properties, Inc. and several related entities ("Silverstein Properties").
Click to expand...

If my understanding is correct this "fee simple" more or less means, the PA as part of the lease "owns" the rent payments. It's a subtly distinction most likely put in due to the fact the lease is 99 years long.

Did you notice who the Judge was in that case?
JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Chief Judge.
Click to expand...
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/345/154/550575/


:eek:



:boxedin:
 
DGM said:
I'm beginning to understand (I'm reading the court link you posted).



If my understanding is correct this "fee simple" more or less means, the PA as part of the lease "owns" the rent payments. It's a subtly distinction most likely put in due to the fact the lease is 99 years long.

Did you notice who the Judge was in that case?

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/345/154/550575/


:eek:



:boxedin:
Click to expand...

LOL... I saw that and I thought to myself that if some wacko got a hold of that nugget, this whole thing will spiral out of control :D


btw, thanks for providing additional knowledge, I am wrapping my brain around this thing. One thing for sure, I do not want to be in Larry Silverstein's shoes.
 
DGM said:
If my understanding is correct this "fee simple" more or less means, the PA as part of the lease "owns" the rent payments. It's a subtly distinction most likely put in due to the fact the lease is 99 years long.
Click to expand...


"Fee simple" is just a term for a form of ownership of real property (e.g. land); the PA owns the real property (the land and the former buildings) while Mr. Silverstein's interest in the property is/was a leasehold interest.

If you own a piece of land, you probably hold title in "fee simple", too, which really just means that it's yours and nobody else's (subject to, for instance, a mortgage interest that might be held by a bank, or an easement of some sort, a leasehold interest of a tenant that you may have rented it to, etc., but the real property is yours.)


Mr. Silverstein was required by the terms of the lease to insure the buildings, which is pretty standard in commercial leasing.

DGM said:
Did you notice who the Judge was in that case?
Click to expand...

:D
 
LashL said:
"Fee simple" is just a term for a form of ownership of real property (e.g. land); the PA owns the real property (the land and the former buildings) while Mr. Silverstein's interest in the property is/was a leasehold interest.

If you own a piece of land, you probably hold title in "fee simple", too, which really just means that it's yours and nobody else's (subject to, for instance, a mortgage interest that might be held by a bank, or an easement of some sort, a leasehold interest of a tenant that you may have rented it to, etc., but the real property is yours.)


Mr. Silverstein was required by the terms of the lease to insure the buildings, which is pretty standard in commercial leasing.



:D
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. Anyway anyone wants to try to slice it. It's not Silverstein's decision to rebuild and he's not going to "pocket the cash" if he doesn't have to.
 
Thunder said:
Because deep down, in a place they don't like to think about or discuss, they know their ideas are bologna.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. We're talking about a guy who, when you suggest that if he wants information he ought to ask the people most likely to possess that information instead of asking strangers on internet forums, accuses you of using a "gambit".
 
ladmo said:
My mistake... $2M a week.
Click to expand...

Still sounds too little.
That's now 100M a year. Less than what he payed as lease to the PA.
Is that revenue, or profit (using loose definitions of the terms ;))?
 
Oystein said:
Still sounds too little.
That's now 100M a year. Less than what he payed as lease to the PA.
Is that revenue, or profit (using loose definitions of the terms ;))?
Click to expand...
Somewhere I had read that... I swore to myself that I would not post something that could be verified. I will scour the information and re-post.
 
ladmo said:
Couldn't agree with you more... we need to see his policy. When I read the ruling, one of the footnotes was that he could not get compensation for loss of revenue unless he had plans to rebuild. What is confusing is that he did not own the Towers yet he was in the number one position on insurance. I own property and rent it out... I have the insurance for the dwelling not the renters.
Click to expand...

Silverstein's lease required him to rebuild if anything happened to the WTC complex. That's probably why he's listed number one on the insurance.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Silverstein's lease required him to rebuild if anything happened to the WTC complex. That's probably why he's listed number one on the insurance.
Click to expand...
Boy, that is a tough one to swallow. Did it require him to build them back to their original conditions?
 
ladmo said:
Boy, that is a tough one to swallow. Did it require him to build them back to their original conditions?
Click to expand...


Not likely. I'm guessing here, since I don't have access to the policies, of course, but I'd assume the replacement would need to be of equivalent value and subject to the approval of the Port Authority.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Not likely. I'm guessing here, since I don't have access to the policies, of course, but I'd assume the replacement would need to be of equivalent value and subject to the approval of the Port Authority.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that since that's obviously not what's going to happen?
 
DGM said:
Why do you assume he will be paid (you know, actually cut a check)to rebuild if he doesn't have to?
Click to expand...

Granted, LashL refuses to accept the journalistic standards of the NY Times, but the articles I linked to state,

Two weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker whose district includes Lower Manhattan, said that work should proceed on two of Mr. Silverstein’s three towers and the developer should invest some of his own money in the buildings.

Mr. Silverstein, who regards the insurance proceeds as his money, has shown no intention of doing so.
Click to expand...
 
DGM said:
What he "regards" and what he gets are different things. I will assume you can grasp that concept.



:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The only lawsuits LS has filed since his windfall judgment are to bring his total to over 12 billion. I'm not aware of any filings to sue for proceeds from his original judgement. Are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom