Any Update on Silverstein's Lawsuit?

[RedIbis]

Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that a rough tallying of Silverstein's expenses to rebuild and loss of business vs. insurance claims and payouts will certainly result in a net loss.

No in the sense that my figures were not current as of the time I wrote this.


Do you still stand by this statement:



If so, evidence please. For the onehundredandninth time.
Stop the dodging, ducking, evading and avoiding.

Learn from me: I am able and prepared to either own up to my claims or retract.
You are clearly not.
I win.
You lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
...
(repeat 109 times - one time for each time you failed to back up your libellous claim with evidence, or retract)

At this point you appear hysterical and childish. Don't expect any serious responses to your baiting.

 

[dtugg]

And RedIbis has still yet to back up his libelous accusation after more than a year.

 

[Thunder]

And RedIbis has still yet to back up his libelous accusation after more than a year.

oh, come on. give the guy a break. I have no doubt he is currently putting together a thorough response to our many inquiries, researching various articles and financial documents, to put together a strong argument for his case that even with Silverstein's previous construction costs, expected future costs, payments for the lease for the old WTC.......when all is said and done he is STILL making out like bandit.




...btw, how much does he have to keep from the insurance money, to qualify him as a bandit? $1 billion? $3 billion?

...$20?

 

[Oystein]

At this point you appear hysterical and childish. Don't expect any serious responses to your baiting.

Of course I do not expect an answer from you. We all know you have no answer. You haven's answered in many months, despite having been asked hundreds of times.
You lost.
Hundreds of times.
Everybody knows it.
You know that everybody knows it.

 

[Travis]

All this insurance talk is meaningless unless you can show that Silverstein has made more this route than he would have made had 9/11 never happened.

 

[BasqueArch]

…...

Let's just end this pretense that this is supposed to be a place of genuine inquiry and discourse. I suspect that nearly anyone participating in this "discussion" is already aware that LS made out like a bandit and now pretend they don't care or it doesn't matter.

At this point you appear hysterical and childish. Don't expect any serious responses to your baiting.

At this point you appear evasive and prevaricating. We don’t expect any serious responses to your libelous claim.

 

[Thunder]

RedIbis- please provide figures and data as of today, showing how Larry Silverstein has made out like a bandit.

Please compare his current construction costs and leasing costs to his current insurance pay-outs.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Court systems take care of legal cases such as fraud. Who cares if nobody cares on this forum? I suppose the question of who actually "cares" is already answered; the real question is do those who continue these accusations care enough to try and get any action taken? Apparently not, if the seriousness of the case is limited to a forum discussion.

 

[Thunder]

so, lets say, Silverstein's final construction costs equal...$1 billion.

can he still collect almost $4.3 billion in insurance from the loss of the original WTC?

or does he have to show the courts that his construction costs, leasing costs, and lost revenue from the original WTC equaled to at least $4.3 billion?

I collected $275 from my insurance for my car from an accident...but I only spent $150 of it on actual repairs. I could have spent ZERO on repairs and would have still got the money.

Silverstein's insurance doesn't work this way right?

 

[DGM]

so, lets say, Silverstein's final construction costs equal...$1 billion.

can he still collect almost $4.3 billion in insurance from the loss of the original WTC?

or does he have to show the courts that his construction costs, leasing costs, and lost revenue from the original WTC equaled to at least $4.3 billion?

I collected $275 from my insurance for my car from an accident...but I only spent $150 of it on actual repairs. I could have spent ZERO on repairs and would have still got the money.

Silverstein's insurance doesn't work this way right?

Sure, As long as the $1 billion cost covers the replacement of what was lost. If they don't build a certain building he still needs to compensate the owner for the loss. Try leasing a car and not paying the owner (bank/lessor) after you total it.

 

[Thunder]

Sure, As long as the $1 billion cost covers the replacement of what was lost. If they don't build a certain building he still needs to compensate the owner for the loss. Try leasing a car and not paying the owner (bank/lessor) after you total it.

so, Silverstein can't just take a check for $4.3 billion and run to Cancun right?

he actually has to use the money to rebuild what was lost.

so if he spends only $1 billion on recon., he only gets $1 billion in insurance.

 

[DGM]

so, Silverstein can't just take a check for $4.3 billion and run to Cancun right?

he actually has to use the money to rebuild what was lost.

Yes. Why else would the Port Authority insist he carried more insurance on the buildings.

so if he spends only $1 billion on recon., he only gets $1 billion in insurance.

If the $1 billion is all it takes to replace what was there before, sure. That would also make him the most efficient and frugal builder on earth.

 

[Thunder]

just for argument's sake, can you provide back-up for your claim that Silverstein can only collect in insurance what he spends on recon.?

thanks.

 

[DGM]

just for argument's sake, can you provide back-up for your claim that Silverstein can only collect in insurance what he spends on recon.?

thanks.

I didn't say that. I said he needs to replace or compensate for the lost insured asset (to the owner). Maybe I should have put a smilie on my last sentence. This is basic insurance stuff.

 

[Thunder]

I didn't say that. I said he needs to replace or compensate for the lost insured asset (to the owner). Maybe I should have put a smilie on my last sentence. This is basic insurance stuff.

forgive me, but I do not sell insurance.

so...Silverstein has to either spend money to rebuild, or just compensate the PA for lost property value. that total value..is what he will get in insurance?

 

[DGM]

forgive me, but I do not sell insurance.

so...Silverstein has to either spend money to rebuild, or just compensate the PA for lost property value. that total value..is what he will get in insurance?

More or less. Depending on how the policy was written he could also be compensated for lost earnings (from rents) on the properties. Silverstein is not a moron. I fully expect him to at very least "break even" (if not come close to what he would have made if it never happened) after all is said and done. Will he "lose his shirt"? No way. Will he "make out like a bandit"? Absolutely not.

 

[Thunder]

so Silverstein wants to get paid for any construction costs after 9/11/01, for all lost income from the buildings, and for all money paid for his lease since 9/11/01?

well..if that's what his insurance policy covers, than he is entitled to it. Honestly, I think he should only get paid for his construction & leasing costs for non-existant buildings.

 

[DGM]

so Silverstein wants to get paid for any construction costs after 9/11/01, for all lost income from the buildings, and for all money paid for his lease since 9/11/01?

well..if that's what his insurance policy covers, than he is entitled to it. Honestly, I think he should only get paid for his construction & leasing costs for non-existant buildings.

When you deal with insurance companies you "shoot for the moon" and settle for what you can get. It wasn't his fault all this happened, why should he lose what he original invested to get?

 

[LashL]

I've provided a great deal of evidence that proves LS has little personal investment in the WTC site, does not own 1 and 5 WTC, did not finance 4 WTC, and did not finance the infrastructure that has been built for 2 and 3WTC, for which no bldgs will actually be built unless a real estate market improves that he helped saturate.

No, you haven't "provided a great deal of evidence"; you do not appear to understand what Mr. Silverstein's obligations are with regard to the WTC site; nobody has ever claimed that Mr. Silverstein owned 1WTC, 2WTC, 3WTC, 4WTC or 5WTC - he had leasehold interests in 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the new 3 is the old 5 in case you weren't aware - so I've no idea why you think that 'proving' something in that regard is of any consequence whatsoever; you appear to be entirely unaware of the terms of the insurance policies and the obligations they impose upon both the insured and the insurer; and you still haven't provided anything at in support of your claim that Mr. Silverstein "made out like a bandit".

At least have the integrity to correct your comrades here when they falsely assert that LS is financially responsible for rebuilding the WTC out of the insurance proceeds.

If you seriously want to make this a matter of "integrity", I'll put mine up against yours any day of the week, any week of the year, any year of the decade and any decade of the century.

I notice that you completely ignored all of the factual information I provided on the subject of the thread, and instead made a silly one-line comment about semantics which was ridiculous on its face instead of actually addressing the factual information provided.

Then, when I responded to that in detail, again on the subject matter of the thread, you again ignored all of the factual content to go off onto a different topic of your own choosing and to make yet another stupid comment that you (erroneously) thought would reflect badly on me instead of (in reality) reflecting badly on you.

How about actually trying to deal with the subject matter instead of just repeatedly handwaving and ignoring the facts?

Do you have anything at all to say about the subject matter of the thread and do you have anything at all in support of your claim that Mr. Silverstein "made out like a bandit"?

 

[LashL]

Thank you for bringing this back to the topic. If there is an online court ruling, or a judgement that so far is publicly available, that would be helpful.

I had copies of them until recently but, unfortunately, one of my hard drives was completely fried recently so I'll have to find them again. But I'll dig them up again and post links here.