The cure provision seems appropriate to me. For example, since developments are generally financed - and, Bank's attorneys are notoriously difficult about enforcing every little requirement; Bankruptcy can be a temporary matter until the Bank gives in or the court steps in to say the developer has substantially complied. That example would make the bankruptcy issue different in a development as compared to a lease. I'll re-read the clause and give you an answer later. I'm sure the specific language would have to be reviewed with a fine toothed comb.
-----Original Message----- From: dfsavgny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, 21 May 2005 14:39:42 -0000 Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Bankruptcy Clause in Agreement --- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tommy: Your position doesn't make sense to me based on a legal or > business concerns. I have been on the government side of real estate > law for about 10 years (with NYS, NYC and Roosevelt Island). Every > sizeable development I have worked on resulted in mutiple litigations. Mark, what do you think about the bankruptcy clause? There are similar clauses in most NYC leases. Doesn't the development rights cease to be an asset of the master developer upon bankruptcy filing? Would the bankruptcy court still have jurisdiction over the rights? I don't know why they gave the 120 days for curing. It should be immediate upon bankruptcy. Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
