First National Center

[Pete]

I just read through the court documents and here are some additional points:

• The judge in this case -- as in all district court cases -- is merely ruling on motions brought before him. The motion to appoint a receiver was brought by the plaintiff, Howard Abselet. Abselet is the New York businessman who is claiming an ownership interest in FNC due to money owed to him by Yashouafar. Abselet's attorney filed a motion to appoint a receiver and the judge merely ruled on it. There seems to be the false impression that the judge is somehow taking a proactive role in this case.
• After the judge ruled on the motion, he issued an Order Appointing Receiver and clearly outlined the duties. Primarily, the receiver takes sole possession and no one else can claim possession until the court issues a final ruling on the matters at hand. As with all receivers, Parrack is a caretaker and has exclusive authority to manage the building, sign new leases, collect and dispense funds and even borrow up to $1.5 million to discharge his duties without further court approval.
• What he or anyone else can NOT do right now is sell this property. Parrack is merely a fiduciary with responsibility to look out for the interests of ALL parties involved in this case, including Yashouafar.
• As things stand right now, the court will have the final say on the sale of the property. However, nothing has been decided on that point. The court must first decide if Goodman has a valid contract and if so, that that sale will likely go through. Or, it may rule that Alterra has legal claim. If and only if those two parties are ruled out for some reason, then a next step will be taken regarding the sale. But that does not mean the receiver gets to decide who buys the property and it also doesn't mean that the owners (still Yashouafar & Co.) won't have the right to sell to the highest bidder who can actually deliver the funds.
• None of the existing liens or other claims around this property are affected by the receivership.

And finally, I don't see any scenario where anyone involved will make any judgment on the qualifications of a buyer to redevelop the property. If there is a legal and binding sales contract right now, then that will likely go through. If not, the owner still has the right to get as much as he can for his property, and that is the part of the fiduciary responsibility of the court and/or whoever they appoint.

[brianinok]

Jim is very good at what he does and won't need any help from a reporter or an internet message board.

^^^^^^
This, 100%. This project is finally in experienced and very capable hands at this point. It's fun for us to discuss, and helpful to us as information consumers that people like Steve and others are helping interpret the goings-on, but if Jim needed Steve or us (heaven forbid) to help guide him through the process he would be unqualified for the job, which he absolutely, categorically is NOT.

Wow. I was seriously misunderstood. I know Jim is excellent at what he does. But Jim is not likely to release all his information to the public throughout the process. This board and Steve (and other reporters) will do some digging for the public. Of course I am sure that Jim will fully vet anyone he needs to do business with no matter what direction this takes. But if Pete is right that might not be a completely new sale process.

I look forward to what Steve reports and this board can come up with over the next several months/years on FNC. Because, like I said, I doubt Jim Parrack is going to issue a press release with all his info consistently.

[Pete]

Jim Parrack is just managing the building in the interim. Also, his job is pretty straight-forward because he has a court order in hand that authorizes him to go borrow up to $1.5 million and use it to maintain the building. So, pretty easy to go meet with the utility and elevator companies and ask them to turn things back on while he works on getting them paid. It's not Parrack's money so he has no incentive not to pay them.

Nothing exciting is going to come out of the on-going management of the building. The utilities will be kept on, janitorial will be performed, day-to-day stuff like that. Parrack will issue a monthly report of expenses and revenues and perhaps some other mundane details.

Keep in mind that anyone with a legal claim on this property before receivership still does. So, if Goodman has a valid sales contract then that will likely go through while the court keeps all the extraneous stuff at bay, such as who gets the proceeds. Goodman or any other buyer doesn't care about that as long as they get clear title, which is pretty much guaranteed due to the court's involvement.

So really the next big issue is the court's ruling on the Goodman sales contract. If it was in force before Alterra or anyone else, then they have the legal right to close on the property. Period. The receivership has absolutely nothing to do with this part of it.


Again, I don't see any scenario where potential buyer are 'vetted' based on their development history. The court will first rule on the parties claiming to have the property under contract and then if none of that pans out, they move on to the next step of keeping the pathway clear for any buyers who may come later.


People seem to be wanting to treat this like the City has some role or there will be some sort of judged competition. This is still a private property and the owners still have the right to get the highest price they can, regardless of potential redevelopment potential.

And the idea the City should get involved and influence who buys this by either promising or withholding incentives would lead to massive legal action. They certainly can make those judgments after the property is transferred and someone makes formal application, but otherwise there is no way they can legally get involved in deciding who actually buys.

[Urbanized]

It won't be too difficult to rule on the validity of Goodman's purchase if he is unable to produce a contract signed by both parties.

[Pete]

It won't be too difficult to rule on the validity of Goodman's purchase if he is unable to produce a contract signed by both parties.

What leads you to believe he does not have a signed contract?

This was all handled through a commercial real estate broker who has said many times the property is under contract. It can't be under contract without the appropriate signed docs.

[Urbanized]

The article states that Neman repeatedly tried to "change agreed-upon contract terms." What about that statement sounds like an accepted contract? If there is a real contract those things would be academic.

Any chance a real estate broker might characterize a property as being under contract if merely signed by a buyer? After all, he has certainly agreed to terms at that point.

Was a signed contract a part of the court docs? You would think it would be.

[Pete]

Previous articles also said that the property was under contract to Goodman. Amy Dunn (broker involved) told me the same when I called her about this some time ago.

Anyone can try to change the terms but once under contract that can only happen by mutual agreement of the parties.


Now, I don't doubt that Neman/Yashouafar may try and claim the Goodman contract is not valid but it clearly came before any agreement with Alterra and it seems the sellers are merely trying to get a better deal at the last minute, or are using Alterra as yet another front.

So, the judge will certainly take a look at the Goodman contract and decide whether he has the right to buy. If he does and can close, that's it.

[Pete]

Any chance a real estate broker might characterize a property as being under contract if merely signed by a buyer? After all, he has certainly agreed to terms at that point.

No.

[Urbanized]

Interesting. I guess we'll see.

[Pete]

It's been reported that Goodman has had the property under contract since 2014 and that is my understanding as well.

I've seen the sales agreement with Alterra and it's dated 8/26/15 and was only executed when it became clear a receiver was going to be appointed.

[Urbanized]

Again, it's surprising that there is apparently no such document in court filings. Am I wrong about that? I would expect that somewhere along the way a contract on the property would have been subject to the discovery process. And if it were in a filing I would expect that you would have seen it.

[Pete]

There are hundreds of documents in multiple cases in multiple courts and I haven't gone through them all.

There is zero reason to believe Goodman doesn't have a signed contract of some sort.

[Urbanized]

Well, zero reason to believe sounds pretty definitive alright. Like I said, I guess we'll see, eventually.

[Pete]

You seem to be hinting at something but don't want to say it outright.

[Urbanized]

Nope. Just seems strange, like everything else in this deal over the past 15 years. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

Is it not odd that you've seen the Alterra agreement - signed a few weeks ago - but not the other one, which has purportedly existed for a year?

[Pete]

Steve is now saying on Twitter both sides have confirmed there is no contract with Goodman.

Yet, he reported just a week ago -- and many other times before that -- it was under contract to Goodman:

http://newsok.com/article/5443166


If something changed, why wasn't that included in the many recent articles?

[Jim Kyle]

I thought I saw, several days ago in one of the dual-bylined articles, a single sentence saying that Goodman had cancelled his contract -- but no other mention of that anywhere. I've not searched the archive for such a statement, though...

[Pete]

I thought I saw, several days ago in one of the dual-bylined articles, a single sentence saying that Goodman had cancelled his contract -- but no other mention of that anywhere. I've not searched the archive for such a statement, though...

I've read everything they've posted and just re-read the last week's reports and couldn't find any mention of this.

[soonerguru]

Lulz

[David]

Was There Ever a Sale Contract for First National Center? | News OK

Attorneys for Goodman went on to say that while he signed his copy of the contract, contrary to reports by Dunn and others, the contract was never completed because the Nemans continued to make last minute changes that were unacceptable to Goodman (details I've included in this weekend's coverage).

What we do know now is Jim Parrack is the receiver, and he is (as he confirmed to me) tasked with operating the building, getting it back to acceptable conditions for occupancy, and finding a suitable buyer.

[Pete]

Steve himself reported many times it was under contract to Goodman, and not just in the "Amy Dunn told me" vein.


But obviously, this changes everything. If there is no contract by Goodman, Alterra or anyone else, then that would open things up to anyone who wants to buy.


But unless the court rules otherwise, the owners (Yashouafar et al) would have to approve any sale. They still own the property, after all.

[ljbab728]

Steve himself reported many times it was under contract to Goodman, and not just in the "Amy Dunn told me" vein.


But obviously, this changes everything. If there is no contract by Goodman, Alterra or anyone else, then that would open things up to anyone who wants to buy.


But unless the court rules otherwise, the owners (Yashouafar et al) would have to approve any sale. They still own the property, after all.

Are you saying that this statement by Steve is incorrect?

What we do know now is Jim Parrack is the receiver, and he is (as he confirmed to me) tasked with operating the building, getting it back to acceptable conditions for occupancy, and finding a suitable buyer. Only Parrack can do so, because there is no clear owner of the building - that is the whole contention in the litigation involving Simon Barlava, Howard Abselet, the Nemans and Aaron Yashouafar.

I thought the point of the receivership was to get the building back in shape and sold with the funds from the sale being held pending future court decisions about ownership. It would seem strange if the judge now changed that direction.

[Pete]

No, I'm not saying it's incorrect.

If you read what he wrote and what I wrote they are not contradictory.

[ljbab728]

No, I'm not saying it's incorrect.

If you read what he wrote and what I wrote they are not contradictory.

OK, but please explain why you think the owners , whoever that might be, might now have to approve a buyer.

[Pete]

Because the court hasn't taken over the ownership of the property, just appointed a receiver for the day-to-day management.

Ownership has not changed and there is no existing court order authorizing anyone else to sell it.

Getting it ready to sell -- which is Parrack's charge -- is very different than actually selling it.