So wait... Wouldn't it make the most sense to spend $6 million to repair the building? No matter what they have to pay $6 million and take clear ownership of the building, right? And any costs for repairs made to the building will be taken away from the money they have to pay... So if they make the repairs, and then turn around and sell a "like-new" building, they can probably recoup a portion of the judgement.
In other words, they can pay $6 million for basically nothing and then spend even more demolishing a building, or they can pay $6 million to basically repair a building and then sell it for whatever they can get for it... Or am I just not understanding it.
