CHICAGO | Waterview Tower | 1,047' Official / 1,035' Roof | 89 FLOORS |NEVER BUILT

[Cro Burnham]

I'd love to know how much is owed in total to the lenders, contractors, etc., on this project, and what the market value of the shell in its current state is. Guesses? Info?

I understand the legality of it, but the audacity of Teng trying to recover funds on a project it failed to make happen is fabulous. Morally, they should stand way at the end of the line.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ What is immoral about them placing a lien so they can recover for the work they did on it? I mean how is it wrong to make an attempt to collect payment for designing, marketing, and partially building a building? Last time I checked getting paid for your work wasn't immoral...

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ What is immoral about them placing a lien so they can recover for the work they did on it? I mean how is it wrong to make an attempt to collect payment for designing, marketing, and partially building a building? Last time I checked getting paid for your work wasn't immoral...

Essentially Teng filed a lien on themselves. Waterview LLC runs the project, but it is owned by Teng. I hope they are way down the list of creditors in this.

[X-fib2]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Essentially Teng filed a lien on themselves. Waterview LLC runs the project, but it is owned by Teng. I hope they are way down the list of creditors in this.

I suspect the next event, if it hasn't already happened, will be forecloser by the lender or lenders that have financed construction to date. You would think that Teng's creditor lien interest would merge with their title and be foreclosed out. Apparently they are trying to get around this by claiming they invested directly into the construction process and are owed as any other contractor. It will be interesting to see how the court handles this issue.

[Mehow]

Originally Posted by chrslyp

anyone got any guesses about what developers might be interested?

I heard a rumor that Dubai may be back in the picture for financing ( buying).

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Essentially Teng filed a lien on themselves. Waterview LLC runs the project, but it is owned by Teng. I hope they are way down the list of creditors in this.

Exactly my point, Teng is simply trying to recover architects fees, engineering fees, and whatever other fees it is owed (rightfully so) on this project.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Mehow

I heard a rumor that Dubai may be back in the picture for financing ( buying).

You can't post "rumors" on the forums without indicating a source (i.e. I heard from someone at Teng. . . or it was reported in Dubai 24/7 Business. . . ). . .

If you can't refer to the source directly because of confidentiality, then A) note that fact or B) refrain from posting. . .

thanks. . .

. . .

[X-fib2]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Exactly my point, Teng is simply trying to recover architects fees, engineering fees, and whatever other fees it is owed (rightfully so) on this project.

Except that you can't fille a lien against your own property. I suspect the Teng property ownership entity and that which invested funds are legally two different animals.

[Tom In Chicago]

^That's what I suspect. . . and the fact that they're filing liens against themselves (so to speak) is to keep the money from bleeding out to the other firms that are filing subsequent suits against them. . .

[X-fib2]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

^That's what I suspect. . . and the fact that they're filing liens against themselves (so to speak) is to keep the money from bleeding out to the other firms that are filing subsequent suits against them. . .

Yep....

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by X-fib2

Except that you can't fille a lien against your own property. I suspect the Teng property ownership entity and that which invested funds are legally two different animals.

That's exactly my point. They aren't filing against themselves, they are filing against Waterview LLC which is not Teng LLC. They are filing against what is legally just another project that they worked on. That is why complex developers like this often make a separate corporation for each major project they do, so they can sue their own project in the event that it fails and hopefully recover some of the non-development related fees like design or engineering...

[Cro Burnham]

But Teng's relationship with itself (albeit thru separate legal entities) is not arm's-length. They are effectively insiders with control over the project. Presumably they would be screwing other third-party contractors by trying to get ahead in lien priority. Given that Teng are the developers ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the project, morally speaking they should be the last to be paid out (directly or through affiliates) from any liquidation proceeds. But I'm sure they will scrape to recover whatever they can, even at the expense of other contractors - developers are not known to be the most upstanding business citizens.

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

That's exactly my point. They aren't filing against themselves, they are filing against Waterview LLC which is not Teng LLC. They are filing against what is legally just another project that they worked on. That is why complex developers like this often make a separate corporation for each major project they do, so they can sue their own project in the event that it fails and hopefully recover some of the non-development related fees like design or engineering...

Well, yes and no. Companies create legally separate entities to keep the bleeding quarantined. If Waterview goes under, the Teng “only” loses what it invested. The side-benefit is that they also become a general creditor if they do work for said defunct company. I’d love to know what court precedence exists on these types of deals, because strictly from a personal standpoint, I think Teng should be last in line to get paid for any work done on the project, seeing as the CEO of Teng and Waterview are [cough] the same people.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

But Teng's relationship with itself (albeit thru separate legal entities) is not arm's-length. They are effectively insiders with control over the project. Presumably they would be screwing other third-party contractors by trying to get ahead in lien priority. Given that Teng are the developers ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the project, morally speaking they should be the last to be paid out (directly or through affiliates) from any liquidation proceeds. But I'm sure they will scrape to recover whatever they can, even at the expense of other contractors - developers are not known to be the most upstanding business citizens.

I don't know a whole lot about this process.. But let's say there is a sale... shouldn't TENG be able to regain its losses before the vultures come and ask for damages, etc? Is that a reasonable scenario? Isn't their actual position in the liens not really established at this point?

[Mehow]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

You can't post "rumors" on the forums without indicating a source (i.e. I heard from someone at Teng. . . or it was reported in Dubai 24/7 Business. . . ). . .

If you can't refer to the source directly because of confidentiality, then A) note that fact or B) refrain from posting. . .

thanks. . .

. . .

So sorry,did not know.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Well, yes and no. Companies create legally separate entities to keep the bleeding quarantined. If Waterview goes under, the Teng “only” loses what it invested. The side-benefit is that they also become a general creditor if they do work for said defunct company. I’d love to know what court precedence exists on these types of deals, because strictly from a personal standpoint, I think Teng should be last in line to get paid for any work done on the project, seeing as the CEO of Teng and Waterview are [cough] the same people.

I'm not sure what new info you think you are adding here... This is basically exactly what I just said, but in more detail...

And no, I don't believe court precedent would make Teng last, in fact, since they did design work, they are probably in ahead of a lot of people. I'm sure Lawfin or somebody knows more about it than I do...

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'm not sure what new info you think you are adding here... This is basically exactly what I just said, but in more detail...

And no, I don't believe court precedent would make Teng last, in fact, since they did design work, they are probably in ahead of a lot of people. I'm sure Lawfin or somebody knows more about it than I do...

Don't get your 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 in a bunch. It is NOT what you said. Your comments were about suing their own projects. That is NOT why they create separate entities, for the intent of suing. The notion is ridiculous.

[jaguar]

Does anyone know if buyers can get their deposits back from escrow considering the situation with Waterview and Teng? The contract did not have a clause stating buyers could get their deposits. It was the standard contract provided by Waterview.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ChicagoChicago

Don't get your 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 in a bunch. It is NOT what you said. Your comments were about suing their own projects. That is NOT why they create separate entities, for the intent of suing. The notion is ridiculous.

I didn't say anything about suing at all until my second to last post where I unintentionally used to it reference the use of a lien to reserve their right to collect a debt against Waterview. In your response to that post you never once mentioned the term "sue" or "suing" so I don't see how I am supposed to infer that you were attempting to correct my misuse of the term sue...

By the way, a lien (for example a mortgage in a foreclosure suit) is often used as evidence in a lawsuit, so in a sense, yes the separation of the companies is in part done so they can "sue" themselves or at least protect their rights in the even of a suit, in this case foreclosure. Having Waterview LLC as a separate LLC protects Teng from a lot of liability for the debts owed by Waterview so yes, the creation of Waterview has a heck of a lot to do with lawsuits...

[budman]

Originally Posted by Mehow

So sorry,did not know.

Mehow - can you please pm me with any further updates that may be considered "rumor"? I am interested in hearing all of them. Thanks.