Posted Mar 30, 2017, 7:28 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,390
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin
I know that. But if the site was allowed to have a casino put in, who's to know they won't buy part of it from the current owner, or enter into a joint venture development with the Singaporean owner or Concord Pacific?
 |
Guess you don't know about this - posted in the 750 Pacific Blvd (Plaza of Nations) thread:
Latest in the saga:
Quote:
Judge declines to dismiss Concord Pacific lawsuit over former Plaza of Nations lands
Keith Fraser
(Vancouver Sun)
Published: February 15, 2017
Updated: February 15, 2017 8:43 PM
...
In 1989, Concord Pacific, one of the largest real estate developers in Canada and the owner of the site for the Expo 86 world fair, sold a portion of the site known as the Plaza of Nations for $40 million to Hong Leong Oei, a businessman from Singapore.
Court heard that over the past 25 years, Oei and Terry Hui, the president and CEO of Concord, had had discussions about the possibility of Oei either selling the Plaza land back to Concord or entering into a joint venture to develop the land on the north shore of False Creek.
Concord Pacific Acquisitions Inc., a member of the Concord Pacific Group, alleges in its lawsuit that it entered into one of three alternate but distinct contracts with the defendants, and it seeks to enforce the deal.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are Oei, Hong Kong Expo Holdings Ltd., which has Oei as its sole shareholder, and Canadian Metropolitan Properties Corp., which has Expo as its sole shareholder.
The contracts allegedly had Concord acquiring a 50-per-cent interest in the Plaza land, which is currently valued at $500 million, with the parties jointly developing the property.
The defendants applied to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim, arguing that despite the fact that there were numerous conflicts in the evidence of the parties that were material, the court could take the plaintiff’s case “at its highest” in weighing that claim. They argued that plaintiff could not succeed on its claim.
The plaintiffs argued in response that it was not open to the court to decide the case on “assumed facts” and said that the defendant’s suggestion that the court decide the issue by taking the plaintiff’s evidence “at its highest” was the wrong approach.
In a ruling released Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Voith sided with Concord Pacific.
...
|
http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+ne...+lawsuit+over+former/12923460/story.html
|
Prev
Linear Mode
