Skip to main content

"Substantial legally enforceable penalties"? FCR's claims about CBA raise doubts

In the pre-appeal papers in the legal case challenging the Atlantic Yards environmental impact statement, Forest City Ratner Executive VP MaryAnne Gilmartin makes a curious claim about the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), repeating a claim made last April in legal papers by her predecessor, Jim Stuckey:
These commitments are only a handful of those contained in the Agreement, but all of the Agreement's commitments have teeth in the form of substantial legally enforceable penalties for a failure by FCRC to fulfill its obligations.
(Emphasis added)

Those penalties aren't necessarily substantial. Rather, the CBA sets up binding arbitration and then the possibility of litigation, acknowledging that "monetary damages may not be an adequate remedy for defaults under this Agreement by Developer."

Only in one instance are monetary damages specified: $500,000 to be used by BUILD (Brooklyn United for Innovative Local Development) to fund the Pre-Apprentice Training initiative should the developer default.

Despite some discussion and press coverage that suggested that the developer could pay ACORN $500,000 to get out of the affordable housing obligation, that's not the case. Then again, it's not clear if ACORN could force performance of the commitment.

An ACORN spokesman has said that "we believe we have a strong legal argument for injunctive relief," meaning fulfullment of the obligation. Then again, as noted, the CBA signatories acknowledge that monetary relief may not be adequate.

Other CBAs

Note that the enforcement provisions of other CBAs are not necessarily any more stringent. The enforcement section of the Staples Center CBA in Los Angeles--which on the whole is more of a model given the diversity of groups and real negotiations--is vague.

The enforcement section of the CBA regarding the Los Angeles Airport contains some language similar to the AY CBA, but it does not acknowledge that monetary relief may not be adequate. Rather, it states that courts can't award money damages, but can order the airport to expend funds to comply with its obligations under the agreement.

AY CBA

The enforcement section of the AY CBA is below.

60-day Right to Cure

First, the developer would get 60 days:

If, after review of the ICM report by the Executive Committee, the Coalition members believe that a Developer is in default of this Agreement, the appointed Coalition Representative shall provide written notice to Developer of the alleged default; offer to meet and confer in a good-faith effort to resolve the issue; and provide Developer sixty days to cure the alleged default commencing with the date of the notice (unless additional time is specifically provided for in this Agreement).


Mediation

Then the Independent Compliance Monitor (ICM), about which nothing has been heard since the March 2007 announcement that one was being sought, would pick a mediator:

To the extent that there is any disagreement regarding a Default by a Developer of its obligations under this Agreement, the Coalition members and the Developer will first attempt to resolve the disagreement at a special meeting of the Executive Committee. If the parties are unable to resolve the disagreement(s) at the meeting, either of the parties may request mediation by notice to the ICM, who shall pick an appropriate, independent mediator. Developer shall pay the reasonable costs of a mediator for the dispute resolution, and each party will bear its own fees and other costs, if any. The mediation period shall not exceed the sixty-day cure period referred to above.


Remedies

In the event that Developer is allegedly in Default under the terms of this Agreement, the Coalition members may elect, in their sole and absolute discretion, to waive the Default or to pursue either binding arbitration, or judicial remedies, each as described in this Section. These remedies may be pursued only after exhaustion of processes described in Section XII, Part A(i) and B above, except where an alleged default may result in irreparable injury, in which case the Executive Committee may immediately pursue the remedies described in this Section X.(C).


The Coalition members may act jointly to enforce or individually regarding the specific areas for which they are responsible.

Binding Arbitration

Each party would pay their own fees, but the developer would pay for the arbitrator:
Any Coalition member, as provided in Section XII, Part (C) 1 above, may seek binding arbitration to enforce any term of this Agreement that has allegedly been breached by Developer. Arbitration shall be conducted in Brooklyn, New York, conducted by a single arbitrator selected by the Brooklyn Bar Association under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Developer shall pay the costs of the arbitrator. Each Party shall bear its own fees and other costs. The Coalition members may seek arbitration relief ordering, and the arbitrator shall have the power to order, affirmative equitable and/or affirmative injunctive relief, temporary or permanent, requiring Developer to comply with this Agreement or monetary damages.


Court Action

If they go to court, however, the CBA signatories would have to pay their own way:
Any Coalition members as provided in Section XII, Part (C) 1 above, may, alternatively, file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction in Kings County, New York to enforce any term of this Agreement that has allegedly been breached by Developer and Developer consents to the jurisdiction of such court. The Coalition members may seek judicial relief ordering, and the court shall have the power to order, affirmative equitable and/or affirmative injunctive relief, temporary or permanent, requiring Developer to comply with this Agreement or monetary damages; it being acknowledged that monetary damages may not be an adequate remedy for defaults under this Agreement by Developer. Each Party shall bear its own fees and costs of court enforcement.
(Emphasis added)

Comments

  1. These do not sound like“substantial legally enforceable penalties.”

    In order to make an agreement specifically enforceable in court one should include a strongly worded “specific enforcement clause.” A strongly worded “specific performance clause” in a contract would NOT say that:

    “it being acknowledged that monetary damages MAY not be an adequate remedy for defaults under this Agreement by Developer.“ - “The Coalition members MAY seek judicial relief ordering, and the court shall have the power to order, affirmative equitable and/or affirmative injunctive relief, temporary or permanent, requiring Developer to comply with this Agreement OR monetary damages.”

    A strongly worded specific enforcement clause worded SHOULD be worded in a fashion like this:

    “It is acknowledged that monetary damages WILL NOT be an adequate remedy for defaults under this Agreement by Developer. Accordingly, the Coalition members WILL BE ENTITLED to judicial relief ordering, and the court shall have the power to order, specific performance and other affirmative equitable and/or affirmative injunctive relief, temporary or permanent, requiring Developer to comply with this Agreement.”

    A liquidated damages clause specifying $500,000 (a half MILLION) as the damages can actually serve to decrease and contain the potential liability for F.C. Ratner. In the scheme of the things the cumulative subsidies paying Ratner for “public benefit clearly will exceed at least $1.5 BILLION. Proportionately, a half million penalty for failure to provide agreed upon public benefit is only .03%- a minuscule fraction of a single percent. If community benefit agreements were enforceable do you believe that a court might think to award something more substantial?

    This does not sound like a “substantial” penalty to me.

    That’s my opinion as a lawyer.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…