Friday, April 22, 2011

Did elimination of pro hockey option at Barclays Center deceive bondholders?

Michael D.D. White, in his Noticing New York blog, thinks it might, citing "craftily negative" language in the offering statement:
OK, that language says that it has “NOT” been “assumed that the New York Islanders would relocate to the Barclays Center” but doesn’t it by any reasonable standard imply that, with luck, there is a legitimate possibility Islanders or another professional hockey team could decide to relocate to the arena?

...As such, if the bonds for the arena one day default, as they could, will bond holders be able to sue on the basis that this statement misleadingly misrepresented the arena’s potential uses and revenue sources and therefore its value? If not, the non-positive statement at least says something negative about Forest City Ratner’s business ethics in its willingness to convey misimpressions with craftily constructed non-promises.

No comments:

Post a Comment