Whoa, wait just a cotton picking minute! Why, in the world, were
they upgrading fireproofing protection, when the towers were loaded
with asbestos that the PA didn't want to pay over 1 billion dollars to
remove? Worse yet, why does the lease transfer to Silverstein, who
was the low bidder?
The transfer of a lease would not have absolved the Port Authority of the duty to clean up the properties asbestos problems. So the usual way these things are done is to have the new leaseholder assume this responsibility and post a performance bond to ensure the task gets done. Yet, we see no evidence that the Port Authority ever required him to assume liability for the clean up, nor any demand for any bond to assure such performance.
Remember, the parties both have lawyers and are aware of these conditions, so why are they not a material part of the transaction? The deal is consummated as if the parties both expected the problem to somehow simply go away, which it did, in a supposedly unpredictable fashion.
Absent the 911 attacks, Silverstein would have either made a very bad deal, if he had assumed liability for the clean up, or he had made a very good deal if he didn't. The Port Authority, on the other hand, would have made a deal which put them on the hook, to not only have to pay for the clean up, but to also have to indemnify Silverstein for any hardship the process caused, like a delay in him renting the property and having to move existing tenants out of a hazardous environment.
The Port Authority is no stranger to loading lessees with their own liabilities and demanding performance bonds to ensure the lessees abate them.
The transfer of a lease would not have absolved the Port Authority of the duty to clean up the properties asbestos problems. So the usual way these things are done is to have the new leaseholder assume this responsibility and post a performance bond to ensure the task gets done. Yet, we see no evidence that the Port Authority ever required him to assume liability for the clean up, nor any demand for any bond to assure such performance.
Remember, the parties both have lawyers and are aware of these conditions, so why are they not a material part of the transaction? The deal is consummated as if the parties both expected the problem to somehow simply go away, which it did, in a supposedly unpredictable fashion.
Absent the 911 attacks, Silverstein would have either made a very bad deal, if he had assumed liability for the clean up, or he had made a very good deal if he didn't. The Port Authority, on the other hand, would have made a deal which put them on the hook, to not only have to pay for the clean up, but to also have to indemnify Silverstein for any hardship the process caused, like a delay in him renting the property and having to move existing tenants out of a hazardous environment.
The Port Authority is no stranger to loading lessees with their own liabilities and demanding performance bonds to ensure the lessees abate them.
No comments:
Post a Comment