IBJNews

Castleton Plaza seeks bankruptcy reorganization

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owner of an Indianapolis shopping center is seeking to reorganize under the protection of bankruptcy less than a month after a lender filed to foreclose on the property.

Castleton Plaza LP, the owner of the Castleton Plaza strip mall along East 82nd Street, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Wednesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Indianapolis.

The company is a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based Broadbent Co., one of the city’s biggest shopping-center developers.

The bankruptcy, the latest in a string of legal battles ensnaring Broadbent, follows a foreclosure request filed Jan. 26 by New York-based German American Capital Corp. in Marion Superior Court.

German American, a secured creditor, claims Castleton Plaza owes nearly $8.7 million on the balance of a $9.5 million loan made in August 2000, as well as $1.1 million in interest. Additional fees bring the total to $10.1 million.

The amount owed to German American includes the vast majority of the nearly $10.4 million Castleton Plaza lists as liabilities in court filings. Much of the remainder of secured claims, $165,000, is owed in unpaid property taxes dating from 2009.

The largest unsecured creditor, Indianapolis Power & Light Co., is owed $14,540.97 in unpaid electric bills dating to November.

Castleton Plaza lists total assets of nearly $7.6 million, including more than $6.8 million in real property.

The shopping center, which has 18 tenants, contains 171,736 square feet of retail space and is anchored by a Sam Ash Mega Store and Dollar Tree.

Castleton Plaza is the third Broadbent subsidiary to seek bankruptcy protection. White River Investments LP voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 in October. Its attempt to reorganize also continues in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Indianapolis.

And Greenwood Point LP, which owns the Greenwood Point strip mall across the street from Greenwood Place, filed for reorganization in January 2010. That case also is pending in federal bankruptcy court.

In addition, two lawsuits allege company President George Broadbent defaulted on loans.

In one of the suits, Columbus, Ohio-based Huntington National Bank sued George Broadbent and White River Investments, a partnership that owns at least part of Clearwater Crossing, also on East 82nd Street.

The court granted Huntington a judgment of $631,580 in December.

The other suit, filed by Pittsburgh-based PNC Bank, said George Broadbent defaulted on a $1.5 million loan it extended to him in April 2009. The court awarded PNC the amount in October. The court fights began in August 2009, when Broadbent sued PNC and Huntington, claiming they were wrongly attempting to restrict access to a $50 million credit line.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT