IBJNews

Conseco wins dismissal of GM Building lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Conseco Inc. has won a dismissal of a lawsuit by billionaire real estate developer Sheldon H. Solow that accused the Carmel-based insurance company of fraud in the $1.4 billion sale of New York’s General Motors Building to Macklowe Properties Inc., Bloomberg News reported Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in New York this week threw out the lawsuit against Conseco, saying the company’s emergence from bankruptcy in September 2003 wiped out prior legal claims, including those involving the sale of the building on Aug. 28, 2003.

Solow, one of New York’s biggest landlords, sued in 2006, claiming his was “the best and highest credible bid” for the 50-story tower at Madison Avenue and 59th Street. He asked the court to award damages and to nullify the sale to entities controlled by developer Harry Macklowe.

“Conseco is very pleased with the court’s ruling, and we’re hopeful that this marks the end to the multi-year multi-case litigation by Mr. Solow related to the sale of the General Motors building,” Reed Oslan, a lawyer for Conseco, told Bloomberg.

The building once was home to a GM showroom. Donald Trump bought it with Conseco in 1998 for $800 million, which, at the time, was one of the highest prices ever paid for a New York office property.

Conseco’s ownership of the building has been the subject of several lawsuits, including cases against Trump, Solow Building Co. and developer Leslie Dick Worldwide Ltd.

Solow’s suit claimed that Conseco, shortly before it emerged from court protection, told a bankruptcy judge that it would secure the “best deal” for its assets. Instead, Solow said, the company used him as “an unwitting stalking horse to set the price at which their secretly favored buyer Macklowe could then sweep in and purchase the property.”

“The reorganization plan discharges Solow’s pre- confirmation claims,” Jones wrote in a 10-page ruling.
 

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. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT