IBJNews

Settlement allows Broadbent to keep downtown HQ

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis developer The Broadbent Co. will keep its downtown headquarters after settling a lawsuit with lenders that sought to foreclose on the building.

Huntington National Bank and PNC Bank filed their complaint in July 2011, charging that Broadbent defaulted on various construction loans and mortgages dating from February 2007.

In an e-mail to IBJ Friday morning, a Broadbent lawyer said the developer will continue to own its building at 117 E. Washington St. according to the terms of the agreement. He declined further comment.

Broadbent, a strip-center real estate specialist, borrowed more than $11 million to buy and renovate its headquarters. The company moved into the structure, formerly known as the Zipper Building, in October 2007 after a massive renovation of the then-50-year-old building.

But the company struggled during the commercial real estate downturn and faced a barrage of lawsuits as it attempted to reorganize certain properties under bankruptcy protection.

The disputes began in 2009 when Broadbent sued Huntington and PNC, charging they were wrongly attempting to restrict its access to a $50 million credit line.

Some of those suits involving Broadbent’s commercial properties were settled earlier this month.

One of the suits involved a $4 million Huntington loan tied to two Broadbent projects: the 130,181-square-foot Clearwater Crossing retail center near Keystone at the Crossing and the 103,934-square-foot North Willow Commons shopping center at West 86th Street and Ditch Road.

George P. Broadbent co-founded the real estate company formerly known as Skinner & Broadbent in 1972. The company operates 30 retail centers in the Indianapolis area.
 

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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT