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. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.

ADVERTISEMENT