GMAC states, "The Port Authority and the WTC LLCs havesteadfastly failed to comply with those obligations, despite GMAC'srepeated requests. In order to ensure the protection of thecertificateholders' security interest, GMACCM is compelled to takethis action."

|

The complaint continues. "As reflected in the various publicstatements of the Port Authority and the World Trade Center LLCsduring the past several months, those organizations have committedto the restoration of the World Trade Center, commencing with theplanned construction next summer of the Freedom Tower designed byStudio Daniel Libeskind. As a result, the Port Authority and theWorld Trade Center LLCs each owe various contractual obligations tothe certificateholders that will protect the certificateholders'security interest."

|

Central among these obligations is the requirement for the PortAuthority and the World Trade Center LLCs to obtain GMAC's consentto the rebuilding plan and to deposit sufficient funds from theinsurance proceeds to ensure the payment of all amounts due underthe loan during the rebuilding process.

|

Both Silverstein and the Port Authority believe this situationcan be resolved.

|

"It is unfortunate and unnecessary that this dispute ended up incourt," Silverstein says in a statement. "We have been working withthe Port Authority and GMAC for months to try to avoid thislitigation. It is incumbent upon everyone involved to sit down andtry to solve GMAC's issues in a way that will enable us to proceedwithout delay in rebuilding the World Trade Center."

|

The Port Authority echoed similar statements. "The PortAuthority has consistently maintained that the maximum amount ofinsurance money available for the World Trade Center site bedevoted to planning and rebuilding efforts, according to the PortAuthority. "We have had positive, productive discussions with allof the parties involved to ensure that the money is spent in thatmanner. We are confident that we can come to a quick resolution,eliminating the need for GMAC's costly, unnecessarylitigation."

|

This suit can just be added to the pile of legal actionsassociated with the rebuilding of Ground Zero. Just last month,oral arguments were heard before the United States Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit on Silverstein Properties' appeal from JudgeJohn S. Martin Jr.'s ruling that a jury would have to decidewhether the deliberate crashes of two planes into the Twin Towersconstitute one or two "occurrences" for purposes of the $3.55billion "per occurrence" insurance policy on portions of thecomplex. No decision has been released. Silverstein Properties hadfiled suit against Industrial Risk Insurers, the Connecticut-basedinsurance unit of General Electric, to compel IRI to fully satisfyits obligation to pay for the reconstruction of 7 World TradeCenter. That suit was filed as a claim in a suit that is alreadypending in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York brought by a former tenant of 7 World TradeCenter against IRI.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

  • Unlimited access to GlobeSt and other free ALM publications
  • Access to 15 years of GlobeSt archives
  • Your choice of GlobeSt digital newsletters and over 70 others from popular sister publications
  • 1 free article* every 30 days across the ALM subscription network
  • Exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.