ElyonMembru De PartidDin: bucuresti
Postari: 157
|
|
dorinteodor , dar o banca mondiala exista ? exista atatea organizatii cu caracter supranational ....de ce e asa imposibil un guvern mondial ? E exact ca si cum ai conduce Matushita Electric .
Pana una alta ce ziceti de :
Real Estate
Trade Center Financing On Shaky Ground
Dan Ackman, 09.11.03, 11:00 AM ET
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks destroyed the World Trade Center, there has been tremendous worldwide concern about what the rebuilt complex might look like. That question has largely been answered, at least in broad outline. Meanwhile, though, there is a serious question about where the money will come from to pay for it.
Larry A. Silverstein, whose Silverstein Properties obtained a 99-year lease for the Twin Towers and other portions of the complex just weeks before the catastrophe, says he has both the right and the obligation to rebuild and he intends to do so. The money Silverstein needs, he says, will come from the proceeds of his insurance policy on the towers.
Larry A. Silverstein
Silverstein says those proceeds should come to $7 billion. No one has made a serious estimate of the cost of rebuilding. But Gerald McKelvey, a spokesman for the developer, says with a chuckle, "It's probably about $7 billion." What if Silverstein loses in court and doesn't get the full amount? "He's never gone beyond that," McKelvey says. A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey says Silverstein has assured them he has the resources to complete construction, and they have no reason to question it.
It seems more than likely, though, that Silverstein will wind up with something closer to $3.5 billion. If that's all he gets out of the court fight with his insurers, it means that the rebuilding of the Trade Center site will have to be rethought.
The original complex was completed in 1973 by the Port Authority, which leased it to Silverstein in the summer of 2001 as part of its effort to privatize noncore functions. Silverstein had insured the complex through 22 companies, including SR International Business Insurance, a unit of Swiss Re (otc: SWCEY - news - people ), the giant Zurich-based insurer.
After the attacks, in October 2001, Swiss Re filed suit for a declaration of its obligations. It was moved to act, company officials say, because Silverstein's insurance policy caps payment at $3.5 billion, yet Silverstein was propounding a theory that entitled him to $7 billion, based on the idea that two airplanes attacking two towers amounts to two separate "occurrences," entitling him to two separate payouts.
The insurers see the case as both simpler and less semantic. They say Silverstein made a deliberate choice about how much insurance to buy and that the limit of his policy is $3.5 billion regardless of how many occurrences there were. They say it's as if a man insured a car for $20,000: It doesn't matter if he crashed it once, twice or ten times--$20,000 is all he gets.
The great irony is that Silverstein's lawyers, led by Herbert Wachtell, a founding partner of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, are arguing that the insurance binder (an interim policy before the final detailed policy is issued) that Silverstein's own people prepared should be ignored. This form, called Wilprop for Silverstein's insurance broker Willis Group Holdings (nyse: WSH - news - people ), defined the term "occurrence" to include a "series of similar causes." Everyone basically admits that, under this definition, there would be no issue and the maximum insurance payout would be $3.5 billion. But as negotiations to insure the building proceeded, a second binder form was offered by Travelers Indemnity, a unit of Travelers Property Casualty, which didn't define the term "occurrence" at all. This, Silverstein's lawyers now argue, is the form that should rule.
Normally, the insured wants a restrictive definition of "occurrence" because the term usually applies to determining deductibles, says Jacques Dubois, chairman of Swiss Re America Holding. In other words, the greater the number of occurrences, the more deductibles there are. If, for instance, the building were damaged by a flood caused by two separate storms, it would be in Silverstein's interest that the flood be a single occurrence, so he would only be required to pay one deductible. In this case, with the Trade Center complex a total loss, deductibles are not an issue, and Silverstein has argued that the maximum payout should be made "per occurrence."
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.
Some of the insurance companies have accused Silverstein of manipulating the press coverage of the litigation. These insurers said the whole idea that there were two occurrences mandating two payouts was concocted by Wachtell. If this is the case, Silverstein certainly would not be the first businessman who has used the best legal minds to press his advantage. It's not inconceivable that the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals will agree with him, though at the District Court level he has lost so far.
Despite the pitfalls, Silverstein has gotten everyone else in the process--apart from the insurers--to back his vision, and he also has been able to have his architect take the lead in the redesign. As long as he continues to make payments (perhaps financed by the insurers with whom he has settled), the Port Authority continues to insist that Silverstein will pay to rebuild the commercial parts of the site. (The federal government will finance the transportation hub; others may pay for the memorial or for the cost of expanding the site's original 16 acres.)
If the history of the World Trade Center is any guide, estimating the cost of a project of that scale is fraught with peril. In 1964, when the Port Authority announced plans to build the original complex, the construction budget was $525 million. By 1973, when construction was complete, the cost had tripled to an estimated $1.5 billion.
Since the Port Authority is a public, tax-exempt entity, the cost overruns were unfortunate but did not deter the project. Now the Port Authority seems to be relying on the capacity of a single developer with just one major building project under his belt. While the political will to build is likely greater than ever, the money seems dependent on a court victory that is at best uncertain.
Ce ziceti ? Fler, intuitie , instinct , nas , meditatie ?
Cati dintre noi ar putea sa aiba asemenea inspiratie ?
_______________________________________
Eu stiu . Ei cred ca eu nu stiu .
Dar eu stiu
|
|
) ] pana la 5 centi/actiune. Moment in care Tanarul nostru Rotschild a inceput sa cumpere pe ascuns pana s-a aflat ca anglia a castigat si pretul a revenit la cel normal dar actiunile BC erau deja in mana lui Rotschild . Si asa si-a multiplicat el averea de nu stiu cate ori.