#Receivership

[unitedstatesrei]

Denver Skyscraper Meltdown (Office Towers Collapse into 98% Discount Foreclosure Freefall)

Key Takeaways Over 30% of Denver’s office-building mortgages are delinquent, making it one of the worst-hit metro areas for commercial loan defaults in the U.S. Iconic downtown skyscrapers are selling at up to 98% discounts, signaling historic opportunities—and risks—for investors. Office-to-residential conversions are accelerating, offering long-term buy-and-hold investment potential with tax advantages and strategic entry points. Denver’s skyline is disintegrating under the weight of debt, vacancy, and foreclosure. What happens when billion-dollar buildings can’t even fetch scrap value? Is Denver about to become a real estate investor’s biggest comeback story, or the next Detroit? Historic collapse of Denver’s commercial office market Shocking discounts and foreclosures sweeping the city Investor opportunities in conversions, cash deals, and bulk buys Let’s tear into the chaos and see where savvy investors can strike gold in the rubble. The Implosion No One Saw Coming (But Should Have) Downtown Denver is crumbling—tower by tower, loan by loan. What was once a gleaming symbol of the Rocky Mountain economic boom has turned into a battlefield of delinquent debt and desperate sales. Nearly 30% of office-tied commercial mortgages across the metro are now delinquent, making Denver the third-worst performing office market in the nation, trailing only behind San Francisco and Houston. But this isn’t just a temporary slump—it’s a full-scale unraveling. The dominoes are falling faster than ever. From the iconic Wells Fargo Center, immortalized in the Denver Nuggets skyline, to Republic Plaza, the city’s tallest building, lenders are no longer waiting for a rebound. They’re seizing properties, appointing receivers, and forcing distressed owners to abandon ship. It’s not just vacancy—it’s value vaporization. Towers that fetched hundreds of millions just a few years ago are now barely worth a few million dollars. Investor sentiment has shifted from patient optimism to cold surrender. “We have a lot of 1980s high-rise towers that are mostly vacant,” admitted Amy Aldridge of Tributary Real Estate. “People want to come back to the office, but they don’t want to come back to the 1980s office.” The death of Denver’s outdated office stock has begun. For real estate investors, this isn’t just another cycle—it’s a once-in-a-generation shockwave of wealth transfer. But with blood in the water, will they survive the chaos or capitalize on the carnage? Let’s go deeper. Discounted to Death: Skyscrapers for Pennies on the Dollar Downtown Denver’s towers aren’t just distressed—they’re being fire-sold for prices that would make 2008 blush. In a surreal twist that feels more like a liquidation auction than a metropolitan investment market, massive office complexes once valued in the hundreds of millions are selling for less than 2% of their former worth. These aren’t fringe properties on the city’s edge—these are skyscrapers in the heart of downtown. Case in point: Colorado Plaza Tower I and Tower II, with a combined footprint of 1.14 million square feet, were purchased for just $3.2 million. That’s a shocking 98% discount from their $200 million valuation in 2019. For perspective, that’s $3.30 per square foot in a market where office rents average $41.87 per square foot. Other bloodletting sales include: Hudson’s Bay Centre: Sold for $8.95 million, down from $41.5 million in 2014, an 80% haircut. Lincoln Crossing: Dumped for $10 million, a 90% drop from the 2018 price. Wells Fargo Center: In receivership after defaulting on a $327 million loan. And it’s not just the price tags that are plummeting, equity is being wiped out, leaving owners with nothing but the debt they can’t repay. Even buildings still technically in the black are under quiet distress, with modified loan terms, silent defaults, and lenders playing the “extend and pretend” game just to delay the inevitable. Here’s how the financial carnage looks:

Building Previous Value Sale Price % Discount Status Colorado Plaza Towers I & II $200M $3.2M 98% Sold (conversion planned) Hudson’s Bay Centre $41.5M $8.95M 78% Sold (distressed) Lincoln Crossing $100M+ $10M 90% Sold (distressed) Wells Fargo Center $327M debt N/A N/A In receivership For veteran investors, these prices are either a siren song or a death knell. Are these skyscrapers bargains, or ticking financial time bombs? One thing is clear: the scale of these discounts is more than historic, it’s a once-in-a-century signal that Denver’s commercial core has collapsed in plain sight. And this is just the beginning. The biggest deals are still hiding in the shadows. Zombie Buildings and the “Receivership Shuffle” Denver’s downtown is crawling with zombie towers—soulless shells too broke to function and too expensive to fix. These once-prized properties now sit in purgatory, neither dead nor alive, as lenders scramble to recover what little value remains. At least a third of Denver’s 105 largest office buildings (each over 100,000 square feet) are in some form of extreme financial distress, including: Loan defaults Court-ordered receiverships Outright foreclosures Voluntary ownership surrenders Distressed sales at catastrophic discounts This isn’t just a market correction, it’s a massive asset wipeout happening in slow motion. The infamous Wells Fargo Center, also known as the “Cash Register Building,” is under receivership after Brookfield defaulted on a $327 million loan. Republic Plaza, Denver’s tallest building, narrowly avoided foreclosure by renegotiating $134 million in debt. Meanwhile, lenders are installing third-party managers to stabilize properties and prepare them for auction, repurposing, or demolition. The cycle of distress looks like this: Owner defaults on commercial loan Lender appoints receiver to take control of operations Vacancy soars, and income disappears Asset value plummets Fire sale or foreclosure follows Denver’s downtown core, particularly Upper Downtown, is the epicenter of this collapse. The zone from Lawrence to Lincoln Street and 14th to 20th Street is now known as the “Foreclosure Belt of the Rockies." These aren’t obscure properties. The walking wounded include: Civic Center Plaza (1560 Broadway): Ownership returned to lender Denver Energy Center (1625 & 1675 Broadway): Seized by JPMorgan Chase Trinity Place (1801 Broadway): Claimed at auction by LoanCore Capital 1670 Broadway: Under third-party management after October default 1999 Broadway: Facing potential 70% vacancy if IRS pulls out To make matters worse, federal agencies—once considered ironclad tenants—are fleeing. The Department of Government Efficiency is slashing leases, and the IRS is eyeing a mass exit, gutting an already fragile leasing environment. And just when landlords thought things couldn’t get worse, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem) dealt a deathblow to 700 Broadway, vacating over 258,000 square feet and taking a stable 4.7% vacancy rate to a staggering 60% overnight. Denver’s skyline isn’t just distressed—it’s actively decaying. Investors who don’t understand the “receivership shuffle” may step into a deal that drains them dry before delivering any return. The stakes are sky-high, and the vultures are circling. Investor Warzone or Goldmine? The Redevelopment Gamble Denver’s broken towers may be bleeding capital, but they’re not dead yet. For the bold, they might be the greatest real estate arbitrage opportunity of the decade. Amid this brutal downtown collapse, a quiet renaissance is being whispered behind the scenes: office-to-residential conversions. Developers and deep-pocketed investors are pouncing on the chaos, buying skyscrapers for pennies, then sinking tens of millions into massive renovations, hoping to resurrect them as upscale apartments or mixed-use hubs. The Colorado Plaza Towers I & II are ground zero for this strategy. Acquired for a jaw-dropping $3.

2 million, Los Angeles developer Asher Luzzatto plans to spend $150 million to $200 million transforming the vacant giants into 700+ residential units. It’s the ultimate distressed play: buy the shell for nothing, inject capital, and rebirth the building as a luxury cash-flow machine. But there’s a catch. These buildings weren’t designed for housing. Many were built in the 1950s to 1980s, with deep floor plates, obsolete mechanical systems, and layouts that don’t naturally fit apartments. Add in asbestos remediation, ground leases, and elevator retrofits, and the costs can explode before a single rent check rolls in. Still, the math could work—especially with the steep discounts. Consider: Current residential vacancy in desirable downtown districts remains far lower than office. Rents for upscale urban apartments in Denver continue to outperform aging commercial leases. City officials are actively incentivizing conversions with fast-track approvals and zoning flexibility. With property tax assessments based on residential rates, annual liabilities plummet compared to office use. Here’s the punchline: A healthy office tower generates 4x the property taxes of a residential one. If you bought it at a 98% discount? That tax savings becomes part of your margin. However, success isn’t guaranteed. These conversion plays require: Massive upfront capital Navigating permitting minefields Winning zoning variances Long holding periods before profitability This isn’t a quick flip. It’s a war of attrition, and only the best-capitalized, most patient players will survive. Still, if pulled off, the return on investment could be staggering. Turning Denver’s dead towers into residential gold may become the city’s most dramatic real estate comeback story ever. But only if the visionaries can outlast the chaos. Strategic Entry Points for RE Investors Right Now While institutional giants retreat, private investors have a rare window to seize Denver’s fractured skyline if they know where to strike. This is no time for hesitation. As traditional lenders pull back and national firms offload properties in desperation, nimble investors can wedge themselves into deals once thought untouchable. The barriers are down. The doors are open. The distressed Denver office market has become a target-rich environment for those who move fast. Here’s where savvy real estate investors are making their plays: Joint Ventures with Debt Holders: Private lenders and distressed debt funds are hunting for partners to help stabilize or reposition troubled assets. JV structures allow smaller investors to gain equity access without full capital exposure. Seller Financing Fire Sales: Owners teetering on default may finance a sale just to walk away clean, allowing investors to step in with minimal upfront cash, especially attractive for value-add specialists. Ground Lease Leverage: Some towers, like Colorado Plaza, are on ground leases. While often seen as a complication, these leases can be negotiated or extended, letting investors buy buildings cheap and defer full land costs. Syndicated Capital Raises: With 80%–90% discounts becoming the norm, syndicators are assembling capital quickly to scoop up buildings in bulk. This group investment model is drawing accredited investors eager for outsized upside in a high-risk market. Opportunity Zones & Federal Incentives: Certain sectors of downtown Denver fall within designated Opportunity Zones, creating tax deferral and elimination potential for long-term investors pursuing redevelopment. Watch Zones: Not all of Denver is collapsing. The sharpest divide is forming between zones: Market Zone Status Upper Downtown Collapse underway Skyline Park Corridor High distress, high upside Union Station District Stable and in demand Central Platte Valley Modern, partially leased Cherry Creek & RiNo Top-tier tenant migration   Pro tip: Investors should avoid outdated Class B/C towers unless they come with either deep discounts or strong conversion potential.

Focus instead on buildings with structure, location, and zoning flexibility, even if partially distressed. In short, Denver’s downtown disaster is now a developer’s dream and an investor’s litmus test. The deals are there, but only for those who know where to look, how to negotiate, and when to pounce. This isn’t just about timing the market, it’s about timing the implosion. Caution Ahead: Why Not All Distressed Assets Are Hidden Treasures In Denver’s downtown bloodbath, not every fire sale is a fortune. Some deals are dressed-up disasters waiting to detonate your capital. Yes, the headlines are blaring about 98% discounts. But behind those numbers lie ticking time bombs: toxic financing, terminally outdated layouts, and mechanical systems older than the internet. If you think every distressed tower is a hidden gem, think again—some of these buildings are unsalvageable money pits. Before you sink a dollar into Denver’s downtown, consider the real risks lurking beneath the surface: Outdated Infrastructure: Many of the worst-hit towers were built in the 1950s–1980s. Think lead pipes, low ceilings, inefficient HVAC systems, and asbestos in the walls. Retrofits cost millions—sometimes more than the building itself. Unfavorable Ground Leases: Several properties sit on land the buyer doesn’t own. Ground leases can be expensive, expiring, or non-renegotiable, strangling future ROI and complicating financing options. Zombie Tenancy and Leasing Black Holes: Buildings advertising “only 30% vacancy” may have ghost tenants—businesses that exist on paper but haven’t paid rent in months. Or leases that expire within a year with no renewals in sight. Lender-Controlled Death Spirals: Many distressed towers are under special servicing, receivership, or foreclosure, which means navigating multiple parties, legal red tape, and uncertain timelines. You could spend months bidding on a property only for the lender to yank it off the market at the last minute. Use Restrictions and Zoning Limits: Denver may be open to residential conversions, but not every building qualifies. Zoning overlays, height restrictions, historic designations, and structural limitations can kill a conversion plan before it starts. Skyrocketing Conversion Costs: What starts as a $10M steal could end up a $75M headache. Between permitting delays, structural retrofits, union labor costs, and inflation, many redevelopment projects are blown off course before lease-up. Investors chasing the siren song of downtown Denver must learn to differentiate between value and vacancy. There’s a difference between buying low and buying doomed. This market demands due diligence like never before. That means: Walking every property Inspecting every mechanical system Confirming lease status and zoning classifications Modeling worst-case scenarios, not just pro forma dreams Because in Denver’s crumbling core, the greatest fortunes and the greatest failures will be built on the same broken towers. The difference? Who knew what they were really buying? The City’s Future—and Your Window of Opportunity Denver isn’t dying—it’s transforming. But the path forward will be brutal, political, and wildly profitable for the right investors. Behind the boarded-up doors and half-empty high-rises, a new Denver is already beginning to take shape. The city's leadership knows its commercial tax base is collapsing—and with it, the revenue that funds everything from schools to sidewalks. This fiscal squeeze is forcing policymakers to embrace redevelopment and incentivize conversions like never before. According to Denver County Assessor Keith Erffmeyer, the last two-year assessment cycle saw a 25% drop in downtown commercial property values. That number is expected to plunge even further now that deeply distressed sales, some at 90%+ discounts, have begun flooding the books. Here’s the financial fallout: Office-to-residential conversions slash tax revenue. Thanks to Colorado’s

lower residential assessment rate, a converted tower will generate only one-quarter the property taxes of a stabilized office building. Sales and employment taxes vanish. Empty buildings mean no workers, no coffee shop sales, no lunch rush, no dry cleaners, no retail. This ripple effect devastates nearby businesses and erodes Denver’s long-term economic base. Yet… there’s hope. The city has no choice but to rebuild, rezone, and reinvest. Here’s what that means for real estate investors: Zoning Flexibility Is Expanding. Denver planners are under pressure to loosen restrictions to make conversion projects pencil out. New Resident Influx = Long-Term Stability. Every successful tower-to-apartment flip brings hundreds of new residents downtown, fueling demand for retail, amenities, and services. Public-Private Partnerships Are on the Rise. Expect tax incentives, grants, and development subsidies to flow toward those willing to bet big on downtown. This isn’t just a real estate cycle, it’s a civic identity crisis. And it’s one that creative, well-capitalized investors can help solve. You’re not just buying a broken building, you’re buying a stake in Denver’s comeback. The future of Denver’s downtown will be decided not by the city’s bureaucrats, but by the builders, buyers, and visionaries who step in during the chaos. The window is narrow. The stakes are sky-high. And your opportunity is now. Assessment Denver’s downtown skyline is no longer a symbol of growth—it’s a flashing red warning light for cities across America. What we’re witnessing isn’t just a collapse in property values. It’s a violent rebalancing of urban priorities, investor expectations, and commercial real estate fundamentals. For real estate investors, this is a moment of brutal clarity: The rules have changed. The math has changed. But the opportunity has never been greater. Yes, the risks are real: obsolete infrastructure, tenant flight, political uncertainty, and razor-thin margins on conversions. But in every great collapse lies the seed of reinvention. Investors who understand that timing, creativity, and grit now outweigh square footage and prestige will be the ones to reshape Denver and profit from its rebirth. Whether you’re scouting bulk office buys at 10 cents on the dollar, assembling capital for adaptive reuse, or locking in land deals before the next upcycle hits, the battlefield is set. The question is no longer if Denver will recover. It’s who will own it when it does.

[trendynewsnow]

Challenges in Alabama's Prison System and Federal Oversight of Rikers Island

Challenges in Alabama’s Prison System and Their Implications In 1976, the conditions within Alabama’s prison system had deteriorated to such an extent that a federal judge took the extraordinary measure of appointing an outside authority to rectify the situation. This authority happened to be the state’s governor, who presided over the prison system until 1989. Under his oversight, the prison…

[thellawtoknow]

Receivership: Understanding the 7 Big Implications behind the Legal Concept

What is Receivership? Understanding the Legal Concept What is Receivership? Types of Receivership1. Administrative Receivership 2. Court-Appointed Receivership How Does Receivership Work?1. Appointment of a Receiver 2. Receiver Takes Control of Assets and Operations 3. Asset Liquidation or Business Recovery 4. Reporting to Creditors and Stakeholders 5. Distribution of Funds Receivership in Corporate Restructuring Receivership vs. Bankruptcy: What’s the Difference? Pros and Cons of ReceivershipPros: Cons: When is Receivership Used? Conclusion: Is Receivership the Right Solution? What is Receivership? Understanding the Legal Concept Receivership is a legal process used as a remedy for distressed financial situations, typically involving companies that are unable to meet their financial obligations. This process allows an independent party, known as the receiver, to take control of the company's assets, manage operations, and liquidate property if necessary. The aim is to repay creditors and ensure that the business either recovers or, in some cases, winds down in an orderly manner. But what exactly is receivership, and how does it differ from other insolvency processes like bankruptcy or administration? Let’s explore the details.

What is Receivership? At its core, receivership is a legal mechanism used to protect the interests of creditors when a company faces financial distress. When a business cannot meet its financial obligations, creditors may petition the court to appoint a receiver. The receiver, an impartial third party, is tasked with overseeing the assets and managing the business to repay creditors. Types of Receivership There are two primary types of receivership: Administrative Receivership and Court-appointed Receivership. While both involve the appointment of a receiver to manage or liquidate assets, the authority under which the receiver is appointed and their role differs. 1. Administrative Receivership Administrative receivership is initiated by a secured creditor—usually a lender, such as a bank—that holds a floating charge over the assets of a company. A floating charge is a type of security interest that "floats" over a pool of changing assets (e.g., stock, equipment) and only "crystallizes" into a fixed charge when the borrower defaults. In this scenario, the creditor appoints an administrative receiver, typically a qualified insolvency practitioner, to take control of the company's assets and operations. The administrative receiver's main objective is to recover the debt by managing or selling off the company’s assets. Key Characteristics of Administrative Receivership: - Powerful Role: Administrative receivers are given extensive powers, including the ability to sell or liquidate the company’s assets, run the business, and even dismiss employees. Their primary responsibility is to the secured creditor who appointed them. - Asset Management and Sale: In most cases, administrative receivers sell off assets to recover the debt, although they may choose to continue running the company temporarily to maximize asset value. - Older Financial Agreements: Administrative receivership is common in financial agreements made before the Enterprise Act 2002 in the UK, which limited its use. Newer financial agreements often favor other insolvency processes like administration. Example Scenario: A manufacturing company has defaulted on its loan payments. The bank, holding a floating charge over the company's machinery and inventory, appoints an administrative receiver. The receiver may sell off the machinery or continue operating the factory to repay the loan, depending on which option is more beneficial for the creditor. 2. Court-Appointed Receivership In contrast to administrative receivership, court-appointed receivership is a more neutral process, often used when there is a dispute or concern over how the company is being run. A court can appoint a receiver at the request of creditors, shareholders, or other stakeholders to ensure the business is managed fairly and in the best interest of all parties involved. Key Characteristics of Court-Appointed Receivership: - Neutral Role: The receiver’s role in court-appointed receivership is more neutral and broader. They must act impartially and manage the company’s assets in a way that benefits all stakeholders, not just the secured creditor. - Protection for All Stakeholders: Court-appointed receivership may be used when there are disputes between shareholders, when there are concerns about mismanagement, or when a company’s assets are at risk of being wasted or misused. - Broader Legal Context: This form of receivership can apply not only to companies but also to individuals or trusts. It may be used to preserve assets in legal disputes, marital separations, or estate management. Example Scenario: A family-run business is facing internal conflicts among its shareholders, who allege mismanagement of company funds. The court appoints a receiver to manage the business impartially while the shareholders work to resolve their legal disputes. How Does Receivership Work? The receivership process begins when a company is unable to meet its financial obligations, particularly to secured creditors. While the specific steps may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the type of receivership, the general stages are outlined below. 1. Appointment of a Receiver The process typically begins with the appointment of a receiver. This can happen in one of two ways: - Secured Creditor Appointment: If a secured creditor holds a floating charge over the company’s assets, they have the right to appoint an administrative receiver to recover the debt. - Court Appointment: In a court-appointed receivership, a court appoints a receiver based on an application from stakeholders such as creditors, shareholders, or other interested parties. In either case, the receiver is usually a qualified insolvency professional, tasked with managing the company’s assets to resolve the financial difficulties. 2. Receiver Takes Control of Assets and Operations Once appointed, the receiver immediately assumes control over the company’s assets. Depending on the financial health of the company and the specific instructions of the secured creditor or court, the receiver can either: - Manage the Business: In some cases, the receiver will continue operating the business to generate revenue, preserve jobs, and improve the company’s financial condition. This can be especially important in industries where the company’s value lies in its ongoing operations. - Liquidate Assets: In other situations, the receiver may decide to sell off assets. The goal is to recover as much value as possible to repay creditors. 3. Asset Liquidation or Business Recovery The next phase depends on the specific circumstances: - Business Recovery: If the receiver believes the business can recover from its financial troubles, they may attempt to restructure its operations, cut costs, or improve efficiency. In some cases, the company may emerge from receivership in a stronger financial position. - Asset Liquidation: If recovery is not feasible, the receiver will begin selling off assets. These could include real estate, machinery, inventory, and intellectual property. The goal is to maximize the value of the assets to satisfy creditor claims. 4. Reporting to Creditors and Stakeholders Throughout the process, the receiver is required to provide regular updates to creditors, the court (if court-appointed), and other stakeholders. These reports typically include: - A summary of the company’s financial position. - The steps the receiver has taken to manage or liquidate assets. - Any distributions made to creditors. - The progress of the receivership and expected outcomes. These reports ensure transparency and accountability during the process. 5. Distribution of Funds Once assets have been liquidated, the receiver distributes the funds to creditors according to a predetermined order of priority: - Secured creditors are paid first. In the case of administrative receivership, the secured creditor who appointed the receiver has first claim on the proceeds of asset sales. - Unsecured creditors, such as suppliers or employees, are next in line. However, they often receive little or no repayment, as secured creditors usually absorb the majority of the funds. - Shareholders are last in the order of priority and typically only receive any leftover funds after all creditors have been paid, which is rare in distressed companies. Receivership in Corporate Restructuring Receivership is a key tool in corporate restructuring, particularly for creditors seeking repayment from financially distressed companies. Whether initiated by secured creditors or the courts, the appointment of a receiver allows for structured and professional management of the company’s assets. The ultimate goal may be to repay creditors, recover the business, or liquidate assets to satisfy debts. Understanding the different types of receivership and the process itself can help stakeholders make informed decisions during times of financial crisis. Receivership serves as a critical mechanism to ensure that creditors’ rights are upheld, businesses are managed efficiently, and the interests of all parties are considered in a fair and transparent manner. This detailed examination of the types of receivership and the receivership process highlights the complexities and the strategic role it plays in corporate insolvency. Receivership vs. Bankruptcy: What’s the Difference? Although both receivership and bankruptcy involve businesses in financial distress, there are significant differences between the two processes: - Receivership: Only deals with the assets over which a creditor has security. It doesn't cover the entire company’s liabilities, nor does it involve a complete liquidation of the business. The focus is on recovering debt for the secured creditor. - Bankruptcy: Involves the entire company and its assets, often leading to complete liquidation and distribution of funds to creditors in a legally defined order. It is more drastic and typically marks the end of the business. Pros and Cons of Receivership Pros: - Protection for Secured Creditors: Receivership ensures that secured creditors recover as much as possible from the company's assets. - Potential for Business Continuation: In some cases, the business may continue under the receiver's management, allowing for recovery rather than liquidation. - Structured Liquidation: If liquidation is necessary, receivership provides a more orderly process than forced liquidation by creditors. Cons: - Limited Focus: The receiver's priority is to repay secured creditors, meaning that unsecured creditors may receive little or nothing. - Damage to Reputation: Receivership can harm a company's reputation, making future financing and customer trust difficult to rebuild. - Limited Scope for Debtor Relief: The company’s management loses control over the business, and the primary focus shifts to satisfying creditor claims rather than restructuring the company for long-term survival. When is Receivership Used? Receivership is often seen as a last resort when a company is facing severe financial difficulties. It is typically initiated when: - Secured creditors are unable to recover their loans through normal means. - Business operations are failing, and the company is on the brink of insolvency. - Shareholders or stakeholders request court intervention due to mismanagement or inability to resolve financial issues internally. Conclusion: Is Receivership the Right Solution? Receivership can offer a lifeline for creditors seeking repayment, but it often signals a critical point in a company’s financial health. For businesses, receivership is a legal remedy that can either provide an opportunity for recovery or mark the end of operations. In any case, receivership serves as an essential tool in the broader framework of corporate insolvency, ensuring that creditors’ rights are respected while providing a structured path forward for distressed businesses. Understanding the nuances of receivership is crucial for businesses, lenders, and stakeholders alike. Whether you’re a company facing financial distress or a creditor seeking repayment, recognizing the role of receivership in the financial landscape is vital for making informed decisions. Read the full article

[tenth-sentence]

Four weeks into the 'friendly receivership', on 16 October 1990, Cosser was out.

"Westpac: The Bank That Broke the Bank" - Edna Carew

[rorbison]

According to Richard B. Jewell in RKO: rise of a titan, fuckin, the reason Orson Welles second RKO film (the magnificent ambersons) was so bad, was not because of studio meddling in the edit. He was given full edit rights on his first Two contracted RKO films (and despite some other fallen through projects Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons were his first two edited and distributed films). It was bad because he was telegramming and phoning his edits to his editor in California, from Brazil in 1941-2. Because he was in Brazil to film It's All True, a film that originally was not going to be filmed in Brazil but then Nelson Rockefeller (working for the Office of Inter-American Affairs, also large stockholder in RKO) encouraged RKO to relocate the film to Brazil, meaning Orson Welles went to Brazil immediately following the shooting of but prior to the Cutting of The magnificent ambersons.

So technically Teddy Roosevelt's establishment of the office of Inter-American affairs (or more specifically the appointment of a Rockefeller into it) made The Magnificent Ambersons a bad movie, that was still editorially controlled by Welles just like Citizen Kane was.

[cannabisbusinessexecutive]

Embattled Cannabis Commission proposes overhauling itself

The move to establish a new governance structure follows months of turmoil at the agency, including calls for it to be taken over by a state receiver After two years of closed-door meetings and nearly $160,000, the Cannabis Control Commission on Thursday released a draft of its new governance charter that could refine the structure of the embattled agency — weeks after it was placed under the…

[karasukarei]

My mind swings between these two at 69Hz during exam period (now)

Two kinds of guy.

[vintageclassiccars]

1976 Jensen Interceptor Convertible.

The Interceptor was designed by Federico Formenti at Carrozzeria Touring and entered production as a coupe in 1966. A convertible variant was introduced in 1973 and remained in production until the company went into receivership in 1976.

[carsthatnevermadeitetc]

Jensen GT, 1975. A shooting brake version of the Lotus-engined Jensen Healey roadster. Production amounted to 509 cars before Jensen went into receivership in 1976

[unitedstatesrei]

Chicago Multifamily Crisis: 600 Units in Receivership

Key Takeaways Over 600 multifamily units in Chicago have entered receivership, signifying significant distress in the city’s rental market. The crisis is marked by rising vacancies, escalating rents, and stalled development projects, creating uncertainty for investors and renters alike. While downtown faces strong rental demand, southern neighborhoods struggle with excess supply, highlighting the sector’s uneven recovery.   Diverging Fortunes in Chicago’s Rental Market Chicago’s once-thriving multifamily sector now teeters on the edge of catastrophe. Over 600 residential units have plunged into receivership, casting a dark shadow across the city’s rental market. Rising vacancies, surging rents, and deepening financial distress grip investors in fear. Downtown jostles with relentless demand, while southern regions drown in oversupply. Stalled development projects now face extinction. The risk grows by the hour—grim consequences loom, threatening every corner of the city’s real estate terrain. Crisis Deepens in Chicago’s Multifamily Market How deep does the crisis run in Chicago’s multifamily market? Amid glittering towers filled with luxury amenities, an undercurrent of instability threatens to drag the city’s rental housing sector into chaos. In a shocking turn, more than 600 multifamily units have entered receivership, casting a long, cold shadow over Chicago’s bustling skyline. The sense of urgency is palpable as real estate investors and industry professionals brace for aftershocks that reach far beyond individual properties. Rising rents continue their relentless march, with projections exceeding 3.5% by the end of 2025, feeding a voracious demand for upscale living and luxury amenities. Yet, beneath the polished veneer of rooftop pools and concierge services, a devastating affordability crisis has festered. As oversupply in certain markets threatens stability across cities nationwide, Chicago finds itself especially vulnerable to worsening imbalances and investor caution. As the quest for ever-more lavish comforts intensifies, so does the gap between what renters need and what they can afford. The relentless cost surge is now colliding with the harsh reality of stagnant wages and economic upheaval, driving a profound fracture in the market. Chicago’s diverse economy—long considered a stabilizing force—is no match for the mounting storm. Sustainability and green building practices are becoming more important as both investors and tenants look for properties that offer energy efficiency and eco-conscious amenities. The city’s high occupancy rate of 95.3% masks the creeping rise of vacancy rates, which have now reached a hair-raising 5.5%. With 30 renters fighting for every available unit, the illusion of stability shatters. The once-thriving downtown and North Lakefront submarkets cling to robust demand, but other neighborhoods, particularly in the southern regions, stagger under the weight of move-outs, economic restructuring, and oversupply fears. Mixed-use developments, once hailed as the saviors of urban living, now teeter on the edge. As investors chase diversification benefits, some are blindsided by submarkets slipping into distress. Revitalization projects and dreams of walkable, modern communities are interrupted by the chilling specter of receivership, exposing the raw vulnerabilities of even the most ambitious projects. The threat is no longer distant—it is present, immediate, and merciless. The specter of rent stabilization haunts every conversation. Calls to regulate soaring rents clash with the needs of owners to cover costs and preserve property values. The ongoing debate intensifies, fueled by fears that sweeping policy changes could trigger an exodus of investment, crushing any hope for renewed stability. The market teeters on a knife's edge, with policy decisions threatening either swift relief or devastating collapse. Every data point serves as a warning bell. As absorption rates

remain moderate and new projects slow in the face of uncertainty, Chicago’s multifamily sector faces a sobering reality: the peril is real, the time to act is now, and the city’s housing future hangs precariously by a thread. Investors, developers, and renters must confront the fragility exposed by 600 units in receivership, as the multifamily crisis in Chicago accelerates toward an uncertain and terrifying horizon. Assessment Chicago’s multifamily market is facing a serious crisis. Over 600 homes have fallen into receivership, vacancies are on the rise, and rents keep climbing, making affordability a thing of the past for many. New development feels stalled out, and any sense of optimism has all but disappeared. While downtown still manages to hum along, many of the city’s southern neighborhoods are overwhelmed by too many empty units and growing financial distress. If leaders and stakeholders don’t act fast and decisively, investors and the city alike could be staring down a future filled with abandoned buildings, big financial losses, and an even shakier housing market. Let’s not wait until things get worse. The city needs collaborative action—from policymakers, investors, and community leaders—to stop this trend before it spirals further out of control. Addressing vacancies, supporting affordability, and encouraging responsible development will make all the difference. Chicago’s stability is at stake, so the time to come together and act is right now.

[mariacallous]

The Trump Administration has subpoenaed personal information of hundreds of UC Berkeley professors who signed petitions during escalating Israel-Hamas campus protests to bolster its case that college campuses are hotbeds of antisemitism and not worthy of federal funding.

But at least some of them, who said Thursday they were concerned about hatred shown to both Jews and Palestinians during the protests that roiled campuses beginning in October 2023, are reluctant to be used as fall guys to cut federal funding.

“It sends a chill down my spine,” said Dr. John Swartzberg, a UC Berkeley professor emeritus of infectious diseases who was one of more than 500 UC professors who signed a petition sent last May to the UC Board of Regents. “I don’t believe that the Trump administration cares that much about antisemitism. They’re just using it as a vehicle to cudgel universities.”

The subpoena, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, follows similar antisemitism investigations at Stanford, Harvard, the University of Michigan and other colleges. At Columbia University, after the Trump Administration canceled $400 million in federal funding and demanded the school be placed under academic receivership, the school agreed to overhaul its protest policies, hire a special security force, redefine antisemitism and appoint a provost over the Middle Eastern studies department. Faculty there called the remarkable concessions “shameful.”

Andrea Lucas, acting chair of the EEOC, which enforces federal civil rights law in workplaces, announced on March 5 an effort “to hold accountable universities and colleges which have created a hostile-work environment for their Jewish employees.”

UC Berkeley is also fighting a lawsuit by two Jewish groups claiming “longstanding, unchecked spread of antisemitism” that escalated during the protests and disrupted a backyard dinner party last April for graduate students thrown by law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky when a pro-Palestinian protester with a microphone came into the backyard and started making a speech until Chemerinsky stopped her. A caricature of him holding a bloody knife and fork with blood around his lips with the words “No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves” written on it had already circulated on campus, according to an account posted online by Chemerinsky. An email sent to Chemerinsky wasn’t immediately returned Thursday afternoon.

The same day the EEOC said it was looking into antisemitism at universities, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was investigating the University of California for a “pattern or practice of discrimination.”

“This Department of Justice will always defend Jewish Americans, protect civil rights, and leverage our resources to eradicate institutional Antisemitism in our nation’s universities,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

The question remains how the UC system, or Stanford, will react — with deference to preserve millions in federal funding and grants, or with defiance and likely risk a major blow to their bottom line?

The subpoena came the same week the U.S. Department Department of Justice separately announced it was investigating UC Berkeley and Stanford, along with UCLA and UC Irvine, over whether they are violating a Supreme Court decision outlawing race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

“Trump is using his financial leverage as president to try to get people to capitulate to his way of thinking, and I think that would be a disaster,” said Severin Borenstein, professor emeritus at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, one of more than 360 Berkeley professors who signed an open letter condemning the violence in the Middle East and expressing concern for campus safety.

[follow-up-news]

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered former Donald Trump attorney and New York mayor Rudy Giuliani to turn over all his valuable possessions and his Manhattan penthouse apartment to the control of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Georgia election workers he defamed and to whom he now owes $150 million. Judge Lewis Liman of the federal court in Manhattan said Giuliani must turn over his interest in the property to the women in seven days, to a receivership they will control. The judge’s turnover order of the luxury items is swift and simple, but the penthouse apartment will have its control transferred so Freeman and Moss can sell it, potentially for millions of dollars. The women, who counted Georgia ballots after the 2020 election, will also be entitled to about $2 million in legal fees Giuliani has said the Trump campaign still owes him, the judge ruled. In addition to the Trump campaign fees and the New York apartment, Giuliani must also turn over a collection of several watches, including ones given to him by European presidents after the September 11, 2001, attacks; a signed Joe DiMaggio jersey and other sports memorabilia; and a 1980 Mercedes once owned by the Hollywood star Lauren Bacall. Additionally, the judge ordered that Giuliani turn over his television, items of furniture, his television and jewelry. Liman hasn’t yet decided if Giuliani will be able to keep a Palm Beach, Florida, condominium he also owns, or the four New York Yankees World Series rings he has, which Giuliani’s son contends his father gave him.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Austin Sarat for The Contrarian:

Today, Columbia University gave in to outrageous demands from the Trump Administration. The university announced it would do what the administration demanded in a letter sent on March 13. Writing in The Guardian, Professor Sheldon Pollock aptly described the administration’s challenge as the “most dangerous letter in the history of higher education in America…Like a ransom note, the government letter insists that Columbia comply with a list of Trump administration demands in order to even have a chance at recovering the $400m in federal funding for scientific research that the government canceled on 7 March.”

As I have noted, the letter demanded that “Columbia change its admissions practices and its disciplinary process, including mandating the ‘arrest and removal of agitators who foster an unsafe or hostile work or study environment.’” The Trump Administration also told the university to ban masks “intended to conceal identity or intimidate others,” and “put its Middle East, South Asian and African Studies Department in academic receivership.” According to The Wall Street Journal, "Columbia agreed to ban masks, empower 36 campus police officers with new powers to arrest students and appoint a senior vice provost with broad authority to oversee the department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies as well as the Center for Palestine Studies." It did not call that authority a form of receivership, but it is receivership by another name; no one should be fooled.

By acquiescing to such heavy-handed and intrusive demands, Columbia University has become almost an arm of the federal government, not an independent center of learning and a home to free thought. Its decision will only embolden the administration in Washington, D.C., propel further attacks on universities, and undermine and demoralize those working to preserve American democracy. By running up a white flag, Columbia has set a model for how the administration will deal with Harvard, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and many others. Unfortunately, we know how this ends. Michael Ignatieff, former president of what once was Hungary’s Central European University, is right to say that “The real challenge, whenever an authoritarian government attacks a university, is that they have already prepared the ground, portraying universities as privileged enclaves of the entitled and the condescending, trapped in their own self-regarding bubble of wokeness. These politicians play expertly on the resentments of those who don’t have college degrees.” “They grab hold of the flag of academic freedom,” Ignatieff writes, “and wave it in the face of university administrators struggling to balance the imperatives of campus order and civility against their First Amendment obligations.” Sound familiar? This is precisely the playbook Trump and his colleagues have followed in their now successful effort to bring a great university to its knees. In Hungary, Victor Orbán financially starved institutions, including Ignatieff’s, until, one after another, they accepted his terms.

As Ruth Ben-Ghiat explains, strongmen like Orbán “don't only shut down intellectual freedom and change the content of learning to reinforce their ideological agendas, but also seek to remake higher education institutions into places that reward intolerance, conformism, and other values and behaviors authoritarians require.”

[...] They are right. It is hard to convince people to join the fight for an institution when it won’t fight for itself and when one of its constituent elements feels betrayed by its decision. After Columbia's deal with the Trump Administration, it will be harder to get people to risk resistance in any sphere lest they, too, be betrayed. When powerful institutions like Columbia give in to threats and pressure tactics, others get the message: Resistance is futile. To get along, you have to go along. Rather than wait to be threatened themselves, people feel encouraged to do what Timothy Snyder calls “obeying in advance.” Authoritarians pick targets that they can use as examples. That’s why, early in their efforts to consolidate power, they go after the strong, not just the vulnerable. Columbia and the law firms the Trump administration has put on its enemies list serve as showcase targets whose downfall or acquiescence will attract attention.

Columbia University shamefully caves into the pro-Israel Apartheid lobby and the Trump Regime by obeying the shakedown request that will wreck academic freedom and freedom of speech. The shakedown of Columbia University is part of the Orbán-esque authoritarian attacks on higher education by Fascist 47.

See Also:

Vox: The elite institutions caving to Donald Trump, briefly explained

NBC News: Columbia University agrees to Trump demands in effort to restore federal funding

Al Jazeera: How Columbia gave in to Trump’s demands to get its $400m funding back

[sanctity-in-sexuality]

This is a bit embarrassing, but I'm not sure where else to turn

My partner has been accumulating quite a bit of marital debt over the years, which hasn't been a problem as our marital reserves have been robust enough to serve as a sufficient guarantee.

However, we are approaching a cliff wherein circumstances are conspiring to soon require presentation of marital capital, at which point I fear I will need to execute a marital margin call which could potentially maritally bankrupt my marital debtor.

I am attempting to negotiate with my own marital creditors, and have scrounged together enough liquid assets to temporarily satisfy them, but I fear I will soon have no choice but to do a marital selloff which will lead to a marital financial crisis, potentially devastating the marital markets for years to come.

I trust I need to explain or clarify exactly none of these terms of delicacy (or specify which parts are to be taken literally), and have the highest confidence that you will provide advice that will resolve this in a timely manner before all involved are placed into marital receivership

Lol. This do be how some questions I get in my inbox feel like.

[xxxjarchiexxx]

Especially in political contexts, ignorance can be understood not just as the absence of knowledge, but as the product of an active process of suppressing and discrediting knowledge that threatens existing power structures and dominant elites. Results in many areas of academic research undermine the right-wing ideology of the current US administration, including scientific research on climate change, vaccine safety, environmental protection, and alternative energy sources, and historical scholarship on race and gender, to name a few, and that goes a long way to explain the current assault on universities.

Recent academic work on Palestine falls squarely in this category, which is why it is in the crosshairs of the federal government and has been specifically targeted in recent months. That was clearly a major focus of the infamous Department of Education letter to Columbia University, of March 13, 2025, which singled out the Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies, and demanded that it be placed in academic receivership for a minimum of five years. It was also evident in Harvard University’s panicked response to the Trump administration, when it dismissed the director and associate director of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies without citing any justification, since it was a “personnel matter.”

These institutions are being targeted to make examples of them primarily because they’ve dared to teach the truth about Palestine. It was all right as long as knowledge was confined to the ivied halls and dusty libraries, but once it sparked a full-fledged student movement and spread to unions, non-governmental organizations, church leaders, rabbis, and other sectors of society, something had to be done. So what the federal government is trying to do now is nothing less than the complete suppression of knowledge about Palestine. The imposition of ignorance in this area has three aspects to it: undermining the credibility of academic researchers, suppressing and denying the results of their research, and falsely accusing the student movement fueled by this research of antisemitism.

[airsllides]

airsLLide No. 5836: N406BN, Boeing 727-291, Braniff International, Fort Lauderdale, March 23, 1991.

Braniff Ultra number three: Not quite as vibrant as her sisters, N406BN in her brown and mauve Ultra livery is an ultra-loyal (excuse the pun) Braniff bird. She was acquired by the original Braniff International Airways from Frontier Airlines stock in 1972 and then flew with the Texan carrier until Braniff's first demise in 1982.

She returned to serve the restructured 'second' instance, now named Braniff Airlines. As such it operated as a purely domestic carrier from 1983 until its next demise in 1989.

And when 'they' called her again in 1991, she returned to wear the Braniff brand for her third time - until July 2, 1992, when the last and final instance of Braniff abruptly ceased to fly - right before the busy weekend of July 4th - and went into receivership for good.