What does debt have to do with it? Can't you read? In any real estate deal, there is liability whether there is debt or not......you should know that if you done so many deals, shooter!
Once again, your total ignorance of the subject is showing.
Debt has EVERYTHING to do with it. If there is no debt, there is no difference between the liability assumed by the general and the limited partner. Further, in that situation, the $100 GP would actually be in a more powerful position than the pension fund that put up $39M cash, as the general has more control.
Debt and liabilities are the same thing, at least in this context. In a real estate deal there is no liability if there is no debt. Honestly, you come across as not having a clue what you're talking about.
Until then, you're simply blowing smoke.
Deals like this don't occur without consideration. He gave up something. Pension funds don't put up the financing and give up control of a project for no reason. Something was received in exchange. Again, as a neophyte you may not understand this, but there is no other logical explanation for a deal this lopsided. Typical liberal elitest criminal behavior -- we just don't know what the crime is yet.
What I said was that there is no concrete evidence dug up by the Nat. Review that says it was illegal. Again, why are you having trouble reading what I post?
It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. It's a freaking duck. I agree there isn't enough there to charge the guy, but I'm confident we'll see an investigation. |
