Moin Development says billionaire family office blocking $100M hotel refi

By Adam Pincus

David Moinian’s Moin Development accused Feoh Capital of not honoring a $100 million loan payoff agreement connected with the Mondrian Park Avenue hotel at 444 Park Avenue South, in Nomad. The allegation came in a lawsuit filed yesterday in New York State Supreme Court. The suit claims that Feoh is affiliated with the family of the billionaire shipping and real estate magnate, Eyal Ofer.

Court filings are the positions of one party and are not necessarily accurate or complete. Feoh has not yet filed response papers. PincusCo reported in June 2021 that Feoh had acquired the note from Arbor.

The 20-story property with 190 rooms obtained a $110 first mortgage million loan in December 2019. The loan was divided into several pieces, with JPMorgan Chase owning the $60 million tranche, and Arbor Realty Trust owning a $35 million and a $15 million piece. There was also a separate personal note from David Moinian for $7.6 million. Covid negatively impacted the hotel market, the complaint said.

Moin Development alleges Feoh is not abiding by a May 2021 $100 million payoff agreement signed between prior lender Arbor Realty Trust and Moin Development. Arbor bought the $60 million piece from JPMorgan Chase in August 2020 for $48 million and also acquired the $7.6 million note. Arbor sold the total package to Feoh in June 2021, even as Moin alleges it was about to close on a $100 million refinance, which it would use to pay off Arbor.

According to the complaint, “In or about August 2020, an affiliate of Arbor purchased the $60 million ‘A’ note from JP Morgan for a discounted price of approximately $48 million… Just before the closing on the refinancing transaction, in June 2021, Arbor abruptly sold both the ‘A’ and ‘B’ notes, the Personal Note, and mortgage, to Defendant, upon information and belief, an affiliate of the Eyal Ofer family, a predatory investment group, as part of a large fund-raising campaign following Arbor’s closing an $800 million securitized mortgage refinancing transaction… Defendant, immediately after acquiring the notes and mortgage, repudiated the Reduced DPO Agreement, and demanded a larger payoff. As a result, Borrowers’ refinancing lender was unable to consummate the refinancing transaction.” Borrowers now seek specific performance of the Reduced DPO Agreement and to equitably estop Defendant from denying the Reduced DPO Agreement. Alternatively, Borrowers seek damages for Defendant’s breach of the Reduced DPO Agreement.”

LINK