Northwind sues Aulder for $19.1M; EB-5 group sues Dermot for $16.5M

Northwind Group seeks $19.1M from Aulder Capital: Ran Eliasaf’s Northwind Group as plaintiff alleges Aulder Capital owes it $19.1 million after Aulder completed financing for the $46 million purchase of unsold condominium units in 100 West 93rd Street. Aulder closed on a $42 million loan from another lender, allegedly contrary to their agreement. Northwind seeks $1.14 million for the alleged breach of exclusivity. It is also seeking $18 million for the alleged breach of confidentiality. According to the complaint: “Plaintiff, an affiliate of real estate investment firm Northwind Group, entered into a term sheet in early June 2021 with Aulder and the Borrower to provide $42 million in financing for a real estate project (the “Project”) to, among other things, acquire 111 residential condominiums located at 100 West 93rd Street, New York, New York (the “Property”). The term sheet contained an exclusivity provision that was binding on Aulder, the Borrower and Bamberger that they could not pursue financing for the Project with any other party before a 60-day “no shop period” had expired. Nonetheless, prior to the expiration of the “no shop period,” Aulder, Bamberger and the Borrower began negotiations with Nalin Advisors S.A. (“Nalin”) for alternative financing.” LINK

EB-5 group seeks $16.5M from Dermot: The EB-5 group New York City Regional Center, LLC alleges Dermot Company owes $16.5 million in guarantees over a project to redevelop Pier A in Manhattan. This is the second time the EB-5 group has sued the borrower. The first time was “New York City Waterfront
Development Fund II, LLC v. Pier A Battery Park Assocs., LLC, Index No. 657055/2020. In the new case, the plaintiff alleges: “Plaintiff, managed by the New York City Regional Center, LLC (“NYCRC”), raised and invested $16.5 million in the Pier A Project via the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program…as of January 2020, the Borrower had stopped making interest payments due to the Lender under the Loan Agreement, or payments owed to BPCA under the Lease. Then in August 2020, it tendered the keys to Pier A to BPCA, purporting to surrender its leasehold interest (although BPCA disputes the “surrender”) and walking away from the Loan entirely…Borrower does not have sufficient assets necessary to repay the Loan and accrued interest. However, the Guaranty makes Defendants, as “absolute” and “unconditional” Guarantor.” LINK