Got to love the NYRA......

#1 01-08-2007, 12:49 PM

The NYRA is trying to get a loan for $50mm even though they have filed for bankruptcy. Of course, they are going to have to put up some collateral. And what are they using as collateral....well the tracks. NYRA was hoping to slip this by today but the court (Judge Peck) decided to wait until Feb 6th to decide which party owns the land. The bankruptcy hearing or the case being dismissed is going to be on Jan 19th.

But you have to love the NYRA trying to secure a loan while filing for bankruptcy.

Here is the link to the story.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/81706.html

randallscott35 · #2 01-08-2007, 12:55 PM

Euro,

You have such a hard on for the NYRA. Any chance to criticize and you take it. Getting loans while waiting for bankruptcy is not uncommon.

blackthroatedwind · #3 01-08-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Euro,

You have such a hard on for the NYRA. Any chance to criticize and you take it. Getting loans while waiting for bankruptcy is not uncommon.

He is trolling for a fight.

The proper word for his repeated nonsense is " boorish ".

#4 01-08-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Euro,

You have such a hard on for the NYRA. Any chance to criticize and you take it. Getting loans while waiting for bankruptcy is not uncommon.

I like the NYRA. I don't mind them one bit and I have said numerous of times that I think they should retain the tracks. They put a great product out there. However, I do have some questions about the way the conduct business. Just because I am critical of them doesn't mean I don't like them or support them.

#5 01-08-2007, 01:01 PM

What I find amusing about this is that they are trying to use the tracks as collateral. Well, it hasn't been decided if they own them or not. You can't use something you don't own as collateral. Business decisions like this is what I question. And I know it isn't uncommon at all for a company to secure a loan using collateral when facing bankruptcy. But usually, those companies own their collateral.

Rudeboyelvis · #6 01-08-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

What I find amusing about this is that they are trying to use the tracks as collateral. Well, it hasn't been decided if they own them or not. You can't use something you don't own as collateral. Business decisions like this is what I question. And I know it isn't uncommon at all for a company to secure a loan using collateral when facing bankruptcy. But usually, those companies own their collateral.

They obviously feel they do in fact own the tracks. Securing a loan using them a colateral would further prove their point.
It's quite brilliant. They've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Though I can't imagine that there's a banking institution that would go for it...

Gander · #7 01-08-2007, 02:10 PM

They prove their competence every day by making sure their website is updated with scratches and changes in a timely manner.

#8 01-08-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

They obviously feel they do in fact own the tracks. Securing a loan using them a colateral would further prove their point.
It's quite brilliant. They've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Though I can't imagine that there's a banking institution that would go for it...

It was a brillant attempt. Could you imagine being GE Capital and funding the loan then finding out that the NYRA doesnt own the tracks. The NYRA would be in even more trouble. It is just troubling to me that they always need loans to operate.

Downthestretch55 · #9 01-08-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

It was a brillant attempt. Could you imagine being GE Capital and funding the loan then finding out that the NYRA doesnt own the tracks. The NYRA would be in even more trouble. It is just troubling to me that they always need loans to operate.

Euro,
I'm with Gander on this.
Did you ever try to get a loan when you had nothing to put up?
Though I've never filed for bankruptcy (came close, knock on wood), lawyers ain't for free. How the heck can you pay them? They know your credit history from the get go.

#10 01-08-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Euro,
I'm with Gander on this.
Did you ever try to get a loan when you had nothing to put up?
Though I've never filed for bankruptcy (came close, knock on wood), lawyers ain't for free. How the heck can you pay them? They know your credit history from the get go.

I dont understand your point here. I have had several loans with nothing to put up. All I had was my credit, reputation and assests. The difference here is that they NYRA is not even sure they own the collateral they were putting up.

Downthestretch55 · #11 01-08-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I dont understand your point here. I have had several loans with nothing to put up. All I had was my credit, reputation and assests. The difference here is that they NYRA is not even sure they own the collateral they were putting up.

Sure Euro,
No question about credit for nothing. I've done the same. (Credit cards, more).
When you're talking big bucks, you need something.
Even if NYRA is bluffing that they have what they're putting up...let the lawyers sort it ot. They'll take their cut.

blackthroatedwind · #12 01-08-2007, 04:02 PM

Maybe I'm crazy, but having the deeds and having purchased the property is at least a reasonable case for ownership.

Sightseek · #13 01-08-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Maybe I'm crazy, but having the deeds and having purchased the property is at least a reasonable case for ownership.

I was wondering if they could also place an Adverse Possession claim as well, but I don't know how well that would hold up against the state seeing as it is a difficult case against individuals who own property.

blackthroatedwind · #14 01-08-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I was wondering if they could also place an Adverse Possession claim as well, but I don't know how well that would hold up against the state seeing as it is a difficult case against individuals who own property.

I don't know what that is.

SentToStud · #15 01-08-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't know what that is.

it means when one party posesses the property of another over an extended period and claims legal title.

Sightseek · #16 01-08-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SentToStud

it means when one party posesses the property of another over an extended period and claims legal title.

Also generally followed up by tax payments of the land by the party trying to take possession. Very tough case to prove though.

Downthestretch55 · #17 01-08-2007, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Maybe I'm crazy, but having the deeds and having purchased the property is at least a reasonable case for ownership.

BTW,
I think you're right, not crazy.
Deeds will work, so will tax records.

Downthestretch55 · #18 01-08-2007, 04:22 PM

"Adverse Possession" is used to demonstrate use for seven years (NY Law).
Not a solid case for NYRA, as the state is also the beneficiary.
Might play, but I think tax records are all that's required.
We'll see.

AeWingnut · #19 01-08-2007, 04:40 PM

I think Enron used to use the same collateral over and over. They simply used off sheet balancing to hide the first loans.. not that anyone bothered to check.

Why not just do what the Russian gangs are doing. Have someone appraise everything at 10 times the value, get a loan, split up the cash and let them foreclose while you move to the next mark.

sumitas · #20 01-08-2007, 05:08 PM

The NYRA has paid lots of taxes for many years on what is probably their property. I don't think the state will be able to get around that.