New arguments raised in Wilson Center takeover



At­tor­neys for the par­ties fight­ing over the Au­gust Wil­son Center for African Amer­i­can Cul­ture made ar­gu­ments Thurs­day on mo­tions re­lated to the ap­point­ment of a sec­ond re­ceiver for the cen­ter and the Ur­ban Re­de­vel­op­ment Au­thor­ity of Pitts­burgh’s deed cov­enants on the build­ing.

Dol­lar Bank, which fore­closed on the debt-rid­den fa­cil­ity last year, ar­gued in Al­le­gheny County Com­mon Pleas Or­phans’‍ Court in fa­vor of ap­point­ing a sec­ond re­ceiver to work along­side Ju­dith Fitz­ger­ald, who was ap­pointed con­ser­va­tor by the court in No­vem­ber and has since Jan­u­ary been the cen­ter’s re­ceiver.

Given the length of the de­fault and the na­ture of the mort­gage, said Eric Schaf­fer, at­tor­ney for Dol­lar Bank, the bank needs a so-called con­trac­tual re­ceiver to en­sure that “our rights are pre­served.” While a sale of the build­ing to 980 Lib­erty Part­ners would be “a great thing,” there is con­cern about whether that will hap­pen, he said.

“We want to have greater con­trol, as our con­tract — as the law — per­mits,” he said. “We’re look­ing to pro­tect our col­lat­eral; we're look­ing to re­duce ex­penses.”

Dol­lar Bank pro­posed the ap­point­ment of Pitts­burgh real es­tate firm Baker Young Corp. as re­ceiver.

Other par­ties rep­re­sented at the hear­ing thought a dual re­ceiv­er­ship could cre­ate prob­lems.

“It’s an un­prece­dented form of re­lief Dol­lar’s not en­ti­tled to,” said Mi­chael Shiner, coun­sel to Ms. Fitz­ger­ald. “Dol­lar has got­ten the re­lief it’s re­quested al­ready.”

He ar­gued the ap­point­ment of two re­ceiv­ers “cre­ates an in­cred­i­ble amount of con­fu­sion” and that such a re­ceiver would work only in the in­ter­est of Dol­lar Bank.

“You can’t have two CEOs of a com­pany. You can’t have two pres­i­dents of the United States,” he said. “There’s a sales pro­cess go­ing on right now … Dol­lar Bank will be paid fully at clos­ing.”

While the com­mon­wealth would not op­pose the bank’s ap­point­ment of a re­ceiver, said San­dra Ren­wand of the state at­tor­ney gen­eral’s of­fice, “The ques­tion is, where is the money go­ing to come from?” The state’s goal, she said, is to pro­tect the cen­ter’s char­i­ta­ble pur­pose. “It doesn’t make sense” to have two re­ceiv­ers, she said.

Mr. Schaf­fer said Dol­lar Bank would fund the sec­ond con­ser­va­tor.

In ad­di­tion, at­tor­neys on be­half of 980 Lib­erty Part­ners and the URA dis­cussed the deed cov­enants that could pre­vent a sale of the build­ing with­out the URA’s ap­proval.

At­tor­neys for the URA, 980 Lib­erty Part­ners and the re­ceiver agreed that the pur­chase agree­ment for the build­ing is sub­ject to the URA’s cov­enants; whether the cov­enants can be re­moved will take an­other pro­ceed­ing. The at­tor­neys asked the judge to post­pone such a de­ci­sion.

“We wanted to make sure that our cov­enants were part of that sales agree­ment,” said Mark Nowak for the URA.

Shel­ley Segal, in-house at­tor­ney for the URA, be­came con­cerned dur­ing the ar­gu­ments about the na­ture of the URA cov­enants and ap­proached Mr. Nowak as he and the at­tor­ney for the de­vel­oper ad­dressed the judge. She ap­peared to want to clar­ify that the agree­ment about the na­ture of the deed cov­enants did not sig­nal that the URA sup­ported the sale to 980 Lib­erty Part­ners.

“I fear we have a Tro­jan Horse here,” she said. She de­clined to clar­ify her views fol­low­ing the hear­ing.

The par­ties will ne­go­ti­ate a con­sent or­der re­lated to the URA’s mo­tion.

The hear­ing came the day af­ter a re­port filed to the court that out­lined the new terms of a backup bid pro­posed by The Pitts­burgh Foun­da­tion, the Heinz En­dow­ments and the Rich­ard King Mel­lon Foun­da­tion. The bid, now $7.2 mil­lion, would in­clude $5 mil­lion from the foun­da­tions and $2.2 mil­lion from the URA and Al­le­gheny County or a county-af­fil­i­ated en­tity. The URA would give $1.2 mil­lion, and the county or a county-re­lated en­tity would con­trib­ute $1 mil­lion.

County ad­min­is­tra­tors said the county’s con­tri­bu­tion would not come out of the cap­i­tal bud­get.

“As I’ve said over the past few years, county prop­erty tax dol­lars aren’t used for re­gional as­sets. That’s what the [Re­gional As­set Dis­trict] board was set up for,” county Ex­ec­u­tive Rich Fitz­ger­ald said.

The county’‍s in­volve­ment in the bid came as a sur­prise to county Coun­cil­woman Heather Hei­del­baugh. The cen­ter has no man­age­ment struc­ture in place, she said, and pointed out that Mr. Fitz­ger­ald had op­posed a bud­get item pro­vid­ing funds to the Au­gust Wil­son Center last year.

“This is Rich Fitz­ger­ald speak­ing out of both sides of his mouth,” Ms. Hei­del­baugh said. “He can’t have it both ways.”


Elizabeth Bloom: ebloom@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1750. First Published July 3, 2014 12:00 AM

Join the conversation:

Commenting policy | How to report abuse
To report inappropriate comments, abuse and/or repeat offenders, please send an email to socialmedia@post-gazette.com and include a link to the article and a copy of the comment. Your report will be reviewed in a timely manner. Thank you.
Commenting policy | How to report abuse

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here