Rent Increase Survey

Have you submitted your latest rent increase data to the rent increase survey?

Hearing That Could See SunCal Assets Seized Pushed to June 1st

A hearing that could allow a creditor to seize SunCal CEO Bruce Elieff’s property, including SCC Acquisitions Inc., the parent company of SunCal Companies development projects, has been pushed to Tuesday, June 1st.

The hearing in Orange County Superior Court was set for last Friday, but sources tell Action Alameda News that even though Judge Charles Margines was ready to hear the case then, attorneys for SunCal, and the creditor, Gray 1 CPB LLC, were before the judge shortly after 9:00 a.m. negotiating a delay in the hearing.

The firm “Gray 1 CPB LLC” is a mysterious real estate investment fund with ties to Ayres Advisors, in San Diego. Ayres Advisors and Ayres Land Company have an address of 550 West C Street, San Diego, the same address listed on court documents for Gray 1 CPB.

Sources have explained to Action Alameda News that the pre-judgment writ of attachment that Gray 1 has secured against SunCal and Bruce Elieff effectively freezes their assets until the hearing, and that, should Gray 1 prevail in the hearing, they could ask the local Sheriff’s department to begin seizing the SunCal assets to settle a $7.9 million claim. Bruce Elieff and SunCal Acquisitions Inc. could each file for bankruptcy as a tactic to stall the seizure; more than 30 SunCal development projects across California and in New Mexico, involving financial partners Lehman Brothers and DE Shaw, are already in bankruptcy.

Tonight, at Alameda City Hall, the City of Alameda Planning Board will hold a public session to identify issues to examine in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process for SunCal’s revised Alameda Point development plan. SunCal has scheduled an open house at 5:00 p.m. at the Main Library.

3 comments to Hearing That Could See SunCal Assets Seized Pushed to June 1st

  • Barb

    I cannot believe that there is not a clause in the ENA that allows Alameda to terminate the ENA if the version of SUNCAL we are dealing with is in bankruptcy or its creditors have obtained prejudgement liens. Why would anyone enter into a contract with SUNCAL that gives it such exclusive control and power over a city and its citizens? And we have two lawyers on the Council, Gilmore and Johnson? Surely they must deal in the real world somewhere? Didn’t either of them bother to read the ENA before voting?

    My goodness this is such a mess and a litigation nightmare. We can only hope that the City Staff can get us through the mess this Council brough upon us.

  • Barb

    And I practice criminal defense. That does not mean that we were exempt from proving we were proficient in subjects required for passage of the BAR exam such as Contracts and Real Property.
    And the Mayor and Councilmember routinely are asked to have input on extremely complex legal subjects. While they may rely on staff’s more detailed understanding and analysis, they should be in a position to better understand the extemely complex nature of these dealings. And penalties for failure. Such as bankruptcy. They ofter rely on their own expertise (or lack thereof) in making oral presentations on issues. At the very least they should admit how much they don’t know and that they rely entirely on staff’s legal work when making decisions.