A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it • Hacker News Board

Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it

#51

Post by astrange » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 6:55 AM UTC

valley_guy_12 wrote: post #35

sacnoradhq wrote: post #25

If you like triangular buildings, the original Apple HQ was: 5300 Stevens Creek Blvd San Jose, CA 95129 Until around the early 1990's, it had the multicolored Apple II logo on the side facing I-280. Accolade with Peter Harris was a tenant at one point.

I don't think that was the original Apple HQ, I think it was just one of many buildings that Apple occupied around Cupertino in the '80s.

Original Apple HQ was on Bandley in Cupertino.

(Semi-related trivia: Bioware's office in Austin is a copy of Apple Infinite Loop.)

Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it

#52

Post by chatmasta » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 10:59 AM UTC

advisedwang wrote: post #27

jeron wrote: post #14

Just visited Flatiron building a few days ago. There’s scaffolding covering the front and sides, are those renovations being done by the existing owner?

Do you recall whether the scaffolding went all the way up? My understanding is lots of NYC buildings have 1 level of scaffolding about the sidewalk as there is a law requiring regular checks against bits of the facade falling off and the scaffolding is a "temporary" alternative that allows them to avoid that expense.

Wow, so that's why there is ugly scaffolding on so many buildings in NYC...

Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it

#53

Post by kristjansson » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

jmacd wrote: post #13

kristjansson wrote: post #4

A landmark skyscraper held as a tenancy-in-common, a forced partition sale, a rouge bidder, ... some lawyers are having a field day with this.

I was curious about the tenancy-in-common issue. This article [1] provides a nice overview. 1: https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2023/03/28/the-trouble-with...

They're relatively common in SF, and increasingly common in LA for 4-5 unit apartment->ownership conversions. While they're weird for owners, they're attractive for small-time developers. Conversion to actual condo ownership is subject to regulation, and pretty tightly controlled by the city, but conversion to TiC requires basically no approval for builds with few (~5) units.

They're pretty attractively priced too, since they can be done so quickly, and because owning a 1/4 undivided share of 4 apartments, with exclusive use of one apartment guaranteed only by the strength of whatever contract a small-time developer can get drawn up requires some ... convincing

Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it

#54

Post by dheera » Thu, Mar 30, 2023, 10:54 PM UTC

H8crilA wrote: post #47

dheera wrote: post #19

Sounds like what VCs do most of the time. I've seen countless term sheets signed and never paid.

"Conspiracy to commit fraud: the defendant devised a scheme in which the defendant repeatedly made promises of payment, which he had no intention to uphold, in order to obtain common shares in various corporations" Make it wire fraud if they used signed PDFs sent over email.

I wish, though I feel like it would backfire on the founders since the VCs talk to each other behind founders' backs.

Also some of these VCs weren't US-based, so enforcement would be difficult.

Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it

#55

Post by H8crilA » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 12:33 AM UTC

dheera wrote: post #54

H8crilA wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Conspiracy to commit fraud: the defendant devised a scheme in which the defendant repeatedly made promises of payment, which he had no intention to uphold, in order to obtain common shares in various corporations" Make it wire fraud if they used signed PDFs sent over email.

I wish, though I feel like it would backfire on the founders since the VCs talk to each other behind founders' backs. Also some of these VCs weren't US-based, so enforcement would be difficult.

I was being a little excessive. After all it should be clear that they won't get the shares without paying up. Or so I'd hope.

Re: A VC bought the Flatiron Building and didn’t pay for it

#56

Post by dheera » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 3:28 AM UTC

H8crilA wrote: post #55

dheera wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish, though I feel like it would backfire on the founders since the VCs talk to each other behind founders' backs. Also some of these VCs weren't US-based, so enforcement would be difficult.

I was being a little excessive. After all it should be clear that they won't get the shares without paying up. Or so I'd hope.

Yes, of course, they don't get any shares. That's the issue with these term sheets, if you read the legalese, they don't say the VC must wire funds, it just says that in exchange for funds they get whatever stock or convertible debt or rights or whatever. If they don't wire, they don't get those things and the contract is then void.

It doesn't say that they must wire funds, or at least, this isn't legally enforceable.

The real problem is I'd really rather get a fast, hard rejection than handshaking and making space in a round for a VC only to have them drop out last minute and then having to scramble to get the void filled, and this whole situation leading to other VCs dropping out like dominoes because now "ooh something looks fishy".