This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Case 25-23251-MEH Doc 50 Filed 01/07/26 Entered 01/07/26 15:54:27 Desc Main
Document Page 10 of 12
In re Seaview Apartments LLC
Case No. 25-23251 (MEH)
bankruptcy. However, as confirmed by the Debtor’s counsel at the January 6, 2026 hearing, the
Debtor did not appeal, 1 and to the extent that the Debtor argues that the Sale Order was
interlocutory, the Debtor did not petition the Circuit for an order authorizing an interlocutory
appeal or file a motion to stay the effect of the Sale Order pending appeal.
Even if the Court were to evaluate the adequacy and integrity of the sales process and the
marketing efforts of the Receiver, the Debtor’s arguments are unsubstantiated and conjectural.
The Debtor does not explain why, after the sale process was concluded, it only then became
concerned that the sale process was “tainted” by some perceived mismanagement by the Receiver
and only now needs to be “cleanse[d].” (See Debtor’s Opp’n Br. ¶¶ 24-26, Doc. No. 44). The
Debtor asserts that it is “presently engaged in negotiations with multiple prospective brokers
capable of conducting a sales process on the scale and magnitude that the Property deserves,” yet
the Debtor has not provided any details of these efforts, has not applied to retain a broker, has not
identify any specific brokers in its submissions to the Court, 2 and has not filed a certification from
any brokers asserting the purported value of the Property or proposed and different marketing
efforts compared to those utilized by the Receiver’s broker. (See id. ¶¶ 72, 92).
Further, the Debtor appears to be driven by the notion that the Receiver’s sale process
shortchanged the Debtor on the sale price, yet this position starkly contradicts Mr. Weinstein’s
own testimony at his October 27, 2025 deposition, as to what he believed was the fair value of the
1
The Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel, although not yet retained by the Debtor, commented at the January 6,
2026 hearing that his recommendation, at least initially, was to appeal the Sale Order through the State
Court system.
2
At the January 6, 2026 hearing, bankruptcy counsel for the Debtor briefly referenced a telephone call with
someone at Cushman & Wakefield as well as a telephone call with someone at another firm from New York,
but did not provide any detail of those conversations other than noting that the broker from New York
apparently said that his marketing efforts for the Property would include an email to more than 100,000
contacts. The Debtor did not file any supporting certifications on this issue.
Page 10 of 12Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)