GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC – Further to Execution of Plan Support Agreement with David Tepper-Controlled Parent, Developer of Carolina Panthers HQ/Practice Facility Files Plan and Disclosure Statement; Taps Colliers International to Market Facility

August 11, 2022 – The Debtor filed a first draft of its Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and a related Disclosure Statement [Docket Nos. 295 and 296, respectively]; and separately filed a motion requesting Court approval of (i) the Disclosure Statement (conditionally), (ii) proposed Plan solicitation and voting procedures and (iii) scheduling a Plan confirmation hearing [Docket No. 297].

On June 1st, GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC (“GTRE” or the “Debtor”) filed for Chapter 11 protection with estimated assets between $100.0mn and $500.0mn; and estimated liabilities between $100.0mn and $500.0mn. At filing, the Debtor, a developer of a headquarters and practice facility for the NFL’s Carolina Panthers (the "Project") and controlled by Appaloosa Management’s David Tepper*, noted estimated assets between $100.0mn and $500.0mn; and estimated liabilities between $100.0mn and $500.0mn.

* Reports indicate that Tepper has invested more than $175.0mn into the practice facility, which is located about 25 miles south of the team’s current downtown stadium and headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Tepper co-founded distressed debt-focused hedge fund Appaloosa Management in 1993 and purchased the Carolina Panthers in 2018.

A statement released by the Debtor provides: "This plan reflects GTRE’s promise to expeditiously resolve all claims and make payments to its creditors, including to York County and the City of Rock Hill. GTRE now has a clear path to emerge from bankruptcy made possible by substantial commitments from DT Sports Holding, which has made available to GTRE more than $82 million in cash [see just below on the three cash pots which comprise Parent's (ie Tepper's) cash contribution] in an effort to bring this process to an orderly and equitable conclusion. GTRE believes that the plan is in the best interests of its creditors and anticipates that a hearing to consider approval of the plan will occur in October of this year.”

As discussed further below, the Debtor has engaged Colliers International Valuation & Advisory Services, LLC and Clarus Properties, Inc. d/b/a Colliers International (together “Colliers”) to advise on a marketing process for the Project "which may or may not conclude prior to the Effective Date." 

Plan Overview

The Disclosure Statement [Docket No. 296] states, ”Following negotiations and to facilitate their original objectives, on August 11, 2022, the Debtor entered into a plan support and sponsorship agreement (the ‘Plan Sponsor Agreement’) with DT Sports Holding, LLC (the ‘Parent’ and ‘Plan Sponsor’) [see corporate structure chart below] that provides value and other considerations to the Debtor, a near-term conclusion to the Chapter 11 Case, and distributions to the Debtor’s creditors.

Specifically, the Plan provides for the following consideration and/or commitments from the Plan Sponsor):

1. the Plan Sponsor will pay $60 million (the ‘Settlement Amount’) that will be used to fund distributions from the Settlement Trust (as described herein) on the following waterfall basis: first to Secured Contractor Claims, second to Contractor Priority Claims, third to Unsecured Contractor Claims and other General Unsecured Claims, and fourth any remaining balance of the Settlement Amount will be returned to the Plan Sponsor.
2. The Plan Sponsor will pay $500,000 for the GUC Allocation, which will be distributed to Holders of General Unsecured Claims. 
3. The Plan Sponsor has established and funded the $21.165 million County Escrow Account, which will be used to fund distributions to the County if it establishes that it holds Allowed Claims. 
4. The Plan Sponsor has agreed to complete the Restoration of the Property after the Effective Date on the terms set forth under the Plan, which involves removing the structures, fixtures, scraps, personal property, and any other materials from the Project Site if no third party wishes to retain such structures and/or fixtures pursuant to a Third Party Project Site Sale. 
5. The Plan Sponsor has agreed to the impaired treatment of the entirety of the $20 million DIP Facility (instead of requiring the repayment of the DIP Claims in full in cash on the Effective Date). 
6. The Plan Sponsor has agreed to the treatment of the Prepetition Note Claims against the Debtor, including the waiver of any unsecured deficiency claim that may exist.

Among other things, while the Plan Sponsor Agreement provides a binding commitment from the Plan Sponsor for these foundational elements of the Plan, it also includes a customary fiduciary out for the Debtor to the extent that any alternatives arise that represents a higher or otherwise better economic recovery for the Debtor’s estate than the Plan Sponsor proposal.

As a result of these commitments and contributions, the Debtor is able to provide the following distributions to Holders of Claims and Interests pursuant to the Plan:

1. Holders of Non-Insider Administrative Claims (excluding DIP Claims and Secured Contractor Claims) will be paid in full in cash; 
2. Holders of DIP Claims will receive the membership interests in the Reorganized Debtor; (3) 
3. Holders of Other Priority Claims will receive payment in full in cash; 
4. Holders of Other Secured Claims will either (a) receive payment in full in cash, the Debtor’s interest in their respective collateral, or other treatment that renders such Claims unimpaired or (b) have their Claims reinstated; 
5. Holders of Prepetition Secured Note Claims will receive 100% of the membership interests in non-debtors Waterford Golf Club, LLC and Waterford Golf Club 1, LLC; 
6. Holders of Secured Contractor Claims will receive their pro rata share of the $60 million Settlement Amount through the Settlement Trust until paid in full in cash, subject to the Reserve;
7. on account of the County Claims, which are disputed by the Debtor, the County will receive either of the following:
   1. if the County votes to accept the Plan, a $21.165 million distribution in Cash from the County Escrow Account; or;
   2. if the County does not vote to accept the Plan, then a distribution in Cash from the County Escrow Account pursuant to the terms and conditions of the County Escrow Agreement in an amount equal to either (i) the amount set forth in an agreement by and between the County and the Debtor or (ii) an amount set forth in a Final order of the Bankruptcy Court determining the Allowed amount (if any) of the County Claims;
      1. on account of the City Claims, which are disputed by the Debtor, the City will receive either of the following: 
         1. if the City votes to accept the Plan, the proceeds of the Third Party Project Site Sale of the Project Site up to the capped amount of $20 million after the Plan Sponsor Obligations are paid in full, and then the remaining proceeds will be divided equally between the City and Plan Sponsor until the Plan Sponsor receives an amount equal to the amount of the DIP Claims as of the Effective Date with any remaining amounts thereafter being paid to the City; or 
         2. if the City does not vote to accept the Plan, the proceeds of the Third Party Project Site Sale up to the Allowed City Claim after the Plan Sponsor Obligations are paid in full, and then the remaining proceeds will be divided equally between the City and Plan Sponsor until the Plan Sponsor receives an amount equal to the amount of the DIP Claims as of the Effective Date with any remaining amounts thereafter being paid to the City; 
            1. Holders of General Unsecured Claims (including Unsecured Contractor Claims) will receive their pro rata share of (a) the GUC Allocation and (b) the remaining Settlement Amount after the Secured Contractor Claims, Administrative Contractor Claims, and Priority Contractor Claims are paid in full, in each case subject to the Reserve;
            2. Holders of the Affiliate Unsecured Claims will not receive a distribution; and
            3. Holders of Interests in the Debtor will not receive any distribution and will have such interests be cancelled.

• Class 1(a) (“Other Priority Claims”) is unimpaired, deemed to accept and not entitled to vote on the Plan.
• Class 1(b) (“Priority Contractor Claims”) is impaired and entitled to vote on the Plan. Treatment: Each Priority Contractor Claim shall be channeled to the Settlement Trust. On the Effective Date, in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for each Allowed Priority Contractor Claim, each such Holder shall receive its pro rata share of the Settlement Amount, after all Secured Contractor Claims and Administrative Contractor Claims have been repaid in full, subject to the Reserve.
• Class 2 (“Other Secured Claims”) is unimpaired, deemed to accept and not entitled to vote on the Plan.
• Class 3 (“Prepetition Secured Claims”) is impaired and entitled to vote on the Plan. Treatment: In full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for such Allowed Prepetition Secured Note Claim, each such Holder shall receive 100% of the membership interests in Waterford.
• Class 4 (“Secured Contractor Claims”) is impaired and entitled to vote on the Plan. Treatment: Each Secured Contractor Claim shall be channeled to the Settlement Trust. On the Effective Date, and in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for such Claim, each Holder of an Allowed Secured Contractor Claim shall receive its pro rata share of the Settlement Amount through the Settlement Trust, subject to the Reserve.
• Class 5 (“County Claims”) is impaired and entitled to vote on the Plan. Treatment: (i) If the County votes to accept the Plan, the County Claims shall be Allowed in the amount of $21,165,000, the County shall grant and receive the County Mutual Releases, and the County shall receive a $21,165,000 distribution in Cash from the County Escrow Account in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for its Claims; or, (ii) If the County does not vote to accept the Plan, the County shall not grant and receive the County Mutual Releases but instead will receive a distribution in Cash from the County Escrow Account pursuant to the terms and conditions of the County Escrow Agreement in an amount equal to either (A) the amount set forth in an agreement by and between the County and the Debtor or (B) an amount set forth in a Final order of the Bankruptcy Court determining the Allowed amount (if any) of the County Claims, in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for the County Claims.
• Class 6 (“City Claims”) is impaired and entitled to vote on the Plan. Treatment: 

(i) If the City votes to accept the Plan, the City will grant and receive the City Mutual Releases, and the City Claim will be Allowed in an amount equal to $20,000,000. On the Effective Date, in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for its Claims, the City shall receive either of the following: 

• If the Sale Process has been terminated as of the Effective Date, the Debtor shall convey the Project Site to the City pursuant to Article IV.B herein; provided, that upon any Third Party Project Site Sale, the proceeds of such sale must be distributed in the following manner: first, to satisfy the Plan Sponsor Senior Obligations in full, second, to the City, up to a capped amount of $20,000,000, third, distributed evenly between the City and the Plan Sponsor, until the Plan Sponsor receives the value of the DIP Claims incurred prior to the Effective Date, and fourth any remaining proceeds shall be provided to or retained by the City (the “City Acceptance Waterfall”); or, 
• If the Sale Process remains ongoing as of the Effective Date, the Debtor shall convey the Project Site to the Property Trust pursuant to Article IV.B herein; provided, that upon the closing of any subsequent Third Party Project Site Sale of the Project Site (whether by the Property Trustee or the City after receiving the Project Site from the Property Trustee), the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed pursuant to the City Acceptance Waterfall.

(ii) If the City does not vote to accept the Plan, the City shall not grant and receive the City Mutual Releases, and the City Claim will be allowed in an amount equal to either (i) the amount set forth in an agreement by and between the City and the Debtor or (ii) an amount set forth in a Final Order of the Bankruptcy Court determining the Allowed amount (if any) of the City Claims. On the Effective Date, in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for the City Claims, the City shall receive either of the following: 

• If the Sale Process is terminated on or prior to the Effective Date, or is terminated by the Property Trustee after the Effective Date, the Property Trustee or the Debtor, as applicable, shall convey the Project Site to the City pursuant to Article IV.B; provided, that upon the closing of a subsequent Third Party Project Site Sale (whether by the Property Trustee or the City after receiving the Project Site from the Property Trust), the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed in the following manner: first, to satisfy the Plan Sponsor Senior Obligations in full, second, to the City, up to the amount of the Allowed City Claim, third, to the Plan Sponsor, until the Plan Sponsor receives the value of its DIP Claims incurred prior to the Effective Date, and fourth any remaining proceeds shall be provided to or retained by the City (the “City Rejection Waterfall”); or, 
• If the Sale Process remains ongoing as of the Effective Date, the Debtor shall convey the Project Site to the Property Trust pursuant to Article IV.B of the Plan; provided, that upon the closing of any subsequent Third Party Project Site Sale (whether by the Property Trust or by the City after receiving the Property from the Property Trust), the proceeds of such sale shall be distributed pursuant to the City Rejection Waterfall.
• Class 7 (“General Unsecured Claims (including Unsecured Contractor Claims)”) is impaired and entitled to vote on the Plan. Treatment: General Unsecured Claims will be channeled against the Settlement Trust. On the Effective Date, in full and final satisfaction, compromise, settlement, release, and discharge of and in exchange for an Allowed General Unsecured Claim, each Holder of such Claim shall receive its pro rata share of (i) the GUC Allocation, and (ii) the Settlement Amount remaining, if any, after the payment in full of the Secured Contractor Claims, Administrative Contractor Claims, and Priority Contractor Claims, in each case subject to the Reserve.
• Class 8 (“Affiliate Unsecured Claims”) is impaired, deemed to reject and not entitled to vote on the Plan.
• Class 9 (“Common Equity Interests”) is impaired, deemed to reject and not entitled to vote on the Plan.

Marketing of Project and Engagement of Advisors

The Disclosure Statement provides: "The Plan contemplates a marketing process for the Project, which may or may not conclude prior to the Effective Date. To support the Debtor in this effort, the Debtor has engaged Colliers International Valuation & Advisory Services, LLC and Clarus Properties, Inc. d/b/a Colliers International (together 'Colliers') to render real estate brokerage and appraisal services (the “Services”) to the Debtor in connection with this Chapter 11 Case, subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court of a retention application, which the Debtor expects to file shortly.

Colliers will also serve as the real estate broker that will perform due diligence on the Project Site, develop and launch the marketing plan intended to generate interest among potential buyers, and assist with negotiations with the prospective buyers. The sale process is expected to launch on an external basis in late August or early September 2022. The Debtor and Colliers have been and continue to be proactive in ensuring that a marketing process designed to maximize value for the benefit of the estate is pursued."

Proposed Key Dates

• Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline: September 8, 2022
• Disclosure Statement Hearing: September 20, 2022
• Voting Deadline: TBD
• Plan Objection Deadline: TBD

Key Documents

The Disclosure Statement [Docket No. 296] attaches the below exhibits:

• Exhibit A: Plan.
• Exhibit B: Plan Support and Sponsorship Agreement (filed at Docket No. 297)
• Exhibit C: Liquidation Analysis

Petition Date Perspective

The Debtor, a Delaware limited liability company, announced to The Associated Press ("AP") in a statement on June 1st that is had begun a court-led financial restructuring process in Delaware to effect an orderly wind-down of the project. The action follows the termination and rescission of the agreements with the City of Rock Hill that related to the project, which GTRE previously announced.

In that statement, the Debtor noted: "In recent weeks, GTRE has been confronted with various claims, some valid and some not, from vendors, contractors and other third parties, including York County, SC…GTRE is taking this action to ensure legitimate claims are processed as fairly and expeditiously as possible under a court supervised process, and to achieve the project’s orderly and safe wind-down. GTRE intends to resolve its legitimate obligations.”

In earlier statements, the Debtor announced that (i) it was pausing construction on the stadium project after failing to receive bonds from the City of Rock Hill to pay for public infrastructure (mid-March) and (ii) subsequently that it had "terminated their agreement with the City of Rock Hill" (mid-April).

The AP reporting further noted as to the acrimouious relationship between the Tepper-controlled Debtor and the City of Rock Hill: "The bankruptcy ends a bitter back-and-forth public disagreement between Tepper and the city of Rock Hill.

Tepper’s company said it negotiated with the city for more than a year, warning them in March they had 30 days or the Panthers would pull out. They said in a statement in April that is 'unfortunate that some recently decided to conduct a misguided, destructive public relations campaign to obscure their failures.'

Rock Hill officials responded to the announcement, saying the Panthers’ announcement was 'misleading and erroneous' and that they embraced the Panthers, welcomed their headquarters to South Carolina and 'did everything to make this project a success and has not defaulted on any of our obligations.'

'It was and remains our intention to continue negotiating in good faith while protecting the interests of our taxpayers,' the City of Rock Hill had said. 'In fact, in the past few weeks we have attempted to meet with the Panthers on numerous occasions to no avail'.”

Goals of the Chapter 11 Filings

The Hickman Declaration (defined below) explains, "As a result of the impending termination of the litigation forbearance under the Standstill Agreement, the potential for disruption and unequal treatment of creditors posed by individual creditors asserting Mechanic’s Liens and the general lack of liquidity for the Debtor needed to protect and preserve the Project on an indefinite basis, the Debtor commenced this Chapter 11 Case to (among other things):

(a) provide a centralized and efficient forum for the orderly and safe wind-down of the Project,

(b) equitably address the legitimate liabilities of the Debtor and

(c) preserve the Project safely and securely while pursuing a process to maximize the value of the Debtor’s assets and resolve legitimate claims, in each case under the protection of the automatic stay and with the benefit of the $20 million of non-priming DIP Financing."

Events Leading to the Chapter 11 Filing

In a declaration in support of the Chapter 11 filing (the “Hickman Declaration”), Jonathan Hickman, the Debtors’ chief restructuring officer, detailed the events leading to GT Real Estate’s Chapter 11 filing. The Hickman Declaration provides:

The City’s Failure to Issue Public Bonds

"Each of the [Finance and Construction Administration Agreement] FCAA, the [Land Development Agreement] LDA and the Interlocal Agreement require that the City issue $225 million of public bonds to pay for the Bond Funded Infrastructure. The Debtor had no obligation to commence construction on the Project until the Minimum Bond Funding Amount was placed in the Project Fund. Nevertheless, the Debtor began incurring significant expenses in connection with the Project, including in relation to the Bond Funded Infrastructure. The Interlocal Agreement originally set October 31, 2020 as the deadline by which the City needed to issue the public bonds. After that date came and went, the Debtor agreed under the subsequently executed FCAA to a deadline of February 26, 2021 for the bond issuance. That date also passed without the City issuing the bonds.

In discussions following the failure of the City to issue the public bonds by the deadline under the FCAA, the parties engaged in various good-faith discussions to try and find a workable commercial alternative. No such alternative could be agreed upon. Meanwhile, the Debtor continued to invest in the Project.

Eventually, in light of the inability or unwillingness of the City to obtain low-cost public financing, and the significant ongoing expenditures required to continue construction, the Debtor suspended construction of the Project on March 7, 2022. At that time, the general operating account of the Debtor had a balance of $255,841.77.

Rescission of the FCAA and Special Termination of the LDA

On March 18, 2022, to protect itself from claims by the City under the FCAA and the LDA, and to preserve its rights against the City for the City’s failure to perform under the FCAA, the Debtor issued to the City a notice of default of the City’s obligations under the FCAA for failing to use reasonable best efforts to issue the public bonds by February 26, 2021. After the 30-day cure period under the FCAA expired with no cure by the City, on April 19, 2022, the Debtor provided a notice of special termination of the LDA and a notice of rescission of the FCAA. The City disputes the Debtor’s position that the City failed to perform its obligations under the FCAA.

The City Notifies the Debtor of Purported Defaults under the FCAA

On April 29, 2022, counsel for the City issued a letter to the Debtor alleging that (1) the Debtor failed to cooperate with the City in providing information and other assistance that the City believes would have enabled the City to issue bonds sufficient to fund the Project Account with the Minimum Bond Funding Amount in early 2022, and (2) the Debtor’s suspension of work on the Project were, in each case, defaults under the FCAA. The Debtor disputes the City’s contentions, which were unsupported by any specific allegation regarding the Debtor’s failure to cooperate either prior to, or after, the Bond Funding Deadline.

The County Demand Letter

On May 31, 2022, counsel for the County issued a letter demanding that the Debtor return the $21 million County Contribution paid to the Debtor. The County alleges that the Debtor’s decision not to proceed with the development of the Project requires the Debtor to return the County Contribution, which, as required by the Interlocal Agreement, was funded as a direct payment to the Debtor. The County Contribution was wired to the Debtor’s general operating account and was already spent prior to the County’s demand. The Debtor disputes the County’s position.

The Debtor Continued Good Faith Efforts

Since the time the Debtor suspended construction of the Project, the Debtor has been coordinating with the Construction Manager to secure the Project site and protect materials and equipment. In addition, since the suspension of construction the Debtor has made concerted efforts to pay legitimate Vendor Claims as they became due whenever possible, which has significantly reduced the amount of unpaid Vendor Claims. Such payments were made with the new money proceeds of the Prepetition Promissory Notes, as well as the proceeds of a sale of a parking lot adjacent to Panthers stadium, which the Debtor sold on April 12, 2022 to an affiliate, PS Marks LLC, for $15.5 million, the same price the Debtor paid for it previously. Since the suspension of construction on March 7, 2022, the Debtor has paid approximately $40 million in invoices owed to vendors and service providers for the Project, all or substantially all of which may have been entitled to Mechanic’s Liens.

Notwithstanding the rescission of the FCAA and the special termination of the LDA by the Debtor, and the City’s allegations regarding the Debtor’s breach of the FCAA, the Debtor thought it was important to engage with the City in discussions regarding the future of the Project to determine if a consensual resolution of their disputes and a mutually acceptable path forward could be agreed. Accordingly, on May 2, 2022, the Debtor and the City entered into the Standstill Agreement to facilitate those discussions. Pursuant to its terms, the litigation forbearance in the Standstill Agreement expired at 5:00 pm prevailing Eastern Time on June 2, 2022.

Vendors have begun providing notice to the Debtor of their statutory Mechanic’s Liens on the Project and these notices may increase in the weeks to come. Further, the Debtor itself lacks the liquidity needed to continue to preserve the safety and security of the Project indefinitely.”

Prepetition Indebtedness

The acquisition costs for the site of the Project and the construction costs of the Project were paid by the Debtor, which was funded with (1) capital contributions from or via the Member, (2) $163.5 million of intercompany loans from Panthers Football, LLC, (3) the City Contribution made pursuant to the FCAA and and (4) the County Contribution made pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement.

Since construction on the Project was paused, the Debtor has funded payments of expenses from proceeds obtained from (i) the sale to PS Marks LLC of a parking lot adjacent to the Panthers’ football stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina and (ii) the issuance of a $4 million amended and restated secured promissory note (dated May 26, 2022) and a $3.2 million secured promissory note (dated May 31, 2022), in each case issued by the Debtor to the Member (the “Prepetition Promissory Notes”).

The Debtor’s real estate at the site is not subject to any mortgage and the Debtor is not party to any credit agreements, bond indentures, promissory notes, or other non-trade financial credit arrangements, other than the Prepetition Promissory Notes and intercompany loans made by Panthers Football, LLC.

To date, the Debtor has invested approximately $282 million on the Project. Significant work would be required to complete the Project, which the Debtor estimates would cost at least $500 million under current market conditions (inclusive of re-mobilization and re-bid costs for goods and services).

Project Vendor Claims

Although the Debtor will seek a modest extension of the time to prepare its schedules, the Debtor intends to expeditiously prepare and file its schedules of assets and liabilities and establish a claims bar date, which will be crucial to the Debtor’s objective of identifying legitimate creditor claims.

Various parties have delivered goods and rendered services to the Construction Manager and the Project prior to the Petition Date and have a right to payment as a result (the “Vendor Claims”). Since suspension of the Project in March 2022, parties have provided notice of their Mechanic’s Liens under South Carolina law. The Debtor believes that all or substantially all Vendor Claims are held by the Construction Manager’s subcontractors, and thus will be subsumed within the claim of the Construction Manager. However, because the subcontractors may be entitled to Mechanic’s Liens against the Debtor’s property under South Carolina law, each individual subcontractor with a Mechanic’s Lien that has not dissolved may have a claim against the property of the Debtor, which I am informed may be considered a claim against the Debtor under the Bankruptcy Code.

The estimated quantum of Vendor Claims (without duplicating the claims of the subcontractors and the Construction Manager) could be as high as $90 million (with a low-end estimate based on presently available information of $55 million), but the Debtor intends to use the proof of claim process to reconcile the Vendor Claims and determine on a final and equitable basis the appropriate allowed amount of such claims (as well as any other claims asserted by parties in interest).

About the Debtors

According to the Debtors: “The Debtor was formed for the purposes of owning the site and developing the Project. While the vision for the Project was first announced in 2019, the Debtor acquired the site in March 2020 and broke ground on the Project in July 2020. The multi-faceted site was intended to not only serve as the Panthers’ new team headquarters, but also was to include indoor and outdoor practice facilities, an indoor events center, a premier orthopedic sports medicine facility, corporate office space, residential spaces and retail stores. All of this would be surrounded by parkland-like grounds complete with bike and walking paths and a stream. A phase 1 opening for the site was scheduled for 2023."

Corporate Structure Chart

Read more Bankruptcy News

The post GT Real Estate Holdings, LLC – Further to Execution of Plan Support Agreement with David Tepper-Controlled Parent, Developer of Carolina Panthers HQ/Practice Facility Files Plan and Disclosure Statement; Taps Colliers International to Market Facility appeared first on Daily Bankrupt Company Updates | Bankrupt Company News.