Home > Rob Arkley, Security National > Businessweek on the Security National bankruptcy

Businessweek on the Security National bankruptcy

[From businessweek.com]

Security National Properties Funding III LLC, an affiliate of real-estate investment company Security National Master Holding Co., filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors who are owed as much as $500 million.

Security National filed a Chapter 11 case in Wilmington, Delaware, last night along with nine related companies. Security National said it had fewer than 1,000 creditors and fewer than $50 million in assets. The company didn’t provide details about why it filed. Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code is typically used by companies that plan to keep operating while they reorganize.

“The company intends to work with its creditors to emerge from bankruptcy as quickly as possible while executing a plan of reorganization that preserves the company’s operations,” Security National said in an e-mailed statement.

The company said it owns “approximately” 10 regional shopping centers and 21 multi-tenant office buildings in 15 states. The portfolio has “solid cash flows” Chad Christensen, the Security National’s senior vice president of real estate, said in the statement.

[Full article.]

  1. Omnomnonimous
    October 15, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    What are the odds of a familial relationship between Chad C. and Dean C.?

  2. Webster
    October 16, 2011 at 2:36 am

    Owes as much as $500 million to creditors but has less than $50 million in assets. The Marina Center is never going to get built. The Balloon Track is going to remain blight and contaminated. Eureka deserves better.

  3. Mitch
    October 16, 2011 at 7:18 am

    Ah, Webster, you don’t understand the concept of “corporate bankruptcy.” It’s a beautiful thing for anyone who can afford to buy accountants in bulk.

  4. anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Not only that, Webster, they will use corporate-speak logic that they need all kinds of greased wheels and leeway to build projects like Big Box on the Bay…er…the marina center…to make more money to pay their debts while telling us Big Box on the Bay is a favor for our benefit. They’re greedy muthafuckaz that do shady business.

  5. Walt
    October 16, 2011 at 9:17 am

    And remember, they’re paying the debts they HAVE to, but not, for example, property taxes. Only the little people pay those.

  6. Anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 10:51 am

    “They’re greedy muthafuckers that do shady buisness.” Didn’t know this thread was about paykeepers!

  7. empires end
    October 16, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Baykeeper Rules…the cleanup process! Eat dioxin suckaz!!!

    The tyrrant class hates it when they are forced to live up to their responsibilities. They are irresponsible spoiled children with none of the inherent sweetness of innocent youth. Their time is coming!

    As to the big box on the bay scheme.. the collapse of their corrupt empire under the weight of their own greed and as a result of their fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of life on earth, will be the root cause of never seeing a siingle shovel break ground as their financial scam/system/swindle comes tumbling down around their ears!

    Sad dumb tea bagger sheep and shortsigthed, greedy sociopath bosses calling their shots (aka bankers, et al)– two classes of jackass that deserve each other.

  8. Webster
    October 16, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Does this mean Rob Arkley is bankrupt?

    I was glad when he bought the Balloon Track because I thought something would get done. But he has been a huge disappointment, his ego is just too big.

    I wish now the city had gone with the Lavallee plan all those years ago.

  9. mresquan
    October 16, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    I actually predict that the city will buy the property from CUE VI.They have the sitting council and city manager that they want,so the city can buy it at an overpriced value,and pay back their friends who put them in office.No other entity would want the property,and Walmart already has its property here,and the Marina Center project is pretty much dead at this point,as businesses aren’t going to take the risk of doing business with CUE VI,and there is no financial gain in moving a business to the property or starting one,with the current plan written up as it is.

  10. Anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    paykeeper rules the rip off enviro game

  11. October 16, 2011 at 4:57 pm


    What does that mean exactly?

  12. Damitol
    October 16, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Interesting thought, Mark. That does follow the previous modus operandi of the Arkleytians. However do you think that the current city council is stupid or corrupt enough to buy the parcel without requiring Union Pacific to clean it up first? A council with the same right wing tilt didn’t have the balls to do it a few years back. The outrage would have been too much.

  13. Anonymous
    October 16, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Given the settlement with Baykeeper, what is CUE IV obligated to do, in the event they sell or attempt to sell the parcel?

  14. Anonymous
    October 17, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    Larry Glass also shows an unhealthy, even pathological obsession with Security National. What a coincidence.

  15. Ed
    October 17, 2011 at 7:39 pm

    Ironic that even though Arkley shoved Glass because he perceived Larry to be a threat to his marina center scheme, the plan isn’t going forward because of Rob’s own shenanigans.

  16. Anonymous
    October 17, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    What does Larry Glass or any obsession of his, founded or not, have to do with Arkley filing Chapter 11? How is that relevant?

    The question we should be asking is who is going to suffer as a result of this. What parties are impacted by the web of LLC’s…individuals or the community at large. I doubt many of us are worried about B of A or other large lenders. Why is SN not talking? It’s even possible that this move free up money to clean up the Balloon Tract. What’s curious is the silence.

  17. Anonymous
    October 17, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    It’ll be a great day when the laid off workers from SN join the occupy crowd and they have a bake sale.

  18. October 17, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Bravo, 7:24. Your paycheck from Rob is waiting for you at the Mirror.

  19. William Verick
    October 17, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    With a corporate family as complex as the Security National matrix, it’s hard to see exactly what this means. It could be that Security National took all of its toxic assets, parked them in a few selected sacrifice subsidiaries and then stiffed the creditors.

    It could be that — after the BofA suit against Arkley personally — these bankruptcies are the second crack of the thin ice Security National is skating on.

    Or it could be both.

    In any event, these bankruptcies aren’t something Security National would have chosen to do unless times are tough for it. Absent real necessity, someone as narcissistic as Citizen Arkley would be loath to let people even pretend to see him as vulnerable or at a disadvantage. He tends to play the arrogant prick rather than the victim.

    I remember once seeing Robin Arkley standing in his underwear (jockey) in the dressing room at Arcata Healthsport. He was holding court (in his underwear) to a bunch of Ensign Carpenter-type yes men about his recent donation to St. Joes. About how incompetent St. Joes was about this and what a bunch of worthless jerks they were about that.

    Anger and contempt are Arkley’s modus, not self-pity, seeking help or forgiveness. He will be loath to let people see his weakness unless there is no other choice.

    Arkley’s mortgage servicing paradigm was never premised on massive foreclosures, with all the work and effort needed to deal with foreclosing on, preserving and auctioning-off houses under water. My suspicion (or guess) is that Security National’s entire business model is under significant stress.

    Maybe the local ballet company will get to start choosing its own principal dancer for a change.

    Schadenfreude in the morning smells like schadenfreude. Could be tasty.

  20. William Verick
    October 17, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    Correction to the above. It wasn’t a donation to St. Joes, it was Arkley’s donation to St. Bernard’s.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s