Opinion ID: 1967796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Events in 2006

Text: Early in 2006, GPA decided to sell the Mall, and its broker sent a prospectus to potential buyers. EastBanc submitted an offer, but GPA rejected it, indicating that it had accepted another bid. At that point, EastBanc believed that the only way it could acquire the Property would be by calling upon GPA II to exercise its ROFO rights. GPA II did not exercise its ROFO rights in favor of EastBanc, however. In a letter to Mr. Lanier dated March 1, 2006, Mr. Miller asserted that in 1998 and 2001, EastBanc and GPA II discussed the possibility that GPA II would not exercise its ROFO in order to facilitate your making an offer to purchase [the Mall], but we did not reach a definitive agreement on terms. Mr. Miller advised that GPA II was considering exercising the ROFO for [its] own account and benefit in order to purchase the Georgetown Park property. Mr. Miller concluded by asserting that GPA II remains at liberty to exercise its ROFO rights for its own benefit. EastBanc responded on March 17, 2006, asking for confirmation that GPA II would honor its obligations to EastBanc under the 1998 Letter Agreement and requesting that GPA II execute an appropriate instrument assigning its rights under the ROFO to EastBanc. GPA II did not do so by the date requested, and on March 23, 2006, EastBanc filed a complaint against GPA II and Mr. Miller, alleging breach of the 1998 Letter Agreement and requesting specific performance and declaratory relief.