Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement

12 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2023

Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement [Abstract]

Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement

Note 14 - Termination of Purchase and Sale Agreement:

On January 14, 2020, FREIT and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Sellers” or “Defendant”), entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (as subsequently amended, the “Purchase and Sale Agreement”) with Sinatra Properties LLC (the “Purchaser”, “Sinatra” or “Plaintiff”), which provided for the sale by the Sellers to the Purchaser of 100% of the Sellers’ ownership interests in six real properties held by the Sellers in exchange for the purchase price described

therein, subject to the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. On April 30, 2020, the Sellers delivered written notice to the Purchaser of the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms due to the occurrence of a “Purchaser Default” thereunder, based on the Purchaser’s failure to perform its obligations under the Purchase and Sale Agreement and close the transactions contemplated therein.

Upon the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Purchaser delivered into escrow a deposit in the amount of $15 million (the “Deposit”), in the form of an unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit in such amount (the “Letter of Credit”). The Purchase and Sale Agreement provides that the Sellers’ exclusive remedy, in the event of a “Purchaser Default” and the termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, is the forfeiture of the Deposit to the Sellers as liquidated damages. Accordingly, contemporaneously with the Sellers’ delivery of the termination notice to the Purchaser, the Sellers delivered written notice to the escrow agent requesting that the escrow agent release the Letter of Credit from escrow and deliver same to the Sellers.

On May 6, 2020, the Purchaser filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against the Sellers in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County (“Court”), in which, among other things, the Purchaser alleges breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against the Sellers in connection with the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The Purchaser sought (a) a judgment of specific performance compelling the Sellers to convey the properties under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Purchaser; (b) declaratory judgment from the court that (i) the Purchase and Sale Agreement is not terminated, (ii) the Purchaser is not in default under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (iii) the Sellers are in default under the Purchase and Sale Agreement, subject to a right to cure; (c) an order for injunctive relief compelling the Sellers to perform the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (d) in the event that the court does not order specific performance, a judgment directing that the Purchaser’s $15 million deposit under the Purchase and Sale Agreement be returned to the Purchaser, and compensatory, consequential and incidental damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and (e) attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Purchaser also filed lis pendens with respect to each of the six properties that were subject to the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The lis pendens provides notice to the public of the Complaint. Pending the resolution of this litigation, the filing of the lis pendens will adversely affect the future sale or financing of those properties.

On June 17, 2020, the Sellers filed their answer, separate defenses, and counterclaims (the “Answer”) in response to the Complaint, in which, among other things, the Sellers (a) deny the Purchaser’s claim that the Sellers’ termination of the Purchase and Sale Agreement was wrongful, and assert that there was no contractual basis in the Purchase and Sale Agreement to relieve the Purchaser from its obligation to perform thereunder, or to defer or postpone the Purchaser’s obligation to perform, (b) assert certain defenses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint without admitting any liability, and (c) request relief from the Court in the form of (i) judgment in the Sellers’ favor dismissing all of the Purchaser’s claims against them with prejudice and denying all of the Purchaser’s requests for relief, (ii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and (iii) such other and further relief as the Court deems just.

In addition, the Answer asserts counterclaims by the Sellers against Sinatra for breach of contract due to Sinatra’s failure to close the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms, and the Sellers seek a declaratory judgment from the Court that the Sellers properly terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement in accordance with its terms due to Sinatra’s default and an order from the Court that Sinatra authorize the escrow agent to release the $15 million deposit under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Sellers. On April 28, 2021, the Sellers amended the Answer to include (1) counterclaims against Sinatra for breach of contract due to Sinatra’s breach of confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (2) third-party claims against Sinatra’s affiliate Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC for breach of its confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the non-disclosure agreement entered into by the parties in connection with the negotiation of the transactions contemplated by the Purchase and Sale Agreement, based on the conduct of Sinatra and its affiliates after the Sellers terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement.

In connection with these counterclaims and third-party claims, the Answer sought the following relief from the Court: (a) liquidated damages in the amount of $15 million, as provided in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (b) in the alternative to the liquidated damages provided for in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, money damages in an amount to be determined at trial; (c) interest, attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the defense of the Purchaser’s claims and the prosecution of the Sellers’ counterclaims against the Purchaser, as provided for in the Purchase and Sale Agreement; (d) judgment declaring that the Sellers properly terminated the Purchase and Sale Agreement due to the Purchaser’s default thereunder; (e) judgment declaring that the Purchaser must authorize the escrow agent to release the $15 million deposit to the Sellers; (f) an order enjoining the Purchaser and its affiliates from engaging in further breaches of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and non-disclosure agreement, and compelling the Purchaser and its affiliates to return the Sellers’ confidential information and materials and to use best efforts to ensure the return of the Sellers’ confidential information and materials from third parties to whom the Purchaser and/or its affiliates provided such materials; and (g) such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

In the Answer filed by the Purchaser on September 15, 2020 and the Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed by the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC on June 7, 2021, the Purchaser and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC have generally denied the claims, counterclaims and allegations contained in the Sellers’ original and amended Answer, and asserted affirmative defenses to the Sellers’ claims and counterclaims.

Each of the Sellers and the Purchaser filed motions for summary judgment (“Summary Judgment Motions”) with the Court seeking, among other things, the dismissal of the other parties’ claims.

On February 4, 2022, the Court entered an Order (the “February 4 Order”) with respect to the Summary Judgment Motions which provides as follows:

(1) The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s have breached the subject contract and the Court dismisses all claims for relief filed by the Plaintiffs in this suit. The Court dismissed the Complaint and dismisses the Lis Pendens.

(2) The Court finds that the liquidated damage provision of the contract is not enforceable and the Court Orders that the $15 million held in escrow be returned to the Plaintiff.

(3) The Court dismisses the Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint. All pleadings are dismissed.

On May 31, 2022, Sinatra filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court, requesting that the Court reconsider its February 4, 2022 Order and, among other things, (a) grant Sinatra’s motion for summary judgment, and (b) reverse the Court’s findings that (1) Sinatra breached the Purchase and Sale Agreement, (2) the Sellers did not breach the Purchase and Sale Agreement and (3) the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint and Lis Pendens. On July 8, 2022, the Court denied Sinatra’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Following the February 4 Order, the Sellers and the Purchaser each filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. On December 8, 2022 the Court entered an Order awarding Sellers $3,420,422.88 in attorneys’ fees and denying the Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees (the “December 8 Order”). Upon entering the December 8 Order, the Court had adjudicated all unresolved issues in the action.

On December 8, 2022, the Sellers filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing from that portion of the February 4 Order which declined to enforce the liquidated damages provision in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a result of such appeal by the Sellers, the liquidated damage amount of $15 million remains in escrow and has not been returned to Sinatra.

On December 22, 2022, the Purchaser filed a Notice of Cross Appeal appealing from all determinations by the Court adverse to the Purchaser, including (i) that portion of the February 4 Order holding that the Purchaser breached the contract; (ii) the denial of the Purchaser’s motion for reconsideration of the February 4 Order; and (iii) the December 8 Order awarding the Sellers $3,420,422.88 in attorneys’ fees and denying the Purchaser’s request for attorneys’ fees.

The Sellers continue to believe that the allegations set forth in the Complaint filed by Sinatra and in the Answer to Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint and Affirmative Defenses filed by Sinatra and Kushner Realty Acquisition LLC, are without merit.

On July 19, 2023, the Sellers filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, Chancery Division (the “Court”), against Kushner Companies LLC (“Kushner”) seeking to collect on a $3.42 million judgment entered by the Court in favor of the Sellers against Sinatra, a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant, Kushner. The Complaint alleges that Kushner used Sinatra as a shell to evade its debts and obligations, and asks the Court to pierce the corporate veil and hold Kushner liable for Sinatra’s debts and obligations under the Purchase Agreement, including the attorneys’ fees awarded to the Sellers, all costs incurred by the Sellers to enforce the Judgment and any additional fees awarded to the Sellers in connection with the pending appeal. On September 22, 2023, Kushner filed a motion with the Court seeking to dismiss the Complaint in lieu of an Answer to the Complaint. The Sellers will vigorously oppose Kushner’s motion to dismiss.

As previously disclosed, FREIT has incurred substantial costs in legal fees and related costs through October 31, 2023 in connection with the Sinatra litigation. FREIT expects to continue to incur additional costs until such time as (i) the appeal is resolved with respect to the Court’s decision to deny FREIT’s liquidated damages claim, and (ii) FREIT also resolves the additional claims to collect on its $3.42 million Judgment and obtain reimbursement of its ongoing legal costs and expenses. Although it is not possible to forecast the final outcome of this litigation, to date FREIT has successfully avoided Sinatra’s claim for specific performance under the Purchase Agreement and was awarded a favorable $3.42 million Judgement to be reimbursed for certain of its legal fees and expenses.

As of October 31, 2023, the $15 million deposit and the $3.42 million award for recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses have not been included in income in the accompanying consolidated statements of income. Legal costs attributed to the legal proceeding between FREIT and certain of its affiliates and Sinatra Properties, LLC have been incurred in the amount of approximately $966,000, $1,170,000 and $2,282,000 for the years ended October 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021, respectively, and are included in operating expenses on the consolidated statements of income.