BACKGROUNDThe background and procedural history of this chapter 11 case and this adversary proceeding are discussed at length in Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC ), 483 B.R. 601 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012) (" Waterscape I "), interlocutory appeal denied, No. 13 Misc. 47, 2013 WL 658152 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2013) ; In re Waterscape Resort LLC, No. 11–11593(SMB), 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2014) (" Waterscape II "); and Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC ), 520 B.R. 424 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2014) ( " Waterscape III "), interlocutory appeal denied, Nos. 15 cv 356, 15 cv 460(LTS) slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2015). I assume familiarity with those decisions and discuss only the facts relevant to the instant motion.
The background to this adversary proceeding is discussed at length in Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC), 483 B.R. 601 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Waterscape I") and In re Waterscape Resort LLC, No. 11-11593, 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2014) ("Waterscape II"). I assume familiarity with those decisions and limit the discussion, which is nonetheless lengthy, to the facts relevant to the Sanctions Motion.
The ProjectThe background to this bankruptcy case is discussed at length in Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC), 483 B.R. 601 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Waterscape I") and In re Waterscape Resort LLC, Case No. 11-11593, 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2014) ("Waterscape II"). I assume familiarity with those decisions and discuss the facts relevant to the current dispute. Waterscape entered into a Construction Management Agreement ("CMA") with Pavarini pursuant to which Pavarini agreed to act as general contractor to construct a hotel and condominium building on Waterscape's property in Manhattan (the "Project").
The ProjectThe background to this bankruptcy case is discussed at length in Pavarini McGovern, LLC v. Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC ), 483 B.R. 601 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2012) (“Waterscape I ”) and In re Waterscape Resort LLC, Case No. 11–11593, 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2014) (“Waterscape II ”). I assume familiarity with those decisions and discuss the facts relevant to the current dispute.Waterscape entered into a Construction Management Agreement (“CMA”) with Pavarini pursuant to which Pavarini agreed to act as general contractor to construct a hotel and condominium building on Waterscape's property in Manhattan (the “Project”).
BACKGROUNDThe background to this dispute is discussed in In re Waterscape Resort LLC, Case No. 11–11593(SMB), 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2014). I assume familiarity with that decision and discuss the facts required to explain this opinion.
See, Pavarini McGovern, LLC v Waterscape Resort LLC (In re Waterscape Resort LLC), 483 BR 601 (Bankr SDNY Dec. 10, 2012); Waterscape Resort LLC v McGovern, 107 AD3d 571 (1st Dept 2013); In re Waterscape Resort LLC, 2014 WL 1389762 (Bankr SDNY April 9, 2014); In re Waterscape Resort LLC, 520 BR 424 (Bankr SDNY Nov. 24, 2014), In re Waterscape Resort LLC, 544 BR 507 (Bankr SDNY Jan. 14, 2016) and Waterscape Resort LLC v Pavarini McGovern, LLC, 168 AD3d 561 (1st Dept 2019). Waterscape contends that no Court has ever decided the validity of the DBR's Final Resolution, and argues that re-litigation at trial is its contractual right.