It seems that others are catching on. Kudos to district judge Donald Parsons.
In a Tribune article on Friday, January 20, 2012 by Neil Hartnell, apparently the district judge questions the deal and specific benefit to Brookfield:
"In granting two of Kerzner International's junior lenders the temporary restraining order (TRO) they sought to prevent Brookfield's proposed $175 million debt-for-equity swap from going ahead, district judge Donald Parsons questioned why the Toronto-based asset manager, as the most junior of the seven creditors, should be the only one to benefit from equity ownership of the "uniquely valuable" Paradise Island resorts." Read full article here: The Tribune
Where would Birch Mountain shareholders be if the receivership judge had entertained the same question?
Was the Birch receivership deal a "sweetheart deal principally for the benefit" of Brookfield?
"By Jeffrey Todd, Nassau Guardian, January 30, 2012
From the time the loan went into default last spring until December 8, 2011, Brookfield acted as special servicer to administer the loan for all the lenders.
Notwithstanding this, and in breach of contractural and legal duties they owed to the plaintiffs and other lenders and participants, they have negotiated a sweetheart deal principally for their own benefit," the document stated." (the document referred to are court documents)
Read full article here: The Nassau Guardian
Jeffrey Todd from the Nassau Guardian also noticed similarities between the takeover of the Atlantis property and Birch Mountain:
January 26, 2012
"An ongoing legal battle waged against Brookfield Asset Management bears similarities to the now defunct action taken against the firm by Kerzner International's senior lenders."
Read the full article here: The Nassau Guardian
If there are similarities it's because there is a pattern. The opportunities are different but the end result is the same.