Cathouse. New 'owner' screwed?

[Guest]

You read that original thread closer than I did; good thing, since I am too lazy to do so. Probably the most "damning" comment is this one: "Of course you are not going to sublease without meeting the true landlord. You would have a new agreement that the increase would be a predetermined % in 30 months."

 

I am taking excerpts from your excerpts (so some of this may be out of context), but there seems to be some confused thinking. For example, first we read (a) "It would be up to the sublessee and my landlord if they wanted to execute a new agreement. Whatever happens I am out of the formula unless..." and then ( "the Lessor probably won't let me transfer the lease. He wants to keep me on the hook."

 

Both of these comments appear to be from the same post, and they seem to contradict each other. You can't both be out of the formula and on the hook.

 

The one thing that TC does not state clearly is that he cannot sublet or assign without the permission of his landlord, and that if he purports to do so, his lease is voided. The closest to this seems to be "Of course you are not going to sublease without meeting the true landlord."

 

I don't know what happened here, but it seems possible that neither TC nor the new owner made the link between (1) "I am leasing from somebody who is leasing from somebody who is leasing from the management company who is leasing from the owners of Nana Plaza" and (2) I cannot sublease without the consent of my landlord and, the moment I do, my lease and your sublease are voided.

 

You do see the following statement: "At the end of 30 months my lease with my landlord expires and the sublessee gets their deposit back from me. I take what belongs to me (sound system, stools, refrigerators, etc) and leave. It would be up to the sublessee and my landlord if they wanted to execute a new agreement." And this statement suggests that the for the next 30 months TC's lease and any sublease are valid.

 

Who knows? But there is one thing that is clear from all of this: before you buy a business, particularly a bar, do some due diligence.

 

Somebody above - Stickman, I think - mentioned litigation. If these guys go to litigation, they'll end spending ten times what it would have cost to do a simple due diligence that would revealed these problems. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But then I have always suspected guys do most of their thinkingwith their "little brains" when buying a bar in Thailand.

[chuckwoww]

Gadfly1 said:

 

Somebody above - Stickman, I think - mentioned litigation. If these guys go to litigation, they'll end spending ten times what it would have cost to do a simple due diligence that would revealed these problems. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But then I have always suspected guys do most of their thinkingwith their "little brains" when buying a bar in Thailand.

 

I don't know how this applies in Thailand but usually just the suggestion of litigation is enough to get people thinking about cutting their losses. Depending on the depth of their pockets they either walk away or settle out of court.

 

Of course we don't really know who's suing who or what for. But I'm sure Stick will keep us up to date. Everyone loves a scrap and this has the makings of a good one. ::

[Lord Toad]

The situation is very solvable except for two problems: The biggest one is the Landlord Boss Hog. He enjoys the drama and being an a...hole. Equally the seller was in part wrong but will not compromise (maybe because of BH).

 

The new tenants are thus caught between a rock and a hard place. And their problem is being new to LOS they keep getting conflicting advise and BH shouting at them. If they told everybody they would see them in court: it would take two years and they could just carry on! And the law would protect them meantime: although BH will make all kinds of threats!

[dddave]

Early this year, when "Topcat" first let it be known that "Cathouse" was to be for sale, I approached him with an offer; that I would buy 50% of "Cathouse", with him staying on as half owner. I would take care of daily bar operations and he would have the time and resources to pursue his other activities. He thought about and we worked out a deal, contingent on my being able to get the money I needed. That turned out to be a problem; I would have had to cash out of my mutual fund, incurring unexpectly large penalties, so I had to back out of the agreement.

During the entire transaction, Topcat was as transparant as any seller could be. I was given access to all financial records, including bundles of daily receipts and liquor invoices; no question, including those about layers of leases went unanswered.

I assume, as a buyer of a business, a responsibility to exercise "due dilligence" in determining and verifying all aspects of that businesses operations and structure. It is my job to ask the questions that matter, and to dig into any areas of doubt. I certainly knew what the deal was with the leases, and the problems that the future could hold.

 

To this day, I regret that I was unable to complete the deal; Topcat is a straightforward and honerable person with whom I would not have any hesitation to do business with at any time.

 

In my opinion,somewhere along the line, the new buyers failed in their responsibility to perform "due dilligence".

but now are trying to pass the blame for that failure onto "Topcat".

 

David Jerauld

[shygye]

Well, Topcat it seems NEVER got permission from Boss Hog to transfer his sublease. Topcat kept silent on that part of the deal.

 

In the USA Topcat would have to return the money since he could not convey the sublease, ie complete his part of the contract. In the LOS you are in limbo.

[Yehtmae]

Latest from BaronBonk:

 

Of course opposite the Big Mango is the Cathouse which recently changed management under questionable circumstances. The dispute here rumbles on with the two new owners caught between a rock and hard place. The rock is head leaseholder Boss Hog who relishes being difficult and bloody minded, and the hard place, previous operator, Top Cat, who should have been a bit more judicious in his dealings in this matter, but is now digging in and saying he is right. The lawyers are counting the hours and it looks like going on and on and on. That is unless somebody does something stupid, like listening to Boss Hog huff and puff.

 

 

Hope it gets sorted out, I'd miss the 4 hour happy hour if that were to dissapear

[Damen]

This sounds pretty fucked up for all those involved. :: Has this situation had any impact on the day to day operations of the bar yet? Cathouse was one of the few reasons remaining to venture into NP.

[Guest]

You think any of these guys are starting to flinch every time a motorcy comes up behind them?

[Yehtmae]

damen said:

This sounds pretty fucked up for all those involved. :: Has this situation had any impact on the day to day operations of the bar yet? Cathouse was one of the few reasons remaining to venture into NP.

 

Doesnt seem to. Only real change is the 100 baht chang special is now 150 baht.... Which has driven out some of the lowlife who now can't afford it...

[Damen]

Thats good to hear. Still one of my favorite places for crowd watching.