Lawsuit may slow sale of buildings: Local group alleges breach of contract in case against Kerr-McGeeby Kelley Chambers
The Journal Record
11/21/2006 OKLAHOMA CITY – The owner of the former Kerr-McGee buildings downtown, Anadarko Petroleum, said it plans to sell the properties, though a lawsuit filed in August could slow down the eventual sale.
John Christiansen, Anadarko spokesman, said the Houston-based company has contracted with Cushman & Wakefield to assist in the process of selling the buildings.

What brought about the lawsuit was the original plan by a local group to partner with Kerr-McGee to build a parking garage for the company in exchange for three of its other buildings, two of which the group planned to convert into condominiums and retail space. The conversion of the buildings was reported to be a $30 million deal.

In June, Kerr-McGee announced it was acquired by Anadarko, but the deal was still set to go through.

Corporate Redevelopment Group LLC, led by TAParchitecture, filed the lawsuit against Kerr-McGee in August citing breach of contract when the deal fell through.
TAParchitecture principal Anthony McDermid said he could not comment on the situation pending the outcome of the litigation.
Christiansen said the company does not expect the litigation to affect the eventual sale of the property.

Bickering between the parties included CRG’s claim in its lawsuit that Kerr-McGee planned to cease the deal once the acquisition occurred. Kerr-McGee claims CRG changed the terms of the deal after the sale.
On Thursday, Tronox Inc., a spinoff of Kerr-McGee, announced it planned to vacate about 100,000 square feet in Anadarko’s tower at 123 Robert S. Kerr Ave.

The company’s board of directors voted in August to keep the company in Oklahoma. Tronox was the only tenant in the building. It plans to move its offices to One Leadership Square.
The eventual sale will involve several former Kerr-McGee buildings on the block bordered by Robinson, Dean A. McGee, N. Broadway and Robert S. Kerr avenues. The largest building is the 30-story 489,408-square-foot tower built in 1973.
Three buildings were included in the deal with CRG. The site at 135 Robert S. Kerr Ave. is an 11-story building built in 1921 with 155,911 square feet; 324 N. Robinson Ave. is a 10-story building with 75,584 square feet and was built in 1923. A third building, at 111 Robert S. Kerr Ave., was part of the deal, but its future had not yet been planned. That structure, a 38,736-square-foot, seven-story building, was built in 1902.

I thought in August that they had a case. I'd like to see where Kerr McGee claims they changed the contract after the merger...

My understanding is that the partners in CRG were absolutely blindsided by Anadarko's actions when they backed out. While the developers have money, they don't have the nearly unlimited resources of Anadarko. I hope they can afford the expensive legal battle, because Anadarko needs to be held accountable for backing out of a legally binding contract.

I think it's unfortunate for downtown that CRG decided to sue Anadarko. Word on the street is that CRG did in fact attempt to amend the design of the proposed parking garage described in the agreement, but the courts will decide if that justified Anadarko's cancellation.

Sometimes this stuff just happens - you lick your wounds and move on. Downtown would be better served if people spent the energy being productive rather than filing suits when things fall apart.

Homer, I'm sure that's easier said than done when they already had tons of money invested in plans/designs, etc as well as their valuable time. Especially when the project was getting ready to launch. I don't think I'd just throw that money away without a fight.

Regardless of whether or not CRG tried to ammend the parking or not, Anadarko didn't keep their end of the contract, so they're no better. It isn't like CRG was removed the parking from their agreement....they amended the design of the parking. As far as I'm concerned, as long as they were going to build the parking, Anadarko needs to keep up their end of the deal. Isn't a signed deal a signed deal?

Is there anything new in this article that we haven't known since August? You'd think it was an Oklahoman article.