Linden-Comansa/General Crane Conflict 

Linden Comansa Files Motion to Reinstate Texas State Court Proceedings against General Crane

May 26, 2010

Crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa America is seeking to resume its lawsuit against General Crane USA in Harris County, Texas Court.

In its filing, submitted on May 20, 2010, the plaintiff Comansa recounted the events of the suit from its original petition (November 10, 2009) to the Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) bankruptcy (December 8, 2009) to the present.

Following Comansa’s Nov. 10 petition alleging that General Crane stole nearly $1 million worth of tower crane parts, the Harris County judge awarded the manufacturer a “Writ of Sequestration.” The following day Comansa agents, along with Harris County Constable officials, entered General Crane’s Houston yard and seized approximately $600,000 worth of parts. The parts are currently being stored by county officials. Comansa was later required to post a $100,000 bond for the parts.

General Crane responded on November 20 by filing a motion to dissolve the Writ of Sequestration. The judge set an evidentiary hearing to debate the matter on December 10. Prior to the hearing the court arranged for each party to depose three representatives from the opposing side.

According to Comansa, the parties agreed to conduct the depositions on December 7th and 8th. Comansa produced its three representatives on the 7th, with General Crane deposing two of the three that day and the third scheduled for the 8th. General’s witnesses were scheduled for their depositions on the 8th as well. However, on the 8th General allegedly failed to produce its witnesses and notified Comansa officials that the company was declaring bankruptcy.

During General Crane’s Chapter 11 proceedings Comansa filed, and was subsequently awarded, relief from the bankruptcy stay. The relief allowed Comansa to continue its litigation against General in Harris County, Texas Court. On May 6, 2010 the bankruptcy judge further clarified the relief order.

In late April of this year a third party, Center Capital Corporation, inserted itself into the Comansa-General Crane dispute. Center Capital is a creditor in the General Crane bankruptcy, asserting security interest over four (4) Linden-Comansa tower cranes. Like Comansa, Center Capital has filed stay relief motions in the General Crane bankruptcy, but the motions have been continued on multiple occasions.

In its April filing in the Comansa-General Crane suit, Center Capital asserted that two (2) of its collateralized cranes were located at General’s Houston yard. Center Capital argued that the Harris County Court’s “determination of ownership of the sequestered property may be adverse to Center Capital's interests in the Center Capital Collateral. In other words, the Center Capital Collateral may be among, or part of, such sequestered property.”

As such, Center Capital has petitioned the judge to allow the company to intervene and appear as a party in this case. The creditor also asks the judge to vacate any findings that “may adversely affect the interests of Center Capital in the Center Capital Collateral.”

To date, the Harris County judge has not ruled on Center Capital’s filing or on Comansa’s motion to revive the case.

 

Linden-Comansa Dismisses Action against Defendant Retterath

March 16, 2010

Crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa America dropped Jason S. Retterath as a defendant in its lawsuit against General Crane USA over alleged stolen crane parts and a breach of contract.

Comansa still names Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) and company co-owner James A. Robertson as defendants in the suit.

The Harris County lawsuit between Comansa and General Crane was recently reactivated when the bankruptcy judge in General’s Chapter 11 case ruled that the Texas court was best suited to resolve the parties’ dispute. The case’s central issue revolves around which party rightfully owns the roughly $600,000 worth of tower crane parts currently sequestered by Harris County authorities. However, in the suit Comansa, in addition to accusing General Crane of stealing parts, has also claimed that General failed to pay millions in contractual fees.

Comansa’s March 8 filing to the Texas court regarding Mr. Retterath was the case’s first action since December 2009. In the filing Comansa stated that it “no longer desires to prosecute its claims against Defendant Jason S. Retterath at this time and, therefore, nonsuits its claims against Defendant Jason S. Retterath without prejudice.”

The court document conspicuously makes no mention of removing Mr. Retterath’s business partner, James Robertson, as a defendant in the case.

General Crane bankruptcy documents have shown that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Retterath each maintain a 50% ownership in the company. It is unclear at this time if this ownership dynamic has changed in any way. Comansa in its filing did not elaborate on why it chose to remove Mr. Retterath, and not Mr. Robertson, as a defendant.

You can find all the case filings in the Comansa suit at CraneWatchdog.com’s Litigation page.

 

Bankruptcy Court Rules in Favor of Comansa, Litigation against General Crane to Continue in Texas

March 8, 2010

Linden-Comansa America, LLC will resume its lawsuit against General Crane USA in Harris County, Texas court, after a nearly three month hiatus due to General’s bankruptcy.

Last Thursday the judge for the Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) Chapter 11 case granted tower crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa a relief from the automatic stay that, until now, had suspended pending litigation against the bankrupt company. In accordance with Comansa’s wishes, the ruling stated: “Linden may continue and conclude to a final judgment determining of the ownership of the parts in the litigation commenced in the 152nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.”

As covered on CraneWatchdog.com, Linden-Comansa America filed its Harris County suit against General Crane in mid-November, alleging that General had stolen nearly one-million dollars in leased tower crane parts and failed to pay roughly $1.5 million more in contractual fees. Comansa received a writ of sequestration and, accompanied by county Constable agents, seized about $600,000 worth of crane parts from General’s yard. The parts remain in Harris County custody.

Following General’s bankruptcy, Comansa filed its motion to continue the case in Texas. General Crane opposed the move. Their chief argument for keeping the dispute in the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction was the following:

It may be possible that some or all of the Debtor's property sequestered in the Texas state court action is subject to liens by one or more of the Debtor's lenders, and is thus important to the administration of this estate.

General Crane even retained an outside law firm Baker Botts, LLP at $800 an hour to advocate for the transfer of the Comansa suit from Texas to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

In the bankruptcy court’s final analysis, the judge stated:

If this property was, as Linden contends, stolen from the Cranes, then it is not property of the estate. The Texas court is in a better position to make this determination, which is a question of Texas law.

Moreover, the court noted that it was more convenient to continue the case in Texas, as the crane parts, witnesses, and sheriff’s deputies are all located in the state. The judge also noted that since the alleged value of the sequestered parts ($600,000) comprises less than 1/100 of General Crane’s estate it comprised a negligible portion of the bankrupt estate.

The bankruptcy judge lastly commented on the repercussions for potential outcomes of the Texas lawsuit. If the Harris County court decides that the sequestered parts belong to Comansa then the ruling “shall be conclusive and binding upon the parties,” and “the inventory and parts shall in no way be considered property of [General’s] estate.”

On the other hand, if the Texas court rules in favor of General then the parts “shall be considered property of the estate and all further proceedings with regard to their disposition, and the rights of all parties with regard to the inventory shall be determined by this Court.”

Review General Crane USA’s bankruptcy case at CraneWatchdog.com’s Bankruptcy Page.

 

General Crane Seeks to Hire Lawyer
for Linden-Comansa Dispute

February 25, 2010

General Crane USA on Tuesday filed a request in bankruptcy court to retain Tony M. Davis of the law firm Baker Botts, LLP as special counsel to assist the company in its legal dispute with tower crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa America, LLC.

Comansa originally filed suit against Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) on November 10, 2009 in Harris County, Texas court, alleging that General had failed to pay approximately $1.5 million in contractual fees and had “stolen” almost one-million dollars worth of crane parts. Upon receiving a Writ of Sequestration from the Harris County judge, agents for Comansa, along with armed Constable officials, entered General Crane’s Houston, Texas yard on November 11 and seized almost one-million dollars worth of tower crane parts. The parts are currently in the possession of Texas law enforcement.

Since then, Comansa and General Crane have been battling in court over which party has the right to claim the parts, among other issues.

General Crane’s filing of bankruptcy in December 2009 suspended court action in Texas, as the bankruptcy’s automatic stay took precedence in the matter. However, Comansa recently requested that the bankruptcy judge allow the dispute to be litigated in the Texas court. General Crane, on the other hand, has argued against continuing the suit in Texas and has retained the Baker Botts firm to seek the transfer of the case to bankruptcy court.

According to General Crane’s court application to hire Baker Botts, the company intends to pay the law firm “its standard hourly rates.” Baker Botts partner Tony Davis, slated to lead the legal effort, charges an hourly rate of $800.00.

Click HERE to learn more about General Crane – Linden Comansa conflict. Also, you can follow General Crane’s bankruptcy case at our Bankruptcy Page.

 

Linden-Comansa Seeks to Continue Texas Lawsuit against General Crane

January 29, 2010

Tower crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa America, LLC is requesting permission to continue its Harris County, Texas lawsuit against General Crane USA to “recover stolen property.” Yesterday, Comansa filed a motion in General Crane’s ongoing bankruptcy case arguing for relief from the automatic stay that is preventing the manufacturer from resolving its dispute with General over unpaid fees and alleged stolen crane parts.

Comansa originally filed suit in Texas against Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) one month before the bankruptcy, claiming that General had stolen nearly $1 million worth of tower crane parts. The Texas court issued a writ of sequestration on November 11, 2009 allowing Comansa and Harris County Constable officials that same day to seize crane parts from General Crane’s Houston yard. The sequestered parts are currently in Harris County officials’ possession.

Throughout November and into early December General Crane and Comansa waged a court battle over the right to claim the parts, with General filing a motion to dissolve the writ followed by Comansa’s own filing opposing General’s argument.

However, General Crane’s bankruptcy on December 8 established an “automatic stay” which brought to a halt to all creditor efforts to extract or repossess money and property from General, including Comansa’s suit.

Comansa argues that it is “prejudiced by the stay.” As stated in Linden-Comansa’s bankruptcy court filing, “Harris County law enforcement was able to recover roughly half of the parts Gulfstream stole from Linden,” and are holding the parts in a “secure storage area.” Comansa, though, was forced to post a $100,000 cash bond, “which is being held until the resolution of the sequestration proceedings.”

In addition to the bond, the company must pay storage charges for the sequestered property pursuant to Texas law. And of course Comansa “will continue to be deprived of possession and use of several hundred thousand dollars of its property.”

Linden-Comansa’s motion states that the Harris County judge for the case set an evidentiary hearing for December 10, 2009 to settle the writ of sequestration debate between General and Comansa. Court records show prior to the hearing each party could depose three representatives from the opposing party.

According to Comansa, it produced its three witnesses on December 7 and General Crane deposed two of them that day with the third deposition set for the next. Comansa was scheduled to depose the three General Crane witnesses on December 8 as well. Comansa’s motion continues:

However, on December 8, 2009, the very day Linden was to depose Debtor's representatives regarding the stolen tower crane parts, Debtor's counsel contacted Linden's counsel after the depositions were scheduled to commence and informed Linden's counsel that Debtor and its representatives would not appear for their scheduled depositions because Debtor was contemplating filing for bankruptcy.

As the record shows General Crane did indeed file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 8 – two days before the evidentiary hearing with Comansa.

Linden-Comansa now argues before the bankruptcy court that the judge should “allow Linden to continue it Pre-Petition Litigation in Texas will be the most efficient use of judicial resources,” as the dispute between General and Comansa is “substantially advanced in another forum.” Comansa further states:

Likewise, most of the key witnesses to the proceeding, including the nonprincipal current and former employees of Gulfstream who participated in the audit of the Leased Property and acknowledged that the parts had been stolen, are located in Texas.

The bankruptcy judge will likely set a hearing date for Comansa’s motion in the coming days.

Site visitors can follow General Crane’s bankruptcy proceedings at our Bankruptcy Page. Also, click HERE for more background on the dispute between General and Linden-Comansa. We will continue to provide updates on both fronts as we learn more.

 

General Crane-Comansa Legal Fight
over Parts at Standstill

January 5, 2010

General Crane USA’s December 8 bankruptcy filing has caused a temporary stoppage for a number of ongoing lawsuits involving the company, including its legal battle with Linden-Comansa over repossessed tower crane parts.

On December 10, representatives for Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) and Linden-Comansa America, LLC were set to meet for an evidentiary hearing in Harris County, Texas court to debate a Writ of Sequestration that allowed Comansa, accompanied by county Constable officials, to seize tower crane parts from General Crane’s Houston yard on November 11.

General Crane hoped to have the writ overturned. A November 20 affidavit by General Crane co-owner Jim Robertson stated that as a result of Comansa’s successful repossession of parts his company “is unable to earn an income from disabled and non-functional tower cranes.”

Due to the bankruptcy, however, the evidentiary hearing was put on hold and the lawsuit is listed on the Harris County courts website as “inactive.”

According to General Crane’s December 30 Statement of Financial Affairs filing from its bankruptcy case, the seized parts remain sequestered in the custody of the Harris County Sherriff’s Office.

In a recent letter to its customers General Crane stated that the bankruptcy “process will not affect our ability to provide equipment for the complete duration of your projects.” However, Robertson asserted in his court affidavit that the sequestering of Comansa parts “has resulted in the idling of many of [General’s] tower cranes.”

To date, a timetable for resolving the dispute over the sequestered parts is uncertain.

To learn more about the ongoing legal conflict between Linden-Comansa and General Crane, click HERE. Also, click HERE for additional information on General Crane’s bankruptcy.

Court Hearing over Repo’d Comansa Cranes
Set for Dec. 10

December 2, 2009

Representatives for Linden-Comansa America, LLC and General Crane USA are scheduled to meet in Harris County, Texas District Court on Thursday, December 10 for an evidentiary hearing regarding the Writ of Sequestration that allowed Comansa to repossess tower parts from General Crane’s yard.

In a ruling issued yesterday, the judge for the case extended the Writ of Sequestration until the hearing. However, the judge also ruled that Linden-Comansa must increase its bond for the writ from $1,000 to $100,000 to keep the order in effect.

Yesterday’s ruling followed a preliminary hearing on General Crane’s motion to dissolve the writ. In that motion, General Crane co-owner Jim Robertson testified that Comansa’s November 11 seizure of tower parts from General’s yard has resulted in the “idling” of many of their cranes, and as a result his company “is unable to earn an income from disabled and non-functional tower cranes.”

Between now and the December 10 evidentiary hearing both Comansa and General Crane are entitled to conduct three depositions.

The hearing, which will be held in the 152nd District Courtroom at 201 Caroline, 11th Floor in Houston, is open to the general public. At the hearing “the Court will accept live witness testimony and evidence.”

Click here to learn more about the Linden-Comansa vs. General Crane lawsuit.

 

Court Battle Continues over
Repo’d Comansa Tower Parts

November 30, 2009

Linden-Comansa America, LLC has fired back in court against General Crane USA in their ongoing legal fight over possession of tower crane parts.

The conflict, now in its third week, began on Tuesday, November 10 when Comansa filed a “Breach of Contract” suit against General Crane in Harris County, Texas, alleging that General had failed to pay nearly $2 million in contractual fees and had “stolen” nearly $850,000 worth of tower crane parts.

On Wednesday the 11th Comansa received a signed Writ of Sequestration from the judge permitting them to sequester crane parts from General Crane’s Houston, Texas yard. That same day agents for Comansa, accompanied by armed Constable officials, spent approximately 10 hours on General Crane’s premises repossessing tower parts. The full list of seized parts is still not publicly available.

Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA) responded in court on November 20 filing a motion to dissolve the Writ of Sequestration. The motion, along with an affidavit from Jim Robertson, alleged that Comansa had failed to meet its obligations to deliver correct tower crane shipments in a timely manner. Robertson further stated that Comansa authorized General Crane to use tower parts from leased Comansa cranes stored in General’s yard to redistribute to working cranes in their fleet.

Linden-Comansa’s latest court filing and accompanying affidavit from the Comansa Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), submitted on November 23, addresses General Crane’s motion.

Comansa’s filing argues that the majority of General Crane’s motion is “immaterial” and did not properly address the matter at hand – the Writ of Sequestration – and instead attempted to “conjure up some unnecessary factual dispute with respect to the merits of Linden-Comansa’s claims.” Comansa further argues:

General Crane attempts to rewrite history without offering a single shred of evidence to support its version of events. General Crane's unbelievable and unsupportable version of events noticeably runs in stark contrast to the evidence Linden-Comansa provided, much of which Defendants previously attested to its veracity.

According to the Comansa CAO’s affidavit, during Comansa’s audits of its leased cranes in General’s yard both Jason Retterath and Jim Robertson – General Crane USA co-owners – admitted that their employees “removed many parts from cranes they leased from Linden-Comansa,” and also admitted that “General Crane’s removal of tower crane parts was wrong and done without Linden-Comansa’s permission.” To rectify the problem Robertson and Retterath “reaffirmed that they would take immediate steps to return the parts removed from Linden-Comansa’s leased cranes.”

The affidavit clearly refutes Jim Robertson’s claims that Comansa had authorized General Crane to take parts from leased cranes to incorporate into the rest of their fleet:

Also, at no time were Defendants authorized to remove tower crane parts from the leased tower cranes. In fact, that would run contrary to the express terms of the lease agreement. […] Defendants absolutely were not authorized by Linden-Comansa to remove and install any tower crane parts from the leased cranes for the benefit of Defendants' operations.

When Linden-Comansa first audited the leased equipment in Defendants' Houston yard, Defendants admitted to Linden-Comansa that Defendants further breached the lease agreement by removing, without authorization from Linden-Comansa, at least one of the leased tower cranes for use on a job site without notifying Linden-Comansa prior to putting same into service.

Also addressed in the affidavit is Robertson’s allegation of Comansa sending to General Crane incomplete tower cranes:

At the time General Crane accepted the leased cranes, Linden-Comansa was never informed any crane subject to the lease agreement was incomplete, as they were not.

We will continue to provide updates regarding new developments in the Linden-Comansa case, as well as other creditor lawsuits against General Crane USA and its affiliated entities. For more information visit our Litigation Database page.

 

General Crane Files Motion to Overturn Comansa Repossession

November 23, 2009

Over a week ago this site reported that agents for Linden Comansa, accompanied by Harris County, Texas Constable officials, seized tower crane parts from General Crane USA’s Houston yard. Now, General Crane has filed a court motion, asking the judge to overturn the order granting the writ for sequestration.

In his Friday, November 20 affidavit General Crane owner Jim Robertson stated that Comansa’s successful repossession of General’s assets “has resulted in the idling of many of [General’s] tower cranes,” and as a result his company “is unable to earn an income from disabled and non-functional tower cranes.” Furthermore, Robertson asserts that that Comansa has chosen “this overtly aggressive position to bring extraordinary pressure on [General] in order to squeeze them into a settlement.”

Robertson’s affidavit recounts General Crane’s side of the dispute with Linden Comansa. According to Robertson, following General’s record purchase-order for 60 tower cranes in 2006 Comansa allegedly failed to meet its end of the contract on a number of fronts. First, the manufacturer did not deliver the first “batch” of tower cranes on time, making the deliveries multiple months late. Second, Robertson alleged that Comansa was “grossly incompetent” in delivering the cranes, claiming missing parts from the shipments and stating that “there is not a single crane that [Comansa] delivered to [General] that was complete.” All the while Robertson asserts that “Principal and interest were being paid by [General] but still the cranes could not be used.”

As a result, Robertson claims that General Crane’s funding sources were “potentially being compromised” by Comansa’s “failures.” General Crane, according to Robertson, was falling behind on its schedules with customers because of lack of tower crane parts. As a result, Robertson claims that Comansa “authorized” General Crane to take parts from the leased tower cranes stored in General’s yard to integrate them into their working fleet.

Comansa earlier alleged that General Crane had “stolen” these parts. According to Comansa’s November 10 complaint, in mid-2008 General Crane was having trouble securing financing to acquire approximately one-third of its original purchase order. Comansa subsequently agreed to lease 16 cranes to General, which were stored in General’s Houston yard. A series of audits in early 2009 revealed over $800,000 in missing or stolen parts, the manufacturer claimed. In total, Comansa alleged nearly $3 million in damages.

For more information on the Linden Comansa lawsuit and other litigation involving General Crane USA and its affiliated companies, visit our Litigation Database.

 

Breaking News: Linden-Comansa
Seizes Equipment from
General Crane's Houston Yard

November 13, 2009

On Wednesday agents for Linden-Comansa America, LLC, accompanied by multiple armed Constable officials, seized and removed tower crane equipment from General Crane USA’s Houston yard.

Yesterday we reported that Linden-Comansa sued General Crane this week for “Breach of Contract” violations, which included reportedly failing to pay approximately $1.5 million in interest payments and other fees and for allegedly stealing over $800,000 in leased tower crane equipment.

Linden-Comansa filed an “Application for Writ of Sequestration” to repossess equipment fearing that General Crane “will waste the property or destroy the property” during the suit. The judge subsequently signed the order. A writ of sequestration allows the court to take possession of the equipment until the case is adjudicated.

According to multiple sources, over the course of approximately 10 hours on Wednesday Linden-Comansa officials took into custody numerous tower crane parts cited as “stolen” in the lawsuit. A full inventory of the repossessed equipment is not available at this time.

However, Linden-Comansa provided to the court an inventory of the missing parts for the leased equipment.

Officers from the Harris County Constable Precinct 4 escorted the Linden-Comansa agents onto General Crane’s premises and helped oversee the proceedings.

We will continue to provide updates on the Linden-Comansa case as we learn more.

 

Linden-Comansa Sues General Crane to Recover Millions in “Stolen” Equipment, Unpaid Interest

November 12, 2009

Crane manufacturer Linden-Comansa America, LLC sued General Crane USA on Tuesday, alleging that General Crane has failed to pay approximately $1.5 million in contractual fees and has “stolen” nearly $1 million worth of tower crane parts in violation of the parties’ lease agreement. Linden-Comansa further alleged that General Crane had been unlawfully “raiding” leased equipment for parts to use in its tower crane fleet.

The suit, filed in Harris County, Texas court, names General Crane USA managing members Jason S. Retterath and James A. Robertson as defendants alongside Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA).

Linden’s complaint recounts the history of General Crane’s $31 million, 60-tower crane purchase order in June 2006 and its subsequent difficulties paying off the finance loans.

According to the complaint, in July 2008, two years following the purchase order, General Crane notified Linden that it was “experiencing financing problems” and committed to pay interest to Linden at a rate of eight percent for tower cranes delivered to the company. Between July 15, 2008 and September 7, 2008 Linden delivered 19 tower cranes to General Crane.

However, General Crane paid for only 3 of the 19 cranes. The two parties subsequently entered into a “Master Equipment Lease Agreement” for the 16 cranes it could not purchase outright. Among the terms of the agreement, General Crane promised the following:

“It would keep the Leased Equipment in good repair and operating condition, that it would not change the location of any of the Leased Equipment without prior notification to Linden.”

Furthermore, General Crane agreed to “at its own cost and expense, promptly replace all parts, appliances, systems, components, instruments, and other equipment ("parts") incorporated in, or installed on, the Leased Equipment.”

The lease agreement also gave Linden the right to conduct regular audits of the equipment.

Linden conducted its first audit on February 25, 2009 in General Crane’s Houston yard. Linden alleges that the audit revealed “numerous parts had been stolen, damaged, and removed from the Leased Equipment.” Linden agents notified General Crane’s Houston manager, Shawn Cluff, of the findings, and Mr. Cluff reportedly signed off on the audit acknowledging that the value of the stolen, missing, or damaged parts totaled $913,773.65. Mr. Cluff also allegedly agreed to “return the stolen parts to the Leased Equipment.”

The follow-up audit on April 7, 2009 “revealed no improvement but, instead, Linden recognized additional parts had been stolen from the Leased Equipment since its February audit.”

Linden returned to General Crane’s Houston yard for a final audit, which allegedly “showed no progress in remedying the missing and stolen parts issue.”

Consequently Linden began seizing and removing its tower cranes from the Houston yard. The removal process, which was completed in August, reportedly took four weeks and required 150 forty-foot truckloads.

Many of the cranes ultimately ended up in the Naegeli storage yard, as reported earlier by CraneWatchdog.

Linden further claims that on August 19, General Crane representatives were discovered “trespassing” in the yard with the confiscated leased equipment. It is Linden’s contention that General Crane was there to “unlawfully convert more parts from the Leased Equipment. Linden immediately instructed General's representatives to vacate Linden's premises.”

Most recently, Linden has discovered that General Crane is currently attempting to sell Linden tower cranes. Linden alleges:

“[General Crane] used the parts it stole from the Leased Equipment to service and repair defective parts on the cranes Gulfstream now seeks to immediately sell. Therefore, Gulfstream is attempting to sell stolen parts that have been incorporated into its crane fleet.”

Linden claims that General Crane owes in total approximately $3 million for unpaid interest, missing or stolen equipment, and shipping and moving costs, among other fees.

In addition to the complaint, Linden filed an “Order for Writ of Sequestration,” granting them the right to seize equipment from General Crane because there is “immediate danger that Defendants will waste the property or destroy the property during the pendency of this suit.”

Linden-Comansa is the third major creditor to sue General Crane USA in the past week. On Wednesday, November 4, SL Financial Services sued (link SL lawsuit page) General Crane in Broward County, Florida to recover over $25 million in allegedly defaulted loans. On Monday Wells Fargo sued General Crane, with more details soon to come.

We will continue to report on the Linden-Comansa case as we learn more. The case filings are available in our Litigation Database section.

 

Update on Linden Comansa Cranes
Stored in Naegeli Yard

November 2, 2009

Earlier this year Linden Comansa ordered over one-dozen tower cranes be removed from General Crane USA’s Houston yard and relocated to a storage yard owned by Naegeli Properties, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

Linden Comansa reportedly took this action following an audit it conducted of the tower parts situated in General Crane’s 5210 S. Sam Houston Parkway yard.

Last month CraneWatchdog.com reported finding 11 Linden Comansa towers held in the Naegeli yard in Houston, Texas.

The towers were part of a 60-crane purchase order General Crane made with manufacturer Linden Comansa in 2006. According to a September 2008 UCC filing, Linden Comansa, LLC provided General Crane with direct financing for the final 19 cranes of the order.

All of the towers found in the Naegeli yard were part of the Linden Comansa loan to General Crane. The debtors for the loan included Gulfstream Crane, LLC (aka General Crane USA), which is co-owned by Jason Retterath and Jim Robertson, as well as General Crane, Inc. and General Crane (USA), Inc., which are both solely controlled by Steven Retterath.

CraneWatchdog.com will continue to provide updates on the Linden Comansa loan to General Crane as we learn more.

For more information on General Crane’s equipment, visit our Collateral section.

 

Eleven Tower Cranes
Linked to General Crane Found

October 2, 2009

CraneWatchdog.com recently discovered 11 tower cranes sitting idle in a Houston, TX storage yard.

The yard, located at 7201 Easthaven Blvd., is owned by Naegeli Properties, Inc. and affiliated with the Houston-based trucking company Naegeli Transportation, Inc.

Each of the 11 Linden Comansa cranes appear as collateral on a single September 2008 UCC filing documenting a loan from Linden Comansa, LLC to Gulfstream Crane, LLC, General Crane, Inc. and General Crane (USA), Inc.

The indentified tower cranes were originally part of a record-breaking $35 million purchase order General Crane USA made with Linden Comansa America in July 2006 for 60 cranes. Linden Comansa appears to have provided General Crane with financing for about one-third of the order.

To finance the remainder of the purchase, General Crane USA sought other lenders, including Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC.

General Crane USA co-owner Jim Robertson summed up his company’s acquisitions strategy in a September 2006 statement to Lift & Access Magazine:

“Some people might say the economy's going in the other direction, but we feel it's time for us to grow, time to expand.”

Since 2008, however, General Crane has encountered problems in meeting their debt obligations for certain loans.

On June 16, 2009 Banc of America sued General Crane to recover over $8 million in allegedly defaulted loans. The following month, on July 10, another financer for the Linden Comansa purchase, Center Capital Corporation, sued General Crane for allegedly defaulting on payments and is attempting to repossess four additional tower cranes valued at nearly $1.8 million.

During his testimony for the Center Capital lawsuit on August 18, Jim Robertson acknowledged that his company (General Crane USA) was “more than three” months behind on payments to Center Capital Corporation. When asked why the company was delinquent he stated:

“I had no idea. My organization, we had no idea that this economy was going to fall completely off the bottom of the planet globally. We had no reason to believe that, and I don't think I'm alone.”

If you have learned of other stored, unused equipment for General Crane USA or any of its affiliates, please contact CraneWatchdog.com at 1.877.272.4515 or contactus@cranewatchdog.com.

For more information on General Crane equipment visit our Collateral section.