There are a couple of comments here:
1) This discussion was based on the assumption that the bank disapproved the transaction based on the terms of the mortgage. That is only one possibility here, The company has not, and might not, release the reason for the execution of the reversion clause. A phone call shouldn't provide information that isn't public, so I doubt they would tell me if I called. I believe you were the one who initially read the mortgage document and suggested that as a reason. Based on my reading of the document, section 1.07, I think, the bank has that right.
2) There are other possible reasons for the execution of the reversion clause. It could have been because 1094 Military Trail LLC didn't like what they were seeing from Supurva's management. That's possible. It could also be that Supurva saw something in the building, or something in the leases which they felt was inappropriate. It could be a number of other reasons, we just don't know.
3) The company should tell the investors why. This was a big deal for the company, the biggest thing to happen with the company since the "merger" with Web to Door. This ended the same way, just quicker. This becomes more of the same, "same old, same old", even with relatively new management. This is one reason why I think the other 5 buildings are in question, as is the S-11. I can be proven wrong, but until the company performs, they've earned much of the negative criticism. The company should therefore update the shareholders, even with a simple Press Release explaining that they are continuing to "stay the course", if that's their intention.
4) I understand your point about collateral and the bank perhaps not caring who pays the mortgage. The mortgage documents do speak a little differently, from what I've read and from what you've shared from your readings as well. Given that banks have been burned with the real estate crash of 15 or so years ago, they do care about who is paying the mortgage. They want to know that the company paying the mortgage has the resources, or likely resources to continue to pay the mortgage. Supurva does not, at the moment. They just have no cash, nor any assets now, nor significant other assets when they "owned" the building.
5) Given that it isn't on the balance sheet, and there is no revenue for the period they said they owned the building, it again raises the question "Did they actually acquire the building in the first place". Sadly, that's a fair question given all that's happened.
6) Have you e-mailed the company and received an explanation for what happened here?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
