Oceanwide Plaza: Involuntary Chapter 11 Sale Process

Oceanwide Plaza LLC owns Oceanwide Plaza, a roughly $2 billion mixed use development at 1101 South Flower Street in downtown Los Angeles. The project includes three high rise towers on a retail and parking podium wrapped by a large LED screen, including a Park Hyatt hotel tower and two residential towers designed by CallisonRTKL. Construction began in 2015 and stopped in 2019, leaving a partially finished site that later drew graffiti and security concerns. Los Angeles officials approved about $3.8 million for fencing, security, and graffiti removal. The projects parent, China Oceanwide Holdings, faced liquidation orders in Bermuda and Hong Kong in 2023.

Oceanwide Plaza LLC was pushed into an involuntary chapter 11 case on February 13, 2024 by contractors led by Lendlease, which said it was owed about $4.3 million. The court entered an order for relief on March 11, 2024. Court filings show the debtor sought a $10 million debtor in possession facility and moved toward a court supervised sale process, with bidding procedures entered in June 2024 and a liquidating plan filed in July 2024. Marketing efforts were led by Colliers and Hilco Real Estate, and a court supervised auction was scheduled for September 17, 2024.

Debtor(s)	Oceanwide Plaza LLC
Court	U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles Division)
Case Number	2:24-bk-11057-DS
Petition Date	February 13, 2024 (involuntary)
Order for Relief	March 11, 2024
Project	Oceanwide Plaza, 1101 South Flower Street, Los Angeles
Completion Status	About 60 percent complete
Estimated As Is Value	$313 million (2021 appraisal) to about $434 million
Estimated Completion Cost	About $865 million to around $1 billion
DIP Facility	$10 million commitment; $9.3 million authorized in final order
Restructuring Approach	Liquidating plan and sale process
Secured Claims (approx.)	LADI $200+ million; Lendlease $185 million; EB 5 investors $180 million; county taxes $15 to $18 million

Sale Process and Liquidating Plan

Oceanwide Plaza LLC structured the case around a sale of the unfinished project and a liquidating plan that would distribute sale proceeds through the statutory priority waterfall. The court approved bidding procedures in June 2024 and established a timeline that included a stalking horse deadline of July 1, 2024, a bid deadline of August 15, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. PT, an auction date of September 17, 2024, and an outside closing date of October 31, 2024. The sale order process was paired with a liquidating plan filed in July 2024 and amended in September 2024, with class treatment for tax claims, secured claims, priority claims, general unsecured claims, intercompany claims, subordinated claims, and equity interests. The plan framework is built around the liquidation of the property, with proceeds applied first to administrative costs, taxes, and senior secured claims before junior classes receive any recovery.

Marketing and auction mechanics. The debtor retained Colliers and Hilco Real Estate as co brokers to market the project. Coverage of the marketing engagement and sale process described a property that spans about 1.5 million square feet and is about 60 percent complete, with an as is appraisal around about $434 million and completion costs estimated at about $865 million. The sale process required bidders to show development experience, present a financing plan, and place a deposit equal to 3 percent of the bid amount. A reported stalking horse bidder did not meet deadlines in July 2024, leaving the auction open to other bidders.

The bidding procedures order set a structured path from marketing to sale approval, with specific deadlines and hearing dates that governed the process. A summary of the milestones is below.

The sale engagement also contemplated broker compensation tied to the sale price, and coverage of the auction process described commissions of 0.75 percent each for Colliers and Hilco.

Plan class treatment. The third amended liquidating plan groups claims into classes that follow the priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code, with senior classes paid from sale proceeds or plan administration assets before junior classes recover. Court filings show Class 1 secured tax claims were designated unimpaired and scheduled to be paid in cash, while classes for LADI secured claims, Lendlease secured claims, and other secured claims were impaired and scheduled to be paid from sale proceeds after higher priority obligations. Priority and general unsecured classes were also impaired and would recover only after secured and administrative claims were paid. Intercompany claims, subordinated claims, and equity interests sat at the bottom of the waterfall. The plan uses a liquidating structure rather than a reorganization because the principal asset is the unfinished real estate project.

Disclosure statement approval and confirmation schedule. The court approved the disclosure statement on September 9, 2024 and set a confirmation schedule. Objections to confirmation were due October 2, 2024, ballots had to be received by October 8, 2024, and the confirmation hearing was set for October 16, 2024. Ballots were to be returned to Stretto, the solicitation agent, by mail at its Irvine address or through the case ballot portal. These deadlines framed the post auction plan timeline and the solicitation of creditor votes on the liquidating plan.

DIP financing terms. The debtor obtained court approval for a $10 million DIP facility to fund case administration and the sale process. The facility priced at prime plus 3.50 percent per year with an 8.50 percent floor and a 14 percent cap, with a default rate of 18 percent. The loan was structured to mature at the earlier of a sale of collateral, an event of default, or 12 months from the closing date, with a one time 6 month extension available on payment of a 1 percent extension fee. The final order authorized aggregate borrowings of up to $9.3 million and granted priming liens and superpriority administrative claims, subject to the case budget and carve out provisions for professional fees and U.S. Trustee fees.

Project Background and Development Timeline

Oceanwide Plaza was conceived as a mixed use complex intended to anchor a prominent intersection across from Crypto.com Arena in downtown Los Angeles. Public descriptions of the project emphasize a Park Hyatt hotel tower, 183 to 184 hotel rooms, 164 serviced residences, 504 residential units, and 150,000 to 160,000 square feet of retail space, along with more than 1,400 parking spaces and a podium wrapped by a large LED display. China Oceanwide Holdings acquired the site in 2013 for about $174 million and began construction in 2015. Interior work paused in early 2019 when funding stopped, and the site has remained unfinished since then.

Coverage of the project described a 49 story Park Hyatt hotel tower with 504 residential units, 183 hotel rooms, and about 160,000 square feet of retail space alongside 1,412 parking spaces. Reporting on the sale process cited an overall scale of roughly two million square feet and noted that about $1.2 billion had already been spent on construction before work stopped.

The development was funded by China Oceanwide Holdings, which invested more than $1.1 billion in the project before construction halted. Reporting has linked the funding halt to tighter capital controls and the company's broader financial distress. As Oceanwide Plaza remained unfinished, the site became a visible symbol of stalled investment in downtown Los Angeles and a focal point for public safety and blight concerns.

The project drew broader attention in late 2023 after trespassers and graffiti artists entered the unfinished towers and tagged multiple floors, leading to safety concerns and pressure on the city to secure the site. Los Angeles officials approved about $3.8 million for fencing, security, and graffiti removal, while coverage described the challenges of addressing vandalism on a privately owned structure. Reporting on the stalled development has also pointed to currency exchange restrictions that limited the developers ability to move capital offshore.

A simplified development timeline appears below.

City Response and Public Safety Costs

The unfinished project triggered public safety actions in Los Angeles as the vacant towers drew vandalism and unauthorized access. Local reports described graffiti across multiple floors and concerns about the risk of trespassing in a partially completed high rise. The City Council approved about $1.1 million for fencing and another $2.7 million for security and graffiti removal, part of a broader effort to limit access and stabilize the site. A city office later said that the municipality should not bear the cost of abatement on a privately owned property, highlighting the tension between public safety obligations and private ownership.

Local coverage reported that the city had previously set a February 17, 2024 deadline for the developer to remove graffiti and estimated the work could cost about $1 million if paid by taxpayers. Officials said the buildings condition and visibility created a safety and image concern for the city, especially as Los Angeles prepared for major sporting events. Those reports help explain why the city chose to fund fencing and security even though the property remained privately owned.

Public coverage of the towers has often referred to them as the Graffiti Towers, reflecting the scale of the vandalism and the visibility of the site from nearby sports and entertainment venues. The project sits across from Crypto.com Arena and within a district that also hosts large events, which increased public attention on the unfinished structure. City officials cited concerns about the city's image ahead of major sporting events, including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics, when discussing cleanup and security costs.

The public safety response is not directly part of the bankruptcy case, but it forms part of the context for the sale process. A buyer would inherit obligations related to security, remediation, and code compliance, and the need to address graffiti and safety issues is part of the broader cost to complete the project. These factors have been cited in reporting as potential constraints on valuation and bidder interest.

Marketing Interest and Potential Reuse Concepts

The marketing process drew interest from a broad group of potential buyers. Reporting in mid 2024 indicated that 91 parties signed confidentiality agreements and that project tours began in late July. The same coverage noted that the propertys specialized design made reuse challenging, citing the size of the condominium units and the structural choices made during construction. The bidder universe therefore included both developers willing to complete the project as originally designed and groups evaluating alternative uses.

The auction was scheduled to run in person and online and required bidders to meet strict qualification standards, including development experience and a financing plan.

The range of alternative concepts described in public reporting included art spaces, wall installations that preserved graffiti, casinos, affordable housing, indoor golf, and pickleball venues. These proposals were framed as ideas under consideration rather than firm plans, and the feasibility of any conversion would depend on structural constraints, zoning, and capital availability. The developer and its advisors did not publicly endorse any single alternative use, and the bidding procedures required bidders to show experience and financing plans.

By August 2025, reporting described the field as narrowed to two serious bidders, one domestic and one international, after a period of broader interest. The same reporting cited an expected acquisition price around $450 million and a goal of closing by year end 2025, while acknowledging the additional capital needed to finish the project. These reported milestones reflect market interest but are not binding until a sale closes and the court approves a transaction.

Capital Structure, Liens, and Litigation

The capital structure around Oceanwide Plaza combines secured real estate debt, construction liens, and claims tied to EB 5 investor financing. Public reporting has put secured and lien claims around $370 million to $400 million, including more than about $200 million tied to L.A. Downtown Investment LP, about $185 million in claims by Lendlease and contractors, roughly about $180 million associated with EB 5 investors, and about $15 to $18 million in county tax claims. These figures vary by source and reflect the mix of secured debt and construction lien exposure that accumulated after the project stalled.

Lien priority disputes have been central to the case economics. In February 2025, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a ruling in lien priority litigation that placed L.A. Downtown Investment LP in the first priority position, with contractor liens subordinate to the deed of trust. Coverage of the ruling indicated that LADI could be paid in full before contractors recover on their lien claims, a result that shapes expected recoveries in any sale and influences how proceeds would flow under the liquidating plan. The ruling was described as a win for LADI in the dispute over construction lien priority.

The case also sits in the shadow of broader legal and financial pressure on the parent company. China Oceanwide Holdings faced liquidation orders in Bermuda and Hong Kong, proceedings that followed creditor actions tied to alleged unpaid loans and that coincided with a trading suspension in the company's shares. Those proceedings are separate from the Oceanwide Plaza chapter 11 case but inform creditor expectations about capital support from the parent group.

Valuation, Completion Costs, and Sale Economics

Valuation has been a contested issue throughout the case. A 2021 appraisal referenced in reporting placed the as is value around about $313 million with a stabilized value around about $1.4 billion, while a Colliers appraisal cited in 2024 marketing coverage estimated an as is value near about $434 million. Creditors argued that the debtor's valuation assumptions overstated the price a buyer would pay for a project in its current condition, given the need to fund completion and address market risks.

Completion costs are a central driver of the sale math. Estimates cited in 2024 reporting put remaining construction costs around about $865 million, while other sources placed the completion price closer to around $1 billion depending on scope. When combined with a potential acquisition price in the mid hundreds of millions, the total capital required to finish the project could approach $1.5 billion. That scale of investment has limited the pool of bidders, and reporting in August 2025 described a field narrowed to two serious bidders after as many as 17 interested parties signed confidentiality agreements.

The interplay between appraisal values, construction costs, and lien priorities influences the liquidation analysis in the plan. A sale price closer to the as is valuation range would leave limited proceeds for junior secured and unsecured classes after tax claims, professional fees, and senior secured debt. Higher prices would improve recovery prospects but would require a buyer prepared to fund the remaining construction in a difficult real estate financing environment.

Court Process and Case Milestones

The case began as an involuntary petition filed on February 13, 2024 and moved into chapter 11 administration after the court entered an order for relief on March 11, 2024. Early case activity centered on DIP financing, with an interim order entered on April 26, 2024 and a final order entered on May 16, 2024. The court approved bidding procedures on June 21, 2024, and the debtor filed its liquidating plan and disclosure statement on July 10, 2024, later amending those documents in September 2024.

The U.S. Trustee moved in June 2024 to dismiss or convert the case or appoint a trustee based on the debtor's failure to maintain property insurance for a project valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The motion also sought a deadline for the debtor to obtain insurance and a status report if it failed to do so. That dispute underscores the cost and difficulty of insuring a partially completed high rise project that has been vacant for years.

The disclosure statement approval order entered on September 9, 2024 set voting and confirmation deadlines and scheduled a confirmation hearing for October 16, 2024. Court filings show no confirmation order located through type filters in this research pass. The absence of a located confirmation order does not indicate outcome, but it does signal that plan confirmation may have been delayed or that later orders were entered under different docket classifications.

Case administration communications were centralized through Stretto, which was listed as the claims, noticing, and solicitation agent in the disclosure statement materials. The order directed ballots to Stretto for processing and pointed parties to the public case website for notices and ballot submission. That structure allowed creditors and lien claimants to access notice information and solicitation materials through a single portal while the court schedule moved toward confirmation.

A condensed case milestone table follows.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Oceanwide Plaza?

Oceanwide Plaza is a mixed use development at 1101 South Flower Street in downtown Los Angeles with three high rise towers designed by CallisonRTKL. Public descriptions cite a Park Hyatt hotel tower, two residential towers, and 150,000 to 160,000 square feet of retail space, with a project scope that includes hotel rooms, serviced residences, and more than 500 condominium units.

Why did Oceanwide Plaza LLC enter chapter 11?

Contractors led by Lendlease filed an involuntary petition on February 13, 2024 seeking to force a sale of the project after stating they were owed about $4.3 million. The project halted construction in 2019 when funding stopped, and the parent company later faced liquidation proceedings in Bermuda and Hong Kong, reducing prospects for additional capital support.

Who are the main creditors in the case?

Reporting has cited secured claims of more than about $200 million for L.A. Downtown Investment LP, about $185 million for Lendlease and contractor claims, roughly about $180 million tied to EB 5 investors, and about $15 to $18 million in county tax claims. The overall secured and lien exposure has been reported at roughly $370 million to $400 million.

What is the sale process for Oceanwide Plaza?

The court approved bidding procedures in June 2024 and set a timeline that included an August 15, 2024 bid deadline and a September 17, 2024 auction date. Colliers and Hilco were appointed to market the project, and reported bidding requirements included a signed purchase agreement, evidence of development experience, a financing plan, and a 3 percent deposit.

How much would it cost to complete the project?

Completion cost estimates have ranged from about $865 million to around $1 billion, depending on scope and market conditions. These costs come on top of any acquisition price for the property.

What is the project worth in its current condition?

Public sources have cited a 2021 appraisal with an as is value of about $313 million and a more recent appraisal around about $434 million. Creditors have argued that the as is value is constrained by the cost to complete and the challenges of financing a large scale development.

What happened in the lien priority litigation?

A February 25, 2025 ruling in Los Angeles County Superior Court placed L.A. Downtown Investment LP in first priority position ahead of contractor lien claims. Coverage described the ruling as a win for LADI in the dispute over construction lien priority.

Who is the claims agent for Oceanwide Plaza LLC?

Stretto, Inc. serves as the claims and noticing agent. The firm maintains the official claims register and distributes case notifications to creditors and parties in interest.

For more bankruptcy case analysis and restructuring news, visit ElevenFlo's bankruptcy blog.