Common charge liability in undersold condos?

This should be outlined in your offering plan. If not, check with lawyer. In my experience, the sponsor will pay for unsold units' common charges, but this may not always be the case. It is obviously a significant concern if there are a lot of remaining apartments.

I've been wondering this one myself. I don't think we'll see brand-spankin new condo buildings with only one buyer in prime Manhattan, but this has started happening in desirable areas of Los Angeles.

I was looking at a 3 bedroom, 3.5 bathroom condo in West Hollywood near Sunset Strip. The building is completely empty even though prices have been reduced by half. What the hell is the developer gonna do?

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2008/10/pricechopper_wehos_sierra_bonita_gets_whacked.php

you should check your offering plan, but its almost certainly the sponsor's liability, they own the unsold apts and have to pay cc's just like any other owner.

unless the sponsor goes bankrupt.

bankruptcy doesn't mean the sponsor isn't liable for those payments, just that the sponsor can't pay them. I think what happens is that the unpaid cc's stick to the apts and whoever ends up buying them has to come up with the cash. So maybe the sponsor's lenders pays them when they forclose or maybe its the people who end up buying the individual apts (at drastically reduced prices presumably, and of course factoring in any such accrued fees). In the short term of course, you have to run the building so the other owners may have to front the fees and of course if no one solvent ever takes ownership maybe the fees never get paid back.

ccdevi - you're generally correct, of course. it's a situation buyers would truly like to avoid however.