With the increase in global trade and business, often involving complex corporate structures in multiple jurisdictions, we expect to see a significant increase in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters in coming years. This is especially the case with rapid advancements in technology and digital change driving “borderless” transactions and investments in every industry.
Every passing month seems to bring with it a new set of “market making” events that consistently catapults the deal and debt financing economy in a new direction. Nonetheless, there are certain trends that the JMBM attorneys on the “financing frontlines” see repeatedly, and this fall seemed as good a time as any to convey them. By sharing these points, we hope to better prepare our friends, colleagues and clients for navigating through the current debt and restructuring markets, in preparation for the months and quarters that lie ahead.
Originally published in November 2008 on HotelLawBlog.com, then updated in 2010 for our Lenders Handbook for Troubled Hotels, we have updated this article through May 2020 to assist industry friends in dealing with distressed loans provoked by the COVID-19 crisis.
Hotel Lawyers: Lender tips on forbearances, loan modifications, recapitalizations, receiverships, workouts, turnarounds, restructurings, and bankruptcies
CMBS lenders and others use SPEs for expedited remedies
Hotels, resorts, marinas, retail mixed-use, and other hospitality-related assets will likely continue to present challenges to lenders seeking expedited relief from bankruptcy stay provisions available to creditors in “single asset real estate” bankruptcy cases.
A March 8 2016 decision of the influential Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has attracted attention from – and caused concern for – owners of pipelines and other midstream assets, as well as lenders to midstream and upstream lenders across the United States.
Case #1. An equipment lease or a disguised financing?
Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Illinois Paper and Copier Co.
US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 169946 (December 21, 2015)
Background
Most due diligence processes in a business acquisition context require a review of material contracts and, in particular, a review of any restrictions on assignment of those contracts.
When a business enters into a long term commercial contract with a customer, the identity of that particular counterparty may influence the terms of the contract. A party deemed more favourable may obtain a better price or better terms. Unless restricted by enforceable anti-assignment provisions, these favourable contracts can be very valuable in a traditional M&A context.