In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.

Even with all the development of the last 20 years, Brooklyn, the most populous of New York City’s five boroughs, now approaching 2.7 million residents, continues to attract strong interest from developers, each scouring the borough to see where value can be created. Development generates demand as new residents require new retail and amenity services and increasingly new office clusters for entrepreneurs freed from the Manhattan central business districts by technology and preferring to locate closer to where their employees live.

In First Southern National Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, No. 12-17241 (9th Cir. May 26, 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, held that, for purposes of confirmation of a plan of reorganization over a mortgagee’s objection, the value of the mortgagee’s secured claim was the value of the property as low income housing not the value the mortgagee would have received on foreclosure free of the low income housing restrictions.

Just when courts appeared to be developing a consensus on how to value affordable housing projects in bankruptcy, an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has muddied the landscape. In In re Sunnyslope Housing Ltd.

Note: This post is part of a continuing series on the Credit Report Blog on the subject of workouts and bankruptcies involving low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects.

Welcome to The Week That Was, a round-up of key events in the construction sector over the last seven days.

What's in a name?

A judge has found that insurers were liable to indemnify an insured despite its insurance policy specifying the incorrect name.

The case relates to 'The George in Rye' pub which was damaged by a fire in July 2019. While the named insured was “George on High Ltd t/a The George in Rye”, a separate company (George on Rye Ltd (GoR)) owned the restaurant and hotel business operating in the property.

In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.