In a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Mary Walrath has required that members of an informal committee of noteholders comply with expansive disclosure requirements beyond the standard established for official committees. In a written opinion issued on December 2, 2009 in the case of In re Washington Mutual, Inc., Case No. 08-12229 (MFW), Judge Walrath granted a motion to require an informal group of noteholders to comply with Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
This article appeared in the Dec. 9, 2009, issue of Lodging Law newsletter.
The economic meltdown has left many hospitality development projects in a ditch, but as 2010 approaches, some hospitality real estate projects may be ripe for new life. Pursuing distressed assets may offer a tremendous upside to developers, but the unforeseen downsides can devastate the effort if they are ignored at the front end of the deal. Some of these unforeseen downsides include:
Many companies secured their financing several years ago when the credit market featured advantageous pricing and loose loan covenants. Because these favorable terms would be impossible for borrowers to obtain in today’s lending environment, many viable companies with highly leveraged capital structures are looking for strategies to remove debt and, at the same time, to preserve, or “reinstate,” the favorable financing deals they secured before the markets crashed.
Courts are now being asked to examine transactions which were completed during the recent exuberant period. Despite the fact that the transactions in question may have been market standard at the time, because those transactions are being scrutinized during an unprecedented economic crisis, it appears that a disproportionate amount of finger pointing – and economic loss – is being directed at secured creditors. The result is a seeming erosion of secured creditors’ rights for the benefit of unsecured creditors.
470-Unit Apartment Complex in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania In re Ventana Hills Associates, Ltd. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) Case no. 09-41755 In re Ventana Hills Phase II, L.P. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) Case no. 09-41758
470-Unit Apartment Complex in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania In re Ventana Hills Associates, Ltd. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) Case no. 09-41755 In re Ventana Hills Phase II, L.P. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) Case no. 09-41758
In a recent holding that a creditor may collect, on an unsecured basis, post-petition attorneys’ fees under an otherwise enforceable pre-petition contract, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed a similar ruling by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, adding to a conflict among the circuits on this issue.
CIT Group Inc.
Intercreditor Agreement in ION Media requires Second Lien Lenders “Be Silent” — precludes challenge to validity of liens; deprives junior creditors of standing to object to plan of reorganization.
Yesterday, Treasury released its most recent completed transactions report for the period ending December 10, 2009.