Three years have passed since the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States and its effects are still being felt today. Even though lockdown measures have largely disappeared and many workers have returned to the office, flexible work has become a fixture in the workplace. The shift to remote and more flexible work arrangements have impacted many segments of the economy, perhaps most directly, commercial real estate companies.

Make-whole clauses (also known as prepayment premiums, call premiums or call protection) are provisions in financing transactions that require the borrower to make a specified payment to the lender if a loan is prepaid before the scheduled maturity. This payment is typically made by the borrower as a lump sum upon early termination and is designed to compensate the lender for the loss of the anticipated yield that lenders expect when providing (or committing to provide) the financing over a specified term.

Make-whole clauses (also known as prepayment premiums, call premiums or call protection) are provisions in financing transactions that require the borrower to make a specified payment to the lender if a loan is prepaid before the scheduled maturity. This payment is typically made by the borrower as a lump sum upon early termination and is designed to compensate the lender for the loss of the anticipated yield that lenders expect when providing (or committing to provide) the financing over a specified term.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Chair Martin Gruenberg gave remarks to the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund 2023 Bank On National Conference yesterday in which he said that the FDIC “shares the Bank On movement’s commitment to advancing Americans’ economic inclusion in the banking system.”

In years past defaulting lender mechanics in a subscription credit facility may have been viewed as boiler plate language and, in most cases, the relevant provisions have not received much attention. In light of recent events in the banking industry, defaulting lender provisions have gained some renewed attention. In this article we take a look at the current general state of defaulting lender provisions and the impacts on the lender and borrower.

What Happened

In a ruling issued just yesterday, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC et al., 598 U.S. ----, 2023 WL 2992693 (2023) (“MOAC”), the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) held that Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) is not jurisdictional in terms of appellate review of asset sale orders, but rather, that such section only contains limitations on the relief that may be afforded on appeal. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is often relied upon by purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy case as providing finality to any sale order.

On March 14, 2023, Judge Ashely M. Chan of the U.S.

Since 1993, decisions out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consistently adopted the aggregate “rent approach” for calculating lease rejection damages in bankruptcy proceedings. But in Bankruptcy Judge Wiles’ recent decision in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, he departed from the “rent approach” in favor of the “time approach,” which is based on the time remaining under the lease rather than factoring in the total or aggregate rent still owed under the lease.

As many parties expected, on March 17, 2023 SVB Financial Group (“SVB Financial” or the “Debtor”) the holding company for Silicon Valley Bank, commenced a case under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the Southern District of New York. Judge Martin Glenn has been assigned to the chapter 11 case. Neither Silicon Valley Bank, currently in FDIC receivership, nor its successor Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (“SV Bridge Bank”), were included in the chapter 11 filing.