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.
- In re TOUSA, Inc., 408 B.R. 913 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009). Prepetition lenders could not assert third-party claims against the debtors for breach of contract based on loan document representation that debtor borrowers, on a consolidated basis, would be solvent after the financing transaction because such claims did not depend on the outcome of the fraudulent transfer claims of the creditors, which asserted that individual debtor subsidiaries were insolvent.
- In re Metaldyne Corp., 409 B.R. 671 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision on a question of first impression before the court: whether section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to administrative claims arising under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, generally, ASM Capital, L.P. v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 582 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2009).
There are hundreds of hotel properties in special servicing or foreclosure and even more that are on the brink. When dealing with a distressed hotel property, there are several issues and opportunities to consider.
Receivership
Not necessarily so, according to the recent rulings of Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Judge Allan Gropper in the US$27 billion General Growth Properties Chapter 11 bankruptcy—at least with respect to the issue of substantive consolidation.
In a recent order entered in In re SemCrude, L.P., Case No. 08-11525, the Delaware bankruptcy court (1) clarified the application of Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) to creditors’ priority claims arising from the delivery of goods in the 20 days before a bankruptcy filing and (2) amended a previously entered procedures order to allow for the resolution of disputed “Twenty Day Claims” on their merits.