The proliferation of limited recourse financings popularized in the commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) loan market through the financial innovation of loan securitization may be in jeopardy following the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Wells Fargo, N.A. vs. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership.1 If the Michigan decision is widely followed, an array of unanticipated consequences may arise that could have profound effects on the debt capital markets generally and on single purpose entity (SPE) borrowers in particular.
Forum selection clause in an investment management agreement is valid and enforceable.
In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P., 454 B.R. 702 (Bankr. N.D. Texas, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Summary
Prepayment provisions are intended, in part, to protect lenders in a depressed market from losses resulting from the costs of replacing their loans sooner than expected and having to relend at rates lower than those originally charged. A New York federal district court recently upheld a bankruptcy judge's ruling denying a lender's claim for a $7.5 million prepayment premium against a borrower-debtor.1 The lender must have been both surprised and disappointed to learn from the courts' decisions that this result could have been avoided had the lender's loan documents included
Taking the lead from its recent decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners,1 in In re River East Plaza, LLC,2 the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor cannot avoid the lien retention prong of Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)3 by transferring an undersecured creditor’s lien to substitute collateral as indubitable equivalence pursuant to Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii).
Bankruptcy Rule changes, effective December 1, 2011, require mortgage holders and servicers to include additional documentation supporting proofs of claim filed in individual debtor cases. Mortgage holders and servicers must follow these rules or face sanctions and potential loss of the right to present the omitted documentation as evidence in subsequent proceedings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a single asset real estate case on Jan. 19, 2012, reasoning that the debtor’s proposed substitute collateral “was not the indubitable equivalent of the [undersecured lender’s] mortgage.”In re River East Plaza, LLC, 2012 WL 169760, *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2012) (Posner, J.). In the court’s words, the debtor “wanted [the lender] out of there and decided to seek confirmation of a [reorganization] plan . . .
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Bethany Holdings Group, LLC, et al., 2011 WL 3427013, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re General Growth Props., Inc., Case No. 09-11977 (ALG), 2011 BL 189724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT