With an increasing emphasis on identifying value in the marketplace, entrepreneurs have focused their efforts on acquiring debt instruments, senior secured and mezzanine, in particular. Two primary strategies are being employed with respect to the debt: (1) acquire the debt for the purposes of restructuring the terms with the borrower(s) or (2) acquire the debt for the purpose of exercising the creditor’s remedies (i.e., foreclosing on the equity).
The rate of loan defaults has been on the rise, and given the current state of the economy, this trend is likely to continue. Doubtful loans may only get worse, raising that subject that lenders never want to hear, much less discuss: Foreclosure. Senior lenders will almost certainly have a first priority lien on all of the general assets of the borrower, and to the extent a junior lender is even permitted a second priority lien on these assets, it will be subordinate to the senior lender’s lien pursuant to a subordination agreement.
The Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law has been amended effective as of October 29, 2009, by adding new protections for occupants of dwelling units1 in properties that are in foreclosure. These protections will apply to projects which were rental housing from the outset, and to for-sale housing projects in which units are being rented pending sale or which have been converted to rental housing.
Notice to Occupants by Receivers and Mortgagees in Possession
Receiverships have gained in popularity in foreclosure cases and in other types of litigation in recent years. Orders appointing receivers and setting forth the receiver’s duties frequently include a provision allowing the receiver to market and sell real estate. However, the question of whether a receiver legally has the ability to convey title to real estate, free and clear of liens and encumbrances, appears to have been answered in the negative, at least by one appellate district in Ohio.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that there is a federal common law of receivership in the context of real property security interest, joining the Eleventh Circuit. Can. Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter, 557 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009).
In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest. Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
On November 12th, the Third Circuit affirmed both bankruptcy and district court findings that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a claim seeking rescission of a mortgage filed in an adversarial action in federal bankruptcy court after a state court entered a default foreclosure order on that mortgage. The Third Circuit held further that the entry of summary judgment against plaintiff on her Truth in Lending Act claim was proper.
Retail Seminar Business In re Telligenix Corporation (Bankr. M.D. Fla.) Case no. 09-15238
For participants in the over-the-counter ("OTC") derivatives markets, perhaps the most significant recent US legal decision interpreting counterparty rights upon a bankruptcy event of default was the September 15, 2009 bench ruling in the US Lehman Brothers chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Case No. 08-13555 et seq. (JMP)(jointly administered) ("Bankruptcy Case").
After more than a decade of rising real estate values, the tide has turned against commercial and development real estate, prompting major builders and developers to commence Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. As a result of the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) in 2005, many Chapter 11 cases that revolve around real estate will fall within the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of single asset real estate (SARE) cases and are thus subject to special provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.1 As a result, it is now time to think about SARE.