Rather than immediately commencing foreclosure proceedings, lenders and servicers (acting on behalf of the lender) are seeking the judicial appointment of receivers with greater frequency when commercial real estate workout negotiations fail to produve the desired results and the borrower is not otherwise prepared to "turn over the keys."
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:
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
The commercial real estate market is in distress. While residential foreclosures have received the bulk of media coverage, owners of commercial real estate are defaulting on their mortgages at an unprecedented pace. If your business leases commercial space, the likelihood that your landlord will file for bankruptcy is higher now than it has been in recent history. Because a landlord bankruptcy may occur without warning, tenants need to be aware of their rights and responsibilities in the event a filing does occur.
Over the next two years, billions of dollars in commercial real estate loans are expected to mature — loans that many property owners and landlords will not be able to pay off or refinance. As a result, a number of landlords that have purchased, built, renovated and/or refinanced their properties with short-term debt during the previous five years will find themselves in a precarious position. Market forces, combined with the tightening of credit markets, leave landlords holding over-leveraged property, unable to refinance their shortterm debt because of a lack of equity.
The collection of foreclosure and bankruptcy-related fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases has been the cause of much grief for mortgage servicers of late. Learning how to do it right on the front end of a bankruptcy is the remedy. Unfortunately, the law varies to a wide degree depending upon the state where the borrower resides. This leaves mortgage lenders and servicers with little ability to streamline activities on a nationwide basis.
Bankruptcy courts have long debated the issue of whether an unsecured creditor can recover post-petition legal fees under the Bankruptcy Code. In the recent decision of In re Seda France, Inc. (located here), Justice Craig A.
Late last month, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari review of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in PEM Entities LLC v. Eric M. Levin & Howard Shareff. At issue in PEM Entities is whether a debt claim held by existing equity investors should be recharacterized as equity. The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve a split among the federal circuits concerning whether federal or state law should govern debt recharacterization claims.
In an important decision for secured creditors, the Ninth Circuit recently held that the proper “cramdown” valuation of a secured creditor’s collateral is its replacement value, regardless of whether the foreclosure value would generate a higher valuation of the collateral. The appellate court’s decision has the potential to significantly impact lenders that include certain types of restrictions on the use of the collateral (such as low income housing requirements) in their financing documents.
A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals may have muddied the question of the impact of collateral rent assignments on a debtor’s ability to re-organize under chapter 11.