Recourse Guaranty

Subscribe to Recourse Guaranty

Our friend, Dan Rubock, just inked an interesting and timely piece entitled, “Key pillars of loan structural quality are eroding, especially in single-borrower deals.”  As usual, Dan’s views at Moody’s are worth considerable attention.  That piece focused on bad-boy carve-out guaranties, the quality of borrower financial information, property release provisions, qualified transfer provisions and cash sweep triggers.  While reasonable professionals can differ on both the incidence and the impact of the deterioration of these deal features, the point is well taken that the deterioration of legal structural features in CRE lending is often a canary in the mine for… excessive exuberance.  I’ll put off litigating Dan’s points for a future time, but this got me thinking about all that we do in legally structuring loans for the capital market.

Much of the playbook for capital markets CRE lending was established at the dawn of this business.  At that time, Dechert was outside counsel to S&P and for good or ill, Dechert was responsible for much of the early architecture of CRE documentation and legal underwriting.  While these criteria have been periodically tweaked over the years and adapted to changes to the underlying CRE lending market, the original architecture is still pretty much in place.

I would posit that it is an industry failing that we haven’t really given legal underwriting a thorough rethink in 30 years.  Here’s a start.
Continue Reading I Urgently Want to Report the Deaths of the Non-Con Opinion (But Probably Cannot…Yet)

As we have discussed numerous times in this blog (here, here, here and here), the downturn in the commercial real estate market resulted in much litigation as to guarantor liability for non-recourse debt. As a brief refresher, many of the non-recourse loans made during the CMBS boom included an agreement that, in an event of default, the lender would only exercise remedies against the property securing the loan and not against the borrower (or its principals or sponsors), with an exception for certain borrower “bad-acts” (such as misappropriation of rents, fraud, and in certain instances, borrower bankruptcy or insolvency). In the event the borrower perpetuated any of these bad acts, the guarantor agreed to be liable either for the losses incurred by the lender, or for the full amount of the loan, depending on the bad act committed.Continue Reading On Appeal: The Michigan Court of Appeals Overturns It’s Prior Ruling and Affirms the State’s 2012 Legislation, Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act, Which Invalidates Recourse Carveout Guaranties Triggered by Borrower Insolvency

This is about bad law in the bankruptcy courts, but let us instructively begin with Charlie Brown. Bear with me. Everyone knows the classic Peanuts comic strip, which features the running joke of Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football – Charlie Brown goes to kick the football, only to have Lucy pull it away at the last second, leaving Lucy laughing and Charlie Brown on his back. Every time, Lucy promises Charlie Brown that this time she will let him kick the ball. Charlie Brown, blithely ignoring the obvious, goes to kick the football. Lucy, of course, pulls the ball away again, every time.Continue Reading Fool Me Once…: When Lenders are the Losers in Bankruptcy Court

Last month, Federal District Court Judge Milton I. Shadur (a long-time Federal Judge and something of a legal legend in Illinois) held a guarantor liable for a deficiency claim brought in connection with a Georgia foreclosure – notwithstanding the fact that the deficiency could not be pursued under Georgia law. The case – Inland Mortgage Capital Corporation v. Chivas Retail Partners, LLC, et. al., Case No. 1:11-CV-06482 (N.D. Ill. 2012) – arose in connection with a defaulted construction loan relating to a retail shopping center outside of Atlanta and is the latest in a series of decisions shaping the legal landscape for guarantors of real estate loans.Continue Reading Caught up in a Waive: Federal Judge Holds Guarantor Liable for Disputed Deficiency

Earlier this month, the New York Supreme Court issued a decision upholding the enforceability of a springing recourse guaranty given in connection with a commercial real estate loan that provided for a full "blow-up" upon voluntary bankruptcy. [Author’s Note: the decision can still be appealed: New Yorkers tend to call their trial court the "Supreme Court", their supreme court the "Court of Appeals", their front steps the "Stoop" and their minor league team the "Mets".] Most of our readers are, at this point, intimately familiar with the "bad boy" guaranty and the leverage it provides a lender once the loan hits the fan. Conversely, our readers are also keenly aware of the degree to which sponsors were able to erode the scope of recourse carve outs and isolate liability in poorly capitalized shell entities during the go-go years. The most famous example, of course, being GGP’s ability to run an end-around the bad boy guaranty by filing borrowers and gurantors alike into bankruptcy in 2009 – leaving the holders of $ billions of CMBS paper without practical recourse.Continue Reading Bad Boys: New York Supreme Court Upholds Recourse Guaranty