Wrinkle in Real Estate Bankruptcy Law Leaves Room for Pandemic Cases
Single-asset real estate filings fast-track bankruptcy reorganizations giving distressed borrowers 90 days to come up with a loan restructuring plan that the lender may not like.
July 17, 2020 at 10:02 AM
6 minute read
A wrinkle in real estate bankruptcy law leaves an opening for property owners in tough times, which may feed an expected spike in bankruptcy filings.
Single-asset real estate bankruptcies, or SAREs, are streamlined reorganizations for debt taken out by borrowers on just one property, giving them a three-month window to propose a restructuring plan. That's a much shorter time span than a typical Chapter 11 that also is subject to extensions.
"It's a fast-track filing," said Joe Pack, founder of Pack Law in Miami. "You only have 90 days to put a plan in place that puts forward some type of realistic path for the company to reorganize."
If a debtor fails to mark a case as SARE, a creditor can file a motion to that effect.
Whether there will be a deluge of SARE cases in real estate hotbeds like South Florida depends on whom you ask.
Only the "most desperate" of cases where borrowers need to buy more time to restructure their debt will be filed as SAREs, which means they won't dominate the workarounds for real estate debt, said Luis Salazar, partner at Salazar Law in Coral Gables.
Aleida Martinez Molina, partner at Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman in Coral Gables, also expects SAREs will be a last resort for debtors and creditors who can't find another way to agree on new loan terms.
"This would be one of the final options if they can't do it directly with their creditors," said Martinez Molina, who chairs the firm's insolvency and creditors' rights practice group. "The reason why I don't think these are imminent is I would expect there is still the opportunity to negotiate directly with creditors, and creditors are being realistic, and I see a lot of out-of-court workouts taking place. Folks are negotiating, and everyone is being for the most part realistic, settling out of court."
But Pack expects many of South Florida's single-asset owners to opt for SAREs.
"They are going to be correlated directly to the bankruptcy tsunami that everyone is expecting with individual bankruptcies," he said. "Right now there's 40 million Americans that are unemployed, but individual bankruptcy filings are actually down, and that's because landlords can't evict, there's unemployment benefits still flowing, the government stimulus packages still are coming."
When the eviction moratorium lifts and foreclosures are permitted again, he said, "There's going to be an uptick in bankruptcies. I believe the single-asset real estate cases and the real estate cases are going to increase as well. There's going to probably be a massive influx of SARE cases."
Salazar hasn't seen an uptick in SAREs with government relief funds still flowing and foreclosures suspended.
|Who Benefits?
The SARE provision was added to the Bankruptcy Code to help lenders get paid back faster if they and their borrowers are struggling to come up with an out-of-court solution, Salazar said.
The option is "meant to shorten and restrict the amount of time a debtor has in a bankruptcy so banks and lenders are not delayed and can realize on their collateral faster," he said.
The coronavirus pandemic just might turn the tables and make SAREs a win for both creditors and borrowers, Pack said.
It's a beneficial filing for lenders because of the compressed timeline for the borrower to come up with a plan. But as the year progresses, it also could be a good option for borrowers faced with foreclosure.
"At minimum, they have 90 days to figure it out with the benefit of an automatic stay put in place," Pack said. "What I wouldn't be surprised to see is for borrowers to utilize single-asset real estate filings to give themselves 90 days to see what their options are in the face of imminent foreclosure."
|Ins and Outs
SAREs work well for owners with multiple creditors by giving them an opportunity to single-handedly rewrite loan terms.
If an impaired class of creditors such as unsecured creditors or some of the secured creditors consent to a borrower's loan repayment plan under a SARE filing, the plan can be imposed on the first-priority mortgage lender as long as it's getting the present value of what they would be getting otherwise under the loan terms, Pack said.
In that way, SAREs allow for a "cram up" of sorts as the loan term rewrite plan is "crammed up the throat" of the first-priority lender, he noted. "Through cram up, a borrower has the ability to rewrite the terms of the mortgage even if the lender disapproves."
Even though SAREs are restricted to owners of a single property, it doesn't mean big and midsize real estate owners can't take advantage of the provision based on their ownership structure.
Hundreds of South Florida real estate assets are owned by limited liability companies holding a single property, a vehicle used by small fry and major real estate companies.
"The LLC is the borrower, property owner and the one filing under SARE," Pack said. "It's a very useful avenue that becomes ubiquitous in times of distress and when there's very quick market downturns. It's a very good avenue for borrowers to potentially seek to rewrite the terms of their mortgage. Lenders should be armed and ready for their borrowers to start these types of proceedings, and in the end of the day it may just be worth it to avoid them and do an out-of-court workout before it gets to that point."
Read more:
Assessing the State of and Options for Your Business During COVID-19 Fallout
The Ten Commandments of Landlords and Commercial Tenants in Bankruptcy
Forgiveness for the Unforgiven: Small Business Chapter 11 Solution for Adverse PPP Loan Outcomes
Thinking of Not Paying Rent Amid COVID-19? Landlords Sue Ross Stores, Other Commercial Tenants
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250