Mezzanine Debt Versus Preferred Equity
David Broderick and Brian Donnelly discuss situations where the use of preferred equity in lieu of mezzanine debt is required and key concerns that the subordinate capital provider must consider with respect to such preferred equity investment.
June 26, 2017 at 11:01 AM
10 minute read
Mezzanine Debt versus Preferred Equity: which investment structure is utilized by the subordinate capital provider is often determined by the regulatory and other circumstances and objectives of the senior lender and not the preferences of the subordinate capital provider.
This article will discuss situations where the use of preferred equity in lieu of mezzanine debt is required and key concerns that the subordinate capital provider must consider with respect to such preferred equity investment.
Threshold Issue: Why Preferred Equity and Not Mezzanine Debt? There are many factors and circumstances that are evaluated in determining which subordinate capital structure the senior lender will require. At present the two most common factors that result in a preferred equity investment being required instead of mezzanine debt involve (1) the origination of a CMBS mortgage loan, which will be securitized and subject to rating agency scrutiny, and (2) for balance sheet lenders, avoiding their commercial real estate construction loan from being classified as a High Volatility Commercial Real Estate (HVCRE) loan, which requires that the balance sheet lender maintain an additional 50 percent of capital reserves. The new HVCRE regulations require that the mortgage borrower contribute at the closing of any “acquisition, development or construction” loan, and maintain while the loan remains outstanding (or is converted to a “permanent loan”), capital in an amount equal to at least 15 percent of the real estate's “as completed” appraised value (counting only the historical cost basis of the real estate and not any subsequent appreciation). Although interpretations of the new HVCRE regulations are still evolving, numerous banking institutions have concluded that a preferred equity investment (fully advanced at closing with any excess funds not utilized at closing being held by the mortgage borrower) is permitted to be counted as part of the mortgage borrower's capital contribution requirement, while, mezzanine debt is not permitted to be counted.
This content has been archived.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 AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
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