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This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllSEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readDecision of the Day: Commercial Division Finds Defendant Engaged in Unfair Competition Against Plaintiff
Trending Stories
- 1Who Is Nicholas J. Ganjei? His Rise to Top Lawyer
- 2Delaware Supreme Court Names Civil Litigator to Serve as New Chief Disciplinary Counsel
- 3Inside Track: Why Relentless Self-Promoters Need Not Apply for GC Posts
- 4Fresh lawsuit hits Oregon city at the heart of Supreme Court ruling on homeless encampments
- 5Ex-Kline & Specter Associate Drops Lawsuit Against the Firm
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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