LIBOR and the Future of Floating Rate Mortgage Loans
In their Financing column, Jeffrey B. Steiner and Jason R. Goldstein discuss the implications for real estate lenders in the wake of the anticipated phase-out of the much-used LIBOR index rate.
September 21, 2017 at 12:00 AM
12 minute read
In light of the fact that many real estate lenders rely upon the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) as a principal index rate, there has been a great deal of concern throughout the industry about the anticipated phase-out of the much-used index, currently anticipated to occur at the end of 2021. As real estate financiers debate whether they may benefit from LIBOR's replacement in the long-term and what existing or newly-minted index rate may ultimately replace LIBOR, lawyers working in the field should concentrate on ensuring that loan documents are drafted to preserve the benefit of lenders' bargains even in the absence of the key index rate used to determine the loan's all-in interest rate.
Contemplating a Substitution
Interest rates for floating rate loans based on the LIBOR index are typically priced on the basis of a 30-day LIBOR contract plus some negotiated “spread” over such index rate; the sum represents the loan's “all-in” rate. In light of past events whereby specifically identified index rates unexpectedly became obsolete, many drafters of real estate finance documents regularly contemplate a substitution of the LIBOR index with an alternative “base rate” or “prime rate” should LIBOR cease to be a viable means for determining a loan's interest rate. For instance, in the following loan document provision, a LIBOR loan is allowed to convert to an alternative “base rate” when LIBOR can no longer be ascertained:
In the event that lender shall have determined that by reason of circumstances affecting the interbank Eurodollar market, adequate and reasonable means do not exist for ascertaining LIBOR, then lender shall forthwith give notice of such determination to borrower. If such notice is given, the related outstanding LIBOR-based loan shall be converted, on the [effective date identified in such notice], to a Base Rate-based loan.
The related loan documents would provide that the “base rate” may be a “prime rate” published in a leading financial periodical (for example, the Wall Street Journal) or some other index that the lender determines would be a reasonable substitute for LIBOR. Provisions for an alternative index to calculate interest are essential at all times but especially in light of the current expectations concerning the availability of LIBOR.
Courts Weigh In on Rates
If the index used to calculate interest for a particular loan should no longer exist, and the applicable loan documents do not provide for lender's selection of an alternative index, a borrower may object to the replacement index proposed by the lender or even argue that the interest rate be limited to the applicable interest rate spread due under the loan. In these cases, the parties may need to resolve their disputes in court.
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 AllTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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