Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The state of the office sector is grim. The end of the era of cheap money, coupled with a shift to remote work, has resulted in widespread value destruction and mounting distress. The tide of bad news is unlikely to recede any time soon. As has been widely reported, U.S. property owners must refinance $137 billion of office mortgages this year and nearly half a trillion dollars in the next four years, at a time of widespread lender retrenchment. Compounding the distress, spiking interest rates, coupled with the staggering cost of interest rate hedges for floating-rate loans, have dramatically raised the cost of the few loans on offer.
|When a borrower cannot repay a loan at maturity, lenders have customarily chosen between two options: modification and extension of the loan; or the exercise of the lender's remedies under the loan documents. Modification and extension agreements typically afford the borrower additional time to repay the loan, in the hope that market conditions will improve before the new maturity date. They also frequently afford the borrower additional relief, such as the right to accrue interest during the extension period, and even a promise of additional loan advances to fund tenant improvement and other costs required to reposition the asset. The exercise of remedies under the loan documents entails either judicial foreclosure or the delivery of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
It may be time to rip up the playbook and turn to a third option. Historically, lenders have been unwilling to go into business with their borrowers, preferring to observe a rigid separation between debtor and creditor. This approach made sense in past downturns, when lenders could be confident that the market would rebound and their collateral would recover its value.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.