Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is the Receiver or Debtor More Likely to Preserve and Maximize the Value of the Property In a Bankruptcy?
No sector is receiving more press about the impact of the rapid rise in interest rates than the commercial real estate industry. It seems like every day there is another article about the billions — or trillions — of dollars in debt that will mature over the next 24 months, secured by interests in real estate. For many properties, the owners' equity has been wiped out, and the lenders will be left to exercise rights to foreclose their collateral. An interim step in this process is often the appointment of a receiver to operate and or preserve the property during the foreclosure process. Many clients are not aware that the Bankruptcy Code provides that, upon the filing of a bankruptcy case, the receiver is required to give back possession of the mortgaged property to the debtor unless the lender obtains an order from the Bankruptcy Court excusing the receiver from this requirement. And most of the time, the lender does not want possession returned to the debtor that defaulted under the loan. So when can a receiver be excused from this requirement?
This decision regarding turnover ultimately involves whether the receiver or debtor is more likely to preserve and maximize the value of the property for the benefit of all creditors, not just the lender. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed this issue in In re Novus Structures, Case No. 23 B 6723 (Sept. 11, 2023), where a state court appointed receiver was not excused from turning over possession of commercial real estate property to the debtor that had filed for bankruptcy.
|State Court Receiver Appointed In Foreclosure Litigation
According to the opinion, Novus Structures (debtor) owned a small apartment building with only three units and a two-car detached garage (property). The debtor was a borrower under a loan from J&D Commercial, LLC (lender) pursuant to a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the property and an assignment of rents derived from the property. The loan matured in 2019, and the lender initiated a state court foreclosure proceeding to collect the amount due.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
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
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.