Source: https://practicalcounsel.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/workouts-101-part-2-borrowers-leverage/
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 17:22:26
Document Index: 597792705

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 4', 'art 3']

Workouts 101, Part 2: Borrowers’ Leverage | Practical Counsel
About Maura O’Connor
« Workouts 101: Mindsets and Prenegotiation Agreements
Workouts 101, Part 3: More Points of Borrowers’ Leverage »
Workouts 101, Part 2: Borrowers’ Leverage
Published June 20, 2009	Real Estate Finance 5 Comments
Tags: Borrowers, Foreclosures, Workouts
Last week’s post talked about some of the basic issues that often are overlooked by both sides in a problem real estate loan workout. Many of us were in the market for the last boom & bust cycle, and simply need a quick refresher on our workout skills.
For others, including many property managers and even some investors and lenders, this is their first serious down market, and it may take some time to adjust to the fundamentally different issues and priorities of real estate workouts in a systemic recession.
This post looks more closely at some of borrowers’ points of leverage and opportunity in typical real estate loan workouts.
Knowing the property. Borrower/owners usually are in a far superior position to a lender in understanding what it takes to run, and profit from, the real estate and its related operating assets. Normally, the lender looks to the owner, or his operator managers, to know how best to keep the property performing and adequately maintained.
The bottom line here is that, in an early stage workout, property owners should try to continue to be the “experts” for themselves and lenders both, and anticipate problems. In that role, owners can offer solutions or compromises on any problem areas, and keep the momentum, forestalling the lender from considering trying to take over and bring in someone else (like a receiver).
Cash flow considerations. In a workout, cash is king. A smart lender will look at these issues straightaway, so as a borrower, you want to be ahead of the game here as well.
Obviously, a failure to keep up with required debt service on the loan will trigger payment defaults and is the common path to a tough workout. But other cash issues must be kept in mind as well.
It’s entirely reasonable in a early stage workout to try to reduce operating expenditures to utterly necessary minimums. Troubled borrowers sometimes are counseled to slow pay or shut down some nonessential items, to build a cash kitty, which might be used to reduce the secured debt and forestall enforcement or foreclosure. However, failure to pay necessary maintenance, utilities, insurance or similar costs could trigger waste or covenant defaults. (Shut down utilities, for for example, and you may lose fire/life safety protection, or suffer mold due to HVAC being down.) Shorting unsecured trade creditors also might alienate them, reducing the chance, in a later bankruptcy, that this class of creditors would be friendly to the borrower and support a reorganization plan that keeps current ownership in place.
Distributions of cash to an owner or partner, even prior to default, can be problematic in a workout. This is because bankruptcy law (and some other remedies) may give a lender, and other creditors, some rights to recall those funds later. Any plans of a borrower/owner to make payments to owners or insiders should be carefully discussed with legal counsel once a workout or default approaches.
Intrinsic value of the property. Again, this is something a sophisticated borrower may understand much better than the lender (even though the lender will almost certainly order an appraisal). Remember, the lender is not necessarily expert in what makes your specific property special. The borrower needs to highlight for the lender the unique features of the property, as well as the reasons why the borrower is the best person to run the property in a way that makes the best out of those unique features in the long run, even if the property is having difficulty in the short run.
There are more borrower points of leverage to come. Look for another post early next week to find them.
A note to readers: I really appreciate all of your comments, and like my fellow Globest.com bloggers, encourage you to participate, throw out ideas and arguments, and ask questions (just not specific questions about specific deals, as we can’t give legal advice here). Hopefully we can get a good conversation going here about what’s going on in the market and in law.
5 Responses to “Workouts 101, Part 2: Borrowers’ Leverage”
1 Brad Thomas June 25, 2009 at 12:19 am
Maura, Just curious, in LA area what % of foreclosures are being deeded in lieu vs. foreclosure sale ? Thanks, Brad
2 mauraboconnor June 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I don’t have the data to know for sure, but have the impression based on what we’re seeing that, at the moment, the enforcement actions in California tend to be either (1) extensions or other modifications or workouts, including loan assumptions by bringing in a new third party borrower with cash to take out the original borrower, pay down the loan to a better LTV and take over the property, or (2) foreclosures (either judicial or nonjudicial); very few are deeds in lieu. Many lenders won’t do deeds in lieu in CA because of the potential for missing a lien (such as a mechanic’s lien) or because they don’t want to ever be on the chain of title for the property (in order to minimize their liability to later titleholders).
I’d be curious if the Globest.com readers have the same impression, or better access to this data than I do. Readers, any comments? sources for numbers detailing this information?
3 payday loan canada June 30, 2009 at 8:15 am
I found practicalcounsel.wordpress.com very informative. The article is professionally written and I feel like the author knows the subject very well. practicalcounsel.wordpress.com keep it that way.
4 mauraboconnor July 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for the kind words; we’ll dive into some lender oriented issues shortly, then onto some other topics.
5 LnddMiles July 22, 2009 at 12:04 am
Enforcing Defaulted CMBS Loans through Receivership Sales: Risks and Rewards under California’s “One Action” Rule
Is the Slow-covery in Trouble?
ICSC: What’s New in Green?
Will your deal survive the Devil’s Triangle? (part 4 of Bank Failure series)
Avoiding The Devil’s Triangle (of Bank Failure, part 3)
mauraboconnor on Introduction to California’s one-action and antideficiency rules
Bruce on Introduction to California’s one-action and antideficiency rules
mauraboconnor on CA Nonjudicial Foreclosures (Trustee’s Sales)
Attorney Advertising. This blog is a periodical publication of Maura O'Connor, a partner of Seyfarth Shaw LLP and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. You are urged to consult a lawyer concerning any specific legal questions you may have. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and represent the individual views of Maura O'Connor only. Any tax information or advice contained herein is not intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer to avoid tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.