Legal Analysis: GGP Make The Case

I found Goldmans claim for administrative expenses against GGP for making a DIP offer (and having it rejected) highly amusing - if ever you needed an illustration of why they make so much money..

On 31st July, there will be a hearing to determine the extent and value of the lien by the creditor George Reed Inc (GRI), which are secured by the property 'Elk Grove Town Center LP'. What makes this case more unusual is that Elk Grove, and ergo GGP, owe more than $1m in unpaid progress payments (construction costs) to GRI. The deadline is being contested by GGP due to insufficient time to respond, which "failed to comply with procedures".

I have just finished reviewing GGP's court defence, and a summary is below:

1. GGP and its subsidiaries are "a fully integrated organization"
Therefore General Growth requires the revenues generated by the project-level subsidiaries for the servicing of their debts.

2. The CMBS Market GGP Relied Upon To Finance Its Properties Is "Dead"
This point is made to illustrate that it was standard CRE practice to refinance mortgages before they came due and for lenders to sell these onto the CMBS market. This is gone under current conditions, and approximately $9.9 billion of GGP's project-level subsidiary debt matures between now and 2012.

3. Unable To Renegotiate, Each Of The Debtor-Subsidiaries Determined That Chapter 11 Protection Maximized Value
A key point, is that when each of the individual entities acts within its own interest, this does not necessary act within the wider interests of the company or markets:

"When GGP approached several of the master servicers to discuss loan restructurings, it was told that the servicers would not even consider discussions unless the loans were within thirty to sixty days of default."

"Amazingly, in some cases the master servicers were even unwilling to reveal the identity of the special servicers whose consent was required for any loan restructuring."
GGP Court Submission 'OPPOSITION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS OF ING CLARION CAPITAL LOAN SERVICES LLC AND WELLS FARGO BANK'

4. The Debtors Filed For Chapter 11 Protection
Due to the crisis, GGP and its subsidiaries (boards of the entities) met for over a month "to evaluate the data and determine whether filing for bankruptcy was in the best interest of that entity." As expected, the crux of the defence is that this is in everybody's wider interest:

"GGP entities whose mortgages were to mature in the next few years determined that filing was the best way to maximize their company’s value for all stakeholders, including employees, equity holders, and secured and unsecured lenders."

5. The Movants Remain Adequately Protected
In other words, the creditors asking for SPE removal from Chapter 11 should be paid in full anyway, and as even they cannot argue, all have been fully serviced so were not in default. Additionally GGP has "more than sufficient cash flow to service its debts to Movants."

The defence also goes into some detail around how the Movant's secured interests remain intact and protected, given the Court has upheld the need for each Debtor-Subsidiary to continue paying interest on loans at the non-default contract rate.

GGP makes a highly convincing argument in my opinion. It cites that the movants have failed to establish bad faith (a legal term, but ultimately this must be 'proven' by the Movant's to overturn the original decision). The lawyers have a field day shredding the creditor's case:

"Movants thus fall woefully short of discharging their burden of establishing the 'substantial evidence' necessary to prove bad faith. The 'bad fath' standard is meant to weed out bankruptcy petitions that seek to abuse the bankruptcy process."

As I have commented on previously, the industry overstated objections regarding the impact of this case, and stretched credibility. Here GGP's legal defence make the same point that arguing bankruptcy filings by all of the Property Owners will 'wreak havoc on the structured finance markets if permitted to proceed' is baseless:

"Movants offer no evidence that the filings have disrupted markets. Indeed, this Court has acknowledged that their concerns are 'hyperbole.'"

Overall the case seems very strong, and I cannot find anything in the objections that comes close to overturning this. It supports an industry source who confided that the credit industry objections are largely for the cameras (read: the clients). The reality is that CMBS sold to date did not come with adequate legal protection - as such they have too many legal holes for GGP not to win this argument.