One key part of that was a dissection of the motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 case of the Fox River Shopping Center LLC by FRM Funding. FRM Funding had by then already submitted a motion to withdraw its objections to inclusion in Chapter 11. Although no reason was given, the case is covered in GGP's submission, and in all probability it was an assessment by FRM's legal team on the strength of GGP's case that lead to the withdrawal.
A quick review of GGP's final response to the creditor case:
1. MetLife / FRM funding 'bad faith' arguments fundamentally flawed
GGP point out that just because certain GGP subsidiaries are operationally sound with strong cash flows does not mean they could ignore the realities of the credit markets or their duty to maximise value. In other words willfully waiting until default and potentially being forced to liquidate individual entities would be an abuse of their duty to all.
GGP's team reiterate that the wider market problems meant that anticipating future problems refinancing all loans was nothing more than a realistic assessment of the credit markets, and hence the Chapter 11 filing was made in good faith. Additionally they note that the debtors do not even attempt to show that GGP's chances of a successful "reoganization is objectively futile."
GGP also refute that Chapter 11 is being used as a "sword" to gain a tactical advantage in negotiations with secured lenders (note: it is in reality, but let's ignore that), and instead refer to it as a "shield" that will protect the firm as it restructures the debt. In that case is Bill Ackman a knight in shining armour and MetLife the evil dragon?
It does illustrates the highly subjective nature of filing under bad faith. You can argue it both ways, but you need to have definite proof to make the mud stick, and the creditors case is not strong enough. Weil Gotshal & Manges also point out inconsistencies between creditor cases, with MetLife arguing the credit market problems persisting for a year or more is "sheer speculation" by GGP, while ING and Helios agree that the CMBS market has disappeared.
2. GGP filed for Chapter 11 protection for the same reason that ING and Helios debtors filed
This being the collapse of the CRE financing markets and the advantage of "participating now in an integrated, consolidated restructuring of project entities". This makes an effective point by illustrating that other creditors were filing against GGP by this stage, and undermines suggestions by those creditors objecting just because GGP filed first that taking no action was a viable option.
3. GGP filings included loans that had already cross-defaulted
Hence did not give GGP "a reasonable prospect of refinancing before maturity, and certain other loan characteristics that further exacerbated the need for a restructuring." This point is again particularly strong, as it demonstrates the financial stress that GGP was indeed under during the months of financial limbo when it moved into technical default on loans without declaring Chapter 11.
Additionally GGP dismiss this further by arguing: "There exists no basis in law or in fact for overriding these reasonable business judgments made by the Subsidiary Debtors [GGP] on the advice of sophisticated financial, restructuring, and legal experts."
The 'loan characteristics' referred to above are covered in more detail in this WSJ article from yesterday, which shows an increasing recognition by the wider industry and US government now that there are problems with the entire CMBS market. This goes back to the point that ultimately (due to tax reasons, as it turns out), many of GGP's lenders were largely unwilling to even discuss refinancing of any loans not due within a short period of time - a fundamental structural flaw of the credit markets.
GGP has to my mind received a significant boost from these potential plans to amend the tax laws to enable lenders to talk earlier. This gives a powerful argument that GGP really was forced into Chapter 11 due to market failings and exceptional circumstances, and hence should be fast tracked back out.
4. Dismissal for lack of good faith should be granted "sparingly, with great caution."
The defence elaborate further with previous court decisions that support GGP's case, stating that a petition for bad faith should only be granted when: "it is clear that on the filing date there was no reasonable likelihood that the debtor intended to reorganize and no reasonable probability that it would eventually emerge from bankruptcy proceedings."
The defence then go into detail dismissing all of the bad faith arguments that ING, Helios, MetLife and FRM have made in their filings, claiming none have merit.
5. GGP filings for bankruptcy had full corporate authority
GGP move onto FRM's claims around technicalities in the Fox River SPE filing, and rebuff with some telling quotes back from the original derivative contracts.
For those who have read my previous comments on the CMBS industry and how contracts used to be sold, you will know I have long said that nobody did any due diligence in the good old days. It was a zip 'em and sell 'em on mentality, and frankly nobody in the banks cared as long as people bought them. Only now are people running around complaining.
Let's face it, if you did due diligence you would never have sold CMBS contracts with this explicitly in the wording:
"Nothing contained herein or omitted herefrom shall prevent the shareholder(s) of the Company [GGP] from removing an Independent Manager with immediate effect at any time for any reason."
GGP's lawyers state that the loan documents include no legal opinion regarding whether Fox River was bankruptcy remote. Even more damning, and probably the final nail that forced FRM to withdraw their motion was the legal assessment of Fox River, which refutes the notion Chapter 11 would not enable any substantive consolidation (of assets and liabilities).
6. MetLife's 'speculation' on the outcome
In MetLife's recent response, they made a convincing case about GGP acting in bad faith, but a key point was that it was indeed based largely on speculation on their part. At the heart of this was an argument that there was no point moving into Chapter 11 because when it comes time to approve any restructuring plan, "there might not be any other impaired creditors and it [MetLife] might vote against a plan."
This response from GGP is all you need to say on the matter:
"..if creditors could get a bankruptcy dismissed at the start of the case simply by claiming they may not agree to a plan of reorganization, as MetLife claims, then chapter 11 would be rendered useless as creditors can always assert they will not agree to any impairment of their claims."
The defence conclude that all of the creditors seeking dismissal of the bankruptcy petitions are seeking "to impose a requirement that debtors face imminent collapse before seeking chapter 11 protection. But no such requirement appears in the actual text of the Bankruptcy Code."
Everything continues to point towards a favourable outcome for GGP, although law is a hornet's nest, so you never quite know what will come out when you start playing with it.
The Appraisal if ck., is wrong there is "NO" Equity ---Get another appraisal
ReplyDeleteSorry but don't understand what you mean by "Appraisal if ck., is wrong"
ReplyDelete