Gropper Decides 'Enough Diversions'

Delicious. It was like waking up to find a fine pie and chips, with a large pint of ale in a country pub waiting for me. That's really the only way I can describe my morning, as L dried her hair and woke me up, but knowing I was 'working' from home today AND then finding out that Judge Gropper has finally made his decision on whether the disputed SPE's should be included.

As I am sure anybody long on GGP is already well aware, the Court has published its memorandum of opinion on this issue, and has ruled in favour of General Growth Properties.

Despite the multitude of other arguments put forwards by the Creditors, Judge Gropper rightly centred on the issue of 'bad faith' as "the primary ground on which dismissal is sought is that the Subject Debtors’ cases were filed in bad faith. It is also contended that one of the Subject Debtors was ineligible to file." Page 4, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

While other arguments were raised relating to some malls not having other significant creditors, and the alleged need to include entities due to the centralised nature of the GGP business model (despite other entities such as the Joint Ventures not being included), these really were in there to flesh out the argument. The central premise of this filing has always been around the issue of proving 'bad faith'.

I mentioned in previous analysis that this was highly unlikely to be upheld based on Wells Fargo's own definition of this as:

"...a balancing process between the interests of debtors and creditors which characterizes so many provisions of the bankruptcy laws and is necessary to legitimize the delay and costs imposed upon parties to a bankruptcy."

Gropper's submission gives a useful summary of the GGP group structure including its loan structures - this includes detail on how the underlying CMBS are sold onto the wider market as re-REMIC's: something those who have been reading my recent posts will be familiar with. This demonstrates that the Movant arguments for dismissal of SPE's with a single creditor are actually nonsense:

"The REMIC in turn sells certificates entitling the holders to payments from principal and interest on this large pool of mortgages." Page 10, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

In effect, negotiations relating to such SPE's can be extraordinarily complex under situations requiring an exceptional extension or refinancing agreement, and can realistically only be achieved with consortium consent, a cramdown or through Chapter 11.

As part of the court justification for the decision, the memo of opinion goes into some detail outlining the plight of General Growth Properties, explaining how its previously industry-standard CMBS refinancing model was left at the mercy of the credit crisis. The submissions goes into detail explaining the refinancing and debt restructuring efforts made:

"...but the lenders were unwilling to consent to additional forbearance, which in turn led to defaults and cross-defaults. Furthermore, the GGP Group was generally unable to sell any of its assets to generate the cash necessary to pay down its debts, as potential purchasers were themselves unable to acquire financing." Page 15, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

This includes confirming GGP's inability to renegotiate loans set to mature by January 2010 due to the refusal by the master servicers to allow them to communicate with the underlying creditors. This has all been covered previously in GGP's own submissions, but clearly won over the Court as a convincing reason behind its need to move into Chapter 11.

The memo breaks down its ruling by addressing each of the key objection reasons put forward by the creditors.

Bad Faith Dismissal
The first point made is that 'bad faith' filings are "a judge-made doctrine" and not an absolute that can be proven by lawyers citing previous cases in their arguments. Gropper notes that dismissal of the SPE's from Chapter 11 on these grounds should only be granted "if both objective futility of the reorganization process and subjective bad faith in filing the petition are found.” Page 19, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Additionally Judge Gropper concludes that no one factor on this issue can be determinative - the Court cites a previous ruling and states:

"It is the totality of circumstances, rather than any single factor, that will determine whether good faith exists... Case law recognizes that a bankruptcy petition should be dismissed for lack of good faith only sparingly and with great caution." Page 19, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

In other words, this goes back to previous legal analysis of Court submissions that ultimately GGP and the Court needed to consider what is in the best interests of everybody here, not just the few secured creditors that would benefit from liquidation. The Court dismisses comparisons cited with bad faith rulings made on single-assets real estate debtors, and slaps down MetLife in particular by pointing to the fact that both ING Clarion and Helios even concede that GGP do intend to reorganise and emerge from bankruptcy protection.

Objective Bad Faith: Prematurity
The court answers the allegation that GGP filed for bankruptcy 'prematurely' on entities with a maturity date beyond March 2010, as the prospect of liability was too remote. The Court answer is that this is irrelevant, the question is "whether the Subject Debtors were in actual financial distress on the Petition Date", and of course that is undeniable.

Ultimately this issue cannot be upheld because "the goal of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code to incentivize a debtor to file earlier rather than later, so as to preserve the value of the estate." Page 26, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

This ruling is summarised that it "...is not to assert that every stand-alone company with ample cash flow would necessarily act in good faith by filing a Chapter 11 petition three years before its only debt came due. However, contrary to Movants’ contentions, the Court is not required in these cases to examine the issue of good faith as if each Debtor were wholly independent." Page 27, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Gropper finishes off by pointing to a weakness in the creditor's arguments on this: namely not explaining "how the billions of dollars of unsecured debt at the parent levels could be restructured responsibly if the cash flow of the parent companies continued to be based on the earnings of subsidiaries that had debt coming due in a period of years without any known means of providing for repayment or refinance." Page 30, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

In other words, General Growth Property had no choice to take the decision it did in filing for Chapter 11 protection, because it had no realistic prospect of refinancing at a group level and that was the only criteria it could make when choosing to bring the wider structure with it in the filing.

Inability To Confirm A Plan
Another of MetLife's more absurd arguments was the suggestion of bad faith because a plan could not be confirmed in advance of filing for Chapter 11, and that they would never be able to confirm a plan over its own opposition! The logic to this was clearly flawed, and Judge Gropper devotes an appropriately short space to citing previous case law that proves this is utter rubbish with no basis in the Bankruptcy Code.

Subjective Faith
The arguments here were around not negotiating prior to filing and the firing of several independent managers / directors of SPE's ahead of the Chapter 11 filing. The Court confirmed that actually Bankruptcy law does not require negotiations to begin prior to any filing - this is certainly not sufficient for proof of bad faith. Gropper adds his views on this:

"On this record, there is no evidence that pre-filing talks would have beenadequate to deal with the extent of the problem. Indeed, there is no evidence Movants would have been willing to work with the Subject Debtors." Page 36, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Again Judge Gropper reserves additional criticism for MetLife, who despite having some mortgage loans as well as the unwieldy CMBS structures that caused so many problems with negotiations of loans further out, revealed some fascinating views via their internal documents called for examination by the Courts:

"...there is no indication that it [MetLife] would have readily agreed to a refinancing of any of its loans." Page 37, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

"In December 2008, the head of real estate investments at Metlife identified its debt exposure to GGP (as a group) as a 'lessons learned opportunity.' A director and member of the research group responded, 'We wouldn’t do a loan with GGP now, given their problems.'" Page 37, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

That's what you call 'the Smoking Gun' regarding MetLife's intentions and hence need for General Growth to file for Chapter 11.

Relating to GGP's activities with its somewhat dubious late dismissal of Independent Directors of many SPE's ahead of voting in favour of joining Chapter 11, Judge Gropper surprised me by not just agreeing that this was contractually allowed and hence legal, but also largely agreeing that in many cases this was right and proper.

This was justified by GGP President Thomas Nolan, who explained that the issues requiring their dismissal arose from certain directors who were less experienced with restructuring environments and the challenges the project entities were facing, and who incorrectly agreed with lenders and "thought the independent managers were obligated to protect their interests alone." Page 39, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Gropper goes on the record as stating that the firing of two 'Independent Managers' was "admittedly surreptitious", but falls back on the holes in the CMBS legal contracts, which gave GGP full control over such actions. You could say GGP got away with that one, although indications are that this would never have been a dealbreaker on the wider decision of bad faith, given the need for the Court to consider the wider interests - which is clearly a Chapter 11 restructuring.

Poor Old MetLife
I had long thought that MetLife in particular was whinging more than most of the creditors, with its plethora of largely unjustified complaints submitted to the courts. Perhaps over that bottle of fine 10-year single malt Scotch that should have arrived at the Court last week, the same occurred to Judge Gropper as well.

The Court acknowledged that as a consequence of Chapter 11, "creditors are now only receiving interest on loans, and have been deprived of current amortization payments, and Metlife complains that it is not even receiving interest on its mezzanine loan, which is secured only by a stock interest in its borrower’s subsidiary." Page 41, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

However the court concludes that no additional adequate protection has even been sought by the creditors, who have full rights to recover both the principal (original loan amount) plus interest and post-petition interest once a restructuring plan is confirmed.

"Movants complain that Chapter 11 gives the Debtors [GGP] excessive leverage, but Metlife asserts it has all the leverage it needs to makesure that its rights will be respected." Page 42, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Let me translate from legalese: shut up and stop whinging.

Summary
Judge Gropper sums this up with true 'third glass of the good stuff at 1am and tired of writing 40 pages to justify himself' style:

"These Motions are a diversion from the parties’ real task, which is to get each of the Subject Debtors out of bankruptcy as soon as feasible. The Movants assert talks with them should have begun earlier. It is time that negotiations commence in earnest." Page 42, MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

Impact On Other Rulings
This bodes badly for Citi's ill-timed filing yesterday of a motion to grant relief from the automatic stay under Chapter 11 of its Oakwood Shopping Center. On paper Citi have a strong argument with precedent in their favour: GGP was undersecured by $10million upon entering Chapter 11 in April 2009, and crucially now after an asset revaluation (the accuracy of which is questionable in this market), there is arguably no longer any equity remaining within the property.

"Using KTR Realty's appraised value, the Lenders [GGP] are now undersecured by more than $19 million, or approximately 20.3% of the principal amount of the Loan."

Of course, millions of homeowners around the world are in negative equity right now, and without the support of an enormous REIT. However because they continue to service their loans they are not having a forced repossession.

When put like that, Citi's claim seems equally difficult to justify, as precedent rulings previously have not been in cases where loans have continued to be serviced at pre-filing levels, hence no actual material loss suffered by the creditor.

Given the arguments already put forwards above by Judge Gropper in dismissing other such cases, this one looks likely to be swiftly dismissed as well. With General Growth Properties share price now at a new 52 week high as I finish this, I look forwards to unrealised profits climbing ever higher.

Legal Analysis IV: GGP's Final Response

Okay this is starting to get excessive, but then this run up to the court hearing tomorrow has seen some interesting arguments going on behind the scenes. Yesterday GGP submitted their final response to the creditor's case ahead of the hearing on Wednesday, which is a baby at a mere 100 pages.

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.

Legal Analysis III: Creditors Make The Case

Well, L arrives into Heathrow tomorrow morning after her indulgent week of girliness in Chicago at the Bridal Shower. As such I had better spend today tidying up this dump - it's amazing how a week without the missus demotivates me in keeping the place clean.

The final part of this legal analysis series takes a look at the arguments being submitted before the Court next week by the creditors, with respect to having various SPE's (and hence malls) removed from inclusion in GGP's Chapter 11 filing. This gives the other side of the case, and hence an opportunity to assess how convincing this and their chances of overturning the earlier decision really are.

This article focuses on the case being proposed by MetLife, and the investment fund Clarion Capital, which are two of the group of secured creditors being heard on Wednesday 17 June by Judge Gropper. Examing the various arguments proposed by the creditors:

1. Chapter 11 cases not filed 'in good faith' - the specific loans in question were all current and not in default. Upon closer examination, the creditor's claims around the filing are unconvincing in this respect. As GGP's defence team state in their response, calling it 'woefully inadequate' in establishing the burden of proof, I agree having reviewed everything they have put forward.

The creditors give evidence from previous claims to back them up throughout of course, and suggest that GGP is ineligible in this case, due to it being financially healthy and not insolvent:

"..given the enormous powers a chapter 11 debtor is given by virtue of the automatic stay, the exclusive right to file a plan, and the ability to discharge debts, these powers should be limited only to those facing financial stress."

If all GGP's problems due the credit market turmoil of the last 9 months do not equate to financial stress then I am not sure what does! The creditors then go on to cite the recent court ruling that has allowed a construction company to file a lien against General Growth to recoup owed construction costs, despite being in Chapter 11. In that case, the court stated:

"They [GGP] do not need a litigation respite, as do many chapter 11 debtors... Nor are they financially troubled debtors that seek in good faith to avoid a preclusive judgment in State court that would prejudice legitimate efforts to preserve value for the benefit of all of their creditors."

Insolvency is not a requisite for filing Chapter 11 anyway, as the creditors admit. The above Court ruling is quite different from establishing bad faith and I see nothing that suggests proof that GGP are doing anything other than attempting to sort out their problems. The only point worthy of consideration is below, although it is more than debatable that this is an abuse of Chapter 11, since it is precisely what the legal code is there to do - facilitate the move out of bankruptcy:

"The Debtors’ use of chapter 11 as a sword to obtain a tactical advantage in any negotiations to extend the Loan, when such Loan was not in default and does not mature until a year and five months after the Petition Date, is an abuse of chapter 11 that the good faith requirement is designed to prevent."

2. Loans in question were not due to mature for a significant period of time - as such there was "no present need [for] the.. debtors to file for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code." Additionally MetLife claim that GGP "did not contact MetLife, one of the largest insurance company providers of real estate capital, about a loan extension prior to the Petition Date."

This point has been refuted in evidence submitted by GGP, regarding widespread creditor unwillingness to discuss extensions on all but loans due imminently. This cites that in some cases GGP were even refused the names of underlying creditors to contact. Thus, GGP may in this case have not been able to identify who to contact - either way, this point is secondary in the context of point 4 below.

3. The malls in question do not have any other significant creditors - thus GGP will not be able to cramdown a plan over the Lenders' objections.

This is a particularly weak point; citing dimissal of this SPE because it is primarily comprises a single lender, hence there is no advantage in Chapter 11 inclusions since GGP will still have to fully service them and negotiate with a single lender.

That again is refuted by the evidence submitted by GGP regarding how unwilling many lenders were to renegotiate loan terms and extensions pre-Chapter 11. It also ties back to the point that individually, lenders act within their own interests, which are not directly aligned with those of the company, other creditors (especially unsecured), shareholders or wider credit markets.

This Providence Journal article also suggests MetLife argued that GGP's attempt to 'cramdown' a wholesale reorganization plan for its mall properties will "hurt the insurer's financial interests." I do not see how that can be argued, nor have I found this point being made in the court submissions.

Being negatively financially impacted cannot be realistically argued as a motion to dismiss, beyond it 'hurting' MetLife and other creditors ability to negotiate: they do not wish to be forced to the table without holding all the cards. However all are having their loans fully serviced by GGP throughout the period at pre-bankruptcy rates, thus in theory should not lose out at all financially.

4. Chapter 11 were not filed with any reorganisational purpose - "the Debtors filed bankruptcy to improve their negotiating position by increasing the pressure on the lenders to accept refinancing terms."

Here is the reality of this entire dispute, and the primary reason for arguing for their inclusion is to obtain leverage in efforts to extend the maturity of loans. The rest is largely window dressing, and this is directly opposed by General Growth's claim of operating a centralized business model. I do not hold much credence with GGP's claim in this respect, but it can be very effectively argued and elaborated upon on the day in court, without creditors being able to disprove it.

The heart of the argument is that the creditors will continue to be fully serviced and do not lose out, whilst GGP gain the useful leverage from an automatic stay, and can utilise additional cashflow from the assets while enhancing their ability to restructure and negotiate loans.

Ultimately Judge Gropper has already indicated willingness to agree with the need for keeping GGP's "centralized business model" in tact, and for considering this case in the wider context rather than just those of some self-interested lenders. I see nothing submitted to the Court by MetLife or the creditors that will change that decision, and expect a favourable ruling for GGP next week.

Addendum to original post: late yesterday Wells Fargo issued this direct response to GGP's defence. Here they reiterate the original two points that prove 'bad faith' (inclusion of an SPE that generates sufficient capital to service its creditors, and inclusion of loans not imminently due to mature is unnecessary).

Additional points raised:

• Wells Fargo cite the US government actions and potential expansion of TALF as an unknown, and that should have been relied upon by GGP as a reason to hold off declaring Chapter 11 and certainly including subsidiaries - a bizarre argument that will be rejected.
• The Debtors [GGP] "brazenly replaced their Independent Managers on the eve of their bankruptcy filing in order to obtain a unanimous vote in favour of the bankruptcy filing."
• SPE Operating Agreements require the Independent Managers "consider only the interests of Subsidiary Debtors and, therefore, are precluded from considering the needs or concerns of any entity other than the Subsidiary Debtors."
• GGP's claim that the SPE's were essential as part of the GGP 'family' filings is "completely undercut by the fact that numerous affiliates of the Subsidiary Debtors were not placed into bankruptcy."

Key points here are that General Growth's actions in replacing directors was legal - it is expressly allowed under the terms of the CMBS contracts - and that although filing Chapter 11 is in the wider interest, it is intended for a positive reorganisational purpose that would benefit the entity too, so is therefore not 'bad faith' as interpreted in the spirit of the law.

The final argument around not all subsidiaries being included is the most interesting point, and refers to the joint ventures and other such subsidiaries not able to be placed into Chapter 11. This provides a strong argument against GGP's slightly dubious 'centralized business model' excuse, so it will be interesting seeing how this impacts the Court's decision. I see this as the main factor that could swing a decision against GGP next week.

The latter point is expanded upon by citing that GGP's explanation of the filings being "done to maximize the value for all stakeholders, including the employees, lenders, vendors and equity" is untrue, and instead were "solely for the purpose of maximizing the value of equity." That is correct, although it is arguable that employees, lenders and vendors will also benefit at a collective level from the GGP group having a greater ability to restructure.

In summary, I think the key issue around good versus bad faith is that (as quoted in Wells Fargo's submission), this is "a balancing process between the interests of debtors and creditors which characterizes so many provisions of the bankruptcy laws and is necessary to legitimize the delay and costs imposed upon parties to a bankruptcy."

In other words - was the decision to include GGP subsidiaries in Chapter 11 in the best interests of debtors and creditors, and does that legitimize the delay and costs? The previous Court ruling suggests that this decision has already been made, and in that context despite creditors whinging about it being unfair, it will not be overturned given that the 'cost' to them is actually only in terms of their leverage when negotiating with GGP during restructuring.

Legal Analysis II: GGP's Plans

Well, I will start to get back to posting on topics other than GGP from now on, but it has certainly been an interesting period.

The Court submissions by GGP are lengthy enough to warrant further summary and analysis. Most interesting are the statements outlining the anticipated path through Chapter 11 by Adam Metz, CEO of General Growth Properties, and James A. Mesterharm, the restructuring advisor and MD of AlixPartners.

Thanks to Ryan for pointing out that I forgot to link to the source in my previous post - this can be found here, and as a warning is a weighty 200 page document.

ADAM METZ - Chief Executive of Corporate Propaganda
Metz's lengthy statement is here on Scribd, and it almost feels like Bill Ackman drafted passages, some of it sounds so familiar. There are assurances that GGP has a viable operating model that "is performing well with stable cash flows."

Adam Metz goes into a lot of detail on the circumstances leading up to the filing, which I will not bother to reiterate here. Additionally he repeats many of the points summarised in my previous post. However Metz does so to highlight key facts that the Court may take into account when making its decision, including:

• GGP properties are performing well - certainly this is true relative to peers, with GGP having the second highest occupancy rate in the sector despite its problems. Additionally the firm expects to not be resiliant during the weaker economic environment.
• GGP employs approximately 3,700 people directly - as well as having a significant impact on communities. I am not sure that will pull Judge Gropper's heartstrings, given the same could be said for most large bankruptcies, but you can't blame them for throwing it in there.
• GGP operates a centralized business model - somewhat tenuous, the argument is that the services offered to national client (retail chains) and decision making are out of Chicago, and is an integrated model that would suffer if effectively broken up. This ties in with the case for including SPE's in the Chapter 11 filing.
• GGP has filed to restructure its finances and de-leverage its balance sheet - placing the blame firmly on the collapse of the credit markets: "GGP did not commence these Chapter 11 cases because its operational model is flawed or because its properties are undesirable or performing poorly."
• Credit refinancing problems are market wide and not specific to GGP - "even properties that have been performing well with strong credit quality are unable to attract refinancing" and "GGP's ability to divest assets is severely limited because prospective buyers also have limited or no ability to finance acquisitions."
• Failure to negotiate refinancing terms with lenders was also due to the structure of the CMBS process - specifically that this "impeded those efforts." This goes back to the first post, and that when a single lender acts in its own interest, that is to go bankrupt and claim, despite it not being in the wider interest.
• Chapter 11 will provide a forum for negotiations - GGP envisage this effectively forcing its diverse groups of secured and unsecured lenders to the table, with "the protections necessary for the company to preserve and enhance value by continuing its operations uninterrupted, and the tools necessary to achieve a sustainable, long-term capital structure."

GGP's Chapter 11 Goals
According to Metz, GGP is aiming to achieve the following under Chapter 11 - again none of this is surprising:

• Reduce and restructure GGP's debt - effectively deleveraging the balance sheet as much as possible.
• GGP will present its business plan to the Court and key constituencies "in the next few months", and begin reorganisation negotiations.
• "Seek a consensual plan of reorganisation with its mortgage lenders, bondholders, and other corporate-level creditors." If this is not possible, then apply the Bankruptcy Code to push through an agreement for GGP to "reduce its corporate debt, extend the maturities, adjust rates, or otherwise restructure the company's mortgage debt."
• "Explore strategic alternatives, including sales of assets, and.. available sources of capital", which means they will be open to limited asset sales, particularly offloading joint ventures.
• Proceed through and quickly emerge from Chapter 11 - and there I was thinking they were going to take their time.

JAMES MESTERHARM - Restructuring Tsar
Mesterharm goes into similar details around the causes of GGP filing - namely that it is not a result of the company performance per se, but due to the credit markets. He comments that "there currently is no capacity in the real estate finance markets to refinance the GGP Group's debt on terms that are commercially acceptable."

This section confirms that GGP reported 2008 consolidated revenue of approx $3.4bn, with $29.6bn assets versus $27.3bn in total liabilities, of which $6.58bn is unsecured. I recommend browsing pages 62-66 of the document to give an idea of all the debts that are maturing between now and 2012.

As part of proving the case that GGP have done everything that can reasonably be expected to avoid filing for Chapter 11, Mesterharm highlights the wide ranging operational changes to conserve and improve liquidity, including hiring new management and cost reductions. They even made the sacrifice of "terminating two airplane contracts" - I wonder if poor old Adam has to slum it in cattle class with the chavs these days?

Mesterharm then moves onto how the $375m of DIP financing will be used. One point of note on that is that GGP state they have sufficient cash to not need an interim order to access the DIP funds "prior to entry of a final order" - a good indication of their cashflow strength. Otherwise the DIP loan is intended to provide sufficient working capital during Chapter 11, and repay the Goldman Sachs $225m loan from last year.

Unfortunately there are not yet any actual specifics on that all-important restructuring plan, but overall it has been reassuring to review GGP's submission and not find any skeletons in the closet.

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.

CMBS Industry Gets A Wake Up Call

I have been following recent events in the commercial mortgage backed security market with interest since General Growth Properties filed for Chapter 11 on April 16.

The headlines have recently been around an alternative DIP financier being announced.  This is good news for GGP, because it has improved terms - in particular relating to potential equity dilution, which is the primary threat to common shareholders. Pershing Square had both a 4.9% warrant and a 5% equity conversion clause linked to the DIP repayment.

By contrast the new DIP terms removes the warrant, although replaces the 5% equity conversion with 6% (and demotes DIP financing to a junior lien on cash collateral - in effect making repayment less prioritised versus other secure debt to appease creditors). The equity conversion is considerably less than previously however, and as I said before ought to have minimal impact on the firm, as this could only be exercised upon successful emergence from bankruptcy. By which time the firm capitalisation should be hugely higher.

Of more interest were the recent details around the degree of investigation and preparation that GGP put into their bankruptcy filing, designed to ensure they maximise leverage when negotiating with creditors further down the line.

Firstly, it should be said that the issue here all comes down to one of expectations. Those lenders who entered into the various credit products being sold by the banks over the last 5 years, such as commercial mortgage backed securites, were reassured during the sales pitch by the way they were structured.

I know because I work with credit sales people at the banks, and their oily schmooze would be enough to convince me that they know what they are talking about, were I not familiar with the legal grey area in the detail beneath the surface.  In the event, salesmen just regurgitate a well-honed sales pitch, whether they're selling CMBS's or used cars.

"Debt is tiered by risk and reward, so if you take out the higher grade debt in this product, you will be first in line for repayment in the event of a default" schmoozes the salesman.

"But what about if they go bankrupt, and take the whole thing down with them?" asks the nervous-but-greedy investor. "Surely then being first in line isn't going to be any use."

"Ah but that is all factored into the inherent design of this product", reassures the schmoozy salesman. "Commercial mortgage backed securities from DodgyBank Inc are structured with the issuer to be held through a 'special purpose vehicle'."

"What the hell is that?" asks the nervous-but-curious greedy investor.

"It's a clever legal structuring of the debt, that provides additional insurance. The holder of the security and underlying collateral is not the company that owns the malls, it's an independent legal entity which is bankruptcy remote. That means if they go under, your asset does not, so you are guaranteed to be first in line if they default as all the cash flows towards repaying you."

"Wow, that's awesome - I can't lose! Put me down for $10 million on one of the really big REIT's.. hmm, that fast growing one 'General Growth Properties' looks good."

Of course, had these idiots bothered to do some due diligence, they would have read the finer print and worked out that the companies had far more control over those special purpose vehicles (aka 'special purpose entities' or SPE's) than they realised.

In GGP's case, they had the power to hire or fire the directors of the SPE's for the underlying assets (malls) as they so chose. As such, they did just that in the weeks leading up to bankruptcy. Unsurprisingly all 166 SPE boards then subsequently backed having their malls enter Chapter 11 with GGP, so this was firstly quite legal.

In papers filed Wednesday in U.S. bankruptcy court in New York, General Growth argued the CMBS investors' objections to including the SPEs "appear grounded in the misperception that 'bankruptcy remote' means 'bankruptcy proof'."

Now the battle ground is set between GGP, which wants to strengthen its position, and outraged creditors that wish to prevent the malls which their loans are secured against being included in bankruptcy (and the cashflows going to elsewhere in the business).

Unfortunately for the creditors, as the Wall Street Journal reports yesterday, GGP have prepared a significant argument to the court by pledging "to continue paying interest on its mortgages, possibly making it more difficult for CMBS holders to argue they should be allowed to foreclose. It also pledged to provide its mortgage lenders 'adequate protection,' meaning they will have an administrative claim in any liquidation scenario to cash flow drawn from their properties by the parent company."

Whatever the court decides will have far-reaching implications for the wider credit markets, but the odds are strongly in favour of GGP persuading the courts to go ahead with this, as it is very difficult to argue this is not in the wider interest of the market and commercial real estate industry to allow this to happen.

Otherwise the only news today is that I snapped after nearly 5 hours of wedding related shopping on the Kings Road earlier.  After a row with L about how all she seems to want to do with time off is go shopping, and how I have better things to do (such as finish the functional spec), she has gone off for a hair appointment, and I'm contemplating whether this is what married life is going to be like.

Perhaps I ought to Google 'marriage pre-nup'...