Sacks Tierney P.A.

Member of Meritas: 173 full-service law firms serving more than 200 markets worldwide

480-425-2600

Attorneys  |  Legal Services  |  Articles  |  Opportunities  |  Contact Us  |  Home

 

Follow Sacks Tierney on Facebook

LinkedIn

Google+

 

 

"Bad Boy" Provisions in Commercial Real Estate Transactions

Many long-term commercial loan transactions are essentially non-recourse except for certain carve-outs or “bad boy” provisions – describing events which, if they occur, can create partial (or even total) personal liability under the loan

Stephen Aron Benson  
 
   

Those of us who have been handling commercial real estate financing transactions for a long time can almost mentally track the evolution of these carve-outs – which started out as “if the place burns down and you steal the insurance money and go to Mexico” and evolved into a long laundry list of things that you can do to trigger personal liability for what, on its face, is a non-recourse loan.

My guess is that there are a lot of cases in the judicial system – not yet decided or reported – testing whether these provisions are enforceable. I happened to see a recent case out of New Jersey – CSFB 2001-CP-4 Princeton Park Corporate Center, LLC v. SB Rental I, LLC, 980 A.2d 1 (N.J. App.Div. 2009) – in which the appellate court held that a bad boy/carve-out provision was enforceable.

The case involved a $13 million non-recourse loan that contained carve-outs for, among other things, entering into subordinate financing secured by the subject property without the lender’s consent. During the term of the loan, the borrower obtained $400,000 in subordinate financing secured by a second lien on the property without the first mortgage holder’s consent. In less than a year, the borrower paid off this secondary financing but ultimately defaulted on the primary loan. After completing a foreclosure on the property, the lender brought suit against the borrower and the borrower’s principals (who had executed guaranties) for the deficiency. The defendants argued that the carve-out was unenforceable since, among other things, the lender had suffered no harm, as the secondary lien had already been satisfied.

In the trial court, the lender was granted summary judgment against the borrower and the borrower’s principals, who then appealed. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding that the carve-outs were unambiguous and part of a commercial transaction negotiated by sophisticated parties. Furthermore, the fact that the default was later cured did not alter the fact that the bad boy provisions had already been triggered, potentially affecting the property and adversely affecting the lender’s security therein.

The court’s decision seemed to turn on the level of sophistication of the parties and the fact that the default was a voluntary act. Also, the damage, or potential damage, to the lender’s interest was clear. On the other hand, the more recent laundry list of bad boy provisions often includes such acts as seeking bankruptcy protection or contesting the appointment of a receiver during a foreclosure – actions that are arguably statutory rights (federal or state) and may be looked at differently than a simple contract violation.

I am almost certain that cases challenging the validity of those types of provisions will be litigated, and I am curious to see what the result will be.

 
 

Attorneys  |  Legal Services  |  Articles  | Opportunities  |  Contact Us  |  Home  | Notices and Disclaimer | Sitemap

© 2000-2014. Sacks Tierney P.A. 4250 N. Drinkwater Blvd., Fourth Floor Scottsdale, AZ 85251 480.425.2600

The act of visiting or communicating with Sacks Tierney P.A. via this website or by email does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Communications from non-clients via this website are not subject to client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Further, the articles, discussion, commentary, forms and sample documentation contained in this website are offered as general guidance only and are not to be relied upon as specific legal advice. For legal advice on a specific matter, please consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area. The lawyers listed in this website practice law only in the jurisdictions where they are admitted. This website is regulated by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.