.jpg)
Chapter 11 for holding company for real estate
I've handled this type of case before. You still have to deal with the
fact that the tenant and the landlord are owned by the same person. The
landlord is using cash collateral by not charging rent. ...
On Thursday, August 6, 2015, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I completely agree with Jon.
>
> The first step in the analysis is to determine whether there is a recorded
> assignment of rents clause which causes the rent to be deemed cash
> collateral. If not, no agreement or motion is necessary. If so, then you
> look to see which party's cash collateral you are using. In your example,
> it is possible for the 1st, the 2nd, both or NONE to have interests in the
> collateral.
>
> The next step is to determine whether the lender is adequately protected.
> If so, there is no requirement to make an agreement. You can file a motion
> for authority to use cash collateral, and if you can show the lender is
> adequately protected, that's the end of that story. The key though, is to
> have a good budget for your motion and of course, evidence.
>
> If there is never going to be cash coming in, then there is no need to
> make an agreement or to seek authority to use cash collateral. If things
> change, you can file the motion then.
>
> Since I happen to like pushing the envelope, if there is *some* money
> generated by the Company which could benefit the Landlord, then query,
> whether payment of CAM fees are rent or just *payment for services*?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
> for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code,
> or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
> transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:21 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com
> [cdcbaa] cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As I recall you need to get permission even if you're using it to pay the
>> mortgage and necessaries on the property. At least I've always gotten
>> stips for that.
>>
>> On 8/6/2015 8:18 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com
>> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Just kidding about Mike. We are thrilled to have him. He reads the code
>> and keeps us on our toes.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> *Mailing Address Only:*
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
>> Legal Specialization
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
>> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
>> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
>> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
>> prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed
>> by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
>> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
>> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
>> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
I've handled this type of case before. You still have to deal with the fact that the tenant and the landlord are owned by the same person..On Thursday, August 6, 2015, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I completely agree with Jon.The first step in the analysis is to determine whether there is a recorded assignment of rents clause which causes the rent to be deemed cash collateral. If not, no agreement or motion is necessary. If so, then you look to see which party's cash collateral you are using. In your example, it is possible for the 1st, the 2nd, both or NONE to have interests in the collateral.The next step is to determine whether the lender is adequately protected. If so, there is no requirement to make an agreement. You can file a motion for authority to use cash collateral, and if you can show the lender is adequately protected, that's the end of that story. The key though, is to have a good budget for your motion and of course, evidence.If there is never going to be cash coming in, then there is no need to make an agreement or to seek authority to use cash collateral. If things change, you can file the motion then.Since I happen to like pushing the envelope, if there is *some* money generated by the Company which could benefit the Landlord, then query, whether payment of CAM fees are rent or just payment for services?
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I completely agree with Jon.
The first step in the analysis is to determine whether there is a recorded
assignment of rents clause which causes the rent to be deemed cash
collateral. If not, no agreement or motion is necessary. If so, then you
look to see which party's cash collateral you are using. In your example,
it is possible for the 1st, the 2nd, both or NONE to have interests in the
collateral.
The next step is to determine whether the lender is adequately protected.
If so, there is no requirement to make an agreement. You can file a motion
for authority to use cash collateral, and if you can show the lender is
adequately protected, that's the end of that story. The key though, is to
have a good budget for your motion and of course, evidence.
If there is never going to be cash coming in, then there is no need to make
an agreement or to seek authority to use cash collateral. If things change,
you can file the motion then.
Since I happen to like pushing the envelope, if there is *some* money
generated by the Company which could benefit the Landlord, then query,
whether payment of CAM fees are rent or just *payment for services*?
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code,
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:21 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> As I recall you need to get permission even if you're using it to pay the
> mortgage and necessaries on the property. At least I've always gotten
> stips for that.
>
> On 8/6/2015 8:18 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Just kidding about Mike. We are thrilled to have him. He reads the code
> and keeps us on our toes.
>
>
>
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *Mailing Address Only:*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office
> of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for
> the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any
> disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is
> prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by
> the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this
> communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used,
> and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
>
I completely agree with Jon.The first step in the analysis is to determine whether there is a recorded assignment of rents clause which causes the rent to be deemed cash collateral. If not, no agreement or motion is necessary. If so, then you look to see which party's cash collateral you are using. In your example, it is possible for the 1st, the 2nd, both or NONE to have interests in the collateral.ender is adequately protected. If so, there is no requirement to make an agreement. You can file a motion for authority to use cash collateral, and if you can show the lender is adequately protected, that's the end of that story. The key though, is to have a good budget for your motion and of course, evidence.If there is never going to be cash coming in, then there is no need to make an agreement or to seek authority to use cash collateral. If things change, you can file the motion then.Since I happen to like pushing the envelope, if there is *some* money generated by the Company which could benefit the Landlord, then query, whether payment of CAM fees are rent or just payment for services?Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250Sherman Oaks, CA 91403Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have a Chapter 11 that may arise for a real estate holding company
that rents to the manufacturing company an industrial building. Both
companies are owned by the same principals.
Manufacturing company cannot afford to pay rent, and is presently the
sole tenant. Accordingly, the holding company on the real estate is in
default on the note and the foreclosure is well along on the building.
We're considering commercial transactions such as bridge loans, but they
are very expensive. Property is worth 3.5 million and there are 2 loans
totaling about 2 million.
My question is whether a cash collateral agreement with the mortgage
companies is necessary since there is no cash coming in from the
tenant-and is unlikely to come in. I don't see a reason to negotiate a
cash collateral agreement but want to make sure. Jon Hayes recent email
just made me nervous.
Thank you
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
( Fax (562) 485-6886
* sblever@leverlaw.com
www.leverlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.