Published on:

Hotel Bankruptcy issues — Special Purpose Entities getting approval to file bankruptcy.

21 April 2009

Please see “troubled hotel loans – workouts, bankruptcies & receiverships” for the latest articles on troubled hotels.

Hospitality Lawyer: Distressed hotel loan bankruptcies and restructurings are on the rise. Now we are starting to see some new issues tested. As The Great Recession of 2008 continues to set record unemployment levels and send shockwaves through the economy, hotel bankruptcies are on the rise. Sure a lot of lenders are tending to extend maturities, work out forbearance restructurings or go for uncontested receiverships, but we are starting to see some bankruptcy filings as well.

And just as the economy is in “uncharted waters,” some loan structuring terms or approaches that were developed in the 1990s have not been fully tested, if at all, by a severe downturn or serious litigation. One of those devices that has been quite popular is the use of a “special purpose entity” or SPE.

Many lending innovations developed in the 1990s and since will soon be tested

Dealing with troubled hotel loans has always been more complex than other real estate assets. (see, e.g. troubled hotel mortgage loans at But after the great real estate collapse in the early 1990s, when there was an estimated wave of some 2,000 hotel bankruptcy filings, many lending innovations were implemented. These included the invention of the CMBS market by the RTC, use of special purpose entity structure for borrowers, non-recourse loans with “bad boy” claw backs , and even amendments to the Bankruptcy Code to eliminate the “rents” versus “accounts” issue with hotel collateral and to expand the definition of SARE (or Single Asset Real Estate) bankruptcies entitling lenders to expedited relief from stay.

With the exception of a couple of “hiccups,” the economy has generally performed so well over the past 15 or so years, that we have not had a flood of bankruptcies to test the effectiveness and enforceability of these creative lending approaches.

But the current economic crisis looks poised to change all that. So, today, we are going to look at issues raised by use of a special purpose entity or SPE which has been a prevailing practice for many years now.

How can a “Special Purpose Entity” borrower ever file bankruptcy if lender appointed directors must approve the filing?

Since the mid 1990s, the typical hotel loan has required the borrower to put each hotel asset into a special purpose corporate entity. The corporate entity’s organic documents typically require that for the corporate borrower to file bankruptcy, approval must first be obtained from “independent” directors (e.g. independent of the borrower) appointed by the lender. The expectation was that the lender-appointed directors would NOT approve the filing of a bankruptcy, because bankruptcy would hinder a lender getting a receiver appointed or delay a lender completing foreclosure in the event of a hotel loan mortgage default.

JMBM’s hospitality lawyers are currently representing a lender in a matter where the debtor completely ignored the requirement of getting independent director approval for bankruptcy filing. The debtor’s principal just signed the papers himself without even seeking approval from the independent directors. Here’s how this issue shapes up.


The concept of requiring special approval for a corporation to file bankruptcy is embedded in many thousands of hotel and other real estate secured loan structures. In recently undertaking an engagement representing a hotel lender, we found that there was no reported bankruptcy case in the United States evaluating the validity of a requirement that in order to file bankruptcy, a corporate entity must either get the approval of certain “independent” directors, or must have a unanimous approval of all directors.

The variations of this theme will undoubtedly be tested in the Financial Crisis as more lenders seek to foreclose on their hotel collateral and to prevent borrowers from delaying their process with bankruptcy filings, or as borrowers seek ways around the requirement to save their projects or extract lender concessions.

JMBM’s hotel lawyers represent both hotel lenders/creditors and hotel/borrowers. So we will follow the development of legal principles in this area with great interest in the many jurisdictions where it is likely to evolve.


Debtors will argue that the approval requirement for a bankruptcy filing is void because it is against the public policy of permitting bankruptcy reorganizations and blocks access to the bankruptcy courts. They may also argue that requiring unanimous approval of the board, or approval by the outside directors appointed pursuant to the loan documents is unenforceable as too high a requirement and void under corporate governance policies as well.


Creditors will argue that this is enforceable under state law governing the organization and operation of corporations, limited liability companies or whatever entity is involved. They will certainly say that the provision was a part of the bargained-for-consideration among sophisticated players and does not block access to the bankruptcy courts. It just requires the business judgment of independent directors who will be held to their fiduciary obligations.

The business judgment rule will presumably protect these independent directors, IF THEY PROPERLY INVOKE THE RULE. The business judgment rule only protects directors who actually exercise their judgment by identifying an issue, getting appropriate advice, giving due consideration to the information, and properly documenting the their decisions. This means that outside directors will need likely need independent counsel, independent appraisers and careful guidance to properly exercise their “business judgment” and gain protection of the rule.


There is no bankruptcy authority on this critical issue. We suspect that the bankruptcy courts may have divergent opinions initially, and that eventually, a consensus may develop at least in certain circuits, on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. This makes prediction of result difficult until the results begin to form a pattern.

Pro-debtor bankruptcy judges probably will not enforce the independent director requirement and may hold them void as a matter of public policy. Pro-creditor bankruptcy judges will enforce the independent director requirements on the ground that they were negotiated between sophisticate parties in a commercial setting.

Until some controlling authority develops, at least where borrowers feel that they have some equity, they are likely to try filing bankruptcy without independent director approval, or trying to position the independent directors for breach of fiduciary duty liability for failing to act in the best interests of the corporation, and preferring the lender constituency. This is likely to cause independent directors to seek independent counsel and appraisals for the ensuing battle.

Other articles on Hotel Law Blog about terminating hotel management agreements

Terminating hotel operators: M Edition lawsuit against Marriott has a new twist — Marriott is replaced overnight

More on M Waikiki Edition lawsuit against Marriott – What Marriott’s General Counsel says

M Waikiki’s Edition lawsuit against Marriott and Ian Schrager – an owner’s HMA dispute with Marriott

Terminating hotel operators: Turnberry Resort drops Fairmont flag

Hotel management agreement terminations — Is there a better way?

Terminating hotel management agreements when things don’t work? Not easy, but not impossible either.

Hotel bankruptcy trump card. Terminating hotel management agreements without liability — the alchemy of lead to gold for troubled hotels and hotel loans?

Ritz-Carlton Bali hotel management agreement termination further court order

Ritz-Carlton breached contractual and fiduciary duties under hotel management agreement giving rise to free termination, $10.3 million in damages plus attorneys fees. When will hotel operators “get it”?

How to terminate a hotel management agreement when an operator really deserves it!

This is Jim Butler, author of and hotel lawyer, signing off. We’ve done more than $87 billion of hotel transactions and have developed innovative solutions to unlock value from troubled hotel transactions. Who’s your hotel lawyer?

Our Perspective. We represent hotel lenders, owners and investors. We have helped our clients find business and legal solutions for more than $87 billion of hotel transactions, involving more than 3,900 properties all over the world. For more information, please contact Jim Butler at or 310.201.3526.

Jim Butler is a founding partner of JMBM and Chairman of its Global Hospitality Group®. Jim is one of the top hospitality attorneys in the world. GOOGLE “hotel lawyer” and you will see why.

JMBM’s troubled asset team has handled more than 1,000 receiverships and many complex insolvency issues. But Jim and his team are more than “just” great hotel lawyers. They are also hospitality consultants and business advisors. For example, they have developed some unique proprietary approaches to unlock value in underwater hotels that can benefit lenders, borrowers and investors. (GOOGLE JMBM’s SAVE® program.)

Whether it is a troubled investment or new transaction, JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group® creates legal and business solutions for hotel owners and lenders. They are deal makers. They can help find the right operator or capital provider. They know who to call and how to reach them.

Contact Information