Although not exactly the question that Hamlet was contemplating, it is one on the minds of many lenders. Perhaps more accurately posed is whether or not the exercise of remedies by a lender following a non-monetary event of default is enforceable.

This question was undertaken by the bankruptcy court in its modified bench ruling for In re 53 Stanhope LLC, 625 B.R. 573 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2021). The secured lender of several related borrowers opposed their restructuring plan on the basis that it did not include sufficient funds to pay default interest for both pre- and post-petition defaults. The borrowers, on the other hand, argued that several of the defaults alleged by the lender were not in fact defaults or did not justify acceleration or default interest.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]