FACULTYTALK Archives

April 1997

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dennis Michael Garvis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:42:44 -0400
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (20 lines)
Just because local laws do not permit enforcement does not mean that
the local lender will not try to exert leverage as a means of extracting
some compensation.  Just look at Sears in the US in their pursuit of
post-bankruptcy debtors. I am reminded of a situation where I was
representing a commercial lender in enforcing the prepayment provision as
part of a sale was completed in bankruptcy.  We got an agreement that paid
us $70,000 from a $100,000 provision after we threatened to squelch the
sale.  Afterwards, the client told me that he would be a hero in the
office, since they never expect to collect these kinds of fees and this
payment would go straight to the bottom line.  When I asked our senior
real estate partner about these provisions, he used the label "in
terroram," meaning that the are not meant to be enforced but used only as
negotiating points.
==========================
Dennis M. Garvis         =
[log in to unmask]          =
Management Department    =
Georgia State University =
==========================

ATOM RSS1 RSS2