Chase Construction Loan

The CIM completes $600 million construction loan for a New York mixed-use scheme

The US property management firm CIM Group has today confirmed the closing of a USD 600 million loan provided by JP Morgan Chase Bank for the construction of the 85 Jay Street Mixed-Use property in the DUMBO Brooklyn district of New York City. Morris Adjmi's design, consisting of owner-occupied flats for resale, multi-family homes, commercial and communal spaces, and underground car parks, is being jointly with LIVWRK.

Construction work has already started and, upon finalisation, the property will comprise 730 dwellings and multi-family houses, 90,000 square feet of commercial floor area and 700 carports. This 135,000 ft area is bordered by the Front, York, Jay and Bridge Streets at the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges bases and the Brooklyn Tech Triangle.

Opposite York St. metro and near Brooklyn Bridge Park. CIM Group has owned and developed the Greater New York area for over a ten year period, and 85 Jay Streets was the company's second Brooklyn based acquire.

Together with LIVWRK, the CIM Group also own and develop Panorama, a mixed-use 740,000-foot square commercial and commercial warehouse across two urban buildings in 25-35 Columbia Heights in Brooklyn Heights and 109 Montgomery, a 163-unit land based housing development in Crown Heights. CIM Group also own and operate 16 Court Street, a 36-storey, 333,000 ft sq development of offices in Brooklyn Heights.

85 Jay Street is scheduled for completion in 2021. 85 Jay Street in Brooklyn.

Guarantee for the completion of the construction: Rewardable for a guarantor to trial

With a construction loan, the loan secured asset reaches its guaranteed value only after completion of the construction and the investment generates revenue. One of the main concerns of a construction financier is that the debtor cannot finish the construction of the construction, so the creditor can supervise a construction with a partly completed one.

To minimise this exposure, a creditor may request a third parties delivery guarantee - which guarantees the creditor delivery of the completed product according to agreed schedules, on time, within budget, free of liens (i.e. fully paid) and in accordance with other terms of the relevant loan documentation. In some cases, a construction guarantee involves carries cost, such as property tax, insurances, interest, ancillary cost and other property-related expenditure, according to the hypothesis that property cost is necessarily accrued in the course of progress.

Usually a contract bond is made up of several pages of regulations, but the remedy is by far the most important and usually gives the creditor the opportunity to do so: 1 ) ask the sponsor to finalise the work at his own cost or 2) allow the creditor to finalise the work at the sponsor's cost.

These are some points that can be negotiated from the point of view of the guarantee, especially if the guarantee does not provide a full guarantee of payments at the same time: A guarantee of construction should end with a compulsory execution sales, a liquidation sales, a compulsory sales or an unintentional sales separating the borrowers group from the property.

In this way, if the creditor withdraws the ownership, they run the risks of loosing their lump-sum compensation. Attach a renegotiated "liquidated" amount instead of the guarantor's or lender's commitment to finish the work. It limits the amount of compensation to be paid by the creditor, which should never be higher than the creditor's deficit on the loan after the use of other guarantees.

It could be as easy as an amount equivalent to the cost of completing the work at the moment of delay, fixed by a construction advisor (acceptable to both sides or by arbitration) minus the unpaid loan amount. In the absence of a lump sum compensation, the court has refused to explicitly impose the obligatory termination of the contract by the sponsor and has instead applied its own damage measurement basing on the fair value of the contract "as completed" versus "as is" at different times before and after the failure.

There would be an advantage in obtaining extra (full or partial) compensation for the amount wound up for the higher value of the real estate since the creditor should not benefit from the guarantee carrying out the construction (i.e. the value of the real estate exceeds the total of its previous value plus construction costs).

Fair value appreciation may be determined at the time of construction on the basis of estimations, or at the end of the construction phase, or both. Only if the creditor finances the full amount of the construction loan should the guarantee be obliged to finish the construction. As an alternative, the guarantee should be credited for uncovered loan income when using a "lump sum" compensation reserve (as proposed above).

For most building credits, the creditor requires that the borrower's own capital be fully committed to the business before the creditor finances all loan revenues. Therefore, excluding the risk of exceeding costs, general contracting problems or other unexpected problems, if the creditor finances the entire amount of the construction loan, the risk of the guarantee for the execution of the construction is minimised.

Please be aware that creditors usually accept to finance the remainder of the building loan after a failure only if the debtor or surety partner initially provides enough funds to restore the loan to "equilibrium" (i.e. the unpaid loan amount is equal to or greater than the residual cost of completing the project).

A guarantee of construction should end with a compulsory execution sales, a liquidation sales, a compulsory sales or an unintentional sales separating the borrowers group from the owners. In this way, if the creditor withdraws the title, they run the risks of loosing their lump-sum compensation. {\pos (192,210)}The general rules used in Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. v. Am.

Co., 93 F.3d 1064 (2d Cir. )1996) is that a perfection guarantee should not sustain enforcement if there is no factor from which the creditor would ever bear perfection charges; but for Turnberry Residential Ltd. FSB, 99 A.D.3d 176, 950 N.Y.S.2d 362 (App. Div. 2012) and the Supreme Tribunal held that the performance bond could not prevent liabilities for outstanding payments to mechanical engineers in the context of an insolvency disposal.

Turnberry's judgment focused on the wording of the delivery guarantee, which ensures the "survival" of commitments following a transfer of control. It should be reasoned by the sponsor that the delivery guarantee only covered'hard' construction costs overrun ('construction risk') and not interest or other'carry cost' commitments (which, as can be reasoned, include the lender's exposure to finance risks in its underwriting).

Where this is not successful, the guarantor's carried costs commitments should be discontinued as soon as possible (preferably after finalisation rather than stabilisation) and the guarantee should be credited with carried costs commitments amounting to any revenue obtained by the creditor from the loan and applicable to the loan.

A creditor should refrain from excluding and pursuing other available legal means when the guarantee is provided under the performance guarantee. Guarantors should receive the advantage of the revenues of the contractor loan and also the right to take part in these procedures or negotiate. It is appropriate to replace the performance guarantee and to replace it by a final guarantee of the creditor covering the period covered by the guarantee in the event of a transfer of power resulting from appeals brought by the creditor covering the period covered by the guarantee.

Under such a situation, the borrower and the borrower often directly discuss pre-financing and the renewal of deadlines.