JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v. Sagamore Partners, Ltd.

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Golden Seahorse LLC

    22-11582 (PB) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023)

    To conform § 1123(d) to Congress's supposedly "pro-debtor" intent in enacting it or to harmonize this section with § 1124(2)(A), a few courts have construed § 1123(d) narrowly so as not to require payment of default interest.See, e.g., In re New Invs., Inc., 840 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2016) ("The plain language of § 1123(d) compels the holding that a debtor cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure."); In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 620 Fed.Appx. 864, 869 (11th Cir. 2015) (the "'straightforward statutory command' in § 1123(d) . . . require[s] a debtor to cure its default in accordance with the underlying contract or agreement, so long as that document complies with relevant nonbankruptcy law.'"); In re Depietto, No. 20-CV-8043 (KMK), 2021 WL 3287416 at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2021) (quoting New Investments); In re Moshe, 567 B.R. 438, 444-46 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) (same).

  2. In re Golden Seahorse LLC

    652 B.R. 593 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    To conform § 1123(d) to Congress's supposedly "pro-debtor" intent in enacting it or to harmonize this section with § 1124(2)(A), a few courts have construed § 1123(d) narrowly so as not to require payment of default interest.See, e.g., In re New Invs., Inc., 840 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2016) ("The plain language of § 1123(d) compels the holding that a debtor cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure."); In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 620 F. App'x 864, 869 (11th Cir. 2015) (the " 'straightforward statutory command' in § 1123(d) . . . require[s] a debtor to cure its default in accordance with the underlying contract or agreement, so long as that document complies with relevant non-bankruptcy law.' "); In re Depietto, No. 20-CV-8043 (KMK), 2021 WL 3287416 at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2021) (quoting New Investments); In re Moshe, 567 B.R. 438, 444-46 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) (same).

  3. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Kraz, LLC (In re Kraz, LLC)

    626 B.R. 432 (M.D. Fla. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    The court noted that "in determining whether to grant the equitable relief of foreclosure, the trial court is not at liberty to modify terms of the note and mortgage that are unambiguous and undisputed." Id. at 1232 ; see alsoIn re Sundale, Ltd. , 410 B.R. 101, 105-06 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009) ("[A] trial court may not alter [the contractual right to charge default interest] based on equitable considerations even though mortgage foreclosures in Florida are equitable proceedings."); cf.In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd. , 620 F. App'x 864, 869 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing In re Sundale in finding that if "loan documents require the payment of default-rate interest and those provisions comply with Florida law, [a debtor] must pay default-rate interest to cure its default"). Kraz cites no authority applying the doctrine of prevention to the circumstances here.

  4. In re Lewisberry Partners

    21-10327 ELF (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jul. 1, 2022)

    Further, as Fay Servicing also points out, there are a number of reported decisions holding that a debtor curing a prepetition default must pay interest at the default rate provided in the parties' contract. See In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd., 620 Fed.Appx. 864, 869 (11th Cir. 2015); In re Moshe, 567 B.R. 438, 444-45 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017); In re 1 Ashbury Court Partners, L.L.C., 2011 WL 4712010, at *4-5 (Bankr. D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2011); In re Moody Nat'l SHS Houston H, LLC, 426 B.R. 667, 674-76 (Bankr.S.D.Tex. 2010).

  5. In re Moshe

    567 B.R. 450 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017)   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    As the Eleventh Circuit found, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 1123(d), "a party cannot cure its default without paying the agreed-upon default-rate interest." JPMCC 2006–LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v. Sagamore Partners, Ltd. (In re Sagamore Partners, Ltd.) , 620 Fed.Appx. 864, 869 (11th Cir. 2015). Other courts are in accord.