Inclusive Real
Estate Secured Transaction Opinion
In Which are Incorporated the Principal Concepts
of
The ABA Section of Business Law
Legal Opinion Accord
and
The ABA Section of Real Property,
Probate and Trust Law
and
The American College of Real Estate Lawyers
Report on Adaptation of the Legal Opinion Accord
A REPORT OF THE JOINT ABA/ACREL COMMITTEE COMPRISING:
The American Bar Association, Section of Real Property, Probate and
Trust Law, Committee on Legal Opinions in Real Estate Transactions, Subcommittee
on Creation of an Inclusive Opinion:
David L. Miller, Washington, D.C., Co-Chair; Mark R. Spradling,
Houston, Texas, Co-Chair; Benson Joel Barr, Southfield, Michigan; Gurdon H.
Buck, Hartford, Connecticut; Frederic W. Clark, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Dianne S. Coscarelli, Cleveland, Ohio; William B. Dunn, Detroit, Michigan;
Kenneth P. Ezell, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee; Timothy W. Grooms, Little Rock,
Arkansas; Karl B. Holtzschue, New York, New York; Raymond Iwamoto, Honolulu,
Hawaii; Thelma Rivera-Miranda, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico; Robert A. Thompson, San
Francisco, California; and William L. Thompson, Jacksonville, Florida; and
AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF REAL ESTATE LAWYERS ATTORNEYS’ OPINIONS COMMITTEE: Edward J. Levin, Baltimore,
Maryland, Chair; Portia O. Morrison, Chicago, Illinois, Co-Vice Chair; Charles
S. Sokoloff, Smithfield, Rhode Island, Co-Vice Chair; Robert A. Thompson, San
Francisco, California, Co-Vice Chair; Charles H. Andresen, Duluth, Minnesota;
David C. Auten, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Drake M. Batchelder, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida; Wm. Terry Bray, Austin, Texas; Stephen A. Bromberg,
Birmingham, Michigan; Gurdon H. Buck, Hartford, Connecticut; Mert F. Buckley,
Wichita, Kansas; James A. Cole, Baltimore, Maryland; William B. Dunn, Detroit, Michigan;
A. James Elliott, Atlanta, Georgia; K. Gregory Erwin, Houston, Texas; Howard M.
Feuerstein, Portland, Oregon; Joseph Finley, Minneapolis, Minnesota; W. Bebb
Francis, III, San Antonio, Texas; Catherine T. Goldberg, Albuquerque, New
Mexico; Martin Gottlieb, Boston, Massachusetts; Donald J. Gralen, Chicago,
Illinois; Samuel F. Hatcher, Atlanta, Georgia; Robert O. Hetlage, St. Louis,
Missouri; Karl B. Holtzschue, New York, New York; John B. Hood, Rochester, New
York; Morris C. Kellett, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Henry M. Kittleson,
Lakeland, Florida; Daniel L. Klein, Wilmington, Delaware; Michael Levin,
Hartford, Connecticut; Timothy Martin, Louisville, Kentucky; Thomas A. Mason,
Cleveland, Ohio; William L. McCown, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; K.C. McDaniel, New
York, New York; Russell A. McNair, Jr., Detroit, Michigan; O’Malley M. Miller,
Los Angeles, California; Allan E. Mulligan, Bloomington, Minnesota; J. Fred Powell, Birmingham, Alabama;
Laurence G. Preble, New York, New York; Myrna Putziger, Boston, Massachusetts;
Susan M. Reid, San Franciso, California; Richard L. Reppert, Cleveland, Ohio;
Leon J. Reymond, Jr., New Orleans, Louisiana; Thomas G. Roberts, Los Angeles,
California; James Rosenbloom, Chicago, Illinois; Stanley M. Samuels, Portland,
Oregon; Richard W. Scarritt, Kansas City, Missouri; Leopold Z. Sher, New
Orleans, Louisiana; David S. Sidor, Columbus, Ohio; Gary A. Taback, Southfield,
Michigan; Courtland Traver, McLean, Virginia; Ira J. Waldman, Los Angeles,
California; James H. Wallenstein, Dallas, Texas; James G. Wheeler, Jr., St.
Johnsbury, Vermont; and Jeffrey P. Zucker, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Inclusive Real Estate Secured Transaction Opinion
I. INTRODUCTION
The
ABA Legal Opinion Accord and the report of which it is a part[1]
are impressive in many ways, and have received some acceptance, but they have
yet to become the nationwide standard that their authors had hoped. Particularly given the availability of state
bar association reports in many jurisdictions, practitioners have evidenced
mixed responses to learning a new body of legal opinion practices. This is at least in part because the Accord
looks and perhaps is difficult to master and the Accord omits coverage of many
substantive areas common to legal opinions in real estate transactions.
To address at
least the latter issue, a joint committee of the ABA and the American College
of Real Estate Lawyers published a report adapting the Accord for loans secured
by real property.[2] But, if the Accord is difficult to master,
it is even a more challenging task to achieve a clear and comprehensive
knowledge of how the Accord works as supplemented—and modified—by the ABA/ACREL
Report.
The principal
goal of this report is to facilitate understanding of the ABA Business Law
Report (including the Accord) and the ABA/ACREL Report (collectively, the “Opinion Reports”).
II. FALSE BREVITY
One of the
fundamental approaches of the Accord, which the ABA/ACREL Report also follows,
is that each legal opinion letter that is to be governed by the Accord (or the Accord
as modified and supplemented by the ABA/ACREL Report) will incorporate those
documents by reference. This would
result in very short opinion letters, and in the ability to quickly check any
variations between a given opinion letter and the Accord or the ABA/ACREL
Report.
While brevity
undoubtedly is a virtue (and is the soul of wit[3]), this brevity
is only skin deep. Behind the
short-form of Accord opinion lies a complex set of code-like and specific
interpretive rules that have no history of interpretation by courts. No attorney will or should give or receive
an opinion that incorporates the Accord or the ABA/ACREL Report without being
sufficiently comfortable that he or she understands those documents and how
they are likely to be interpreted in the future. Few have achieved this level of comfort.
III. INCLUSIVE OPINION
FORM
Despite these
difficulties, we believe that the goals of the Opinion Reports are worth
pursuing and that these publications are worth understanding.
The Joint
Committee believes that it would enhance the understanding of the Opinion
Reports if we could show how an opinion might look if it included the principal
concepts contained in these two published opinion letter reports, without
specifically referring to them; that is, a kind of one stop shopping. The form of opinion letter which follows
this brief introduction attempts to do just that for real estate loans, the
most common kind of real estate transactions giving rise to third-party legal
opinion letters.
This form of opinion
letter is intended primarily to serve an educational purpose, not to serve as a
model. We also recognize that this form
of opinion is not the only way to set forth the positions stated in the Opinion
Reports. This form of opinion letter
perhaps gives rise to the opposite of the risk of false brevity, the risk of
false comprehensiveness; nor does this form expressly cover each principle
stated in the Opinion Reports. Finally,
both the Opinion Reports permit private ordering between the parties to each
transaction, the use of which would result in changes to the opinions,
assumptions and other qualifications in this form.
The Opinion
Reports both are useful and constitute significant progress toward achievement
of a national consensus for real estate opinion practice. We intend through this “inclusive” form of
opinion letter to enhance understanding of the meaning of the Opinion
Reports.
INCLUSIVE REAL ESTATE SECURED TRANSACTION OPINION
[date]
[Name and
Address
of Opinion
Recipient]
Re: $[__________] Loan (the “Transaction”) from
[_____________________] (“Lender”)
to [________________________] (the “Client”)[4]
Ladies and
Gentlemen:
We provide this
Opinion Letter to you at the request of the above referenced Client pursuant to
Section [_____] of the [Agreement] described below.[5]
I.
BACKGROUND
1.1 Documents
Reviewed. We have acted as
[special][6]
counsel to the Client in connection with the preparation of the following
documents relating to the Transaction:[7]
(a) Promissory Note dated
as of ____________, made by the Client (the “Note”).
(b) [Mortgage/Deed of
Trust/Deed to Secure Debt] dated as of __________, executed by the Client (the
“Mortgage”) with respect to certain
property including real property located at ______________________ (the “Real Property”).
(c) Assignment of Leases
and Rents dated as of ________, executed by the Client (the “Assignment of Leases”).
(d) Security Agreement
dated as of __________, executed by the Client (the “Security Agreement”).
(e) Loan Agreement dated as
of ____________, executed by the Client and Lender (the “Agreement”).
(f) [[Two] unfiled] Uniform
Commercial Code Financing Statements executed by the Client (the “Financing Statements”).
1.2 Transaction
Documents. The documents described
in items (a) through (e) above are referred to in this Opinion Letter as the “Transaction Documents.” The Transaction Documents described in items
(b) through (d) above are referred to in this letter as the “Security Documents.”[8] All property described in any of the Security
Documents in respect of which provision is made by the Security Documents for a
lien or security interest is referred to in this Opinion Letter as the “Collateral.” Except as otherwise indicated herein, capitalized terms used in
this Opinion Letter are defined as set forth in the Agreement or the Glossary
attached to this Opinion Letter.
1.3 Opining
Jurisdiction. The Law (as defined in the attached
Glossary) covered by the opinions expressed in this Opinion Letter is limited
to the Law of the State of [_____] (the “State”)[,
and the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ]. Except as set forth in Paragraphs 2.1 and
2.2 below, we express no opinion concerning the Laws of any other jurisdiction,
[the other Laws of Delaware,] or the effect thereof.[9]
1.4 Scope of Review. In connection with the opinions hereinafter
set forth, we have limited the scope of our review of the documents related to
the Transaction to [originals/photocopies of] the Transaction Documents and the
Financing Statements. In addition, in
connection with the opinions hereinafter set forth, we have reviewed such other
documents and certificates of public officials and certificates of
representatives of the Client, and have given consideration to such matters of
law and fact, as we have deemed appropriate, in our professional judgment, to
render such opinions.[10]
1.5 Reliance Without
Investigation. We have relied,
without investigation or analysis, upon information in Public Authority Documents (as defined in the attached Glossary). Except to the extent the information
constitutes a statement, directly or in practical effect, of any legal
conclusion at issue, we have relied, without investigation or analysis, upon the information contained in representations
made by the Client in [Sections ____of] the Agreement and on information
provided [by officials of the Client] [in certificates of officers of the
Client], which we reasonably believe, in each case, to be an appropriate source
for the information. Except to the
extent the information constitutes a statement, directly or in practical
effect, of any legal conclusion at issue, we have relied, without investigation
or analysis, upon information provided to us by Lender, as set forth in
[________].[11]
1.6 Opinions of Other Counsel. We note that various issues concerning
[specify legal issues] are addressed in the opinion of [_______________] (the “Other Counsel”), separately provided to
Lender. [In rendering the opinions set
forth below, we have relied upon the information contained in such opinion of
the Other Counsel without investigation or analysis, and we express no opinion
with respect to those matters.][12]
II.
OPINIONS
Based upon and
subject to the foregoing and to the qualifications set forth below, we are of
the opinion that:
2.1 Status. The Client
is a [corporation], validly existing in good standing in its
jurisdiction of organization.[13]
2.2 Authorization. All actions or approvals by the Client, and
its [shareholders], necessary to bind the Client under the Transaction
Documents have been taken or obtained.[14]
2.3 Execution. The Client has duly executed and delivered
the Transaction Documents and the Financing Statements for valid consideration.[15]
2.4 Remedies
Opinion. The Transaction Documents
are legal, valid, binding and enforceable against the Client in accordance with
their terms. [That is, under the law of
contracts of the Opining Jurisdiction, and other laws of the Opining
Jurisdiction that we, in the exercise of customary professional diligence would
reasonably recognize as being directly applicable to the Client, the
Transaction, or both: the Transaction
Documents form a contract; a remedy will be available with respect to each
agreement of the Client in the Transaction Documents or such agreement will
otherwise be given effect; and any remedy expressly provided for in the
Transaction Documents will be given effect as stated.][16]
2.5 Form of
Security Documents. The Security
Documents are in a form sufficient to create a lien on or security interest in
all right, title and interest of the Client in the Collateral, except to the
extent the Collateral includes items or types of Personal Property (as defined in the attached Glossary) in which a
security interest cannot be created under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial
Code.[17]
2.6 Usury
Opinion. Assuming that no fees,
charges, benefits, or other compensation will be paid, directly or indirectly
to Lender or for Lender’s benefit, except as specified in the Transaction
Documents, and assuming that no amounts to be paid as specified in the
Transaction Documents constitute a penalty, the Transaction, as evidenced by
the Transaction Documents, does not violate the usury laws of the State.[18]
2.7 No
Breach or Default Opinion.
Execution and delivery by the Client of, and performance of its
agreements in, the Transaction Documents do not (i) violate the [articles or
certificate of incorporation or bylaws; partnership agreement or certificate]
of the Client, (ii) [to the best of our Actual
Knowledge (as defined in the attached Glossary)], breach, or result in a
default under, any existing obligation of the Client under the Other Agreements
specified in Attachment [__] hereto (the “Specified
Other Agreements”), or (iii) [to the best of our Actual Knowledge] breach
or otherwise violate any existing obligation of the Client under any Court
Order which is identified in Attachment [__] hereto (the “Specified Court Orders”), which the Client has certified to us are
the only Court Orders. Our Opinion in
this Paragraph does not extend to any action or conduct of the Client that a
Transaction Document may permit but does not require, except to the extent that
(i) such action or conduct takes place simultaneously with, and (ii) we had
Actual Knowledge that it constituted part of, the consummation of the
Transaction.[19]
2.8 No
Violation of Law Opinion. Execution
and delivery by the Client of, and performance by the Client of its payment
obligations in, the Transaction Documents neither are prohibited by applicable
provisions of statutory law or regulation of the State nor subject the Client
to a fine, penalty or other similar sanctions under, any statutory law or
regulation of the State. Our opinion in
this Paragraph relates only to statutory laws and regulations that we, in the
exercise of customary professional diligence, would reasonably recognize as
being directly applicable to the Client, the Transaction, or both.[20]
III.
QUALIFICATIONS
Notwithstanding
any provision in this Opinion Letter to the contrary, the foregoing opinions
are subject to the following additional qualifications:
3.1 Assumptions. In rendering the foregoing opinions, we have
relied, without investigation, upon the assumptions set forth below unless in a
given case the particular assumption states, directly or in practical effect, a
legal conclusion expressed in the opinion:[21]
(a) [A Client who is a
natural person, and] natural persons who are involved on behalf of the Client,
have sufficient legal capacity to enter into and perform the Transaction or to
carry out their role in it.
(b) The Client holds the
requisite title and rights to any property involved in the Transaction.
(c) Each party to the
Transaction (other than the Client) has satisfied those legal requirements that
are applicable to it to the extent necessary to make the Transaction Documents
enforceable against it.
(d) Each party to the
Transaction (other than the Client) has complied with all legal requirements
pertaining to its status as such status relates to its rights to enforce the
Transaction Documents against the Client.
(e) Each document submitted
to us for review is accurate and complete, each such document that is an
original is authentic, each such document that is a copy conforms to an
authentic original, and all signatures on each such document are genuine.
(f) Each Public Authority
Document is accurate, complete, and authentic and all official public records
(including their proper indexing and filing) are accurate and complete.
(g) There has not been any
mutual mistake of fact or misunderstanding, fraud, duress or undue influence.
(h) The conduct of the
parties to the Transaction has complied with any requirement of good faith,
fair dealing and conscionability.
(i) Lender and any agent
acting for Lender in connection with the Transaction have acted in good faith
and without notice of any defense against the enforcement of any rights created
by, or adverse claim to any property or security interest transferred or
created as part of, the Transaction.
(j) There are no agreements
or understandings among the parties, written or oral, and there is no usage of
trade or course of prior dealing among the parties that would, in either case,
define, supplement or qualify the terms of the Transaction Documents.
(k) All statutes, judicial
and administrative decisions, and rules and regulations of governmental
agencies, constituting the Law of the Opining Jurisdiction are generally
available (i.e., in terms of access and distribution following publication or
other release) to lawyers practicing in the Opining Jurisdiction, and are in a
format that makes legal research reasonably feasible.
(l) The constitutionality
or validity of a relevant statute, rule, regulation or agency action is not in
issue unless a reported decision in the Opining Jurisdiction has specifically
addressed but not resolved, or has established, its unconstitutionality or
invalidity.
(m) Other Agreements and Court
Orders (as such terms are defined in the attached Glossary) would be
enforced as written.
(n) The Client will not in
the future take any discretionary action (including a decision not to act)
permitted under the Transaction Documents that would result in a violation of
law or constitute a breach or default under any Other Agreement or Court Order.
(o) The Client will obtain
all permits and governmental approvals required in the future, and take all
actions similarly required, relevant to subsequent consummation of the
Transaction or performance of the Transaction Documents.
(p) All parties to the
Transaction will act in accordance with, and will refrain from taking any
action that is forbidden by, the terms and conditions of the Transaction
Documents.
(q) The Security Documents
have been or will be duly recorded and/or filed in all places necessary (if and to the extent necessary) to
create the lien as provided therein.
(r) The description of the
Collateral is accurate and is sufficient under Law (i) to provide notice
to third parties of the liens and security interests provided by the Security
Documents and (ii) to create an effective contractual obligation under Law.
We have no
Actual Knowledge that the foregoing assumptions are false. We have no Actual Knowledge of facts that,
under the circumstances, would make our reliance on the foregoing assumptions
unreasonable.[22]
3.2 Exclusions. None of the foregoing opinions include any
implied opinion unless such implied opinion is both (i) essential to the legal
conclusion reached by the express opinions set forth above and (ii) based upon
prevailing norms and expectations among experienced lawyers in the State,
reasonable in the circumstances.[23] Moreover, unless explicitly addressed in
this Opinion Letter, the foregoing opinions do not address any of the following
legal issues, and we specifically express no opinion with respect thereto: [24]
(a) Federal securities laws
and regulations administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (other
than the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935), state “Blue Sky” laws and
regulations, and laws and regulations relating to commodity (and other) futures
and indices and other similar instruments;
(b) Federal Reserve Board
margin regulations;
(c) pension and employee
benefit laws and regulations (e.g.,
ERISA);
(d) Federal and state
antitrust and unfair competition laws and regulations;
(e) Federal and state laws
and regulations concerning filing and notice requirements (e.g., Hart-Scott-Rodino and Exon-Florio), other than requirements
applicable to charter-related documents such as a certificate of merger;
(f) compliance with fiduciary
duty requirements;
(g) Local Law;
(h)
(i) the
characterization of the Transaction as one involving the creation of a lien on
Real Property or a security interest in Personal Property except to the extent
that the enforceability of remedies against the Client set forth in the
Transaction Documents is dependent on the characterization of the Transaction
expressed by the parties to it;
(ii) title to Collateral or the accuracy of its description;
(iii) the sufficiency of the description of the Collateral to
provide notice to third parties of the lien or security interest provided for
in the Security Documents; and
(iv) the creation, attachment, perfection, or priority of a lien
on Real Property Collateral or a security interest in Personal Property
Collateral, or enforcement of a
security interest in Personal Property Collateral separately from enforcement
of the lien on Real Property Collateral as contemplated by §9-501([4] or [d])
of the Uniform Commercial Code.[25]
(i) fraudulent transfer and
fraudulent conveyance laws;
(j) Federal and state
environmental laws and regulations;
(k) Federal and state land
use and subdivision laws and regulations;
(l) Federal and state tax
laws and regulations;
(m) Federal patent,
copyright and trademark, state trademark, and other Federal and state
intellectual property laws and regulations;
(n) Federal and state
racketeering laws and regulations (e.g.,
RICO);
(o) Federal and state
health and safety laws and regulations (e.g.,
OSHA);
(p) Federal and state labor
laws and regulations;
(q) Federal and state laws,
regulations and policies concerning (i) national and local emergency, (ii)
possible judicial deference to acts of sovereign states, and (iii) criminal and
civil forfeiture laws; and
(r) other Federal and state
statutes of general application to the extent they provide for criminal
prosecution (e.g., mail fraud and
wire fraud statutes).
3.3 Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Exception. The
opinion set forth in Paragraph [2.4][26]
of this Opinion Letter is subject to the following qualifications: The effect of bankruptcy, insolvency,
reorganization, receivership, moratorium and other similar laws affecting the
rights and remedies of creditors generally.
This exception includes:[27]
(a) the Federal Bankruptcy
Code and thus comprehends, among others, matters of turn-over, automatic stay,
avoiding powers, fraudulent transfer, preference, discharge, conversion of a
non-recourse obligation into a recourse claim, limitations on ipso facto and anti-assignment clauses
and the coverage of pre-petition security agreements applicable to property
acquired after a petition is filed;
(b) all other Federal and
state bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, receivership, moratorium,
arrangement and assignment for the benefit of creditors laws that affect the
rights and remedies of creditors generally (not just creditors of specific
types of debtors);
(c) all other Federal
bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, receivership, moratorium, arrangement,
and assignment for the benefit of creditors laws that have reference to or
affect generally only creditors of specific types of debtors and state laws of
like character affecting generally only creditors of financial institutions and
insurance companies;
(d) state fraudulent
transfer and conveyance laws; and
(e) judicially developed
doctrines relevant to any of the foregoing laws, such as substantive
consolidation of entities.
3.4 Equitable
Principles Limitation. The opinion
set forth in Paragraph [2.4] of this Opinion Letter is subject to the following
qualifications: The effect of general
principles of equity, whether applied by a court of law or equity. This limitation includes principles:[28]
(a) governing the
availability of specific performance, injunctive relief or other equitable
remedies which generally place the award of such remedies, subject to certain
guidelines, in the discretion of the court to which application for such relief
is made;
(b) affording equitable
defenses (e.g., waiver, laches and
estoppel) against a party seeking enforcement;
(c) requiring good faith
and fair dealing in the performance and enforcement of a contract by the party
seeking its enforcement;
(d) requiring
reasonableness in the performance and enforcement of an agreement by the party
seeking enforcement of the contract;
(e) requiring consideration
of the materiality of (i) the Client’s breach and (ii) the consequences of the
breach to the party seeking enforcement;
(f) requiring consideration
of the impracticability or impossibility of performance at the time of
attempted enforcement; and
(g) affording defenses
based upon the unconscionability of the enforcing party’s conduct after the
parties have entered into the contract.
3.5 Other
Common Qualifications. The opinion
set forth in Paragraph [2.4] of this Opinion Letter is subject to the following
qualifications: To the extent the Law
of the State applies any of the following rules to one or more of the [identify
state law provisions] [provisions of the Transaction Documents] covered by an
opinion to which this Paragraph [3.5] applies, that opinion is subject to the
effect of generally applicable rules of Law that:[29]
(a) limit or affect the
enforcement of provisions of a contract that purport to require waiver of the
obligations of good faith, fair dealing, diligence, and reasonableness;
(b) provide that forum
selection clauses in contracts are not necessarily binding on the court(s) in
the forum selected;
(c) limit the availability
of a remedy under certain circumstances where another remedy has been elected;
(d) limit the right of a
creditor to use force or cause a breach of the peace in enforcing rights;
(e) relate to the sale or
disposition of collateral or the requirements of a commercially reasonable
sale, including, without limitation, statutory cure provisions and rights of
reinstatement [and limitations on deficiency judgments]; [30]
(f) limit the
enforceability of provisions releasing, exculpating or exempting a party from,
or requiring indemnification of a party for, liability for its own action or
inaction, to the extent the action or inaction involves gross negligence,
recklessness, willful misconduct or unlawful conduct;
(g) may, where less than
all of a contract may be unenforceable, limit the enforceability of the balance
of the contract to circumstances in which the unenforceable portion is not an
essential part of the agreed exchange;
(h) govern and afford
judicial discretion regarding the determination of damages and entitlement to
attorneys’ fees and other costs;
(i) may, in the absence of
a waiver or consent, discharge a guarantor to the extent that (i) action by a
creditor impairs the value of collateral securing guaranteed debt to the
detriment of the guarantor, or (ii) guaranteed debt is materially modified;
(j) may permit a party who
has materially failed to render or offer performance required by the contract
to cure that failure unless (i) permitting a cure would unreasonably hinder the
aggrieved party from making substitute arrangements for performance, or (ii) it
was important in the circumstances to the aggrieved party that performance
occur by the date stated in the contract;
(k) limit or affect the
enforceability of a waiver of a right of redemption;
(l) impose limitations on
attorneys’ or trustees’ fees;
(m) limit or affect the
enforceability of any provision that purports to prevent any party from
becoming a mortgagee in possession, notwithstanding any enforcement actions
taken under the Security Documents; and
(n) limit or affect the
enforceability of provisions for late charges, prepayment charges or yield
maintenance charges, acceleration of future amounts due (other than principal)
without appropriate discount to present value, liquidated damages and
“penalties.”[31]
3.6 Generic
Qualification.[32] The opinion set forth in Paragraph [2.4] of
this Opinion Letter is subject to the qualification that certain [remedies,
waivers, and other] provisions of the Transaction Documents may not be
enforceable; nevertheless, [subject to the other qualifications set forth in
this Opinion Letter,] such unenforceability will not
render the Transaction Documents invalid as a whole or preclude (i) the
judicial enforcement of the obligation of the Client to repay the principal,
together with interest thereon (to the extent not deemed a penalty) as provided
in the Note,[33] (ii) the acceleration of the obligation of the Client to
repay such principal, together with such interest, upon a [material[34]] default by the Client in the payment of such principal or
interest [or upon a [material] default in
any other material provision of the Transaction Documents],[35] and (iii) the foreclosure[36] in accordance with applicable Law of the lien on and
security interest in the Collateral created by the Security Documents upon maturity or upon acceleration pursuant to
clause (ii) above.[37]
3.7 Choice
of Law. The opinion set forth in
Paragraph [2.4] of this Opinion Letter is given as if the Law of the Opining
Jurisdiction governs each Transaction Document, without regard to whether the
Transaction Document so provides, and without regard to any choice of law rules
except as provided below in this Paragraph.[38] While the preceding sentence excludes any
opinion on the effectiveness of any governing law provision in the Transaction
Documents, if a Transaction Document contains a governing law provision choosing
the Law of the Opining Jurisdiction to govern the contract, the opinion set
forth in Paragraph [2.4] of this Opinion Letter includes an opinion (subject to
the other qualifications in this Part III) that such governing law provision
choosing the Law of the Opining Jurisdiction will be given effect under the
choice of law rules of the Opining Jurisdiction; however, the opinion set forth
in Paragraph [2.4] of this Opinion Letter does not include an opinion as to
what Law governs (i) if the Transaction Document contains a governing law
provision choosing the Law of an Other
Jurisdiction (as defined in the attached Glossary) or does not contain a
governing law provision, or (ii) to the extent the opinion as to what Law
governs requires a determination that the Law of the Opining Jurisdiction is
not contrary to a fundamental policy of the Law of an Other Jurisdiction.[39]
IV.
ADDITIONAL CONFIRMATIONS[40]
4.1 Legal
Proceedings. We hereby confirm to
Lender, pursuant to the request set forth in Section [___] of the Agreement,
but without investigation, analysis, or
review of court or other public records or our files, other than our litigation
docket and information provided to us by the Client, that there are no actions or
proceedings against the Client, pending or overtly threatened in writing,
before any court, governmental agency or arbitrator which (i) seek to
affect the enforceability of the Agreement, or (ii) except as disclosed in [the
Agreement or an exhibit, annex or schedule thereto] [an officer’s certificate],
come within [the objective standard established in the Agreement for disclosure
of such matters] [other objective threshold].[41]
V.
USE OF THIS OPINION
5.1 The opinions expressed in this
Opinion Letter are solely for Lender’s use in connection with the Transaction
for the purposes contemplated by the Transaction Documents. Without our prior written consent, this
Opinion Letter may not be used or relied upon by Lender for any other purpose
whatsoever, except for the use of this Opinion Letter (i) in connection with
review of the Transaction by a regulatory agency having supervisory authority
over Lender for the purpose of confirming the existence of this Opinion Letter,
(ii) in connection with the assertion of a defense as to which this Opinion Letter
is relevant and necessary, or (iii) in response to a court order.[42]
Very truly yours,
GLOSSARY
As used in the
Opinion Letter to which this Glossary is attached, except as otherwise defined
in such Opinion Letter, the following terms (whether used in the singular or
the plural) shall have the meanings indicated:
Actual Knowledge: with respect
to the Opinion Giver, the conscious awareness of facts or other information by
the Primary Lawyer or Primary Lawyer Group.
Client: the party or parties to the Transaction
(including predecessor entities where relevant) for which the Opinion Giver
provides legal representation.
Collateral: collectively or individually, all Real
Property described in the Security Documents and all Personal Property
described in the Security Documents, in respect of which provision is made by
the Security Documents for a lien or security interest, unless a different
meaning is given in the Transaction Documents.
Constituent
Documents: the articles or
certificate of incorporation, by-laws, partnership documentation or similar
organization documents of the Client.
Court Orders: court and administrative orders, writs,
judgments and decrees that name the Client and are specifically directed to it
or its property.
Law: the statutes, the judicial and
administrative decisions, and the rules and regulations of the governmental
agencies of the Opining Jurisdiction, including its Local Law (but subject to
any limitations on coverage of Local Law set forth in the Opinion Letter to
which this Glossary is attached).
Local Law: the statutes and ordinances, the
administrative decisions, and the rules and regulations of counties, towns,
municipalities and special political subdivisions (whether created or enabled
through legislative action at the Federal, state or regional
level -- e.g., water
agencies, joint power districts, the Maine Turnpike Authority, The Southern
California Rapid Transit District, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey), and judicial decisions to the extent that they deal with any of the
foregoing.
Opining
Jurisdiction: a jurisdiction whose
applicable Law is addressed by the Opinion Giver in the Opinion; if there is
more than one such jurisdiction (e.g.,
the United States and a particular state), the term refers collectively to all.[43]
Opinion: a legal opinion that [includes a declaration
that it is governed by the Accord and] is rendered by the Opinion Giver to one
or more persons involved in the Transaction other than the Client.
Opinion Giver: the lawyer or legal organization rendering
the Opinion.
Opinion Letter: the document setting forth the Opinion that
is delivered to and accepted by the Opinion Recipient.
Opinion
Recipient: the addressee or
addressees of the Opinion Letter.
Other Agreements: contracts, other than the Transaction
Documents, to which the Client is a party or by which it or its property is
bound.
Other Counsel: a lawyer or legal organization (other than
the Opinion Giver) providing a legal opinion pertaining to particular matters
concerning the Client, the Transaction Documents or the Transaction
(i) directly to the Opinion Recipient, or (ii) to the Opinion Giver
in support of the Opinion.
Other
Jurisdiction: the jurisdiction whose
law a Transaction Document provides will govern that contract, if not the
Opining Jurisdiction.
Personal
Property: property or rights and
interests in property treated under Law as personalty or otherwise not as Real
Property.
Primary Lawyer:
(a) the lawyer in the
Opinion Giver’s organization who signs the Opinion Letter;
(b) any lawyer in the
Opinion Giver’s organization who has active involvement in negotiating the
Transaction, preparing the Transaction Documents or preparing the Opinion
Letter; and
(c) solely as to
information relevant to a particular opinion issue or confirmation regarding a
particular factual matter (e.g.,
pending or threatened legal proceedings), any lawyer in the Opinion Giver’s
organization who is primarily responsible for providing the response concerning
that particular opinion issue or confirmation.
Primary Lawyer
Group: all of the Primary
Lawyers when there are more than one.
Public Authority
Documents: certificates issued by
the Secretary of State or any other government official, office or agency
concerning a person’s property or status, such as certificates of corporate or
partnership good standing, certificates concerning tax status, certificates
concerning Uniform Commercial Code filings or certificates concerning title
registration or ownership.
Real Property: property or rights and interests in property
treated under Law as real property, including fixtures.
[Security
Documents: mortgages, deeds of
trust, security agreements, assignments of leases, rents or both (regardless of
whether stated as absolute or as a security assignment), or similar instruments
which provide for the creation of a lien on or security interest in Collateral
to secure the obligations of the Client under the Transaction Documents.]
[Transaction: the business exchange (e.g., loan, sale of securities, merger or acquisition) by the
Client and the other parties.]
[Transaction
Documents: the contract documents
setting forth the principal terms of the Transaction addressed by the Opinion,
including the Security Documents, and
other contracts ancillary thereto that are explicitly addressed by the
Opinion. Unless otherwise included by
express statement in an Opinion Letter, contracts of persons other than the
Client (such as guaranties and letters of credit) are not included in the term
Transaction Documents.]
[1] The “Accord” is part of the Third-Party Legal Opinion Report, including
the Legal Opinion Accord, of the Section of Business Law, American Bar
Association, 47 BUS. LAW. 167
(1991) (reprinted in 29 REAL PROP.
PROB. & TR. J. 487 (1994))(referred to below as the “ABA Business Law Report”).
[2] Report on Adaptation of the Legal Opinion
Accord of the Section of Business Law of the American Bar Association for Real
Estate Secured Transactions of the Section of Real Property, Probate and Trust
Law of the American Bar Association and the American College of Real Estate
Lawyers, 29 REAL PROP. PROB. & TR. J. 569 (1994) (referred to
below as the “ABA/ACREL Report”).
[3] W. Shakespeare,
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 1, line 78 (1601).
[4]References to
Sections (§) and Paragraphs (¶) in the footnotes to this Opinion Letter are
references to Sections and Paragraphs of the Accord and the ABA/ACREL Report.
[5] The Client must consent to the rendering of
the Opinion Letter. Such consent may be
implied by the Client’s execution of a Transaction Document that requires an
opinion letter. See Certain Guidelines for the Negotiation and Preparation of
Third-Party Legal Opinions following the Accord, Part II, F.
[6] Describe limited
or special role, if appropriate. See the Illustrative Opinion Letter
following the Accord.
[7] Set forth below
in the text are examples of common real estate loan transaction documents. This form opines as to the enforceability
only of specifically identified Transaction Documents. See
Section 1.4 of this opinion form. Add
to the list any other operative documents for the Transaction; conform names in
the list to actual names of documents; create other defined terms as
needed. Consider the particular issues
raised, and any additional qualifications that would be appropriate, if a
guaranty is to be one of the Transaction Documents.
[8] The “Security Documents” should include all
documents that provide for the creation of a lien or security interest to
secure obligations of the Client under the Transaction Documents.
[9] See Accord, §1,
§10, §22 . If the Client is a
corporation formed other than in the “State,” the corporate laws of its state
of formation should be named in the Opinion Letter. Under Accord §10(c), coverage of the law in which the Client
exists is implicit in a “Remedies Opinion.”
The Laws of other jurisdictions may be included as well. For example, the “Federal Law of the United
States” may be added. Because the
“Opining Jurisdiction” defined in the attached Glossary can include more than
one jurisdiction, this form introduces the term “State”; if only one
jurisdiction is involved, the term “Opining Jurisdiction” can replace the
“State.”
[10] Accord §2 and
the accompanying commentary permit the Opinion Giver to limit the scope of
inquiry to specific documents, but only if the limitation is explicit; e.g. “we have reviewed only the
following documents and made no other investigation or inquiry.” Some opinion givers prefer to identify each
of the documents reviewed, and to disclaim any factual inquiry beyond the
identified documents.
[11] See Accord §3 and
the accompanying Commentary as to permissible reliance on information provided
by others. Consider specifying the
Public Authority Documents, Client certificates, and other documents so relied
upon.
[12] Accord §8
describes the relationship of the Opinion Giver with Other Counsel giving
opinions in the same Transaction. This
description is rather complex. Consider
carefully the appropriate level of assurance to be given by an Opinion Giver
concerning the legal opinions of Other Counsel.
[14] The opinion in
this Paragraph is implicit in the Remedies Opinion under the Accord. See
Accord Commentary, §10.4(ii)(B).
Actions by the “Client” include actions by its management, such as the
board of directors of a corporation. In
a partnership or other entity, “partners” or other owners of the ownership
interests in the Client would replace “shareholders” and due diligence should
be expanded to cover any requisite actions and status of the partners or other
owners.
[15]Accord
Commentary §10.4(i) states that the Opinion Giver must have established that
all of the conditions necessary under contract law for formation of a contract
have occurred.
[16] This is the “Remedies Opinion” defined in the Glossary of
the Accord; See also Accord
Commentary §10.1. This Remedies Opinion
follows the Accord formulation that every agreement in the Transaction
Documents is enforceable. While
consistent with the Accord, the bracketed explanation of the Remedies Opinion
is unnecessary and portions of it are superseded by the Generic Qualification
in Paragraph [3.6] below.
If the
Transaction Documents split the choice of law between the Opining Jurisdiction
and other jurisdictions, insert at the beginning of the sentence a phrase such
as
The provisions
which Section __ of the Agreement provides are to be governed by the Law of the
State are legal, valid, ....
If the
Transaction Documents prescribe arbitration, Accord §10 would call for including
a provision to the following effect:
This Paragraph
includes an opinion that a court will give effect to an agreement contained in
the Transaction Documents to arbitrate disputes, but does not indicate how the
arbitration will deal with any dispute under the contract formed by the
Transaction Documents.
If there is a
guaranty, include a similar remedies opinion as to its enforceability against
the guarantor; add the guaranty to the list of documents in paragraph 1.1; and
revise as appropriate the status opinions, the qualifications and other
provisions in this opinion letter.
[17] This lien
opinion is added to the Remedies Opinion of the Accord by ABA/ACREL Report
¶7. Note that this opinion covers only
the form of documents, and does not cover the Financing Statements or
other issues such as actual perfection of liens.
[18] Under the
ABA/ACREL Report ¶10 and ¶16, a usury opinion is implied. The assumption that the amounts paid do not
constitute a penalty is consistent with the Generic Qualification, paragraph
3.6 below.
[19] This Paragraph
is the “No Breach or Default Opinion” referred to in Accord §15. For the “Specified Other Agreements,”
consider using contracts dealing with money borrowed by the Client; contracts
filed by the Client with the SEC; or other written contracts (other than the
Transaction Documents) to which the Client is a party or by which it or its
property is bound.
[20] This Paragraph
is the “No Violation of Law Opinion” referred to in Accord §16, as modified by the ABA/ACREL Report.
[21] These
assumptions are taken from Accord §4.
Subsections (q) and (r) were added by ABA/ACREL Report ¶4.
[22]Accord §5
describes circumstances when assumptions may not be relied upon.
[23]This first
sentence is taken from Accord §18.
[24]This list of
excluded legal issues is taken from Accord §19.
[25] This paragraph
(h) is taken from Paragraph 17 of the ABA/ACREL Report. ABA/ACREL Report ¶18 notes that this
qualification is not inconsistent with the opinion in paragraph [2.5]. Paragraph [2.5] speaks to the form of documents,
while this paragraph (h) covers the actual status of the lien or security
interest. The ABA/ACREL Report notes
that the status of the lien on Real Property Collateral is customarily dealt
with solely by title insurance, and an opinion, if any, as to the status of a
security interest on Personal Property Collateral should be given separately
(if at all).
[26] The
qualifications in Paragraphs 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 of this Opinion Letter correspond
to the General Qualifications described in §§11-14 of the Accord. Consistent with the presumption established
by the Accord, this Opinion Letter is written as if the General Qualifications
are to apply only to the Remedies Opinion (Paragraph 2.4 of this Opinion
Letter). The Accord would permit any or
all of the General Qualifications to be made applicable, by private ordering,
to any opinion in addition to the Remedies Opinion. Similarly, the ABA/ACREL Report would permit the Generic
Qualification in Paragraph 3.6 of this Opinion Letter to be made applicable to opinions
in addition to the Remedies Opinion.