$125 Million Revolving Credit Facility

The Firm represented the agent bank and a group of lenders in the negotiation and closing of a $125 million credit facility secured by assets in various states and in Canada, which included a foreign currency subfacility.

By |2024-04-15T16:31:08-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on $125 Million Revolving Credit Facility

$18 Million Term and Revolving Loan Facility

GableGotwals represented the lender in the negotiation and documentation of an $18 million term and revolving loan facility to a local publicly-traded borrower.

By |2024-04-15T16:32:51-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on $18 Million Term and Revolving Loan Facility

Loan to Tribal-Related Entity

The Firm represented the lender to a tribal-related entity in the negotiation and documentation of a loan used to pay off existing debt.

By |2024-04-15T16:33:39-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on Loan to Tribal-Related Entity

Domestic and Export-Related Loan Facility

GableGotwals represented the agent bank and a group of lenders in the negotiation and documentation of a $20 million domestic revolving credit facility and a $25 million export-related revolving credit facility guaranteed in part by the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

By |2024-04-15T16:35:46-05:00July 16th, 2021|Comments Off on Domestic and Export-Related Loan Facility

Summary Judgment Win on Behalf of a National P&C Carrier

GableGotwals obtained summary judgment on behalf of a national property and casualty insurance carrier in Federal Court in Muskogee. A man attempted to rob a bank, and in the process, killed the bank’s president, took a customer hostage, and fled the bank. The hostage was shot during the police pursuit and subsequently sued the bank, claiming she was injured because there was too much access to the bank and not enough security. The carrier filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a ruling that its policy did not provide coverage for the hostage’s claims. The Court ruled in the carrier’s favor, holding that the policy was not ambiguous and that the carrier had no duty to indemnify or defend the bank for the claims being brought by the hostage. The Court stated that the policy did not cover intentional acts (such as the kidnapping and resulting injuries) and that the policy specifically excluded claims arising out of incidents of assault and battery.

By |2024-05-31T15:32:07-05:00May 31st, 2018|Comments Off on Summary Judgment Win on Behalf of a National P&C Carrier
Go to Top