The Firm is currently advising one of its banking clients in connection with the creation of the client’s Native American gaming loan portfolio, including representing the client in multiple loans to various tribal gaming agencies and tribal gaming entities to be used for general working capital and/or capital expenditures and secured by a pledge of all revenues generated by tribal gaming facilities.
GableGotwals represented the lender in an approximately $12 million construction loan to be used in connection with historic rehabilitation tax credits to renovate and refurbish Tulsa’s Old City Hall for use as a hotel.
The Firm advised stockholders and management of a group of privately held lumber wholesale businesses in a recapitalization whereby a private equity firm acquired substantially all of the sellers’ assets for consideration consisting of cash purchase price and phantom equity rights for management.
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.
GableGotwals represented the lender in the negotiation and documentation of an $18 million term and revolving loan facility to a local publicly-traded borrower.
The Firm represented the lender to a tribal-related entity in the negotiation and documentation of a loan used to pay off existing debt.
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.
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.