Loan Uncertainty Blocks Refinancing, Court Says
The judge also dismissed AFC’s argument that the request for declaratory judgment was premature. With the loan maturing in May 2026, he said, the borrowers face ongoing harm from uncertainty about the remaining principal and whether previous payments should have been applied differently.
As long as the size of the loan remains in dispute, the Justice entities cannot seek refinancing, and the court found they should not be forced to risk financial fallout simply because the parties disagree on the balance owed.
AFC’s contention that it intends to sue for collection in New York after the loan matures also failed to convince the court. Judge Quraishi wrote that even if AFC pursues future action elsewhere, the Justice entities are entitled to clarification now — and that resolving the dispute in New Jersey is “hardly inconvenient.”
Attorneys on the Record
Representatives for both sides were not immediately available for comment Monday.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael B. Homer, Jamie Hoxie Solano and Constantine Economides of Dynamis LLP.
The defendants are represented by Kevin H. Marino, John D. Tortorella and John A. Boyle of Marino Tortorella & Boyle PC, and Kevin S. Reed, Jacob J. Waldman and Jason Sternberg of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.
