The $122m includes the loss on the 4 properties they are keeping...

The $122m includes the loss on the 4 properties they are keeping - i.e they get to keep about $154m in property and get $154m in cash settlement vs a total debt of $430m.

Sure they were going to lose $60m against loan value if they defaulted, but they are giving away a further $60m to avoid the process of liquidating. Over-valuation doesn't look like an obvious explanation, given the cap rates look to be in line with typical rates for the market. Plus it sounds like there are buyers out there.

So I guess I am curious as to why the lenders would accept a position that appears worse than default - in fact it rather appears like it IS a default with AJA setting up a new vehicle that then buys the assets again in an no-competition fire sale. Either the debt is securitised and the debt-holders are being poorly treated in this process, or perhaps there is some other entitlement/gain to the lenders.

Lastly, I'm not certain why the lenders would be prepared to accept just $5m (plus cash in JPTD and JPTA) in exchange for AJA's obligations to repay up to $28.4m of security deposits. This is the "default" position if the properties are not transferred, but appears to represent yet another free gift to AJA by the lenders. I thought this was due directly from AJA, so not lost on default. It doesn't look like anything is payable in regards to the transferred properties either, so yet another gain to AJA.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on the deal - just a bit perplexed, as seems a bit odd and can't help wondering if we will find out later that the lender receives their funds some other way (though it is not obvious what other routes would exist unless they are entitled to an equity interest in the new SPC - but that would surely need to have been mentioned)