82,891
edits
Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management: Difference between revisions
Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management (view source)
Revision as of 19:13, 16 February 2021
, 16 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|casenote|thumb|450px|center|“They say ''[[indebitatus assumpsit'' is back in style. I say it never went out.”}}A judgment that will surely strike...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|casenote|[[File:Seymour.jpg|thumb|450px|center|“They say ''[[indebitatus assumpsit]]'' is back in style. I say it never went out.”}}A judgment that will surely strike terror into earnest hearts in the global trust and agency community, the US District Court’s [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ruling-on-citi-s-900-million-transfer-to-revlon-lenders/5f57c39ebdb6e58c/full.pdf stonking 105-page judgment in the [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management]] addresses a perfect storm of unexpected factors to come to a quite terrifying conclusion. This case has everything: it is as if all the ghastly phantoms of legal practice converged in some mountain eyrie for a satanic | {{a|casenote|[[File:Seymour.jpg|thumb|450px|center|“They say ''[[indebitatus assumpsit]]'' is back in style. I say it never went out.”]]}}A judgment that will surely strike terror into earnest hearts in the global trust and agency community, the US District Court’s [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/ruling-on-citi-s-900-million-transfer-to-revlon-lenders/5f57c39ebdb6e58c/full.pdf stonking 105-page judgment in the [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management]] addresses a perfect storm of unexpected factors to come to a quite terrifying conclusion. This case has everything: it is as if all the ghastly phantoms of legal practice converged in some mountain eyrie for a satanic | ||
The facts are straightforward enough — though behind them there are complicated cross-currents and counterwinds that led the parties to behave the way they did. In any case, Revlon — you know, that Revlon: lippy, perfume, nail polish, that sort of thing; a struggling “heritage” brand — borrowed a ton of money from a syndicate of lenders in 2016 to acquire Elizabeth Arden. The structure of the financing was complex, involving senior and junior facilities, the pledge of certain collateral, but the important thing to know about the loan was that Citigroup acted as Revlon’s [[loan servicing agent]]. A loan servicing agent is an administrative role: It keeps a register of the lenders, who is owed what, and handles interest and principal payments to the lenders on the borrower’s behalf. | The facts are straightforward enough — though behind them there are complicated cross-currents and counterwinds that led the parties to behave the way they did. In any case, Revlon — you know, that Revlon: lippy, perfume, nail polish, that sort of thing; a struggling “heritage” brand — borrowed a ton of money from a syndicate of lenders in 2016 to acquire Elizabeth Arden. The structure of the financing was complex, involving senior and junior facilities, the pledge of certain collateral, but the important thing to know about the loan was that Citigroup acted as Revlon’s [[loan servicing agent]]. A loan servicing agent is an administrative role: It keeps a register of the lenders, who is owed what, and handles interest and principal payments to the lenders on the borrower’s behalf. | ||