82,891
edits
Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management: Difference between revisions
Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management (view source)
Revision as of 11:13, 17 February 2021
, 17 February 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
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 {{casenote|Citigroup|Brigade Capital Management}} addresses a perfect storm of unexpected factors to come to quite the eye-catching — well, eye-''watering'', at any rate — conclusion. | {{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 {{casenote|Citigroup|Brigade Capital Management}} addresses a perfect storm of unexpected factors to come to quite the eye-catching — well, eye-''watering'', at any rate — conclusion. | ||
This case has ''everything'': it is as if all the ghastly phantoms of commercial legal practice converged in some mountain eyrie for a satanic feast on the bones of a poor, harmless, well-meaning global banking conglomerate. | This case has ''everything'': it is as if all the ghastly phantoms of commercial legal practice converged in some mountain eyrie for a satanic feast on the bones of a poor, harmless, well-meaning global banking conglomerate. The [[JC]] liked it so much he has formulated a new equitable principle: [[durum caseum per magnos canibus]]: “hard cheese for big dogs”: a sort of dark inversion of the [[JC]]’s [[anus matronae parvae malas leges faciunt]]<ref>“[[little old ladies make bad law]]”</ref> principle. | ||
==Facts== | ==Facts== | ||
Revlon — you know, that Revlon: lippy, perfume, nail polish, that sort of thing; a struggling “heritage” brand — borrowed a ton of money in 2016 to acquire Elizabeth Arden.<ref>What made Elizabeth Arden? Max Factor.</ref> The financing was complex but the thing to know was that Citigroup acted as Revlon’s [[loan servicing agent]]. A loan servicing agent 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 key concept here is “[[agent]]”, my little legal eaglets. Citigroup had no responsibility for Revlon’s obligations: Revlon would pre-fund all the payments it needed to make to the lenders. If — as seemed increasingly likely — Revlon could not meet its obligations, this was the Lenders’ problem, not Citigroup’s | Revlon — you know, that Revlon: lippy, perfume, nail polish, that sort of thing; a struggling “heritage” brand — borrowed a ton of money in 2016 to acquire Elizabeth Arden.<ref>What made Elizabeth Arden? Max Factor.</ref> The financing was complex but the thing to know was that Citigroup acted as Revlon’s [[loan servicing agent]]. A loan servicing agent 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 key concept here is “[[agent]]”, my little legal eaglets. Citigroup had no responsibility for Revlon’s obligations: Revlon would pre-fund all the payments it needed to make to the lenders. If — as seemed increasingly likely — Revlon could not meet its obligations, this was the Lenders’ problem, not Citigroup’s | ||