Earlier this month, the LSTA published a market advisory outlining some recent changes to the disqualified institutions provisions (the “LSTA DQ Structure”) set forth in the LSTA’s Model Credit Agreement Provisions (the “MCAPs”). As in previous iterations, the updated MCAPs contemplate that a borrower should have the discretion to create and periodically update a list of entities that are disqualified from becoming lenders or participants under the credit agreement (a “DQ List”). Under the updated MCAPs, entities included in the DQ List (“Disqualified Institutions”) consist of 1) any entities the borrower identifies to the arranger at or prior to the closing of the commitment letter and 2), any other entities the borrower identifies to the administrative agent from time to time that are competitors of the borrower or its subsidiaries, and 3) any affiliates of Disqualified Institutions under 1) or 2) that the borrower identifies to the administrative agent. Read our key takeaways here.
LSTA
Loan Market Breathes a Sigh of Relief As SDNY District Court Finds Loan Are NOT Securities
On May 22, 2020, the loan market let out a collective sigh of relief as Judge Gardephe dismissed the Millennium Lender Claim Trust’s complaint alleging securities law violations related to the sale of loans. The central question considered was whether loan trading should be subject to securities laws. The loan market operates on the assumption that loans are not securities, and the LSTA and Bank Policy Institute sought authority for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae to support that position. The motion for leave to file was denied, thus heightening concern over the outcome. But the concerns turned out to be unwarranted. Rather than redefining the leveraged loan market, Judge Gardephe stuck with the status quo finding that the loans were not securities after applying the four prong Reves test, which considers: (i) the motivations of Seller and Buyer; (ii) the distribution plan for the loans; (iii) the reasonable expectations of the investing public and (iv) the existence of another regulatory scheme. The Court pointed to the fact that the documents used the terms “loan documents,” “loan,” and “lender” consistently throughout, instead of “investor” which “would lead a reasonable investor to believe that the Notes constitute loans, and not securities.” The Court also noted in light of the Banco Español case, where the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that because “the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has issued specific policy guidelines addressing the sale of loan participations,” application of securities laws is unnecessary as another regulatory scheme exists. (Order at 21, citing Banco Español de Credito v. Sec. Pac. Nat. Bank, 973 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1992)). The Plaintiff has until June 5, 2020 to amend the complaint.
New LSTA Par Confirm Penalizes Buyers for Settlement Delays
In an effort to reduce settlement times, the Loan Syndications and Trading Association (the “LSTA”) recently revised its standard par loan trading documents to penalize buyers who take too long to settle. Beginning September 1, 2016, buyers who fail to fulfill their obligations to timely settle par loan trades will forfeit the right to receive interest that accrues prior to the settlement date. The changes do not apply to loans trading on distressed documents.
The LSTA’s revisions represent the trade group’s most aggressive step to combat settlement delays. The revisions are also the most consequential changes to the LSTA’s standard par trading documents in years.
Under the current version of the LSTA’s Standard Terms and Conditions for Par/Near Par Trade Confirmations (the “Standard Terms”), buyers are automatically compensated for interest that accrues on a loan during the period beginning on the seventh business day after the trade date up through the settlement date (“Delayed Compensation”). Starting on September 1, 2016, this provision will no longer be automatic. Instead, par loan buyers will only be entitled to Delayed Compensation if they satisfy several new requirements, including paying the purchase price to the Seller in accordance with specific timing requirements (the “Delayed Compensation Prerequisites”). The LSTA believes that the Delayed Compensation Prerequisites will create a new sense of urgency for buyers to close trades and discourage buyers from tying up sellers’ balance sheets. READ MORE
Solus v. Perry: Case Update
Since May, we’ve followed Solus v. Perry, a New York County Supreme Court case originally filed in July of 2012. The case centered around whether Perry entered into a binding oral agreement to sell Solus a participation interest in a $1.6 billion claim against Bernie Madoff’s bankruptcy estate. The parties agreed on a price and some other material terms during a phone call in April of 2012 but never signed a written agreement. In its pleadings, Perry claimed that because its trader noted that the trade was “subject to documentation,” no agreement was ever formed.
Last Monday, the parties filed a stipulation discontinuing the case with prejudice.
During oral arguments on the parties’ summary judgment motions last year, Judge Saliann Scarpulla noted that several issues with meaningful implications for the distressed trading market would need to be resolved before summary judgment could be entered, including: (1) whether there is an industry custom regarding the binding nature of oral contracts for unsecured claim trades; (2) whether an agreement that a trade is subject to documentation means there is no binding contract; and (3) whether the need for consent of a third party means there is no binding contract if such consent is not obtained.
The Solus v. Perry case will not produce an opinion resolving these issues. However, market participants should take note that even in New York, these issues are still considered open questions. Therefore, we reiterate the conclusions from our May article:
- When possible, get a trade confirmation signed immediately after entering into an oral trade.
- If an executed trade confirmation is not forthcoming, confirm that your counterparty is familiar with the LSTA standard terms or other relevant industry customs and intends to work within those guidelines.
- Be proactive any time a counterparty delivers a communication during or after trade time that could be interpreted as evidence that a binding agreement does not already exist.
- Exercise special care when dealing with counterparties and people with whom you do not typically trade.
Enforceability of Oral Contracts for Loan and Claim Trades
The Loan Syndications and Trading Association (the “LSTA”) scored a major victory in 2002 when New York adopted LSTA-sponsored legislation designed to make oral agreements to trade bank loans and claims arising from business debts legally binding. Since then, participants in both the syndicated loan market and the claims trading market have come to rely upon the idea that trades entered over the phone are binding, so long as the parties agreed to the material terms of the trade.
A 2014 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision calls this assumption into question for loan trading, and a case that is currently pending in New York state court could extend the uncertainty to business debt claim trades as well.