The US Supreme Court turned away an appeal that might have upended the $1.4 trillion leveraged loan market, leaving intact a legal victory for
The justices, without explanation or any published dissent, refused to hear arguments from bankruptcy trustee
Kirschner had argued unsuccessfully that syndicated loans, a type of debt product sold to a group of lenders, are subject to regulation as securities. Leveraged loans, where banks and other financial institutions act as a middle-man to sell the debt to large groups of institutional asset managers, are a subset of syndicated loans.
The high court’s refusal to hear the case ends a lengthy legal saga that might have significantly affected the leveraged loan market, a key source of funding for junk-rated companies and private equity firms conducting buyouts.
By declining to examine the case, the Supreme Court left in place a 3-0
Read more:
First filed in
Industry trade groups, fearing that the
No SEC Opinion
After requesting several extensions of time, the SEC in July ultimately
The Supreme Court’s decision on Tuesday finally closes the book on the Kirschner saga.
“We are extremely gratified by this decision,” said
The LSTA has contemplated for decades the possibility that loans would be regulated as securities. When Ganz was interviewed by the LSTA for his current job about 19 years ago, one of the questions he was asked was what he would do if the threat arose that loans became securities, he said by email.
Despite the end of the case, there are some signs that syndicated loans could still become securities if US law changes in the future. The market continues to evolve to resemble high-yield bonds, and in October one SEC commissioner gave a
The case centered on a 2014 deal led by JPMorgan. Millennium Health, the drug testing company that obtained the loan, ran into legal troubles soon after the loan began trading and filed for bankruptcy the next year.
Classifying leveraged loans as securities would force borrowers to submit additional disclosures and produce more financial data. It also would mean that subsequent trades would need to be settled far more quickly than they currently are.
The case is Kirschner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 23-670.
(Adds background on legal fight starting in fourth paragraph.)
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Paula Seligson
© 2024 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.
