The Post-Revlon Reaction: Pitfalls for Lenders in the Proposed Erroneous Payment Language

May 12, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

Importantly, the LSTA language grants administrative agents sole discretion to determine whether a payment was made erroneously. In addition to that fundamental grant of discretion, the LSTA language also provides for recovery of erroneous payments by administrative agents, states that a notice of an erroneous payment from an administrative agent to a lender is conclusive absent manifest error, and creates a presumption that any payment that is received by a lender that differs from the scheduled amount or that does not match the amount set forth in a prepayment notice was made in error and must be returned to the administrative agent.

Additionally, the LSTA language also penalizes noncompliant lenders that do not return any agent-determined erroneous payments by causing such erroneous payments to accrue interest at the overnight rate/federal funds rate and entitles administrative agents to (i) set-off such erroneous payment against any future payments that are received by the administrative agent for credit against the noncompliant lender and (ii) recover the erroneous payments by selling a portion of the noncompliant lender’s loan (but not its commitment to fund future loans) at par plus accrued and unpaid interest.

In light of the severe limitations that a lender has to dispute whether a payment was in fact an erroneous payment and in light of the broad authority granted to administrative agents to claw-back payments that they determine (in their sole discretion) to be erroneous, we expect lenders may resist the verbatim inclusion of the LSTA language in subsequent credit agreements and amendments.

One way that lenders might want to resist is by including the optional “deadline” provision included in the LSTA language, which provision creates a deadline for administrative agents to notify lenders of an erroneous payment. Since the administrative agent should know fairly quickly that it has made an erroneous payment, this deadline should be no more than five business days from the date of the payment in question. The notification should also be in the form of an officer’s certificate that includes calculations that show that the payment was in fact erroneous.

Furthermore, lenders might want to request that interest not begin to accrue on the amount of the erroneous payment until at least two to three business days after such notification is received by a lender.

Finally, to the extent that deal logistics and circumstances allow, lenders might also demand that their credit agreements include an equitable dispute mechanism relating to the determination of erroneous payments that enables the winning party to recover its out-of-pocket expenses and damages.

While credit agreements should include terms that permit administrative agents to recoup erroneous payments from lenders, such terms should be fair to both administrative agents and lenders.


1 In re Citibank Aug. 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, No. 20-CV-6539 (JMF), 2021 WL 606167, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2021).

2 Bridget Marsh, Erroneous Payment Provision, Loan Syndications & Trading Association (March 19, 2021), https://www.lsta.org/content/erroneous-payment-provision/.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.