Global Finance on Trial: Insights from Kirschner Ruling
Introduction
In the intricate web of finance and law, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s ruling of Kirschner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Kirschner Ruling”) stands at the confluence of international banking regulations and securities law, presenting a thorough examination of the legal frameworks governing the mechanics of syndicated loan transactions. At the heart of the Kirschner Ruling lies a dispute over the nature of financial instruments and the reach of international banking laws. The ruling not only tests the boundaries of securities classification but also challenges the conventional wisdom on the jurisdiction and regulatory oversight of global financial transactions. This case thereby serves as a pivotal point of reference for scholars and practitioners alike, offering rich insights into the interplay between national laws and international banking activities and potentially influencing the architecture and oversight of future financial transactions.
What happened in Kirschner Ruling?
Millennium Health LLC (“Millenium”), a California-based urine drug testing company, entered into a credit agreement in March 2012 with various financial institutions, including JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA[1] (“JP Morgan”) providing a term loan of USD 310 million and a revolving loan of USD 20 million. Later on, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a subpoena to Millennium, investigating potential violations of federal healthcare laws. As these investigations and litigations progressed, JP Morgan initiated discussions on refinancing the 2012 Credit Agreement, and a refinancing plan was proposed. A term loan agreement for USD 1.775 billion (“Term Loan”) and a revolving loan for USD 50 million was executed between Millennium as the borrower, and JP Morgan and several other banks as lenders (the “Initial Lenders”) in April 2014. The Initial Lenders and Millennium further agreed that the Initial Lenders could syndicate the term loan to a group of lenders and in connection with the closing in April 2014, each lender executed an “Assignment and Assumption Agreement” with JP Morgan whereby they assumed all of JP Morgan’s rights and obligations in its capacity as a lender under a credit agreement dated April 16, 2014 (“Credit Agreement”). The Credit Agreement established the conditions of the Term Loan together with provisions for collateral and the creation of a secondary market for Notes which represent purchase allocations of the Term Loan and will issued by the Borrower. Despite the completion of the transaction, ongoing DOJ investigations and litigation regarding contraventions of anti-kickback statutes led to significant legal consequences for Millennium, including a bankruptcy filing in November 2015.
In 2017, the Plaintiff (Kirschner, in his capacity as trustee of the Millennium Lender Claim Trust) initiated a lawsuit in New York state court against JP Morgan and other defendants. The Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants had made actionable misstatements and omissions regarding the Term Loan in their communications with lenders, under the Blue Sky Laws[2] of certain states. After the state court action was moved to federal court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in 2020, that the Notes were not securities subject to the Blue Sky Laws, leading to the dismissal of the claims under those laws. The Plaintiff subsequently appealed this decision in the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit’s Judgment
The Second Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision. The legal issues in the judgment centered on two critical aspects: the application of the Edge Act[3] and the classification of financial instruments by applying the “family resemblance” test laid down by the US Supreme Court in Reves v. Ernst & Young[4] (“Reves”). The Edge Act issue questioned whether JP Morgan’s international banking activities, specifically in this syndicated loan transaction, granted the District Court jurisdiction. The Reves test, on the other hand, was pivotal in determining if the financial instruments involved were to be considered securities.
Accordingly, the court applied the four-factor "family resemblance test" established under Reves to ascertain if the Notes in question qualified as "securities" under securities law. The test begins with a presumption that every note is a security. It then directs courts to examine four factors, each of which helps to uncover whether the note was issued in an investment context (and is thus a security) or in a consumer or commercial context (and is thus not a security). The four factors are:
- The motivations that would prompt a reasonable seller and buyer to enter into the transaction,
- The plan of distribution of the instrument,
- The reasonable expectations of the investing public, and
- Whether some factor such as the existence of another regulatory scheme significantly reduces the risk of the instrument, thereby rendering the application of the Securities Acts unnecessary.
When the Second Circuit applied the family resemblance test to the case, for the first factor, the court determined that the Borrower's main motivations were commercial, as they weren't seeking funds for general corporate needs or significant capital investments. Instead, the Term Loan proceeds were intended for refinancing existing facilities, distributing to shareholders, and redeeming warrants and stock options. However, the Second Circuit found that the lenders were motivated by investment goals, specifically aiming to profit from the Notes through interest payments. These differing motivations led the court to conclude that, at this early stage of litigation, the first aspect of the Reves test favored classifying the Notes as securities.
Secondly, the court observed that the distribution plan didn't target a wide public audience, as the Notes weren't openly available to the general public due to limitations on transferring them. The court stated that the restrictions on any assignment of the Notes rendered them unavailable to the general public such as the Notes could not be assigned to a natural person and only to sophisticated investors.
In addition, in considering the reasonable expectations of potential investors, the court noted that the lenders were knowledgeable institutional entities who were aware that the Notes didn't fall under securities regulations. The court stated that before purchasing the Notes, the lenders certified that they were sophisticated and experienced in extending credit to entities similar to Millennium. They also certified that they had “independently and without reliance upon any Agent or any Lender, and based on such documents and information as they have deemed appropriate, made their appraisal of and investigation into the business, operations, property, financial and other condition and creditworthiness of Millennium and made their own decision to make their Loans hereunder.
Lastly, in analyzing additional factors mitigating risk, the court determined that the safeguards provided by securities laws weren't needed. This decision was based on the Notes being backed by collateral and on the issuance of explicit policy guidance by bank regulators concerning syndicated loans.
Conclusion
The case underscores the critical interplay between legal principles and financial practices, highlighting the judiciary's role in interpreting complex financial transactions within the framework of existing laws. The decisions made in this case not only resolve a specific legal dispute but also set precedents that could influence future legal and financial practices, emphasizing the importance of clarity, precision, and understanding in the ever-evolving landscape of financial law.
- Marc S. Kirschner v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., 2023 WL 5437811 (Aug. 24, 2023).
- Refer to securities fraud laws apply to securities at the state level.
- Section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act.
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (1990).
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
Sustainability-linked derivatives transactions involve the embedding of a cash flow in derivatives that will change in a sustainability-linked way, and institutions' compliance with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) objectives is monitored using specific performance indicators...
There is no specific procedure in the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) that publicly traded corporations must follow in terms of providing collaterals, pledges, mortgages and sureties (CPMS). Authority for and procedure of provision of CPMS are determined according to the general rules...
In line with the financing needs of companies and their desire for institutionalization, the number of public offerings shows an upward trend across Türkiye. Looking at the data published by the Capital Markets Board on its website regarding initial public offerings, it is seen that, it is seen that 35 public offerings...
The Communiqué on the Principles Regarding the Companies whose Shares will be Traded on the Venture Capital Market (II-16.3) ("Communiqué") has facilitated for private joint stock companies to sell their shares to qualified investors without a public offering. Thus, a new opportunity is created for joint stock...
Swiss Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”), through its decision dated 19 March 2023, approved the merger of Credit Suisse with UBS Group AG (“UBS”) and to write down the Additional Tier 1 capital bonds (referred to as AT1) issued by Credit Suisse, with a total value of approximately CHF 17 billion...
The Capital Markets Board’s (“Board”) long-awaited Communiqué on Crowdfunding No. III - 35/A.2 (“Communiqué”) entered into force through its publication in the Official Gazette numbered 31641 and dated 27 October 2021...
Mortgage covered bonds are one of today’s most common structured finance products. Although they have a prominent presence in the marketplace today, these bonds have historical roots in the Pfandbrief of 18th century Prussia. In the aftermath of the Seven Years War, King Frederick the Great implemented...