🍪 Our Cookies

This website uses cookies, pixel tags, and similar technologies (“Cookies”) for the purpose of enabling site operations and for performance, personalisation, and marketing purposes. We use our own Cookies and some from third parties. Only essential Cookies are used by default. By clicking “Accept All” you consent to the use of non-essential Cookies (i.e., functional, analytics, and marketing Cookies) and the related processing of personal data. You can manage your consent preferences by clicking Manage Preferences. You may withdraw a consent at any time by using the link “Cookie Preferences” in the footer of our website.

Our Privacy Notice is accessible here. To learn more about the use of Cookies on our website, please view our Cookie Notice.

How sponsors are attempting to make LMEs litigation-proof

Share

News and Analysis

How sponsors are attempting to make LMEs litigation-proof

Jane Komsky's avatar
  1. Jane Komsky
•11 min read

As sponsors and creditors alike digest the fallout from recent decisions in LME litigation from Serta, Mitel and Incora, their focus inevitably turns to the concrete actions they can take as early as possible to gain an advantage in future out-of-court restructuring transactions .

The overarching theme across those three decisions for many lawyers in the LME space is that very specific word choices from inception will matter when things fall apart. Part of the Mitel decision, for example, appears to have hinged on the word “purchase,” likely included by Wachtell on behalf of Searchlight. That language also appears in certain of Apollo’s portco loan documents, such as those of Employbridge, many of which are drafted by Paul Weiss.

Accordingly, some sponsor's law firms have been proactively responding to such litigation in real time, updating their forms and giving their clients as much documentary flexibility as possible should they need to restructure down the road.

What are you waiting for?

Try it out
  • We're trusted by the top 10 Investment Banks