Korva is a scroll of the internet’s best ideas.
Each big deal gets its own blocker
The J.Crew drop-down
J.Crew had pledged its assets to a group of creditors, so it needed another way to raise money. It created a new, wholly owned company and moved its intellectual property into it. That move is called a drop-down.
Blockers named after deals
Finance lawyers and investment banks answered with the J.Crew blocker, a clause that bars moving intellectual property into a wholly owned subsidiary unless the subsidiary also guarantees the debt already outstanding. After Serta, a Serta blocker followed, and after Wesco Aircraft, a Wesco Aircraft blocker. Terms like these are now going into credit agreements as standard language that was not in use before.
Why wording decides
New York courts have long held that the written words of a contract must be respected, so what a clause permits depends on how a judge reads it. The Fifth Circuit read Serta's open market purchase language differently than the finance lawyers who wrote it.
How does a drop-down get around existing lenders?
Credit agreements often let a borrower move assets into a subsidiary that is designated as unrestricted, which means the loan's limits do not apply to it. Once assets sit in that subsidiary, the company can pledge them as collateral for new borrowing. The original lenders no longer have a claim on those assets. The maneuver depends on the particular wording of the investment and subsidiary provisions.
Why do lenders write fixes only after a deal?
Contracts are drafted from the experience of earlier deals, so a new maneuver exposes a gap that nobody wrote a rule for. Lawyers then add a clause aimed at that exact move and give it the name of the case that prompted it. Law firms circulate the new language in client memos, and it spreads into other agreements. That is how clauses such as the J.Crew blocker became part of standard loan terms.
Why do New York courts follow contract text so strictly?
New York courts follow a plain-meaning rule: when a written agreement is clear and complete, it is enforced according to its terms. The New York Court of Appeals set out this approach in cases such as W.W.W. Associates v. Giancontieri in 1990, which limited the use of outside evidence to create ambiguity. Most large loans and bond deals choose New York law for that reason. Parties in those deals can predict outcomes more reliably when the words on the page control.
More from Law, disrupted
