Adam Altman


Syndicated loans, like the ones that the Tribune Company issued in 2007, are a contentious issue within the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act")." Various industry participants including banks, hedge funds, and law firms, argue that securitizations of syndicated batik loans should be excluded from the Dodd-Frank risk retention requirements. This note focuses on the imprecise and possibly inaccurate assumptions upon which these arguments rely. Part one introduces syndicated loans and collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs"). In addition, part one highlights the risk retention provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that apply to CLOs and syndicated bank loans. Part two of this note examines the plain language and the legislative intent of the relevant section of the Dodd-Frank Act. Finally, part three of this note suggests that CLOs and adjudicated batik loans should not be excluded from the Dodd-Frank risk retention requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Chicago Kent Law Review is the property of Chicago Kent Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Included in

Law Commons