If you were a customer of Brigade capital you’d be buying them champagne right now. They they just saved $170 million of your money that you would have had to accept as a loss should Revlon go bankrupt (which it probably will).
No, this is just business. Brigade has a duty to its investors to fight tooth and nail to keep this money, just like a defense lawyer has a duty to use every advantage for the client allowed under the law, acquired intentionally or otherwise.
No fiduciary duty justifies profit taking off of a mistake or mis-transaction. This is like saying that a hedge fund is justified keeping the proceeds of a check written to the wrong routing/account number. Nothing, and I mean nothing, fiduciary duty be damned, justifies undermining the implicit trust that underpins the banking and financial system. It's why there is such a thing as white collar crime in the first place.
Frankly, the entire chunk of money should be considered legally tainted until legal action is resolved; which means escrow it somewhere and unleash the lawyers.
It’s already under litigation, so Brigade can’t withdraw and spend it. The case is interesting because they might have a chance at keeping the money. In other circumstances (if the money had randomly landed on their account from an unrelated party) they’d have to give it back and there wouldn’t be a story.
The interesting side effect if they actually prevailed over Citi would be general improvement in wire transfer rooms across US. Right now they are mostly sweat shops with focus on speed ( and pleasing big customers ).
All of a sudden, we may see some consideration given to proper verification ( not just quick rubber stamp ).
Even if Revlon goes under because the courts pull what I'd call a derp, it should create the illustrative case that creates a business niche for higher reliability/risk financial transactions.
You heard of this guy called something like "Don Trump" who had no issue continuing to get bank finance when you think they would have treated his business deals like toxic waste in a radiation dump that somone threw biohazrds all over?
I used to think that this kind of repuational thing meant something. I pick Don as one of many examples just because he's literally gone on from that situation to become the president. Banks need to make big loans. If they make you a big loan, they owe you - go go broke it matters to them. You and me, nah. They'll burn us in a heartbeat when we're financially responsible without much reputation damage to the banks either. Reputation, it's not worth anything. And that is a sad, sad realisation and do not relish sharing it.
That's not totally true. Don Trump had a lot of trouble borrowing money, eventually only Deutsche Bank would deal with him, because they were probably the least ethical bank on Wall Street at the time, and even for them there was a lot of internal controversy about working with him. Yes, ultimately he got the loans and was able to stay in business, but there are other shady operators who didn't and failed, you don't hear as much about them.
Conversely, Warren Buffet famously has a "halo" which means he gets favorable terms because people know that doing business with him will reflect well on them.
Different pockets of finance have different norms about who it's OK to screw and how, and even as an investment professional I don't understand the conventions in areas outside of my specialty. So it's very hard to judge as an outsider what is considered unethical and reputation-destroying, and what is considered aggressive business practices that happen to come at the expense of other sophisticated professionals.
With an utterly terrible reputation Don didn't have real trouble, Don got finance. Every single time. After how many bankruptcies? How many re-structurings where his creditors lost?
You and me would have a lot of trouble getting that kind of financing without a hideous reputation. Don has one and got it. Now he's even the president. Bad reputations count for not all that much at all. And I hate that, fwiw.
Buffet's reputation, now that's a whole nother discussion. Yes it deserves to be better than Don's. Coke, McDonalds and buying off-market at huge discounts to support management against shareholders. Obesity, diabetes and legal resdistribution of people's retirment savings to berkshire hathaway. Yes, a reputation too good to be true nonetheless. I agree.
fiduciary duty means sometimes not to burn all your bridges. Politics aside, Trump Inc. is blackballed by all but one or two banks due to such tactics.
Edit: And this is not $500 BILLION so you can say, F it, boom or bust, let's try it. The upside isn't that much, relatively speaking, considering the blacklisting downside. Even if Revlon doesn't pay, a large % is already banked or will be in bankruptcy proceedings so it's not a 100% loss.
