Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Wander
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-03453
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Leadenhall v. Wander: Leadenhall asked to seal sensitive loan-agreement information; the provided materials show no ruling by Judge Koeltl.
Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP, Leadenhall Life Insurance Linked Investments Fund PLC, Advantage Capital Holdings LLC, Kenneth King, and other parties whose confidential financial or commercial information appears in the Loan and Security Agreement.
What happened
In Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Wander, Leadenhall asked the Southern District of New York to keep limited portions of a loan and security agreement from public view. The requested redactions covered lender identities, bank-account information, and confidential financial and commercial terms.
Leadenhall argued that the information was only marginally relevant to the court’s work and that disclosure could harm its business and other lenders. The provided text is a letter presenting that request and the legal standard for sealing court records; it does not show the court’s decision on the request.
The materials provided do not include a ruling by Judge John G. Koeltl. Accordingly, no grant or denial of the sealing request can be stated from this text.
The detailed version
- Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP v. Wander · No. 1:24-cv-03453
- John Koeltl
- Sept. 9, 2024
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a September 6, 2024 letter from Leadenhall’s counsel to the court, filed in response to a letter motion by Advantage Capital Holdings LLC and Kenneth King. It is not a judicial opinion or order, and it does not state how the court ruled.
Background
Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP and Leadenhall Life Insurance Linked Investments Fund PLC, referred to together as “Leadenhall,” asked to keep selected portions of a Loan and Security Agreement under seal. The agreement had been filed under seal by Advantage Capital Holdings LLC and Kenneth King in support of their motion to modify a preliminary injunction. Leadenhall submitted a version showing the redactions it wanted to maintain.
The proposed redactions covered the identities of lenders other than the administrative agent, private financial-account information, confidential financial terms, and two underwriting and collection-policy manuals attached to the agreement. Leadenhall stated that the redacted material made up a small fraction of the more than 470-page contract.
Legal Standard Presented
The letter describes a three-step test used in the Second Circuit for sealing judicial documents. First, the court considers whether the material was placed before it and is relevant to the judicial function. Second, it evaluates the strength of the public-access presumption, based on the material’s role in the court’s decision-making. Third, it balances that presumption against interests favoring confidentiality.
Leadenhall argued that the public-access presumption was weak because the requested redactions were irrelevant to the pending motion and unlikely to matter to the case generally. It also argued that disclosure could reveal sensitive lending practices, financing costs, payment terms, bank details, and the identities of nonparty lenders.
Requested Relief and Disposition
Leadenhall asked the court to maintain the specified portions of the Loan and Security Agreement under seal. The text states no disposition of that request by Judge John G. Koeltl. It therefore does not establish that the request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.