On May 5, 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ, also referred to as the Court) delivered its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures…
BUSINESS
Ford puts a number on its tariff hit and halts guidance
‘Substantial’ risks lead Ford to pull outlook for the year amid a $1.5 billion hit from tariffs.
Skechers Is Going Private in a Nearly $10 Billion Deal, the Footwear Industry’s Biggest Ever. Here’s What to Know.
Skechers had been a publicly traded company for 26 years.
Loan Syndication vs. Consortium: What’s the Difference?
Reviewed by Andy Smith
Fact checked by Yarilet Perez
Loan Syndication vs. Consortium: An Overview
A loan syndication and consortium may sound the same but there are structural and operational differences between the two. A loan syndication is a group of lenders that offer a large loan to a borrower. As such, a syndicate loan is one large loan with multiple lenders that provide a portion of it. A consortium, on the other hand, is a group of individuals or entities that pool their resources toward a given objective. A consortium is usually governed by a legal contract that delegates responsibilities among its members.
Key Takeaways
- Loan syndications are generally reserved for loans involving international transactions, different currencies, and necessary banking cooperation.
- A consortium is usually governed by a legal contract that delegates responsibilities among its members.
- Consortium financing occurs for transactions that might not otherwise take place with a single lender.
Loan Syndication
A loan syndication involves multiple lenders and a single borrower. The syndication is headed by a lead bank that is approached by the borrower to arrange credit for major projects, equipment purchases, and merger and acquisition (M&A) deals. The managing bank is generally responsible for negotiating conditions and arranging the syndicate. In return, the borrower generally pays the lead bank a fee.
Loan syndication is the most common way for corporations to seek financing from banks and other lenders. In Europe, loan syndication is primarily driven by private equity sponsors, while in the U.S., corporate borrowers and private equity sponsors drive the loan syndication market in equal measures.
The lead bank in a loan syndication is not necessarily the majority lender. Any of the participating banks may be the largest lender, even if they are not the lead bank, depending on how the credit agreement is drawn up.
Because loans involve very large sums of money, there is a considerable amount of risk that comes with lending to the borrower. One lender would assume a great deal of risk. But, multiple lenders participating in a syndicate spread out the risk in case the borrower defaults.
Important
A loan syndication is similar to a consortium, although there are structural and operational differences between the two.
Consortium
Consortium financing occurs for transactions that may not take place with a single lender. Several banks agree to jointly supervise a single borrower with a common appraisal, documentation, and follow-up. These lenders own equal shares in the transaction. Unlike a syndication, there is not one lead bank that manages the financing project. Instead, all of the banks play an equal role in managing the project.
Consortiums are not built to handle international transactions like a syndication loan. Instead, it may arise because the size of the project is simply too large or too risky for a single lender to assume. While loan syndications typically work across borders and may handle financing in different currencies, consortiums typically occur within the boundaries of a given nation.
Sometimes the participating banks form a new consortium bank that functions by leveraging assets from each institution and disbands after the project is complete. By allowing all of the members to pool their assets, consortiums allow smaller banks to tackle larger projects.
Key Differences
Loan Syndicate | Consortium | |
---|---|---|
Purpose | Financing transactions | Financing transactions |
Structure | Multiple lenders with a lead bank | Legal entities with equal ownership |
Arrangement | Lead bank negotiates terms | Collaborative arrangement between |
Who Does the Borrower Pay in a Loan Syndication?
The lead bank in a syndicate acts as the agent or loan manager, facilitating the financing and contact between the borrower and other banks. As such, the borrower pays the lead bank. This bank divides the loan payment among the others in the syndicate.
What Is a Consortium Bank?
A consortium bank is a bank that is created by multiple banks to fund a large project. The purpose of the financing is usually too much for one bank to handle, which is why the consortium bank is established. Each member has an equal share of the consortium bank. As such, none of them has a controlling interest. This means that decisions are made mutually.
Are There Any Disadvantages to Loan Syndication and Consortiums?
Yes, there are certain drawbacks associated with both loan syndication and consortiums. Both can take time to complete, which can hold up financing. Loan syndication often comes with additional costs, including higher fees. Consortiums are collaborative agreements, which means the liability is shared among members.
The Bottom Line
A company that requires a large loan for a project or deal may seek financing through a loan syndication or consortium. A syndication involves multiple banks that come together, spread the risk, and offer one loan to the borrower. A consortium, on the other hand, occurs when several banks form a collaborative agreement and have equal ownership in their lending agreement with the borrower.
The IRS Dropped Paper Checks—How This Affects Your Tax Refund
Fact checked by Suzanne Kvilhaug
bernie_photo / Getty Images
The U.S. Treasury plans to stop issuing tax refunds on paper checks by Sept. 30, 2025.
If you’re expecting your 2024 federal tax refund to arrive in the mail, it might be the last time you get a paper check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Under a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump, the U.S. Treasury will stop issuing all paper checks by Sept. 30, 2025, including for tax refunds.
That means going forward, most taxpayers will need to receive their refunds electronically through direct deposit, a debit card, or other digital payment methods. If you’re not prepared, your next refund could be delayed—or worse, never arrive.
Key Takeaways
- Starting in September 2025, the IRS will no longer issue paper checks for tax refunds.
- Refunds will be issued via direct deposit, prepaid debit cards, or digital wallets, unless you qualify for one of the limited exceptions.
- To avoid delays, taxpayers should confirm their banking information and update their payment preferences with the IRS now.
Why Is the IRS Eliminating Paper Checks?
According to the White House, the move to digital payments is all about making government payments more efficient, affordable, and secure.
“President Trump is cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse in government by modernizing outdated paper-based payment systems that impose unnecessary costs, delays, and security risks,” stated the White House fact sheet about the March 25 executive order.
From a practical and economical standpoint, digital payments are the way to go in the modern age. Electronic transfers are much faster than printing and mailing a check, and maintaining the infrastructure to process and digitize paper reportedly costs taxpayers more than $657 million in 2024.
There’s also the security factor. U.S. Treasury checks are 16 times more likely to be lost, stolen, or tampered with compared to electronic transfers. Meanwhile, check fraud is rising: A 2025 survey by the Association for Financial Professionals found that 63% of organizations experienced check fraud in 2024. Going digital is expected to reduce those risks significantly.
How Will American Taxpayers Get Their Refunds?
Starting in fall 2025, all tax refunds will be issued using electronic funds transfer (EFT) methods. That includes direct deposit into a bank account, prepaid debit cards, or digital wallets.
The IRS will no longer issue paper refund checks unless you qualify for a specific exception, including:
- Taxpayers who don’t have access to a bank account or digital payments.
- Emergency payments where electronic payments would “cause undue hardship.”
- Security or law enforcement-related cases where non-electronic transactions are “necessary or desirable.”
In these instances (and any other circumstances where the Secretary of the Treasury deems it necessary), the Treasury will make accommodations for an alternative payment method.
Can You Still Pay Taxes by Mail?
In most cases, no. The government is phasing out incoming paper payments, too. That means if you’re currently paying your taxes, fees, or fines by check, you’ll need to start doing so by card or digital wallet beginning later this year, unless you qualify for one of the limited exceptions outlined in the executive order.
How to Prepare for the Treasury’s Paper Check Phase-Out
If you normally receive your tax refund via check, now’s the time to set up an electronic payment method. Here’s how to prepare:
- Set up for electronic payments: If your next tax return indicates that you are owed a refund, opt for direct deposit or another digital payment method when you file.
- Update your bank account information: The IRS has your information on file. Use the agency’s “Where’s My Refund?” tool to manage your payment preferences.
- Open accounts: If you don’t have a checking or savings account, consider opening one or exploring prepaid debit card options. According to the executive order, the Treasury will work with financial institutions and consumer groups to support unbanked and underbanked Americans through this transition.
Taxpayers who meet one or more of the exemption criteria will need to apply for an exception through the Treasury. Guidance on how to do this has not yet been issued at the time of writing.
The Bottom Line
The end of paper refund checks marks a major shift in how Americans receive money from the government. If you rely on paper checks for your refund, take steps now to update your payment method before the Treasury’s September 2025 deadline. Getting ahead of the curve will help ensure your next refund arrives quickly, securely, and without issue.
Here’s why Microsoft is beating Amazon and Google in the cloud
AI gets a lot of attention, but analysts say Microsoft Azure is disproportionately benefitting from migrations in its traditional cloud business.
How students at Roaring Kitty’s high school became top stock pickers
Don’t call them copycats: A group of students at Keith Gill’s old high school have been finding purpose and success in learning about stock trading.
Bitcoin Likely Still ‘Rat Poison’ at Berkshire Hathaway Even Without Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who helped shape Berkshire Hathaway into a global investment powerhouse, is stepping down as CEO at year-end — but his distaste for bitcoin (BTC) will likely live on at the firm.
Buffett, who will remain chairman of the board, has famously described bitcoin as “rat poison squared” and a “gambling token,” signaling a strong ideological opposition to digital assets. His legacy on this issue casts a long shadow over his successor, Greg Abel, who now takes the reins of day-to-day leadership.
For investors hoping for a shift in Berkshire’s crypto stance, the odds look slim.
“I would be very surprised if there’s a meaningful change in Berkshire’s attitude toward Bitcoin,” said Meyer Shields, managing director at KBW. “On the merits, I think there’s a vast difference between the Buffett/Munger attitude to technology stocks (which they admitted to not understanding) and their expressed opposition to cryptocurrency.”
Currently chairman and CEO at Berkshire Hathaway Energy and vice-chairman of Berkshire’s non-insurance operations, incoming CEO Abel is unlikely to make sudden moves that could signal a break from Buffett’s and recently deceased Charlie Munger’s longstanding views, added Shields. “I expect Greg Abel to initially avoid doing anything that could look like a marked shift away from Buffett’s and Munger’s values, even if he actually disagrees.”
During a meeting with shareholders, Buffet expressed flexibility to diversify into other currencies if the U.S. economy were to weaken more, saying that “there could be […] things happen in the United States that […] make us want to own a lot of other currencies.” However, given Buffet’s continued critique of cryptocurrencies, it seems unlikely that would include bitcoin.
Still, the succession was handled with characteristic flair. “Another brilliant example of handling a major situation for Berkshire,” said Macrae Sykes, portfolio manager at GAMCO Investors. He praised Buffett’s decision to keep the news under wraps until the shareholder meeting, allowing him to “address questions and enjoy the engagement with shareholders without the succession overhang.”
Sykes sees Buffett’s continued presence on the board as a stabilizing force: “Shareholders should welcome this transparent transition, but also have confidence that Warren isn’t going anywhere.”
Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk’s full AI Policy.
Samourai Wallet’s Lawyers Say Prosecution Suppressed Critical Evidence, Call for Dismissal
Lawyers for Samourai Wallet have accused the prosecution of suppressing critical evidence in its case against the mixing service’s co-founders, calling for a hearing to determine whether the case should now be tossed out in light of the alleged Brady violation.
In a Monday court filing, lawyers for Samourai Wallet told Judge Richard Berman of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) that in August 2023 — six months before prosecutors charged Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill with one count each of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business — the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) told prosecutors that, under their guidelines, Samourai Wallet didn’t qualify as a money transmitting business and did not need a license to operate.
Prosecutors went ahead and charged Rodriguez and Hill anyway, and did not tell either the court or Samourai Wallet’s lawyers about their communication with FinCEN until April 1, 2025 when responding to the defense’s specific Brady request for “any information suggesting that Samourai Wallet did not require a money transmitter license or that the Defendants did not believe that it required such a license, including but not limited to communications with the Treasury Department or FinCEN,” the defense attorneys wrote.
“The fact that FinCEN took the same position regarding Samourai Wallet and conveyed it to these same prosecutors, and that the prosecutors nonetheless charged the Defendants with committing a crime is shocking,” Samourai Wallet’s lawyers wrote in their filing.
Under the landmark Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland in 1963, the court held that the government must hand over any exculpatory or material evidence — essentially, anything suggesting that the defendant is not, in fact, guilty — to the defense in a timely manner. Brady violations are considered a violation of the defendant’s due process, and are often grounds for a case to be thrown out. Notably, a judge tossed out the involuntary manslaughter case against American actor Alec Baldwin last year after it was revealed mid-way through his trial that prosecutors had failed to turn over exculpatory evidence.
Samourai Wallet’s lawyers told the court that the government’s failure to disclose its pre-indictment consultation with FinCEN has already prejudiced Rodriguez and Hill’s case.
“For instance, the fact that the regulator issuing licenses for money transmitting businesses did not believe Samourai Wallet needed one could well have impacted (i) the Magistrate Judge’s view of the strength of the Government’s case in making bail determinations that have confined Mr. Rodriguez to his home for nearly a year and cut both Defendants off from funds that could be used to mount their defense; and (ii) this Court’s decision not to permit the Defendants to file a motion to dismiss immediately following their arraignments,” the filing said.
Last month, lawyers for Samourai Wallet asked the court to toss out the case under the auspices of the so-called “Blanche Memo” — a recent memo from U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to Department of Justice (DOJ) staff, ordering them to stop prosecuting regulatory violations involving crypto, and to no longer pursue cases against crypto exchanges or mixers for the actions of their end users.
Prosecutors met with the defense to consider the request on April 10 and have still not reached a conclusion nearly a month later. If the DOJ declines to drop charges, lawyers for Samourai Wallet said in their letter to the court that they would file a motion to dismiss the case on several grounds, including that the defendants were not money transmitters, and thus “could not possibly be prosecuted for not having a license and not implementing anti-money laundering controls.”
However, due to the evidence that was allegedly withheld, Samourai Wallet’s lawyers argued that “even if the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law — and not the principal regulator’s — was correct, the Defendants would still be entitled to dismissal for lack of fair notice. Instead, they have spent a year of their lives under indictment and huge portions of their life savings defending themselves against these fundamentally unfair charges.”
The next hearing in the case is slated for July 22, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. ET.
FinCEN did not respond to CoinDesk’s request for comment.
How McLaren’s Dominant Miami Grand Prix Performance Brings The Team Close To $140 Million
McLaren extended their F1 championship lead with a 1-2 finish at the Miami Grand Prix, putting a $140 million prize for the constructors’ title within reach.