Credit Agreement Sacred Rights

Interest or missed repayments may also be less obvious. It is not uncommon for priority lenders to allow stressed borrowers to pay interest in kind (i.e. in-kind benefits [PIK]) for a specified period of time. Under this agreement, lenders allow interest on the current credit balance to be increased and not to be paid in cash. Technically, there is no missed interest payment, whereas the borrower did not have funds for payment. In this podcast, we focus on one of the topics that investors are interested in in debt, which are or could be in trouble. What we are going to focus on today is what we call "proportional sharing" in loan contracts. All of these loan documentation provisions interact in complex ways, particularly with respect to baskets. Private lenders should monitor declining debt (and shift work capacity), investment capacity, available quantitative capacity and other uses of the basket, especially when a business begins to under-rate. Alyson Gal: That`s a good point.

Another thing to keep in mind is that sometimes - probably because these provisions are not very much attention in the development - proportional allocation rules for payments made under the loan contract might apply, but they could not explicitly apply to payments made under the Cascade collateral and guarantee contract. Or protection against any change in the proportional allocation provisions without 100% agreement could prevent any change in the provisions relating to proportional allocation in loan contracts, but no modification of the cascade within the framework of guarantees and guarantees. For leveraged fund providers who exercise creditor rights against priority debt funds, some providers may simply not wish to continue their relationship with certain priority debt funds. This is often the case between businesses and lenders and is called lender fatigue. A tired leverage provider may want to end its relationship with a priority debt fund, and that fund will have little choice but to find another lender. Like a company that changes accountants, PNs should investigate the causes of modifying a leveraged fund provider. This is more the case for the smallest priority obligations. So what can individual lenders do to protect themselves? Certainly, for every transaction in which a lender is not the only "necessary lender," or at least have a right to vote, if, to include "necessary lenders"2, the discussion at the level of the credit committee should focus on whether, in addition to the default restrictions on the proportional allocation of amendments, it should be required that the section of the amendment include a provision prohibiting any subordination of claims or pledges granted to lenders without the consent of any lender, or a super-majority (66 2/3 per cent) of lenders. In the case of larger syndicated transactions, the addition of a new "sacred" right and a 100 per cent threshold can be a difficult sale with principal arrangers and borrowers, and the less restrictive but protective standard for lenders by a very large majority could be all that a lender can achieve. In the case of smaller club transactions, where lenders are more likely to have an existing relationship, and in the case of a common focus on remedial measures, the 100% lender standard may be more accessible for bond subordination. The amending provisions should also be revised to confirm that prohibitions on changes to the proportional allocation provisions include all measures that result, directly or indirectly, in a change in proportional distribution (including by authorizing an initial debt within or outside the existing credit contract).

Comments are closed.