Conditions precedent to lending

This overview is a guide to the Banking & Finance content within the Conditions precedent to lending subtopic, with links to appropriate materials.

Use of conditions precedent

In financing transactions, conditions precedent (known as CPs) are specific documentary and factual or circumstantial conditions that need to be fulfilled for funding to occur. They are not conditions to the facility agreement coming into effect. They are conditions to lending.

Conditions precedent are of crucial importance prior to:

  1. first drawdown under the facility, and

  2. subsequent drawdowns throughout the life of the facility

Conditions precedent are typically listed in a schedule to the facility agreement and provide the lender with a mechanism to ensure that certain documentary matters are dealt with and certain factual circumstances exist before funds are made available to the borrower.

For more information on the purpose of conditions precedent in a financing transaction and the types of conditions precedent that are commonly required by lenders, see Practice Note: Conditions precedent.

For further information on how conditions precedent fit within a transaction and on lending generally, see our Loan transaction toolkit,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Banking & Finance News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Banking & Finance by content type :

Popular documents