Intercreditor issues on debt restructurings

Intercreditor issues on debt restructurings—overview

This overview is a guide to the Banking & Finance content within the Intercreditor issues on debt restructurings subtopic, with links to the appropriate materials.

Purpose of Intercreditor arrangements on finance transactions

Commercial finance transactions, such as leveraged finance, real estate and project finance transactions are often funded from a number of different sources. Common sources of funding are:

  1. equity (this will typically comprise equity in the form of share capital and quasi-equity in the form of subordinated debt instruments such as loan notes)

  2. senior debt

  3. mezzanine debt (or another form of junior debt)

  4. high yield bonds

Where multiple sources of debt are used, there will be a number of different types of creditor and each of these will want to protect its own interests. The principal purpose of the intercreditor agreement is to contractually regulate the relationship between the different types of creditors.

Intercreditor agreements deal with a number of issues including:

  1. the order in which the debt claims of each class of creditor will rank (ie subordination of debt), and

  2. the order

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