Borrowing base facilities and warehouse financing

This Overview is a guide to the Banking & Finance content within the Trade finance: Borrowing base facilities and warehouse financing subtopic, with links to the appropriate materials.

Structured Trade Finance or Structured Commodity Finance (SCF) is a term used to encompass several different methods of finance for producers and traders of goods and commodities including borrowing base facilities and warehouse financing.

Borrowing base facilities

Borrowing base facilities are working capital credit facilities which are secured in full by current assets (usually trading receivables, inventory (ie goods in storage or in transit), cash and contractual rights) of the borrower and/or other security providers.

Borrowing base facilities are generally provided to trading companies on a revolving basis for the purposes of purchasing, storing, transporting and selling prescribed commodities.

A typical borrowing base facility will have a tenor of one to two years, although it is also common for borrowing base facilities to be extended.

For more information, see Practice Note: Borrowing base facilities—structure, key terms and risks.

Borrowing base facility agreements

The facilities generally made available under a borrowing base facility agreement

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