“Lender-on-lender violence” refers to various types of transactions through which a company, often in critical need of additional funding, gives an advantage to a subset of existing lenders at the expense of other existing lenders. Lender-on-lender violence has been noted more in recent news, with priming and uptier measures being attacked by the non-participating lenders that had been left out of such transactions, in cases such as Serta Simmons, Boardriders, Trimark, and TPC Group. Lender-on-lender violence transactions, which used to happen mostly in in-court restructuring processes, have been increasingly used in out-of-court restructurings in recent years including during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During prior periods when capital for businesses was cheaper and there was more competition for deal opportunities, some debtors and lenders/investors entered into credit agreements, indentures, and/or other transactions with looser covenants, which, among other things, might permit substantial debt modifications in some participating lenders’/investors’ favor. As many corporate borrowers hit harder times during the pandemic, some lenders and investors required borrowers to undertake, or took part in, “priming” or “uptier” measures (“lender-on-lender violence”), to attempt to elevate their priority and improve their collateral position vis-à-vis the other, non-participating lenders and investors.
Commonly used structures of a “lender-on-lender violence” transaction include priming, uptiering, and financing through an unrestricted subsidiary or affiliate.
While the specific mechanics of the lender-on-lender violence transaction may differ, the common thread is that, after the transaction, a group of lenders that believed to have first priority position over certain collateral is subordinated to other lenders with respect to that collateral. Importantly, in a distressed situation, the lack of clarity in a credit document may incentivize lenders to form a majority and strike a deal with the borrower to protect themselves at the expense of other lenders.
Some recent, favorable case law treatment of uptier measures (favorable to the lenders using the uptier measure) may incentivize some lenders and investors:
One the one hand, many lenders/investors would prefer more specific, clearer documentation to minimize transactional and litigation costs and uncertainties. On the other hand, conceivably some lenders/investors may prefer more generalized language to potentially allow for more flexibility to deal with the circumstances as they develop.
An important recent case is Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC, et al. v. AG Centre Street Partnership L.P., et al., Adv. Proc. No 23-09001 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. April 6, 2023). In 2020, Serta Simmons Bedding implemented transactions resulting in some of Serta’s existing lenders (the “uptier lenders”) (including Invesco Ltd. and Eaton Vance Corp.) providing new priming loans and exchanging some of their existing loans for new priority debt (the “uptier transaction”). When the excluded lenders who were not invited to participate found themselves being subordinated by the uptier transaction (below $1.1 billion in new debt), litigation ensued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and New York state court for several years before Serta and its affiliates filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an April 2023 ruling, Bankruptcy Judge David Jones, overseeing the chapter 11 cases, found that the debtor had complied with its existing credit agreement when the debtor had taken out a rescue loan in 2020 from a majority of its senior lenders while excluding others from participating. Judge Jones ruled that the credit agreement unambiguously allowed the 2020 deal as an open-market repurchase of the senior debt held by Invesco, Eaton Vance, and the other participants.
Various arguments and counterarguments were raised in Serta, including, for instance:
There are other recent cases like Serta Simmons that are generally favorable for approving and enforcing priming and uptier transactions:
As more lender-on-lender violence transactions are negotiated and implemented and more such transactions are contested by aggrieved lenders in and out of court, various interesting issues come to the forefront including the following:
It will be interesting to see how such issues develop in the courts and in out-of-court matters, and how the negotiation, documentation and enforcement of transactions is affected.
We think you’ll also like:
[Editors’ Note: To learn more about this and related topics, you may want to attend the following on-demand webinars (which you can watch at your leisure, and each includes a comprehensive customer PowerPoint about the topic):
©2023. DailyDACTM, LLC d/b/a/ Financial PoiseTM. This article is subject to the disclaimers found here.
Laura Davis Jones is a named and managing partner of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, a national law firm specializing in restructurings. Laura began her career as a law clerk in the Bankruptcy Court (D. Del.), and has been very active representing debtors, creditors’ committees, noteholder groups, purchasers, and other substantial parties in national…
Jonathan Kim is an attorney at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. He has represented both debtors and creditors on a wide range of issues in chapter 11 cases, bankruptcy litigation, and federal court appeals, with substantial experience in plan, corporate/transactional, and litigation matters. He is a graduate of Duke University and received his J.D.…
90-Second Lesson: Can a Borrower File for Bankruptcy to Stop Foreclosure?
You Sued and Won. Now What? How to Enforce a Judgment in Illinois and Turn It Into Cash
What Constitutes the “Legal Rate” in a Solvent Debtor Bankruptcy Case?
Dealing with Corporate Distress 06: Four Basic Chapter 11 Concepts to Know Before We Go any Further
Dealing With Distress for Fun & Profit – Installment #17 – Overview of DIP Financing and Cash Collateral Motions
Dealing With Distress For Fun & Profit – Installment #4 – The Lifecycle of a Distressed Company
Session expired
Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.