Document type: Article Practice area: Finance — Restructuring and Distressed Debt Jurisdiction: United States (New York contract law, Delaware, and federal bankruptcy) Last reviewed: 5 September 2026

What changed

For most of the modern history of leveraged finance, a company that could not pay its debts had two options: negotiate with its creditors, or file for bankruptcy. Both were collective processes. Both treated similarly situated creditors similarly, more or less, because both were supervised — by a court, or by the practical necessity of getting enough creditors to agree.

Liability management is the third option, and it is not collective.

It uses the flexibility that already exists in credit agreements and indentures — investment baskets, restricted payment capacity, the ability to designate unrestricted subsidiaries, majority-lender amendment provisions — to accomplish, contractually and outside any court, what would otherwise require either unanimity or a bankruptcy filing.

And crucially, it does not treat creditors equally. The defining feature of a liability management transaction is that some holders of the same debt do better than others. A group of lenders agrees to provide new money and, in exchange, receives priority over the lenders who were not asked. A company moves its most valuable assets beyond the reach of its existing lenders and borrows against them. A bond issuer offers an exchange that strips covenants from the bonds of holders who decline.

Why this became normal. Three developments converged. Credit agreements and indentures became progressively more permissive during a long period of borrower-favorable markets, accumulating baskets, exceptions, and definitional flexibility that nobody expected to be used aggressively. Debt trading became liquid and concentrated, so that a company could assemble a majority group quickly. And private credit and distressed funds became sophisticated at reading documents for openings, and at organizing to exploit them.

The result is that documentation now matters in a way it did not. A covenant package that would have been unremarkable in 2015 is, in 2026, an invitation.

Structure one: the drop-down

How it works

The company transfers valuable assets — typically intellectual property, but also subsidiaries, real estate, or a business line — to a subsidiary that is outside the credit group, and then borrows against those assets from new lenders who obtain a first lien on them.

The existing lenders' collateral package now excludes the transferred assets. Their claim against the transferee is, at best, structurally subordinated.

The covenant mechanics

Three provisions do the work, and they operate in sequence.

1. The unrestricted subsidiary designation. Credit agreements and indentures permit the borrower to designate subsidiaries as "unrestricted," meaning the covenants do not apply to them, they do not guarantee the debt, and their assets are not collateral. The designation typically requires only that the borrower have capacity under an investment basket equal to the value of the designated subsidiary, and that no default exist.

2. The investment basket. The transfer of assets to the unrestricted subsidiary is an "investment" in that subsidiary, and it must fit within a permitted investment basket. Modern agreements contain many: a general basket sized by dollar amount or by a percentage of EBITDA or assets; a "grower" basket that increases with the business; baskets that build with retained cash flow; and — critically — baskets that can be reallocated among covenant categories.

3. The reallocation and builder mechanics. Sophisticated structuring stacks capacity from several baskets: reclassifying prior usage, drawing on the restricted payment builder basket through the "available amount" provisions, using capacity that reallocates between investments and restricted payments, and applying a general basket that grows with EBITDA. The aggregate available capacity is often far larger than any single basket suggests, and computing it requires working through the definitions rather than reading the headline numbers.

Why it is usually permitted

The uncomfortable answer for existing lenders is that a well-executed drop-down is frequently compliant with the agreement as written. The company did what the document allowed. Lenders who did not read the aggregate basket capacity, or who assumed the flexibility would not be used, have a contract claim that is difficult.

The available theories are:

  • Breach of a specific covenant, where the structuring exceeded actual capacity. This requires a careful and often contested computation, and it is the strongest theory when it exists.
  • Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is difficult under New York law where the agreement expressly permits the conduct. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 716 F. Supp. 1504 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) remains the standard citation for the proposition that sophisticated parties who did not bargain for protection do not obtain it through the implied covenant. Bondholders who suffered from a leveraged buyout the indenture did not prohibit could not use the implied covenant to supply the missing prohibition.
  • Fraudulent transfer, where the assets were transferred without reasonably equivalent value while the company was insolvent or was rendered insolvent. This is a real theory and does not depend on the agreement's terms — but it requires proving insolvency and inadequate consideration, and companies structure to create a colorable exchange.
  • Fiduciary duty claims, generally unavailable to creditors of a solvent company and limited even for an insolvent one, where creditors may pursue derivative claims.

What closes it

Documentation responses have developed quickly:

  • Prohibiting the transfer of material intellectual property to unrestricted subsidiaries, or requiring that any transferee remain a guarantor;
  • "J. Crew blockers" — provisions barring the transfer of specified assets outside the credit group, however structured;
  • Requiring that unrestricted subsidiary designations be measured only against a specified basket, without reallocation;
  • Anti-layering and anti-leakage covenants that look through the form of a transaction to its effect;
  • Requiring lender consent for designations above a threshold;
  • Removing or shrinking the reallocation mechanics so that basket capacity cannot be aggregated.

Structure two: the uptier

How it works

A majority group of lenders agrees with the company to amend the credit agreement so that new debt — provided by that same group — can be incurred with priority over the existing debt, and so that the existing debt's lien priority can be subordinated. The participating lenders then exchange their existing loans for new, higher-priority loans, frequently at par or near par. The non-participating lenders are left holding debt that is now junior.

This is the transaction that generates the most litigation, because it takes value directly from identifiable holders of the same instrument.

The covenant mechanics

The amendment provision. Credit agreements permit amendments by lenders holding a majority of the loans, subject to a list of "sacred rights" requiring the consent of each affected lender. The uptier works if the amendments needed can be made by majority vote.

The sacred rights list — what is typically protected:

  • Reduction of principal or interest
  • Extension of maturity or of a scheduled payment date
  • Reduction of the voting threshold itself
  • Release of all or substantially all of the collateral
  • Release of all or substantially all of the guarantees
  • Changes to the pro rata sharing provisions

And here is the opening. Subordination of liens is often not on the sacred rights list, because it was not contemplated. Neither is the incurrence of new senior debt, which may be permitted by an existing basket or added by majority amendment. And the pro rata sharing protections, while typically sacred, apply to payments — which can be structured around through an open-market purchase exception permitting the borrower or its affiliates to buy loans outside the pro rata mechanics.

The open-market purchase exception has been central. Where a credit agreement permits non-pro-rata purchases of loans in "open market purchases," a company can offer to buy the participating lenders' loans on terms not offered to everyone. Whether a privately negotiated exchange with a pre-arranged group constitutes an "open market purchase" has been litigated with divergent results, and the phrase has since been defined much more carefully in new agreements.

The litigation

Uptier transactions have produced a body of case law that is still developing and not uniform. The recurring holdings and themes:

  • Courts enforce the agreement as written. Where the sacred rights list did not protect lien priority, majority amendments subordinating liens have been upheld.
  • The implied covenant has had mixed success. Some courts have permitted claims to proceed where the transaction defeated the fundamental purpose of pro rata protections; others have applied Metropolitan Life and dismissed.
  • "Open market purchase" is a genuine question of contract interpretation, and at least one appellate decision has read the phrase narrowly, holding that a privately negotiated transaction with a pre-selected group was not an open market purchase. The Fifth Circuit's decision in the Serta Simmons matter, 125 F.4th 555 (5th Cir. 2024), is the most prominent example, and it also addressed the enforceability of indemnities protecting participating lenders through a plan of reorganization.
  • Excluded lenders sometimes win, sometimes do not, and the outcome turns almost entirely on the specific language.

What closes it

  • Adding lien subordination and the incurrence of senior debt to the sacred rights list;
  • Defining "open market purchase" precisely, or eliminating the exception;
  • Requiring pro rata offers for any debt buyback or exchange;
  • Requiring that any amendment adversely affecting a lender differently from others obtain that lender's consent;
  • Prohibiting subordination without unanimous consent;
  • Anti-uptier provisions requiring that any new debt be offered to all lenders pro rata.

Structure three: the exchange offer

How it works

The company offers holders of existing bonds or loans the opportunity to exchange into new debt — typically with a longer maturity, sometimes a lower principal amount, and frequently a higher priority. Participation is voluntary. Non-participants keep their existing instruments, which are often worse off after the exchange.

The mechanism that makes non-participation unattractive is the exit consent: holders who tender are asked to consent to amendments stripping covenants from the old instrument. After the exchange, the remaining bonds have no restrictive covenants, no reporting requirements, and sometimes no guarantees — an instrument nobody wants.

The constraint: sacred rights in indentures

Bond indentures have their own protected terms, and one is statutory. Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp, provides that the right of a holder to receive payment of principal and interest on the due date, and to institute suit for enforcement, shall not be impaired without the holder's consent.

The scope of that protection was the question in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 846 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 2017). A restructuring conducted outside bankruptcy left non-consenting noteholders with a legal right to payment from an issuer that had been stripped of its assets and its guarantee — a practical evisceration accomplished without formally amending the payment terms.

The Second Circuit held that § 316(b) protects only the legal right to payment, not the practical ability to collect. Because the indenture's payment terms were untouched, the statute was not violated, and the holders' remedies lay in contract, not in the Trust Indenture Act. That holding substantially narrowed the statute's reach and validated a family of transactions.

Exit consents and their limits

The classic authority on exit consents is Katz v. Oak Industries Inc., 508 A.2d 873 (Del. Ch. 1986), which upheld an exchange offer conditioned on consents that would remove protective covenants, reasoning that the relationship between an issuer and its bondholders is contractual and that the offer was not coercive in a legally cognizable sense — holders could decline.

Sharon Steel Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 691 F.2d 1039 (2d Cir. 1982) addresses the interpretation of indenture successor provisions and remains the leading authority on reading boilerplate indenture language according to its objective meaning rather than the parties' subjective intent — a principle that runs through all of this litigation. And Broad v. Rockwell International Corp., 642 F.2d 929 (5th Cir. 1981) is the standard citation for the proposition that indenture terms are construed as written and that the trustee's and issuer's obligations are those the document specifies.

The practical position: exit consents are permitted, coercion arguments rarely succeed, and the protection for a bondholder is in the indenture's amendment provisions — which sacred rights require unanimity, and which can be amended by a majority.

The defensive infrastructure: cooperation agreements

The most consequential recent development is not documentary but organizational.

A cooperation agreement is a contract among a group of lenders or bondholders in which they agree not to participate in a liability management transaction unless all of them are included, not to negotiate individually, and to act together. The purpose is to prevent the company from assembling a majority by picking off holders one at a time.

What they typically contain:

  • An agreement not to transact with the company except as a group;
  • Transfer restrictions, so a member cannot sell to a holder who will defect;
  • Information sharing among members;
  • A required percentage of the group for any action;
  • A term, usually months, with extension mechanics;
  • Provisions addressing what happens if a member breaches.

Why they work. A company needs a majority to execute an uptier. If holders of 60% have agreed to act only together, the company cannot assemble a majority without dealing with all of them, and the transaction becomes a negotiation rather than an extraction.

The problems they create. Cooperation agreements raise questions about whether the group has become a "group" for securities law purposes; whether the members have received material non-public information that restricts their trading; whether the agreement itself is enforceable; and whether the members can be picked off through side deals that technically comply. They also raise antitrust questions where the members are competitors in the credit market, though the analysis generally favors the arrangement as a legitimate joint negotiation.

A practical consequence: the market has moved from a period in which companies could execute these transactions almost at will to one in which large credits are frequently subject to a cooperation agreement before any transaction is proposed. That is a genuine shift in bargaining power.

The bankruptcy backdrop

Liability management happens in the shadow of chapter 11, and the participants price their positions against what would happen there. Four features of the bankruptcy alternative shape the negotiation.

Subordination agreements are enforceable in bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) provides that a subordination agreement is enforceable in a bankruptcy case to the same extent as under applicable non-bankruptcy law. This is why intercreditor and uptier arrangements matter so much: the priority created outside bankruptcy survives a filing, and a lender subordinated by a majority amendment stays subordinated in the case.

Cramdown requires fair and equitable treatment. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b) permits confirmation over a dissenting class only if the plan is fair and equitable — which, for a secured class, means the class retains its liens and receives deferred cash payments of a present value equal to its interest in the collateral, or the indubitable equivalent. A lender whose collateral has been moved outside the credit group has a smaller secured claim and correspondingly less leverage.

Post-petition collateral is limited. 11 U.S.C. § 552 cuts off a prepetition security interest as to property acquired after the filing, subject to exceptions for proceeds and products. This matters for structures relying on royalty streams and receivables.

Secured status is determined by value. 11 U.S.C. § 506 bifurcates an undersecured claim into secured and unsecured components. The valuation fight in a chapter 11 case following a liability management transaction is frequently about the value of the assets that were moved.

Two further points. First, transactions executed within the look-back periods can be attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers, and a drop-down that moved assets without reasonably equivalent value while the company was insolvent is a candidate. Second, plan releases and indemnities protecting the participants in a liability management transaction have themselves been litigated, and a plan cannot reliably immunize conduct that a court has found improper.

The practical upshot for negotiation. A company proposing an aggressive transaction is telling its excluded lenders: your alternative is a bankruptcy in which you are worse off. Excluded lenders should test that assertion rather than accept it. Where the transaction is vulnerable to avoidance, or where the capacity computation is questionable, the bankruptcy alternative may be better for them than the company suggests — and saying so credibly is where their leverage comes from.

Double dips, pari plus, and the newer structures

The vocabulary keeps expanding, and each new structure exploits a different provision.

The "double dip." New money is lent to a subsidiary, which on-lends the proceeds to the parent under an intercompany note. The new lender receives both a direct claim against the subsidiary borrower and, by pledge of the intercompany note, an additional claim against the parent — two claims arising from one advance, hence the name. Structures vary; some rely on guarantees rather than intercompany notes.

Why it works. Nothing in a typical covenant package prohibits a subsidiary from lending to its parent, or a lender from taking security over an intercompany receivable. The aggregate recovery for the new lender exceeds its principal in a distressed scenario, at the expense of existing creditors whose recoveries are diluted.

The "pari plus." New money is incurred as pari passu debt under an existing basket, but with structural or contractual features — additional guarantees, a broader collateral package, or priority in a waterfall — that make it better than the nominally equal existing debt.

Non-pro-rata "Dutch auction" repurchases. Many agreements permit the borrower to repurchase loans through a Dutch auction offered to all lenders. Where the auction mechanics permit the company to accept only certain bids, or where the auction is structured to favor a group, it becomes a selective repayment.

Priming through a revolver. Where the revolving facility can be upsized by majority amendment and enjoys priority in the waterfall, expanding it accomplishes an uptier without touching lien priority at all.

The common feature. Each structure locates a provision drafted for an ordinary purpose — intercompany lending, incremental capacity, auction repurchases, revolver flexibility — and uses it for a purpose the drafters did not contemplate. The defensive response is always the same: read for effect rather than for label, and ask what the provision permits in the hands of a hostile counterparty.

A worked example: the Vantwood drop-down

The company. Vantwood Brands owns a portfolio of consumer products with a valuable trademark portfolio. It has $1.4 billion of first lien term loans and $400 million of unsecured notes. EBITDA has fallen from $310 million to $185 million, and the term loan matures in nineteen months.

The problem. Vantwood cannot refinance at par. Its lenders will not extend without a large fee and a rate increase, and its sponsor will not put in new equity without priority.

The opening. Vantwood's credit agreement, negotiated in a permissive market, contains:

  • A general investment basket of the greater of $150 million and 30% of EBITDA;
  • A "builder" basket, available for investments and restricted payments, accreting at 50% of consolidated net income since closing, with an ability to reclassify usage between categories;
  • A ratio-based investment basket available at a total net leverage ratio of 5.0x or lower;
  • An unrestricted subsidiary designation provision requiring only investment capacity and no default;
  • No restriction on transferring intellectual property to unrestricted subsidiaries.

The structuring. Vantwood's counsel computes aggregate capacity: $150 million general, plus $205 million of builder capacity accreted since closing and reclassified from restricted payments, plus reclassification of $70 million of prior usage now available under a different basket. Aggregate available investment capacity: approximately $425 million.

Vantwood transfers its trademark portfolio — appraised at $390 million — to Vantwood IP Holdings LLC, a newly formed subsidiary designated unrestricted. The transfer is an investment of $390 million, within capacity.

Vantwood IP Holdings then licenses the trademarks back to the operating company for a royalty, and borrows $325 million from a private credit fund secured by the trademarks and the royalty stream. $200 million of the proceeds is used to repurchase term loans at 62 cents from lenders willing to sell; the balance funds operations.

The existing lenders' position. Their collateral no longer includes the trademarks. The operating company now pays a royalty to an entity outside the credit group, reducing the cash available to them. Their claim against Vantwood IP Holdings is structurally subordinated to the new lender.

Their claims, assessed.

Covenant breach. The strongest theory, and it depends entirely on the computation. If the builder basket's accretion was overstated — say, because consolidated net income was computed using an adjusted EBITDA figure the definition does not support — capacity was insufficient and the designation was ineffective. This is where the lenders' advisers should spend their money, working through the definitions line by line. It is also why companies obtain a solvency opinion and a capacity certificate before closing.

Implied covenant. Difficult. Under Metropolitan Life, sophisticated lenders who did not bargain for an IP transfer restriction do not obtain one through the implied covenant.

Fraudulent transfer. Viable in principle. The trademarks left the credit group in exchange for equity in an unrestricted subsidiary — which is not obviously reasonably equivalent value from the perspective of the transferring entity's creditors. The analysis turns on valuation and on solvency at the time. Vantwood will point to the license back and the equity interest retained; the lenders will point to the effective loss of collateral.

Fiduciary duty. Unavailable while solvent; limited even if not.

The outcome. The lenders organize, sign a cooperation agreement, and negotiate. Vantwood, facing litigation risk on the capacity computation and needing lender cooperation for the maturity extension it still requires, agrees to a global transaction: the trademarks are contributed back into the credit group, the new lender receives a first lien on them within the group, existing lenders receive a fee, an increased rate, and a tightened covenant package with an IP transfer prohibition, and the maturity is extended.

The lesson. The lenders' leverage came from two sources: a genuine question about the capacity computation, and their organization. Neither would have existed if the computation had been clean and if they had not acted together.

A worked example: the Kessel uptier

The company. Kessel Aerospace has $900 million of first lien term loans held by roughly forty lenders, trading at 71.

The proposal. A group holding 54% agrees with Kessel to: amend the credit agreement to permit $300 million of new super-priority debt; provide that debt themselves; and exchange their existing loans, at 88 cents of new second-out paper, using the agreement's "open market purchase" exception to avoid pro rata sharing.

The remaining 46% are not offered participation and end up holding third-out debt behind $300 million of new money and $475 million of exchanged paper.

The document analysis.

Was lien subordination a sacred right? Kessel's agreement lists as sacred: principal, interest, maturity, the voting threshold, release of all or substantially all collateral, and release of all or substantially all guarantees. Lien subordination is not listed. Under the reasoning applied in several of these cases, a majority amendment can therefore effect it.

Was the new debt permitted? The agreement permits incremental facilities within a ratio test, and the majority amendment expanded the permitted amount. Majority vote sufficed.

Was the exchange an "open market purchase"? This is the live question. The agreement permits the borrower to purchase loans "in open market purchases" on a non-pro-rata basis. Kessel's transaction was a privately negotiated exchange with a pre-selected group of holders — not a purchase on any market. Following the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Serta Simmons, the excluded lenders argue the transaction fell outside the exception, and therefore that the pro rata sharing provisions — which are sacred — were violated.

That argument is the excluded lenders' best one, and it illustrates the general lesson: the sacred rights fight is usually lost, and the pro rata sharing fight is sometimes won, depending on whether the transaction can be squeezed into a non-pro-rata exception.

The practical result. The excluded lenders sue and simultaneously organize. Kessel, needing to refinance a revolver in fourteen months, settles: the excluded lenders are permitted to participate on the same terms, backdated, with a fee. This is the most common resolution, because a company that has executed an uptier still needs its lenders, and litigation risk plus an organized holdout group is expensive.

The company's perspective, taken seriously

The literature on liability management is written mostly from the excluded creditor's point of view, and it can read as though these transactions are simply expropriation. That framing is incomplete, and counsel advising a company needs the other half.

The situation a company is actually in. Leverage taken on in a benign environment has become unsustainable because EBITDA fell. A maturity is approaching. The capital markets are closed to the credit. The existing lenders are a heterogeneous group — some original underwriters, some distressed funds who bought at 60 and want a restructuring, some collateralized loan obligation vehicles that face ratings constraints on holding modified paper. Getting unanimity is impossible, and getting a supermajority requires paying a price that may exceed what the enterprise can bear.

The alternatives. File a chapter 11 case, which costs tens of millions of dollars, disrupts customers and suppliers, triggers change-of-control provisions, and destroys enterprise value in a services or consumer business. Sell assets at distressed prices. Or find a group of lenders willing to provide new money on terms that make new money rational — which, by definition, means priority over the money already at risk.

That last point deserves emphasis. Nobody lends new money into a distressed capital structure on a pari passu basis with existing debt trading at 65. The new money must be senior, or it does not come. The question is not whether some lenders get priority; it is who gets to participate.

Which is why the fairest criticism of these transactions is procedural rather than substantive. A company that offers priority to a majority group and excludes the rest has not merely raised money — it has selected winners among identically situated creditors. A company that offers the same opportunity to everyone, pro rata, has raised the same money without the extraction. The difference costs the company something, because the participating group demands exclusivity as part of its price, but it is the difference between a financing and a taking.

Practical advice for companies and their counsel.

  • Compute capacity conservatively and document it. A capacity certificate supported by a defensible computation is the difference between a transaction that survives and one that produces years of litigation.
  • Obtain a solvency opinion where the structure involves asset transfers.
  • Consider offering participation broadly, even at some cost. The excluded-lender litigation risk, the reputational cost in a market where you will borrow again, and the practical need for lender cooperation on the next maturity all argue for inclusion.
  • Understand that the excluded lenders will organize, and that a cooperation agreement covering 40% of the debt can block your next transaction entirely.
  • Do not rely on aggressive readings of ambiguous provisions. "Open market purchase" is the cautionary example: a phrase nobody defined became the issue on which a transaction turned.
  • Model the litigation. Not the probability of ultimately losing, but the cost and duration of defending, and the effect on the company's ability to refinance while the case is pending.

What a lender should check before buying

Liability management risk is now a credit underwriting question, not merely a documentation question. Before purchasing a leveraged loan or a high yield bond, review:

Investment capacity. Compute aggregate available capacity across all baskets, including builders, growers, ratio baskets, and reclassification mechanics. The headline numbers understate it, usually substantially.

Unrestricted subsidiary provisions. Can they be designated freely? Is there any restriction on what may be transferred to them? Are there blockers for material intellectual property?

Restricted payment and investment interaction. Can capacity be reallocated between the two? Can prior usage be reclassified?

Sacred rights. Is lien subordination listed? The incurrence of senior debt? Any amendment that affects one lender differently?

Pro rata sharing and its exceptions. Is there an open market purchase exception, and how is it defined? Are Dutch auctions permitted, and on what terms?

Guarantee release mechanics. Can guarantees be released by majority vote, and does the "all or substantially all" formulation permit releasing most of them?

Debt and lien baskets. How much senior or pari debt can be incurred without consent?

Anti-layering. Is there any, and does it reach the structures now in use?

Collateral definitions. Are material assets excluded? Is IP included, and is it required to remain?

Amendment thresholds. What percentage constitutes "Required Lenders," and can that be amended by that same percentage?

The organizing question: if this company becomes distressed and hires a liability management adviser, what could it do to me under this document? Underwriters who ask that question price differently.

Where the market is heading

Three trajectories are visible, and counsel should advise clients with each in mind.

Documentation is tightening, unevenly. New credit agreements in the broadly syndicated market now routinely contain unrestricted subsidiary blockers, defined open-market-purchase language, lien subordination on the sacred rights list, and anti-double-dip provisions. But tightening tracks negotiating leverage: in a strong market for borrowers, protections erode again, and there is a large stock of outstanding paper documented under permissive terms that will not be renegotiated until it refinances. The exposure is in the back book.

Organization is becoming standard. Cooperation agreements, once unusual, are now a routine early step for any large distressed credit. This changes the game meaningfully: a company can no longer count on assembling a majority quietly. It also creates a new set of questions — about information barriers, trading restrictions, group formation, and the enforceability of the agreements themselves — that are only beginning to be worked through.

The courts are converging slowly. The case law is genuinely unsettled, decisions have gone both ways on similar facts, and the outcomes turn on specific language rather than on doctrine. That uncertainty is itself a market feature: it gives excluded lenders enough leverage to negotiate and gives companies enough risk to prefer settlement. A fully settled body of law in either direction would produce a very different equilibrium.

A prediction worth hedging. The most likely long-run outcome is not a doctrinal rule prohibiting these transactions, but a documentation equilibrium in which the openings are closed as a matter of course and the transactions become negotiated rather than imposed. That is roughly what happened with poison pills and with covenant packages in earlier cycles: an innovation, a period of exploitation, a defensive response, and eventually a new normal in which the technique survives in a constrained form.

What this means for practice. Read the document you actually have, not the market standard. Compute capacity rather than reading headline numbers. Assume any provision capable of aggressive use will eventually be used aggressively. And on the defensive side, organize early — the leverage in these situations belongs to whoever moves first and holds together.

Quick reference

The three structures. Drop-down: move assets to an unrestricted subsidiary and borrow against them. Uptier: majority amendment permitting new senior debt, provided by the majority, with a non-pro-rata exchange. Exchange offer: voluntary exchange with exit consents stripping covenants from the old paper.

The provisions that enable them. Investment baskets with reallocation and builder mechanics; unrestricted subsidiary designation; the sacred rights list and what it omits; the open market purchase exception; incremental facility capacity; intercompany lending flexibility.

The claims available to excluded creditors. Covenant breach on the capacity computation — the strongest when it exists. Implied covenant — difficult after Metropolitan Life. Fraudulent transfer — real, and independent of the agreement. Contract interpretation of exceptions like "open market purchase" — sometimes decisive.

The statutory backstop for bondholders. Trust Indenture Act § 316(b), which Marblegate confined to the legal right to payment rather than the practical ability to collect.

The defensive move that works best. Organizing. A cooperation agreement covering more than the amendment threshold ends the transaction before it starts.

The underwriting question. If this borrower hires a liability management adviser tomorrow, what does this document let them do to me?

Related documents