The South Bay Law Firm Law Blog highlights developing trends in bankruptcy law and practice. Our aim is to provide general commentary on this evolving practice specialty.

  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
    Comments RSS
    Log in
      Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis Ė Week Ending October 21, 2016
    Auto Draft
    Auto Draft
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis Ė Week Ending October 14, 2016

    Posts Tagged ‘Post-Petition Financing’

    DIP Lending in Transition

    Monday, August 9th, 2010

    As the economy lurches forward into an uncertain back half of 2010, the DIP lending market remains in flux.  In a short piece appearing in the Journal of Corporate Renewal last Wednesday, Imran Choudhury and Frank Merola Рboth of Jeffries & Co., Inc. Рoffer a concise overview of the factors affecting credit availability and expense over the last two years.

    After a sharp contraction in 2008, Choudry and Merola show how DIP funding has increased Рboth in terms of deal size and in terms of new money . . .

    and likewise, how spreads have eased during the same period . . . .

    Their walk-away, in light of this data:

    “The overall state of the DIP financing market has changed over the last couple of years as the broader credit markets have changed. Lower yields due to improvements in the overall credit markets have resulted in lower rates in the DIP loan market as well.

    While it is difficult to say precisely what DIP yields will be over the next year or so, it seems very likely that the worst part of the credit cycle is over and DIP yields are not going to reach the same levels as they did in late 2008 and early 2009. Even though yields on DIP loans are not at their peak levels, the loans will still likely be used for . . . strategic reasons‚ÄĒprotecting existing debt positions or controlling restructuring processes or acquiring assets through credit bids.”

    Enhanced by Zemanta
      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks

    Post-Petition Financing ‚Äď Keepin‚Äô the Deal Under Seal

    Friday, December 19th, 2008

    It is no secret to Chapter 11 practitioners that this bankruptcy cycle differs from the last in a number of respects – not the least of which is the comparative scarcity of DIP financing for operating Chapter 11 debtors seeking to execute a “stand-alone” reorganization.¬† Bob Eisenbach of Cooley Godward’s San Francisco office recently flagged and commented on an October 2008¬†Reuters article¬†addressing this issue and its impact on the economics and feasibility of reorganization.¬† In a nutshell, what DIP financing capacity remains in this market has become much more expensive, making acquisition “bridge financing” more attractive and possibly increasing the trend toward Chapter 11 bankruptcy sales.

    The post-petition lending environment is complicated further by the disclosure requirements of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Local Bankruptcy Rules of many jurisdictions.¬† Rule 4001(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require a debtor to disclose a summary of the essential terms of any proposed use of cash collateral and/or financing.¬† The Bankruptcy Local Rules of many jurisdictions follow suit.¬† In¬†the Central District of California, for example, the¬†Bankruptcy Local Rules¬†require that “Every motion requesting the approval of a stipulation providing for the use of cash collateral (11 U.S.C. ¬ß 363(c)), or postpetition financing (11 U.S.C. ¬ß 364(c)), or both, shall be accompanied by court-approved form F 4001-2, ‚ÄėStatement Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 4001-2′ . . . .”¬† The Statement in question requires the identification and disclosure of specific terms pertinent to such financing arrangements.

    In the present lending landscape, how much additional disclosure, if any,¬†may be required?¬† The Delaware Bankruptcy Court recently reviewed and granted a “first-day” request, by Barclays Bank – DIP¬†lender for The Tribune Company (parent for the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times) and its affiliates – seeking authorization for Barclays to¬†submit the details of its DIP fee structure under seal.¬† Papers filed by counsel for the debtors and Barclays acknowledged the general disclosure requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 4001(c), but argued that “[i]t has become essential to Barclays’ ability to provide [DIP financing], in these times . . . that the highly-sophisticated and proprietary methodology for calculating such fees remain strictly confidential.”¬† Explaining further that “Barclays’ methodology is unique and proprietary intellectual property the disclosure of which would put Barclays at a competitive disadvantage,” Barclays and the debtor requested that fee letters ancillary to the DIP lending arrangements be filed under seal with the Court, and disclosed only to the US Trustee’s Office.¬† For a summary of the transaction from the lender’s perspective, check out the post at Mondaq.

    Finding that such terms satisfied the “confidential commercial information” requirement of Section 107(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court approved¬†this arrangement.

    In addition to higher pricing, it now appears that DIP lenders may have another possible incentive to reenter the DIP lending space.¬† Where courts are disinclined to permit such confidentiality – or where the cash-strapped debtor¬†proves an otherwise attractive acquisition target¬†– will strategic buyers willing to offer “bridge loans” to a debtor in connection with a proposed acquisition have another leg up on increasingly pricey DIP loans?

      Email This Post  Print This Post Comments Trackbacks