Unlock the Editor’s Digest at no cost
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favorite tales on this weekly e-newsletter.
Hertz has apparently adopted a brand new technique for managing its debt: The rigged bondholder vote.
How does an organization rig a vote on a debt contract? Effectively, Hertz needed to vary the contract on $750mn of bonds, and wanted approval from house owners of not less than 60 per cent of that debt. It was additionally allowed to promote as much as $500mn of extra bonds below that contract, elevating the full quantity of the debt to $1.25bn. It did so, in a sale that closed Thursday.
The trick is that all the newly issued bonds have been routinely categorised as “sure” votes. So the company announced today that it has reached the 60-per-cent threshold to vary its bond contract.
Sure, actually! See this line in a SEC filing in regards to the providing, flagged by Covenant Overview earlier this week:
Purchasers of the Further First Lien Notes within the Providing shall be deemed to have consented to the Proposed Amendments to the indenture governing the First Lien Notes.
This vote rigging technique, as Covenant Overview calls it, isn’t new. A handful of firms have pursued it already — Revlon had a go at it, amongst its different debt dramas, and Bombardier settled with bondholders over this tactic earlier this yr.
Not like Bombardier, Hertz’s vote rigging doesn’t appear associated to any varieties of asset-stripping kind of transactions. (No less than not but.)
It as an alternative seems to be a manoeuvre to get room to tackle much more debt, in line with Covenant Overview, which says it isn’t conscious of one other firm that has made the sort of transfer for borrowing capability.
Hertz does have some uncertainty round timing of a few of its money wants, associated to separate litigation that has dominated that it’s on the hook for a $270mn fee to bondholders. Analysts at CreditSights write that whereas the corporate reviews it has reserved a fee, the courtroom debate has centred on whether or not the corporate might want to put aside collateral for the bondholders whereas it appeals that call to the Supreme Court docket. From CreditSights (a sister publication to CR):
We view Hertz’s actions — together with its try to hunt SCOTUS assessment, which we consider is unlikely to succeed — as an try to delay funds to bondholders, highlighting its present liquidity pressures.
Covenant Overview says that Hertz’s vote-rigging transfer could possibly be challenged as nicely. There’s an argument that the debt limits being modified qualify as “sacred rights” that will require approval of 100 per cent of bondholders.
One other fascinating a part of the proposed modification to the debt (additionally flagged by Covenant Overview):
The opposite Proposed Modification. . . is so as to add a proviso stating that no additional add-on notes could also be issued below the Indenture with out the consent of Canso Funding Counsel Ltd. for as long as Canso holds any of the notes.
This requires Canso’s approval for any new debt below this specific contract (it doesn’t stop extra borrowing in any respect, after all), writes CR’s Ross Hallock. He continues:
. . . Canso is similar fund that got here in as a white knight to purchase up add-on notes issued by Bombardier in its efforts to fend off bondholder litigation associated to an alleged breach of a sale of considerably all property covenant . . . So, the vote rigging tactic is one thing that Canso could be very aware of. One wonders if vote rigging for the Firm had been deliberate all alongside, and whether or not Canso is starting a brand new kind of funding with vote rigging as a part of its thesis.
Anybody who has ideas about Canso’s finish sport ought to be happy to electronic mail them in.
