Double-Dip Restructuring Transactions
A double-dip restructuring transaction is a financial structure that allows a lender to make a single loan to a borrower group but create two separate claims against the borrower.
What Are Double-Dip Restructuring Transactions?
A double-dip restructuring transaction is a financial structure that allows a lender to make a single loan to a borrower group but create two separate claims against the borrower (improving recovery).
The claims are usually the same value (sometimes the duplicate is slightly less) but arise from different legal structures, such as multiple separate guarantees from other entities.
A double-dip transaction can remarkably impact various internal and external stakeholders, making it a critical area of focus for distressed/high-yield credit investing professionals, restructuring bankers, and lawyers.
We will go through the complexities of double-dips and outline how they operate within restructuring transactions.
- A double-dip restructuring transaction occurs when a debt instrument is backed by multiple layers of guarantees across different entities within a corporate group.
- The complexity arises because the same debt instrument can create multiple claims on the assets of different entities involved in the guarantee structure.
- Multiple separate claims result in superior recoveries for ‘double-dip’ lenders compared to those without; therefore, creating/exploiting a double-dip opportunity is highly lucrative.
- Companies and their advisors must carefully consider the implications of double dips when crafting a restructuring strategy. This might involve restructuring or renegotiating guarantee agreements to clarify the priority of claims and reduce complexity.
Understanding Double-Dips
A double-dip refers to a situation where a single debt instrument can give rise to multiple claims against different entities in a bankruptcy or restructuring scenario.
This financial situation usually occurs when a parent company and its subsidiary each guarantee or issue debt, allowing creditors to claim against both entities.
In a scenario where a parent company issues a bond, and the subsidiary guarantees it, if there is a default, the bondholders have the right to make a claim against the subsidiary as the guarantor. They also retain the right to claim directly against the parent company as the issuer.
Legal and Structural Foundations
The occurrence of double-dips relies on the agreements governing the debt instrument, the corporate structure of the involved organizations, and the nature of the guarantees associated with the debt.
Jurisdictions differ in their treatment of loans and intercompany receivables, so it is important to explicitly outline any formal requirements within the credit documents and loan agreement.
Ultimately, the validity of the arrangement depends on whether guarantees can be enforced and how rigidly the principle of corporate separation is applied.
For instance, where the subsidiary is financially healthy and therefore able to pay its debts, the guarantee of the parent's debt is normally enforceable by law.
Where the subsidiary is insolvent, however, the validity of the guarantee may be attacked, thereby rendering the double-dip structure ineffective.
Similarly, the bankruptcy and restructuring legal framework of a relevant jurisdiction will determine the viability of the multiple-claims strategy and the legal implications of such a strategy.
Note
Double-dip claims are well-entrenched by solid legal precedent and provided within the dynamic environment of the Bankruptcy Code's chapter 11 within the United States. The double-dip claims, however, are not as easily enforced within some jurisdictions with more rigorous laws of insolvency.
Strategic Uses of Double-Dips
Double-dip claims have huge strategic potential, starting with lenders, to secure superior recoveries/returns or minimize the downside.
Secondly, debtors' ability to create double-dips grants greater leverage in negotiations with existing creditors and attracts new lenders even in distressed scenarios.
The most common strategic uses are listed below:
Maximizing Creditor Recoveries
By allowing creditors to assert claims against multiple entities, double-dips can enhance the likelihood of recovering a larger portion of their outstanding claims.
This is particularly valuable when the parent and subsidiary have distinct asset portfolios or when solvency between entities varies considerably.
Preserving Corporate Value
In some cases, a double-dip structure can help preserve the value of the corporate group as a whole by preventing a "rush to the courthouse" by creditors.
A mechanism for coordinated claims can facilitate a more orderly restructuring process, reducing the risk of forced asset sales or overall value deterioration.
Facilitating Negotiations
For claimant creditors, it becomes a distinct benefit if they have more than one claim filed. Their capacity to express and argue against different corporations improves their bargaining power with regard to stakeholder engagements.
Aligning Interests
Complex networks of guarantees, such as cross-guarantees and intercompany guarantees, play a crucial role in aligning the interests of diverse stakeholders within a corporate group.
For example, when a parent company and its subsidiary have different creditors, networked guarantees can foster a shared interest in achieving successful restructuring outcomes.
This is because the guarantees link the creditors of both entities, meaning that they have a vested interest in the overall outcome.
As a result, these complex webs of guarantees can serve as a mechanism for promoting cooperation and coordination among stakeholders, ultimately facilitating mutually beneficial outcomes for all parties involved. However, they can also lead to conflicts if not carefully negotiated and managed.
Risks and Challenges of Double Dips
While possibly profitable, these intricate transactions carry significant legal challenges, creditor disputes, and valuation issues.
Following is a list of the key risks and challenges:
Legal Risks
Legal enforceability is not as simple and straightforward as it seems. Legal challenges can arise depending on the enforceability of the guarantees within the double-dip structure and any objections related to the solvency of the entities involved.
The courts may also invalidate the claims if they are understood to be aggressive or undermine the equitable treatment of creditors.
Valuation Challenges
Valuing claims is inherently complex due to the varied financial profiles of parent and subsidiary companies, often resulting in disputes and delays.
In addition, double-dip claims can be overly complicated in terms of valuing corporate groups, which increases the difficulty of reaching a consensus on restructuring.
Conflicts of Interest
When there is an indication that certain creditors will be preferred over others, this can create conflicts of interest among them in a corporate group.
For example, imagine a situation where the creditors of the main company have various claims against its subsidiary. This could lead to conflicts between the creditors of the main and subsidiary companies, possibly resulting in disagreements over how to distribute value during the restructuring.
Reputational Risks
Maintaining healthy relationships with creditors is critical for companies; however, the use of double-dip strategies can involve reputational risks, especially if stakeholders view them as unfair or overly aggressive.
Companies that use double-dip structures may face criticism from other stakeholders, shareholders, employees, and regulators, who may see the strategy as prioritizing certain creditors over others.
Double Dip Restructuring Transaction Example
The best way to learn about restructuring transactions (and other complex concepts) is by example, so let's look at Lehman Brothers - a textbook case.
The 2008 failure of Lehman Brothers unleashed complex bankruptcy procedures worldwide. This included a high-profile case in which their Netherlands subsidiary (LBT) had around $35 billion of debt.
The complex nature of the debts within this subsidiary then sparked a wave of double-dip claims, particularly as creditors pursued assets from LBT and Lehman's US parent company (LBHI).
LBT was pivotal to Lehman's European business and was used to sell bonds and other debt products in worldwide markets. Subsequently, those proceeds were upstreamed to LBHI, constituting an additional potential basis for a claim.
After Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy, LBT had substantial unsecured debt, most of which was guaranteed by its parent company, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI).
These guarantees led to double-dip claims, as creditors contended that they were entitled to assert claims against LBT and LBHI. Legal precedent was more limited back then, and the stakes involved were substantial, with approximately $35 billion of double-dip debt at LBT.
By then, LBT had already entered Dutch insolvency proceedings, and LBHI was in Chapter 11 in the US.
Note
According to Dutch law, LBT's creditors were entitled to file their claims using the local insolvency procedure. However, due to LBHI’s guarantees, some bondholders filed additional claims against LBHI’s estate in the US.
LBHI debtholders were naturally unhappy with this new double-dip concept. They clamored for substantive consolidation (an effect of which would be to erase the imaginary lines between separate legal entities of the same family) to avoid a double claim.
However, a compromise was reached at the eleventh hour, which provided superior (but not double) recovery to LBT debtholders. This occurred because both sides were uncomfortable allowing a $35 billion ruling to be decided by a single judge.
The Future of Double-Dips
The future remains unpredictable, particularly regarding inorganic double-dips in financial restructuring - where the most innovative activity occurs.
As time progresses and initial trailblazers innovate, liability management exercises are evolving, as evidenced by the development of ‘pari-plus’ double-dips, compared to previous ‘true’ double-dips.
Key headlines and trends are listed below:
Restructuring Transactions
Double-dips are the latest phenomenon in aggressive liability management exercises. As they spread across the Atlantic into Europe, it seems likely they will only become more prominent within distressed credit.
The prevalence of double-dip transactions has significantly increased in recent years, evolving from an obscure legal curiosity to a prominent feature in the restructuring world.
Beyond organic situations such as Lehman Brothers, lenders, and distressed funds are increasingly pursuing ‘inorganic’ double-dips, creating structures that enable them to achieve substantial recoveries in adverse circumstances.
Changes in Legal Frameworks
The legal frameworks of bankruptcy regulations and restructuring change constantly, with courts and legislators responding to new challenges and advancements.
Changes to bankruptcy and restructuring frameworks could weaken the enforceability of double-dip claims, particularly if new regulations aim to address perceived inequities or aggressive creditor practices.
Note
Certain aspects of the UK restructuring process are aligning more closely with the established US Chapter 11 framework, as outlined in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) 2020. However, UK courts have a greater say in whether plans are fair and can prevent any duplication of claims.
Changes to the way companies are financed: The shape of corporate funding is also changing with cross-border lending structures involving non-guarantor foreign affiliates and other entities structured to finesse current debt covenants.
Shifts in Corporate Financing Practices
Corporate funding structures are changing and are becoming more cross-border lending arrangements that include non-guarantor foreign affiliates and other entities to work through the existing debt covenants.
These changes could create new opportunities and challenges for double-dip structures, especially as companies seek to navigate the complexities of global markets and multiple legal jurisdictions.
Conclusion
The new construct of double-dip transactions represents yet another potent implementation in the restructuring toolbox. Compared to a few years ago, the ability to mollify lenders through increased downside protection is a powerful negotiating lever in today's tight credit markets.
Creditors pursuing these claims receive higher payouts and enhanced bargaining power from the outset. However, these transactions carry certain risks, including legal battles, controversies, overvaluations, and potential conflicts of interest.
The industry evolves continually, from organic to inorganic double-dips, from ‘true’ to ‘pari-plus’ transactions, and now potentially even triple-dips (an extension of the same concept) as currently proposed by Spirit Airlines’ bondholders.
Double-Dip FAQs
A double-dip claim is one in which a creditor attempts to collect the same debt from two related entities—usually a parent company and its subsidiary. This is often achievable using intercompany guarantees, which simply means both entities are responsible for the same debt.
It is also a common strategy for creditors to increase their chances of recovering the highest possible amount from a company undergoing restructuring or insolvency.
In complex bankruptcies involving multiple legal entities, creditors can file claims in both the subsidiary's and the parent company's bankruptcy cases when they guarantee the same debt.
High-profile cases like Lehman Brothers and Caesars Entertainment saw creditors using double-dip claims to recover from two separate debtors, raising their recovery potential. Lately, there’s been a rise in ‘manufactured’ double-dips to engineer higher lender recoveries.
More recently, there has been a large uptick in ‘manufactured’ double-dips to boost recoveries for lenders.
Double-dip claims can be risky. Legal challenges, jurisdictional complexities, and court-imposed limits prevent creditors from recovering more than the debt amount. Litigation can delay recoveries, and disputes arise over claim valuations, creditor priorities, and the enforcement of intercompany guarantees.
Creditors structure double-dips to increase their chances of recovering the full value of claims in a bankruptcy or restructuring. This involves financing a subsidiary guaranteed by a parent, then loaning the funds from the subsidiary, creating multiple claims on the same money.
Sophisticated lenders like distressed funds use double-dip structures to protect their downside when lending to distressed companies. A doubled recovery in bankruptcy greatly improves the risk/reward ratio of a hazardous investment.
Free Resources
To continue learning and advancing your career, check out these additional helpful WSO resources:
or Want to Sign up with your social account?