RE: Not missed much10 Apr 2025 15:31
Sham, this is what Chat GPT says in regards to unsecured lenders vs secured in situations of refinancing after historical covenants breaches:
"In general, if you're the company, you'd prefer your lenders to be unsecured in a scenario like this. Here's why:
🔓 Unsecured lenders:
Have less direct power to seize assets or force quick action (e.g. administration or debt-for-equity swaps).
Tend to have weaker negotiating leverage in a distressed situation.
May be more incentivized to work with the company on waivers, refinancing or covenant amendments, rather than force default or drastic changes.
Court-driven restructuring or liquidation is usually their only fallback — something they typically want to avoid due to lower recovery rates.
🔐 Secured lenders, on the other hand:
Have more control — they can often step in quickly to enforce security rights (e.g. take over or sell key assets).
Can push for faster recapitalisation, restructurings, or asset sales.
If there's default (like a covenant breach), they might demand board changes, asset disposals, or dilutive equity raises, knowing they hold the collateral.
More aggressive in protecting their downside, especially in industries with hard assets (like infrastructure or energy)."