Aston Martin started a legal fight with its very own bondholders
Aston Martin recently borrowed £550 million from a private credit firm owned by BlackRock, pledging a lot of valuable assets in order to borrow this amount.
Car manufacturer, Aston Martin, has triggered a legal fight with its very own bondholders (the people who basically lent Aston Martin money) following a controversial deal the company struck. Aston Martin recently borrowed £550 million from a private credit firm owned by BlackRock, pledging a lot of valuable assets in order to borrow this amount.
The issue with having pledged these assets in a new financing deal is that it means the bondholders that had lent Aston Martin money beforehand (to a value of £1.3 billion) are now unable to rely on those very assets to recover the money that they lent. These bondholders have recently filed for something called discovery, which is a legal process that forces Aston Martin to disclose documents and information to do with the new financing deal.
Analysis
This is a case of creditor-on-creditor violence, where a struggling company like Aston Martin is preferring one type of lender over another by moving valuable assets within reach of only particular lenders. Private credit funds like those managed by BlackRock regularly do this, where they strike aggressive financing deals that shift power in their favour.
What does this mean for the sector?
- Bondholders in the future will probably begin demanding stricter contractual protections to stop companies from moving valuable assets out of their reach like this
- Private credit firms are likely to come under some reputational pressure for being overly aggressive, even if what they are doing is legally permissible
- The litigation that arises from this situation will likely set an important precedent in English law as to how asset transfers that disadvantage certain lenders will be treated
How to use this in applications
Application
Restructuring and insolvency teams at law firms will be advising the bondholder groups on their options here, both in the discovery process of finding out information, and then in the subsequent litigation process where the bondholders will likely be asking for the asset transfer to be undone.
Banking and finance teams would have helped in the new financing deal itself, including the security/pledge package involving Astin Martin’s valuable assets (mainly trademarks in this instance).
Litigation teams at law firms would be dealing with the actual litigation itself once this arises, likely arguing on the basis of unfair preference for one type of lender over the other. Or on the basis that the terms of the original bondholder agreements had been breached somehow through this asset transfer.
We explain how this story can be discussed in written applications and interviews. Register now for free to unlock the full article.
Register now to unlock the full free article
