The order description
1. 5000 words
2. oxford reference
3. this is all information relating to this essay by the same doctor
4.1 Secondary Syndication – Loan Transfer
Introduction
Asset sales on the secondary loan markets, have become a more important part of the financial system over the last two decades. The big rise in activity initially arose as a result of the 1980’s sovereign debt crisis where banks sought to reduce their exposure to certain sovereign debts by selling on some of the loans. Then banks and certain other financial institutions then began through the 1990’s and 2000’s to utilise the secondary market more extensively to maximise the available profits . The market was further developed by the development of securitisation (see Chapter 7), the entry into the market of non banking institutions, funds investing in loan products and the expansion of the leveraged buyout market in the corporate sector. Finally in various parts of the world organisations were set up to facilitate standard form documentation and operational procedures to make it easier to use the market. In the U.K. the Loan Markets Association (LMA) , in the United States the Loan Syndication and Trading Association (LSTA) and in Asia the Asia Pacific Loan Markets Association (APLMA) all helped facilitate market activity in this way.
The increasing use of asset sales by banks in the U.K. was further facilitated by a number of factors. Some banks wished to remove some of the assets from their balance sheet for capital adequacy reasons following the arrival of Basel II , some wished to use re-use funds already loaned by utilising the funds elsewhere for a higher profit margin, some wished to reduce their exposure to a particular market sector or particular client, some wished to quasi syndicate by making the initial loan itself and then sell part of it on, some to trade a loan on and profit from a margin differential and some to get rid of a risky debt or one that was is in default.
In recent years the continued stimulus for the asset sales market has derived from the need for banks to con¬tinue to satisfy their customer’s needs for new credits, whilst staying within externally and internally imposed ratios imposed on the use of capital and the return on assets and equity. Unfortunately, an excessive focus on the short term and greed by many at various levels in the banking system led to the over expansion of the secondary debt market with many banks and other financial institutions holding debt paper acquired on the secondary market originally issued through securitised techniques (see chapter 8) without fully assessing the risks associated with it.
An asset sale it is the process by which a bank disposes of a loan to another bank in a manner which will allow the selling bank to remove the loan from its balance sheet as an asset. Central to achieving this objective is the ability of the selling bank to demonstrate that it has successfully transferred the credit risk of the bor¬rower to the buying bank. Throughout this chapter this simple model will be used as the basis for legal analysis, although it is misleading to assume that this is by any means the only type of activity which properly comes under the broad umbrella of the term ‘asset sales’. Commitments to lend and contingen¬cies, such as the risk under swap contracts or the risk of non reimburse¬ment under letters of credit or bankers’ acceptances, can and are often sold by banks. However, to simply explanation the expression ’seller’ or ’selling bank’ will be used to describe the person dis¬posing of the risk in question, the expression ’buyer’ or ’buying bank’ to describe the person assuming the risk and the expression ’sale’ or ’disposal’ (and cognate expressions) to refer to the method of passing risk whether by novation, financed participation, assignment, or otherwise.
Methods of Sale
What, then, are the legal techniques that may be employed by a bank to achieve the sale of a loan? The following principal techniques are commonly employed under English law. They are dealt with in declining order according to how frequently they are used; namely: novation, funded participation, legal assignment, equitable assignment, non funded participation and trusts.
1. Novation
In the context of the sale of a loan ‘novation’ is the name given to an arrange¬ment whereby the mutual rights and obligations of the selling bank, and the other parties to the underlying loan documentation, are relinquished and discharged in consideration of the establishment of new rights and obli¬gations, on identical terms, between the buying bank and such other par¬ties. In other words, the novation gives rise to an entirely new contract between the original parties to the loan (other than the seller) and the buyer. Currently it seems to be the most commonly used method of debt transfer between banks in the London markets and also in Europe.
It could be argued that novation produces the ideal result from the perspective of both buyer and seller. The seller relieves himself of his obli¬gations to the borrower and this may be particularly important when a bank is selling commitments to lend, which is something it will be unable to achieve by an assignment or the granting of a participation agreement (see below). The buyer, on the other hand, puts itself in the same position as the original lender. It will have a direct contractual relationship with the borrower and will have all the rights and benefits which it would have had if it had been a party to the original facility. As it is a new contract consideration will be required but in the context of international banking this is unlikely to prove a problem as the bank or other institution acquiring the loan will be paying to acquire it.
A major difficulty with a novation, however, is the fact that it can be a cumbersome method of selling a loan asset since it requires the agreement of all the original parties to the loan. Such agreement may be particularly diffi¬cult to obtain in a conventionally structured syndicated loan agreement. As Collins M.R. pointed out: “A debtor cannot relieve himself of his liability to his creditor by assigning the burden of the obligation to somebody else; this can only be brought about by the consent of all three, and involves the release of the original debtor”
There are also problems where the debt is secured as the process of novation will release any security and it will need to be retaken. The procedure for retaking mortgages or charges and re-registering them is straightforward enough and apart from Land Registry fees inexpensive. However, as the charges are to now be taken at a later date prioritisation will be lost if a third party has taken charges over the property in the meantime. For this reason it is common in the context of syndicated lending (see previous chapter) and bond issues (see chapter 7) to hold security on trust to avoid problems of this sort .
Notwithstanding the practical problems which it may pose, novation is the most commonly used means of disposing of assets especially where the asset takes the form of a contingent liability such as that under a backstop loan facility or a revolving credit. This is largely facilitated by the practice of including in the loan document transfer language setting out procedures for the future novation by lenders of their respective rights and obligations under the loan document. A modified example of such language is con¬tained in Clause 24 of the LMA’s Multicurrency Revolving Credit Facility.
“Subject to this clause 24, a lender (the “Existing Lender”) may…transfer by novation any of its rights and obligations to another bank or financial institution or to a trust fund or other entity which is regularly engaged in or established for the purpose of making, purchasing or investing in loans, securities or other financial assets (the New Lender”)"
Various conditions follow:
“(a) The consent of the Company is required for a…transfer by an existing Lender, unless the…transfer is to another Lender or an affiliate of a Lender.
(b) The consent of the Company to a …transfer must not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Company will be deemed to have given its consent five business days after the Existing Lender has requested it unless consent is expressly refused by the Company within that time.
(c) The consent of the Company to a…transfer must not be withheld solely because the…transfer may result in an increase in the Mandatory Cost………
(d) Not included as it deals with assignment
(e) A transfer will only be effective if the procedure set out in Clause 24.5 (Procedure for transfer) is complied with.
(f) If
(i) a Lender …transfers any of its rights or obligations under the Finance Documents or changes its Facility Office; and
(ii) as a result of circumstances existing at the date of the assignment, transfer or change occurs, an Obligor would be obliged to make a payment to the Lender or New Lender acting through its new Facility Office under Clause 13 (Tax gross up and indemnities) or Clause 14 (increased costs),
then the new Lender or Lender acting through its new facility Office is only entitled to receive payment under those Clauses to the same extent as the Existing Lender or Lender acting through its previous Facility Office would have been if the…transfer or change had not occurred.”
The transfer language of this clause simplifies the process of novation by obtaining the agreement in advance of all parties to the loan document to any future novation. In doing so it takes advantage of the prin¬ciple of English law that an offer may be made "to the public at large" which was established in the well-known case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co . Such an offer may be accepted by anyone who satisfies the con¬ditions specified in the offer. Thus the novation itself can be facilitated by the scheduling to the loan document of a short form of transfer certificate. The execution of the certificate by the selling and buying bank and the delivery to the borrower or the agent bank of the executed certificate will complete the novation. The transfer method has, therefore, borrowed the old established principle of English law that an offer may be made to the public at large without it being necessary for the offeror to know the identity of the other party to the contract. This approach has recently been confirmed by the High Court in Argo Fund Ltd v Essar Steel Ltd where it was also suggested obiter by Aikens J that a novation which failed because the transferee did not fall within the category of permitted transferees required by a term in the original loan agreement (banks or other financial institutions in this case) could not take effect as an assignment. The exact outcome in any case will use depend on the precise terms used in the loan agreement.
Loan agreements typically take the approach to novations and assignments that there is a requirement for the consent of the borrower not to be unreason¬ably withheld or delayed, for novations, or assignments or other transfers of rights and/or obli¬gations outside the selling bank’s own group. Where obligations are novated it is invariably the case that the borrower’s consent will be required as the borrower will be taking a credit risk on the transferee. A novation (or for that matter an assignment) may also have disastrous consequences for the buyer if full regard is not had to the position under local law.
Notwithstanding these difficulties there are an increasing number of situ¬ations where novation will be the preferred route. It gives the buyer a beneficial interest in a debt, the new debt arising from the novation. This may be vital where the buyer is seeking to take advantage of an available tax credit in its own jurisdiction. With weaker credits, and certainly where rescheduled or potentially reschedulable debt is involved, the buyer will often wish to have a directly enforceable claim against the borrower. Indeed, the wishes of seller and buyer will usually coincide in such a situation since the seller will want the conse¬quences of, and the responsibility for, handling any default or restructuring which may occur to fall upon the buyer.
The attractiveness of novation to the original lender is that it is effective to transfer all the existing rights and obligations on an identical basis to the buyer of the debt. This makes it ideal to transfer debts where there is an ongoing obligation on the lender to make further payments, as is the case in revolving credit facilities. So where a need arises to transfer the seller’s obligations under a loan facility to the buyer, as with a revolving or back stop facility, then novation provides the only solution. It is normal both in assignments and funded participations to impose an obligation on the assignee or sub participant to fund future payment obligations of the seller. Such undertakings will, however, only normally operate contractually between seller and buyer. If the buyer defaults, the borrower can still insist on the seller per¬forming its contractual obligations to the borrower under the terms of the loan facility. Under a novation the borrower agrees to discharge the legal obligations owed by the seller in consideration of the buyer assuming iden¬tical obligations.
2. Funded participation (sub participation)
The second most popular legal technique used in the off balance sheet disposal of assets is funded participation, often known as sub partici¬pation. The term has now been recognised by the Privy Council in Lloyds TSB Bank PLC v Clarke (Liquidator of Socimer International Bank Ltd) and Chase Manhattan Bank Luxembourg SA . It is normally used to describe a funding arrangement between the seller and the participant under which the participant places funds with the original lender on terms that those funds will only be repaid to the participant together with interest thereon as and when corresponding amounts of principal and interest are received from the borrower under the loan to which the participation relates . The participation is thus non recourse to the selling bank in the sense that the seller is not liable to make payments to the participant if corresponding amounts are not received from the borrower. The participant has no proprietary rights in the facility and is an unsecured creditor for the funds should the seller become insolvent . The legal validity of the arrangement is based on the fact that loans repayable on a contingency are recognised by the common law .
Figure 1: Participation by an incoming bank for a bank in a syndicated loan
Bank 1 £ £
Bank 2 Agent bank Borrower
Bank 3
Bank 4 no privity of
£ = Bank 4’s share of loan contract
Participant bank
£ = loan
The important distinction between a participation and an assignment (see below) or a novation is that the participation is an entirely separate contractual arrange¬ment from the underlying loan agreement and there is, accordingly, no con¬tractual nexus between the participant and the borrower. In basic legal terms this means that the participant will not be able to sue the borrower in the event of default by the borrower in performing its obligations under the loan agreement. It will have to rely on the original lender to take recovery action, although as we will see later in this chapter, it may be able to exer¬cise some influence over the actions taken by the lender following a default.
From this legal distinction between participations, novations and assignments flows an equally significant commercial distinction. The party taking a loan participation acquires a double credit risk; that of the bor¬rower and of the original lender. If the original lender goes into liquidation, the participant will find that monies subsequently recovered from the bor¬rower will not be applied in satisfying the original lender’s liabilities under the participation, but rather towards the liabilities of the original lender owed to its general body of creditors. The participant will thus be an unsecured creditor.
The popularity of the loan participation will, double credit risks notwith¬standing, appear less surprising due to the impact of non U. K. legal aspects of asset sales, in addition to any contractual restrictions in loan documentation which can impede the disposal of loan assets. This is much less common than was the case in the past as market participants are realistic about the possible future need of a lender to sell the loan.
Mention has already been made of the attraction and popularity of funded participation as a method of disposing of assets. This derives essentially from the legal nature of the funded participation, which establishes a distinct and separate legal relationship between seller and buyer. Accordingly, parti¬cipation does not involve a transfer of the beneficial ownership in the under¬lying loan debt or indeed any of the rights of the seller in respect of the underlying loan facility.
For these reasons it is unusual to find in a loan document any express attempt to restrict the granting of such participations. Further and equally importantly, it is rare for the law of the borrower or any guarantor, where they are non U.K. entities, to seek to impose conditions on or otherwise seek to regulate the granting of a funded participation. Nor will a participation normally attract adverse tax consequences in the borrower’s or the guarantor’s juris¬diction.
A buyer which is interested in establishing a banker-customer relation¬ship with the borrower may refuse to accept a funded participation as it pre¬vents him from having a contractual nexus with the borrower. Indeed, it is often the desire to maintain a legal and contractual relationship with the borrower which drives sellers towards the use of this arrangement as a sale instrument. For example they may wish to appear to the borrower to be the lender to maintain a successful ongoing relationship. Where relationship factors are less relevant a seller may defer to the buyer’s wishes for a novation or an assignment.
There is an additional form of participation called risk participation which is non funded and used much less frequently. It is discussed at 5 below.
3. Legal Assignment
The starting point for a consideration of this is section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which states in sub-section (1) that:-
"Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice:—
(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action;
(b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and
(c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the con¬currence of the assignor …"
Therefore, in essence, a legal assignment consists of a written agreement, signed by the assignor transferring the debt involved, with notice of the fact having been given to the debtor. If all these elements cannot be satisfied a legal assignment cannot validly take place. This will usually tend to occur in practice because only part of the debt is to be assigned to the buyer or because the assignment is not perfected by notice being given to the obligor or, occasionally, because the assignment is not in writing. However, as can be seen below an equitable assignment may still be a possibility to resolve such problems.
A legal assignment is operative to give the assignee the full legal and beneficial interest in the debt with the result that the assignee will be able to sue the borrower directly without any need to rely upon the assignor to assist in the enforcement of the debt. However, unless the other parties to the loan contract agree otherwise, an assignment will only operate to transfer rights and ben¬efits, it will not operate to transfer obligations . The selling bank will, accordingly, remain obliged even after the assignment to perform any obligations owed to the borrower which remain to be performed. These obligations may be significant with, say, a revolving loan or even with a fully drawn term loan where, say, a multicurrency option exists which may require top up payments on interest payment dates or, sometimes, the repayment and re-advance of the loan where currencies are switched.
It is important when drafting an assignment agreement to deal with the question of set off as otherwise the debt held by the assignee may be reduced by set offs applying to it. This is especially an issue where the assignor is the main banker to the debtor and operates a number of accounts on their behalf and is maintaining them, apart fro the debt being assigned. Such set offs may arise as a result of the contractual relationship between the assignor and the borrower or they may arise at equity. Alternately, where the debt relates to a contract for the sale of goods, services, land or another debt there remains the potential for a cross claim arising from the contractual relationship between the debtor and the other party to that contract. This could result in a set off reducing the size of the debt in the hands of the assignee. The contractual approach adopted it to require the debtor to contract to confirm that:
– the contract being assigned has no contractual rights of set off;
– no rights of set off exist at the time of assignment; and
– no rights of set off have been asserted at the time of assignment.
However, this is not fool proof under English law and in some jurisdictions may be of limited effect.
Another problem is that if assignment is debarred by the original loan agreement, or more commonly only permissible at the borrower’s consent, and this is not forthcoming, the assignment will not be valid against the debtor .
It is a basic principle of assignment that it takes place subject to equities and, amongst other things, this means that the debtor whose obligation has been assigned should not then be in a worse position than if there had been no assignment . Thus the assignee is not in a position to recover a greater amount from the debtor a greater amount than the assignor could have done had no assignment been created .
4. Equitable assignment
In simple terms, a legal assignment is an assignment which satisfies the conditions in section 136 LPA 1925, an equitable assignment is one which does not. Effectively the old Court of Chancery would perfect non complete assignments, where possible, by recognising them in equity. This sometimes happened because the debtor’s whereabouts were unknown at the time the lender sold the debt to a third party and thus the debtor could not be notified .
It is this issue of giving notice to the debtor which today is more significant than technical distinctions between legal and equitable assignments. This is because:
(a) until notice is given the borrower may continue to discharge the debt by making payments to the assignor with all the practical problems of tracing which this may present on liquidation of the assignor;
(b) priorities as between competing equitable assignees may turn on the order in which notice has been given. Essentially this is the position but the rule in Dearle v Hall sates that although interests normally rank in the order of their creation, where there is more than one equitable assignee who have taken without notice of a previous equitable assignment, priority arises in the order in which they give notice to the debtor; and
(c) notice prevents the debtor from setting up any new rights of set off, counterclaim or equities which it may have against the assignor.
In broad terms it may be said that, provided notice of assignment is given to the underlying obligor, the differences between a legal and an equitable assignment are more apparent than real as far as English law is concerned. An equitable assignment gives the assignee the powers of a beneficial owner. He will not have unfettered powers of legal action, but in practice all that means is that he must join the assignor as party to the action. If the assignor will not co-operate they can be joined to the action by being made a co-defendant.
It has been suggested that a significant defect of the notified equitable assignment as compared to a legal assignment is that a bona fide legal pur¬chaser of the debt without notice of the prior equitable interest may rank ahead of the equitable assignment in terms of priority. However, it seems that the bona fide purchaser is displaced by section 136 LPA 1925, which subjects legal assignment to "equities having priority over the right of the assignee”. Of course, the granting of a legal assignment after an equitable assignment has previously been granted by the selling bank assumes fraud on the part of the selling bank. The risk of such a fraud is normally discounted by buying banks in the asset sales market.
The question of notice is an issue that will often be more in the interests of the assignee, and therefore it is often the assignee who will give notice of the assignment to the debtor, and the agent bank in a syndicated credit. It is surprising that the right to give or the responsibility for giving notice is not expressly given to or imposed by English law on the assignor or assignee. It would appear that either can give notice and that notice need not be given formally or in writing, unless section 136 applies, in which case it must be in writing. Indeed it is sufficient that the debtor is aware of the assignment although his awareness may be derived from sources other than the assignor or the assignee.
What is more significant is whether notice has been given to the debtor. Until this has been done:
– the debtor might keep on paying the original lender with obvious problems resulting;
– if there is more than one party to whom the debt has been equitably assigned, the order in which they were notified could well determine their order of priority in the event of a dispute or the insolvency of the debtor;
– once notice has been given, the debtor cannot set up any new rights of set off, counterclaim; and
– there may be other equitable rights which he may have against the assignor.
5. Risk participation (Non funded participation)
Where the underlying risk which the bank is seeking to lay off takes the form of a non funded asset then the document used to dispose of the risk is sometimes described as a risk participation. This type of instrument would commonly be used where the bank has a contingent liability, such as under a guarantee, or where it is contemplated that its legal liability will effectively be funded by its customer, as with liabilities under letters of credit or accepted bills of exchange. Under the risk participation the parti¬cipant receives a fee for compensating the bank in the event of default in the performance by the bank’s customer of its obligations. As such, the risk participation might well be viewed under English law as a contract of insur¬ance.
Figure 2: Risk participation by a participant bank for a bank guaranteeing part of a syndicated loan
Bank 1 £ £
Bank 2 Agent bank Borrower
Bank 3
guarantee
Bank 4 £ = loan
Risk Participation = Bank 4’s guarantee
Participant bank
fee
These arrangements have similar characteristics to the more commonly used credit default swaps which are discussed in Chapter 9.
6. Trusts
These arrangements have not normally been used in this context, but the case of Don King Production Inc v Warren (No 1) does at least raise the possibility. It concerned a partnership formed between two leading boxing promoters, Don King from the United States and Frank Warren from Britain. Both agreed to pool their promotion agreements into a partnership. Some of these agreements contained a clause prohibiting assignment by the promoter. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the fact that a trust was used as the vehicle for transferring the promotion contracts rendered the contractual debarring of assignment irrelevant. This is potentially interesting as the standard LMA multicurrency revolving credit agreement contains a clause stating that the lender(s) cannot assign or otherwise transfer the loan without the debtor’s consent.
It has been argued by some commentators that this case sets a precedent to the effect that :a trust will provide a useful technique for alienating ‘unassignable’ choses in action.”. However, it seems likely that the arrangement has limited potential as some commentators have already suggested . Attempts to utilise trust arrangements would face some degree of uncertainty due to the equitable obligations which would apply. There is no evidence that in the years since the Don King case the markets have tried to adopt this approach as a regular method of debt transfer though it has seen some use in the distressed debt market. It is not surprising that it is not more popular; a bank rendering itself a trustee to pass a share in a syndicated loan to another bank would be subject to the very strict rules applying to trustees and may become a fiduciary in relation to the debt concerned. This is an unappealing arrangement from their point of view and thus the trust is not likely to be used as a method of debt transfer . In addition, where there is a prohibition against assignment, a trust could not be used as a vehicle to enable the beneficiary to sue the original debtor so as to enforce the borrower’s obligations under the original contract .
Development of the market
By way of conclusion we will briefly turn our attention to some current developments in the asset sales market and identify the legal and regulatory issues surrounding these developments.
Secondary market
The introduction of concepts of transferability into loan documentation was principally designed to encourage the completion of the process of securitisation for loan assets by simplifying secondary market trading of the loan. This was achieved by the same method which enabled the initial sale of the loan. The first, and indeed any subsequent, buyer of the loan was issued with a transfer certificate or transferable loan certificate which facilitated subsequent novations of the loan.
In some cases this method of sale will not be attractive or desirable. Novation of the loan will involve the co-operation of the borrower both in accepting the principle of transferability in the original loan documentation and, often, in approving individual transfers. Furthermore, novation may have unfortunate legal consequences because it involves the creation of a new contract:
– priori¬ties may be lost;
– exchange control consents may have to be renewed in cases where they are relevant. This may be an issue with loans involving borrowers in developing states or a party acquiring the debt being located in such a state; and
– problems could arise with withholding taxes where a party acquiring the debt is not a U.K. bank or from a state covered by a suitable double taxation treaty.
In other words the insertion of a transfer mechanism simplifies the process of transfer but does not avoid those disadvantages which a novation has compared with, say a funded participation. That said however, novation remains a common method of debt transfer, perhaps in part because the last two of these disadvantages are no longer a common issue.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that some institutions have seen an alternative or additional path to securitisation in the transferable participa¬tion. Making a participation transferable simply involves applying to a participation the same techniques as are applied to a loan to make it transfer¬able. Similarly, subsequent sales can be facilitated by delivering to each new buyer a form of transfer certificate which can be used for any resale. The original lender has thus securitised the loan without the need for any involvement or, indeed, knowledge on the part of the borrower. From a regulatory and securities perspective the transferable participation should not be treated any differently from a transfer certificate or a transferable loan certificate. The tax treatment of the transferable participation is similarly straightforward. Stamp duty will not attach to transfers as they operate by way of novation. No withholding tax will arise in the U.K. merely because of a change in participant. Although the selling bank will have assisted secondary market trading of the underlying loan it will be at a cost, namely, that the seller remains lender of record and will continue to have a contractual relationship with the parti¬cipant originally holding the participation. A subsequent sale does not allow him to drop out of the picture.
The transferable participation will still be a useful tool for any seller or buyer even in the absence of a genuine secondary market in assets. The pur¬chase of assets for re-sale, the trading of sovereign debt in the debt swap market and the booking of assets sold or bought to satisfy short term needs and requirements or under evergreen or renewable facilities are all examples of transactions where the element of transferability will greatly assist the subsequent management of the asset sold. Another area where its use may be invaluable is in the area of pooling which is considered in Chapter 7.
Corporate investors
Traditionally, the asset sales market has been a bank to bank market. The increasing sophistication of corporate investors and the attraction of the relative size of yields on loan assets as compared to those available to such investors in the bond or commercial paper market at certain points in the economic cycle has led to the corporate sector becoming involved.
The prudent seller will have to proceed cautiously when considering an advance into such a market. There may be regulatory issues for banks transferring debts to a corporate as most corporate institutions will be categorised as “intermediates” by the Financial Services Authority, rather than “market counterparties” as would be the case if they were a bank. The significance of this is that parts of the relevant regulatory rules relating to the conduct of business will apply. These potentially lead to the provision of some information to the corporate investors as well as restrictions on the type of investors who par¬ticipate in such markets. Similarly, the type of borrower who will have access to such markets will often be limited in terms of the borrower’s credit rating.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]