MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
To: Claudia Merritt, Responsible Partner, Banking & Finance
From: Marcus Leung, Lead Associate, Banking & Finance Sophie Tremblay, Working Associate, Banking & Finance
Date: February 13, 2025
Re: Analysis of Market Flex Provisions — Crescent Harbor Bank, N.A. Commitment Letter — Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. $1,400,000,000 Senior Secured Term Loan B
Matter No.: 1005-00001
Client/Matter Code: IBL-NIH-2025-031
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze the market flex provisions contained in the commitment letter (the "Commitment Letter") executed by Crescent Harbor Bank, N.A. ("Crescent Harbor") on February 14, 2025, in connection with the proposed $1,400,000,000 senior secured Term Loan B facility (the "Term Loan B" or the "Facility") for Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Nexford" or the "Borrower"). This memorandum is intended to provide our client with a comprehensive assessment of the scope, economic impact, and enforceability of the flex provisions, as well as detailed recommendations for negotiating appropriate caps, protections, and sunset mechanisms.
The Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor, in its capacity as sole lead left arranger and bookrunner for the Term Loan B, certain rights to modify the pricing, structure, and other material terms of the Facility to the extent necessary to ensure the successful syndication of the full $1,400,000,000 commitment amount. These market flex provisions — commonly referred to simply as "flex" — are standard features in leveraged finance commitment letters and reflect the arranger's assumption of underwriting risk. However, the scope and magnitude of the flex granted in the Commitment Letter warrant careful scrutiny, as the exercise of flex can materially increase borrowing costs, reduce net proceeds available to the Borrower, and impose additional structural constraints on the credit facility.
The key concern for the Borrower and its financial sponsor, Granite Peak Capital Partners, LP ("Granite Peak" or the "Sponsor"), is twofold. First, the pricing flex provisions, if exercised to their maximum extent, could increase the estimated all-in yield to lenders by approximately 110 basis points or more above the base case, resulting in incremental annual cash interest expense of up to $10.5 million and a reduction in net proceeds of up to $21 million. Second, the structural flex provisions, including modifications to the amortization schedule, excess cash flow sweep mechanics, call protection, and financial covenants, could impose additional obligations on the Borrower that constrain operational and financial flexibility. Given that a portion of the Term Loan B proceeds — approximately $335 million — is intended to fund a dividend recapitalization to Granite Peak NIH Holdings, LLC, any reduction in net proceeds as a result of flex exercise would directly impact the amount available for distribution to the Sponsor or, alternatively, the cash retained on the Borrower's balance sheet.
This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the Commitment Letter Review Memorandum dated February 13, 2025, prepared by Marcus Leung, which addresses the substantive terms and conditions of the Commitment Letter beyond the flex provisions, and the Fee Letter Review Memorandum dated February 17, 2025, to be prepared by Sophie Tremblay, which will address the fee arrangements among the Borrower, Crescent Harbor, and the participating syndicate lenders.
In preparing this analysis, we have consulted with Stonebridge Advisory Group, LLC, the Borrower's financial advisor. Andrew Castellano, Managing Director at Stonebridge Advisory, has provided current market data and benchmarking analysis for leveraged Term Loan B syndications in the industrials sector, which has informed our assessment of the reasonableness of the flex provisions and the likelihood of their exercise under prevailing market conditions. Mr. Castellano's views on market conditions are referenced throughout this memorandum where relevant.
II. Transaction Background
Overview of the Borrower
Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc. is a diversified industrials and specialty manufacturing platform headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois. The Borrower is incorporated in the State of Delaware. For the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2024 ("LTM"), Nexford reported revenue of approximately $2.1 billion and Adjusted EBITDA of approximately $385 million, reflecting the company's position as a mid-cap platform with stable cash flow generation and a diversified customer base across multiple end markets, including aerospace and defense, commercial construction, energy infrastructure, and general industrial applications. Nexford operates twenty-three manufacturing facilities across thirteen states, with principal operations concentrated in the Midwest and Southeast regions of the United States.
The Sponsor. Granite Peak Capital Partners, LP is a middle-market private equity firm focused on industrials, business services, and specialty distribution. Granite Peak acquired Nexford in January 2019 through its fourth institutional fund, Granite Peak Capital Partners Fund IV, LP ("Fund IV"), at an enterprise value of approximately $1.65 billion. The equity investment by Fund IV in the Nexford acquisition was approximately $725 million, representing a significant concentration within the fund's portfolio. Since the acquisition, Granite Peak has overseen a program of organic growth and bolt-on acquisitions that has increased Nexford's revenue from approximately $1.4 billion at the time of acquisition to the current $2.1 billion level, while Adjusted EBITDA has grown from approximately $255 million to $385 million over the same period. The proposed dividend recapitalization represents Granite Peak's first return of capital from the Nexford investment, exclusive of management fee offsets.
The Transaction. The Term Loan B constitutes a $1,400,000,000 senior secured first lien term loan facility. The proceeds of the Facility will be used as follows:
(a) to refinance in full the existing $875 million first lien term loan facility outstanding under the Credit Agreement, dated as of June 14, 2019, among Nexford Industrial Holdings Inc., as borrower, Atlas Meridian Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, and the lenders party thereto, as amended by the First Amendment dated March 8, 2021, the Second Amendment dated November 15, 2022, the Third Amendment dated April 3, 2023, and the Fourth Amendment dated September 12, 2024 (as so amended, the "Existing Credit Agreement");
(b) to refinance in full the $190 million revolving credit facility outstanding under the Existing Credit Agreement (the revolving facility will be terminated and not replaced as part of this transaction; any future revolving needs will be addressed through an incremental facility);
(c) to pay transaction fees, costs, and expenses estimated at approximately $53 million in the aggregate (including the arrangement fee, OID, upfront fees, advisory fees, legal fees, rating agency fees, and other customary closing costs);
(d) to fund a cash dividend of approximately $335 million (net of fees and expenses) to Granite Peak NIH Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the direct parent of the Borrower, for ultimate distribution to Fund IV and its limited partners; and
(e) to retain approximately $147 million in cash on the Borrower's balance sheet for general corporate purposes and working capital.
The sources and uses are subject to adjustment based on final closing date interest accruals, working capital adjustments, and any exercise of flex provisions as discussed in detail in Section IX of this memorandum.
The Arranger. Crescent Harbor Bank, N.A. is acting as sole lead left arranger and bookrunner, administrative agent, and collateral agent for the Term Loan B. Crescent Harbor's principal offices are located at 320 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. The deal team at Crescent Harbor is led by Elaine Prescott, Managing Director, Leveraged Finance Origination, and Thomas Nakamura, Director, Loan Syndication. Crescent Harbor has committed to underwrite the full $1,400,000,000 Facility amount, subject to the terms and conditions of the Commitment Letter.
Crescent Harbor's outside counsel for this transaction is Whitfield & Gage LLP, with Margaret Ashby serving as the lead partner on the engagement. Whitfield & Gage is expected to deliver the initial draft of the credit agreement on or about February 24, 2025.
Key Dates and Timeline
The Commitment Letter was executed on February 14, 2025. The fee letter (the "Fee Letter") was executed on February 18, 2025. The following key milestones are currently anticipated:
• Rating agency presentations: February 19, 2025 (presentations to Keystone Ratings Group, Inc. and Sentinel Credit Analytics, LLC)
• Expected rating outcomes: On or about February 26, 2025
• Bank meeting / lender presentation: February 27, 2025
• First draft of credit agreement from Whitfield & Gage: On or about February 24, 2025
• Confirmation of additional joint lead arrangers: March 7, 2025 (Ironwood Capital Markets, LLC and Northvane Securities, Inc. subsequently confirmed)
• Target general syndication close: March 21, 2025
• Target closing date: March 28, 2025
• Post-closing mortgage delivery deadline: April 30, 2025
Pro Forma Capitalization
On a pro forma basis giving effect to the Transaction, the Borrower's capitalization will be as follows:
• First lien Term Loan B: $1,400,000,000
• 7.250% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2028: $250,000,000
• Total funded debt: $1,650,000,000
• Less: unrestricted cash (estimated at closing): approximately $(147,000,000)
• Pro forma first lien net debt: approximately $1,253,000,000
• Pro forma total net debt: approximately $1,503,000,000
• LTM Adjusted EBITDA (December 31, 2024): $385,000,000
• Pro forma first lien net leverage: approximately 3.25x (before transaction costs) / approximately 3.38x (after deducting OID and estimated transaction costs from cash)
• Pro forma total net leverage: approximately 3.90x (before transaction costs) / approximately 4.03x (after deducting OID and estimated transaction costs from cash)
These leverage metrics are within the ranges typically observed in leveraged dividend recapitalization transactions in the industrials sector and are expected to support the anticipated ratings of B1 (Keystone Ratings Group) and B+ (Sentinel Credit Analytics) at the corporate family / corporate credit level.
Syndication Overview. Crescent Harbor has indicated that its target final hold position is $175 million, representing 12.5% of the total Facility amount. This means that $1,225,000,000 must be distributed to syndicate lenders to achieve Crescent Harbor's target hold. As of the date of this memorandum, seven institutional lenders have been identified as likely syndicate participants with preliminary indications of interest totaling approximately $825 million:
Combined with Crescent Harbor's $175 million target hold, the identified commitments account for $1,000,000,000 of the $1,400,000,000 Facility, leaving approximately $400 million to be placed through the general syndication process. The bank meeting and lender presentation, scheduled for February 27, 2025, will be the primary marketing event for the general syndication. Crescent Harbor's syndication team, led by Thomas Nakamura, anticipates that a combination of CLO vehicles, institutional credit funds, and bank lenders will absorb the remaining $400 million during the general syndication period.
III. Agreed Base Case Pricing and Structure
Before analyzing the flex provisions, it is essential to establish the baseline — that is, the "starting point" pricing and structural terms agreed upon in the Commitment Letter and the accompanying term sheet, against which all flex modifications are measured. The base case terms represent the deal economics to which the Borrower has agreed in the absence of any flex exercise and constitute the best-case scenario for the Borrower (absent reverse flex, discussed in Section IV.D below).
Pricing Terms.
Interest Rate: Term SOFR plus a margin of 400 basis points per annum. Interest is payable on the last business day of each interest period (one month, three months, or six months, at the Borrower's election), with a default interest rate of an additional 200 basis points per annum.
SOFR Floor: 0.75%. The SOFR component of the interest rate will be deemed to be no less than 0.75% for purposes of calculating the applicable interest rate, regardless of the actual level of Term SOFR at any given time.
SOFR Credit Spread Adjustment ("CSA"): 10 basis points for one-month Term SOFR; 15 basis points for three-month Term SOFR; 25 basis points for six-month Term SOFR. These credit spread adjustments are fixed for the life of the Facility and reflect the transition from LIBOR to SOFR-based pricing conventions.
Original Issue discount ("OID") / Upfront Fee: The Term Loan B will be issued at a price of 99.50% of par — that is, an OID of 50 basis points. On a $1,400,000,000 facility, this equates to an aggregate discount of $7,000,000, which is deducted from the gross proceeds funded at closing.
Upfront Fee to Participating Lenders: 100 basis points (1.00%) of the commitment amount allocated to each participating lender, payable at closing. This fee serves as a syndication incentive and is separate from the OID.
Arrangement Fee (Crescent Harbor): 50 basis points on the total Facility amount, equal to $7,000,000, payable at closing. This fee is fixed and is not subject to flex.
Structural Terms.
Maturity: Seven (7) years from the closing date. Assuming a closing date of March 28, 2025, the stated maturity date will be March 28, 2032.
Amortization: 1.00% per annum of the original principal amount, payable in equal quarterly installments. At a 1.00% annual amortization rate, each quarterly payment equals $3,500,000, for a total of $14,000,000 in scheduled amortization per year. The balance of the principal is due as a bullet payment at maturity.
Financial Covenant: The Term Loan B will include a springing maximum first lien net leverage ratio covenant of 5.00 to 1.00, tested on the last day of each fiscal quarter, but only when the aggregate amount of revolving borrowings outstanding under any revolving credit facility exceeds 40% of the total revolving commitments. No revolving credit facility is being established as part of this transaction; accordingly, the financial covenant will not be tested until and unless a revolving facility is added via the incremental facility provisions of the credit agreement. In that event, the covenant will become applicable in any quarter in which revolving borrowings exceed 40% of the revolving commitments.
Mandatory Prepayments — Excess Cash Flow Sweep: The Term Loan B will be subject to annual mandatory prepayments based on a percentage of excess cash flow ("ECF"), with the applicable sweep percentage determined by reference to the Borrower's first lien net leverage ratio as follows:
• First lien net leverage greater than 4.25x: 50% of ECF
• First lien net leverage less than or equal to 4.25x but greater than 3.50x: 25% of ECF
• First lien net leverage less than or equal to 3.50x: 0% of ECF
Mandatory Prepayments — Other: 100% of net cash proceeds from asset sales or other dispositions (subject to customary reinvestment rights within 365 days, with an additional 180-day extension if reinvestment is committed within the initial period); 100% of net cash proceeds from the issuance or incurrence of indebtedness not permitted under the credit agreement; 100% of net cash proceeds from insurance or condemnation events (subject to reinvestment rights).
Voluntary Prepayment: The Term Loan B may be prepaid at par at any time, in whole or in part, without premium or penalty, subject to a 101 soft call premium (i.e., 1.00% of the principal amount prepaid) applicable to repricing transactions occurring within the first six (6) months following the closing date. For this purpose, a "repricing transaction" includes (i) any refinancing of the Term Loan B with a term loan facility bearing a lower all-in yield and (ii) any amendment to the credit agreement that reduces the interest rate margin or OID applicable to the Term Loan B.
Most Favored Nation ("MFN") Protection: Any incremental term loan facility incurred within twelve (12) months of the closing date that is secured on a pari passu basis with the Term Loan B will be subject to a most favored nation provision with a threshold of 50 basis points. Specifically, if any such incremental term loan is issued at an all-in yield that exceeds the all-in yield on the Term Loan B by more than 50 basis points, the interest rate margin on the Term Loan B will be automatically increased to the level necessary to reduce the yield differential to 50 basis points.
Estimated All-In Yield at Base Case
For purposes of evaluating the flex provisions, it is useful to calculate the estimated all-in yield to lenders under the base case terms, which serves as the reference point against which the impact of flex exercise is measured:
• Term SOFR (current): approximately 4.35% (as of February 10, 2025)
• Credit Spread Adjustment (1-month): 0.10%
• Interest Rate Margin: 4.00%
• Cash Coupon: approximately 8.45% per annum (4.35% + 0.10% + 4.00%)
• OID Yield Pickup: 50 basis points amortized over an assumed average life of approximately 4.0 years = approximately 12.5 basis points per annum
• Estimated All-In Yield to Lenders (Base Case): approximately 8.575% per annum
This all-in yield estimate is based on current SOFR levels and the assumed four-year average life of the Term Loan B. The actual all-in yield will vary depending on the prevailing SOFR rate at any given time and the actual average life of the loan, which is affected by mandatory and voluntary prepayments.
IV. Pricing Flex Provisions
The Commitment Letter contains several pricing flex provisions that grant Crescent Harbor the unilateral right to increase the cost of the Facility if, in its judgment, such adjustments are necessary to achieve successful syndication. The pricing flex provisions are the most significant from an economic perspective, as they directly affect the Borrower's cost of capital and the net proceeds available at closing. We analyze each component below.
A. Spread Flex (Upward)
The Commitment Letter provides that Crescent Harbor has the right to increase the Term SOFR margin applicable to the Term Loan B by up to 75 basis points, from the base case margin of SOFR + 400 basis points per annum to a maximum of SOFR + 475 basis points per annum. This spread flex represents the single most consequential pricing adjustment available to the arranger, as any increase in the spread directly and permanently increases the Borrower's cash interest expense for the remaining life of the Facility.
Dollar Impact Analysis. Each 25 basis point increment in the interest rate margin adds approximately $3,500,000 in annual cash interest expense, calculated on the full $1,400,000,000 outstanding principal balance. At the maximum upward spread flex of 75 basis points, the incremental annual cash interest expense would be approximately $10,500,000, increasing total estimated annual cash interest from approximately $117,700,000 under the base case to approximately $128,200,000 under the maximum flex scenario. Over the seven-year term of the Facility (assuming no prepayments), the cumulative additional interest cost at maximum spread flex would be approximately $73,500,000 in the aggregate, though prepayments and amortization would reduce this figure in practice.
Incremental Exercise. The Commitment Letter permits the spread flex to be exercised in increments of 25 basis points, which provides Crescent Harbor with the flexibility to calibrate the spread increase to the minimum level necessary to clear the syndication. This incremental approach is generally favorable to the Borrower, as it reduces the risk that the arranger will exercise the full flex in a single action when a smaller adjustment might suffice. However, it also permits Crescent Harbor to exercise partial flex at an early stage of syndication and then seek additional flex later if further adjustments are required.
Consultation Requirement. The Commitment Letter provides that Crescent Harbor shall "consult with" the Borrower prior to exercising any pricing flex, but the exercise of flex is ultimately at the "sole discretion" of the arranger. This consultation requirement is a procedural step only and does not give the Borrower any veto right or consent authority over the exercise of flex. We discuss our recommendation for strengthening this provision in Section VII below.
Interaction with MFN Provision. A critical point warranting attention is the interaction between the spread flex and the most favored nation provision applicable to incremental term loans. Under the base case, the MFN threshold of 50 basis points is measured against the existing all-in yield on the Term Loan B. If the spread is flexed upward from SOFR + 400 to, for example, SOFR + 450, the new spread becomes the baseline for purposes of the MFN calculation. This means that any incremental term loan incurred within twelve months could be priced at up to SOFR + 500 (i.e., the flexed spread of 450 plus the 50 basis point MFN threshold) before triggering an adjustment to the Term Loan B pricing. This compounding effect could result in a higher effective cost ceiling for incremental debt than the Borrower may have anticipated when negotiating the MFN threshold. We recommend that the credit agreement specify that the MFN threshold is measured against the original base case spread (SOFR + 400) rather than any post-flex spread, or alternatively, that the MFN threshold be reduced to 25 basis points if the spread flex is exercised.
B. OID Flex (Downward Price / Increased discount)
The Commitment Letter provides that Crescent Harbor has the right to increase the OID from the base case of 50 basis points (i.e., an issue price of 99.50% of par) to a maximum of 200 basis points (i.e., an issue price of 98.00% of par). This represents a maximum additional OID of 150 basis points beyond the base case.
Dollar Impact Analysis. Each additional 50 basis points of OID reduces the net proceeds received by the Borrower at closing by $7,000,000. The impact at various levels of OID flex is as follows:
At the maximum OID flex of 200 basis points, the total discount on the Facility would be $28,000,000, reducing the Borrower's net proceeds from $1,393,000,000 (base case) to $1,372,000,000. This $21,000,000 reduction in net proceeds directly affects the transaction's sources and uses, as discussed below.
Impact on Use of Proceeds. The approximately $335 million dividend to Granite Peak NIH Holdings, LLC is the residual amount in the sources and uses waterfall after (i) repayment of the existing $875 million first lien term loan, (ii) repayment of the $190 million revolving facility, (iii) payment of estimated transaction fees and expenses of approximately $53 million, and (iv) retention of approximately $147 million in cash on the Borrower's balance sheet. Any increase in OID reduces the gross proceeds available at closing and, accordingly, reduces the residual amount available for the dividend and/or the cash retained on the balance sheet on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An increase of 150 basis points in OID would reduce the available residual by $21,000,000, potentially reducing the dividend from approximately $335 million to approximately $314 million (or, alternatively, reducing the cash retained on the balance sheet from $147 million to $126 million). We discuss strategies for protecting the dividend amount in Section VII.E below.
All-In Yield Impact. The all-in yield impact of OID flex depends on the assumed average life of the Term Loan B. Using the same four-year average life assumption applied to the base case, the yield impact at each OID level is approximately as follows:
• 50 bps OID (base case): approximately 12.5 bps per annum yield pickup
• 100 bps OID: approximately 25.0 bps per annum yield pickup
• 150 bps OID: approximately 37.5 bps per annum yield pickup
• 200 bps OID (maximum): approximately 50.0 bps per annum yield pickup
When combined with the maximum spread flex of SOFR + 475 basis points, the maximum all-in yield to lenders under full pricing flex could reach approximately 9.70% or higher (compared to the base case of approximately 8.575%), depending on the prevailing SOFR rate at the time of calculation. This represents a potential all-in yield increase of approximately 112.5 basis points, which is a significant incremental cost to the Borrower.
C. SOFR Floor Flex
The Commitment Letter provides that Crescent Harbor has the right to increase the SOFR floor from the base case level of 0.75% to a maximum of 1.00%.
Current Environment Analysis. In the current rate environment, with Term SOFR trading at approximately 4.35% as of February 10, 2025, neither the 0.75% floor nor a 1.00% floor is binding — that is, neither floor has any effect on the actual interest rate paid by the Borrower today, because the market SOFR rate significantly exceeds both levels. The SOFR floor functions as a form of embedded interest rate protection for lenders, providing a minimum effective SOFR rate in a declining rate environment.
Future Cost Implications. While a floor increase from 0.75% to 1.00% has no immediate cash cost to the Borrower, it could become meaningful if SOFR declines significantly. Specifically, in a scenario where SOFR falls below 1.00% but remains above 0.75%, a 1.00% floor would result in the Borrower paying a higher effective interest rate than it would under a 0.75% floor. The incremental cost in such a scenario would be up to 25 basis points per annum on the full outstanding balance, or approximately $3,500,000 per year. Given the current forward curve for SOFR, which as of February 2025 implies a gradual decline to approximately 3.50%–3.75% over the next two to three years, the floor is unlikely to become binding in the near term but could become relevant over the seven-year life of the Facility if the Federal Reserve implements further rate reductions.
Independence of Exercise. The Commitment Letter does not expressly address whether the SOFR floor flex may be exercised independently of the spread flex. In our view, absent specific language to the contrary, Crescent Harbor has the right to exercise the floor flex on a stand-alone basis, without simultaneously exercising the spread flex. We recommend clarifying this point in the credit agreement negotiations and, specifically, negotiating that any increase in the SOFR floor does not count toward any all-in yield cap that may be agreed upon (since the floor increase has no current economic effect).
D. Reverse Flex (Downward)
The Commitment Letter includes a "reverse flex" or "snap-back" provision that permits Crescent Harbor to reduce the pricing of the Term Loan B if the syndication process generates demand in excess of the amount required to fill the Facility. Reverse flex is the counterpart to upward flex and benefits the Borrower by reducing borrowing costs when market conditions are favorable.
Scope of Reverse Flex. The Commitment Letter provides for the following reverse flex adjustments, exercisable at Crescent Harbor's discretion:
• Reduction of the interest rate margin by up to 25 basis points, from SOFR + 400 basis points to SOFR + 375 basis points.
• Reduction of the OID from 50 basis points toward par, with the potential to eliminate the OID entirely (i.e., pricing at 100.00% of par, or "flat").
Benefit to Borrower. If the full reverse flex is exercised, the estimated all-in yield would decline from approximately 8.575% to approximately 8.10%, a savings of approximately 47.5 basis points per annum. The annual cash interest savings from a 25 basis point spread reduction would be approximately $3,500,000. The elimination of the OID would save $7,000,000 in upfront costs, with a proportional increase in net proceeds available at closing.
Discretionary Nature. Critically, the reverse flex provision in the Commitment Letter is stated to be exercisable at Crescent Harbor's "sole and absolute discretion." This means that Crescent Harbor has no obligation to exercise reverse flex even if the syndication is massively oversubscribed. This is a significant point of concern, as the arranger's economic incentive to exercise reverse flex is limited — reducing the spread or OID benefits the Borrower but reduces the attractiveness of the investment for lenders (including Crescent Harbor, to the extent of its final hold position). We discuss our recommendation for negotiating a mandatory reverse flex trigger in Section VII.B below.
Market Assessment. Andrew Castellano of Stonebridge Advisory has indicated that current leveraged loan market conditions as of February 2025 are generally favorable for B1/B+ rated industrials credits. CLO formation has been robust through the first quarter of 2025, and retail fund inflows into leveraged loan funds have been positive for fourteen consecutive weeks. Against this backdrop, Stonebridge Advisory believes there is a reasonable probability that the syndication will be oversubscribed, which would create the conditions for reverse flex to be exercised. However, Stonebridge has cautioned that the dividend recapitalization nature of the transaction may generate some lender resistance, as certain institutional investors and CLO managers have guidelines that limit or discourage participation in dividend recap financings. This factor could partially offset the favorable market technicals.
V. Structural Flex Provisions
In addition to the pricing flex provisions analyzed above, the Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor the right to modify certain structural terms of the Term Loan B if such modifications are deemed necessary to ensure successful syndication. Structural flex provisions are conceptually distinct from pricing flex in that they do not directly change the interest rate or OID, but rather alter the covenants, repayment mechanics, and other non-pricing features of the credit facility. However, structural flex can have significant indirect economic effects on the Borrower and, in some cases, may be more consequential than pricing flex alone.
A. Financial Covenant Flex
The Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor the right to tighten the springing financial covenant — the maximum first lien net leverage ratio — from the base case level of 5.00 to 1.00 to a lower threshold. Based on our review of the Commitment Letter and discussions with the Crescent Harbor deal team, we understand that the arranger's expectation is that the financial covenant could be tightened to no less than 4.50 to 1.00, though this lower bound is not expressly stated as a hard cap in the Commitment Letter.
Impact Analysis. At the base case covenant level of 5.00x, the maximum first lien net debt supportable by the covenant (assuming Adjusted EBITDA of $385 million and disregarding unrestricted cash for simplicity) would be $1,925,000,000. This provides substantial headroom of $525,000,000 over the $1,400,000,000 Term Loan B, which supports the Borrower's ability to incur incremental first lien debt in the future. At a tightened covenant level of 4.50x, the maximum supportable first lien net debt would be $1,732,500,000, still providing headroom of $332,500,000 — comfortable, but materially less than under the base case.
It bears emphasis that the financial covenant is springing in nature, meaning it is tested only when revolving borrowings exceed 40% of revolving commitments. Because no revolving credit facility is being established as part of the current transaction, the financial covenant will not be tested in the near term and will only become applicable if a revolving facility is subsequently added via the incremental facility provisions. As a practical matter, the financial covenant is therefore largely prospective in its application.
Trigger Percentage Flex. An additional aspect of the financial covenant flex that warrants attention is whether Crescent Harbor may modify the springing trigger percentage itself — for example, reducing it from 40% of revolving commitments to 35% or even 30%. A lower trigger percentage would mean the covenant becomes testable at a lower level of revolving utilization, increasing the likelihood that the covenant will be tested and, consequently, increasing the risk of a covenant breach. The Commitment Letter is ambiguous on this point, and we recommend clarifying during credit agreement negotiations that the springing trigger percentage is not subject to flex.
B. Amortization Flex
The Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor the right to increase the annual amortization rate from the base case of 1.00% per annum of the original principal amount to a higher rate. Based on our review, the Commitment Letter reserves the right to increase amortization up to 5.00% per annum, which represents a fivefold increase over the base case.
Impact Analysis. The following table summarizes the quarterly and annual amortization payments at various flex levels:
At the maximum amortization flex of 5.00% per annum, the Borrower would be required to make quarterly principal payments of $17,500,000, totaling $70,000,000 per year — an increase of $56,000,000 over the base case annual amortization of $14,000,000. Over the seven-year term of the Facility (prior to the bullet maturity), the cumulative scheduled amortization would increase from $98,000,000 (at 1.00%) to $490,000,000 (at 5.00%).
Market Practice. It is important to note that an amortization rate of 5.00% per annum is atypical for institutional Term Loan B facilities in the current market. The overwhelmingly standard amortization rate for broadly syndicated Term Loan B facilities is 1.00% per annum. Higher amortization rates (e.g., 2.50% or 5.00%) are more commonly associated with pro rata Term Loan A facilities held by commercial banks, where the lending relationship and amortization profile are fundamentally different. Institutional investors — including CLO vehicles and credit funds, which will comprise the majority of the Term Loan B syndicate — generally expect a 1.00% amortization rate and may view higher amortization as a negative factor in their investment decision.
In light of this market reality, we believe it is unlikely that Crescent Harbor would exercise amortization flex to 5.00%, as doing so could paradoxically make the Facility less attractive to institutional syndicate lenders. However, a more modest increase to 2.50% is within the range of outcomes that could be exercised. We recommend negotiating a cap on amortization flex at 2.50% per annum, as discussed in Section VII.C below.
C. Excess Cash Flow Sweep Flex
The Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor the right to modify the excess cash flow sweep step-down structure, including the leverage thresholds at which the step-downs occur and the applicable sweep percentages at each level.
Possible Flex Adjustments. Based on our review of the Commitment Letter and market practice, the most likely forms of ECF sweep flex include:
(i) Elimination of the 0% step-down at or below 3.50x first lien net leverage, resulting in a minimum sweep percentage of 25% at all leverage levels;
(ii) Increase in the leverage threshold at which the step-down from 50% to 25% occurs — for example, raising the threshold from 4.25x to 4.50x or 4.75x; and
(iii) Increase in the base sweep percentage from 50% to 75%.
Impact Analysis. The ECF sweep flex is particularly significant for Nexford given its current pro forma leverage profile. At pro forma first lien net leverage of approximately 3.38x (below the 3.50x threshold for the 0% step-down), the Borrower would benefit from a 0% ECF sweep in the first year under the base case terms, meaning no mandatory prepayment from excess cash flow would be required. If the 0% step-down is eliminated through flex, the applicable sweep percentage would be at least 25%, potentially requiring a significant mandatory prepayment.
To illustrate, based on the Borrower's financial projections provided by Nexford's treasury team (Priya Mehta, VP Treasury):
• LTM Adjusted EBITDA: $385,000,000
• Estimated capital expenditures (Year 1): $(78,000,000)
• Estimated unlevered free cash flow: approximately $307,000,000
• Estimated cash interest expense (base case): approximately $(117,700,000)
• Estimated scheduled amortization: $(14,000,000)
• Estimated working capital adjustments and other items: approximately $(25,000,000) to $(40,000,000)
• Estimated excess cash flow (Year 1): approximately $150,000,000 to $175,000,000
Under the base case terms, with pro forma leverage at approximately 3.38x (below 3.50x), the applicable sweep percentage is 0%, and no mandatory prepayment from ECF is required. If the 0% step-down is eliminated through flex exercise, and the applicable sweep percentage becomes 25%, the mandatory prepayment in Year 1 would be approximately $37,500,000 to $43,750,000. At a 50% sweep (which would apply if leverage ticks above 3.50x due to EBITDA fluctuations or other factors), the mandatory prepayment would be approximately $75,000,000 to $87,500,000.
These are substantial cash outflows that would reduce the Borrower's liquidity and financial flexibility, particularly in the early years of the Facility when the Borrower may wish to pursue bolt-on acquisitions or invest in organic growth initiatives. We strongly recommend that the 0% step-down at 3.50x first lien net leverage be preserved and exempted from flex, as discussed in Section VII.C.
D. Call Protection Flex
The Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor the right to increase the soft call premium and/or extend the soft call period beyond the base case terms of a 101 premium (1.00% of the principal amount prepaid) applicable to repricing transactions within the first six (6) months following the closing date.
Possible Flex Adjustments. Based on our review, the following call protection adjustments are within the scope of the flex:
(i) Extension of the soft call period from 6 months to 12 months at the existing 101 premium;
(ii) Increase of the soft call premium from 101 to 102 (2.00% of the principal amount prepaid) for the initial 6-month period, potentially followed by 101 for months 7 through 12; or
(iii) A combination of both an extended period and an increased premium — for example, 102 for 6 months followed by 101 for months 7 through 12.
Impact on Borrower. Enhanced call protection limits the Borrower's ability to refinance the Term Loan B on more favorable terms if interest rates decline or credit markets improve. This is particularly relevant given the seven-year maturity extending to March 28, 2032, which encompasses a significant period during which market conditions may evolve. A 101 premium for 6 months is within the standard range for current Term Loan B transactions; however, a 102 premium or a 12-month period at 101 would be modestly above market and could restrict the Borrower's refinancing flexibility.
To quantify: a 101 prepayment premium on the full $1,400,000,000 outstanding would be $14,000,000; a 102 premium would be $28,000,000. These are significant costs that could deter an otherwise economically rational refinancing, especially in a scenario where the potential interest rate savings are modest.
Negotiation Position. We believe the Borrower has a strong argument that call protection in excess of 101 for 6 months is above market for institutional Term Loan B transactions in the current environment. Based on data from Stonebridge Advisory, the median soft call provision for new-issue Term Loan B facilities in Q4 2024 was 101 for 6 months, with only approximately 15% of transactions including call protection of 12 months or longer. We recommend capping the flex at 101 for 12 months maximum, as discussed in Section VII.C.
E. Collateral and Guarantee Flex
The Commitment Letter grants Crescent Harbor the right to require additional collateral or expand the guarantee package beyond what is contemplated in the base case term sheet, to the extent Crescent Harbor determines such enhancements are necessary to achieve successful syndication or to satisfy ratings agency requirements.
Base Case Collateral Package. The base case collateral package includes:
(i) First-priority perfected security interests in substantially all assets of the Borrower and each domestic subsidiary guarantor, including accounts receivable, inventory, equipment, intellectual property, equity interests in domestic subsidiaries (and 65% of equity interests in first-tier foreign subsidiaries), and deposit accounts;
(ii) First-priority mortgage liens on four owned real properties with a total appraised value of approximately $193,000,000:
• Schaumburg, Illinois (corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility), appraised at $72,000,000;
• Rockford, Illinois (manufacturing facility), appraised at $48,000,000;
• Greenville, South Carolina (manufacturing and distribution facility), appraised at $41,000,000;
• Houston, Texas (manufacturing facility), appraised at $32,000,000;
(iii) The mortgages are to be delivered as a post-closing obligation within 33 days after the closing date (i.e., by April 30, 2025, assuming a March 28, 2025 closing).
Possible Flex Adjustments. The following collateral enhancements could be required under the flex:
(a) Pre-closing mortgage delivery. Crescent Harbor may require that the mortgages on the four identified properties be executed, delivered, and recorded prior to closing rather than as a post-closing deliverable. This could delay the closing date, as the mortgage process requires title commitments from Landmark Title Assurance Company, updated surveys, Phase I environmental assessments from Clearwater Environmental Sciences, Inc. (or reliance on existing reports), and coordination with local recording offices in four jurisdictions.
(b) Additional deposit account control agreements. Crescent Harbor may require control agreements for additional bank accounts beyond those identified in the base case collateral package, including accounts at institutions other than Crescent Harbor.
(c) Expanded mortgage coverage. Crescent Harbor may require mortgages on additional owned real properties with a fair market value below the $10,000,000 threshold established in the base case term sheet. The Borrower owns or leases multiple additional properties; requiring mortgages on properties below the $10 million threshold would increase the administrative burden and cost of the collateral package.
Impact Assessment. The most significant risk associated with collateral flex is the potential for delay in the closing if the mortgage delivery timeline is accelerated from post-closing to pre-closing. Based on our experience with similar transactions, obtaining title commitments, surveys, environmental reports, and mortgage recordings for four properties in four different states typically requires six to eight weeks from initiation. If this process must be completed prior to the target closing date of March 28, 2025, the timeline is extremely compressed, as the Commitment Letter was only executed on February 14, 2025. We would strongly recommend resisting any flex that converts the post-closing mortgage obligation to a pre-closing condition precedent.
Additional costs associated with collateral flex include title insurance premiums (estimated at approximately $1.2 million for the four mortgaged properties based on customary title insurance rates), survey costs (estimated at $80,000–$120,000 for updated ALTA surveys), environmental assessment costs (estimated at $40,000–$60,000 for Phase I ESAs from Clearwater Environmental Sciences, Inc., though existing reports may be acceptable), and recording fees and taxes (which vary by jurisdiction but could total $250,000–$500,000 in the aggregate, with particular attention to the documentary stamp taxes applicable in South Carolina and any similar charges in Texas).
F. Other Structural Flex
In addition to the specific flex provisions discussed above, the Commitment Letter contains broader structural flex authority that permits Crescent Harbor to request modifications to other terms of the credit agreement. The following categories of structural flex warrant particular attention:
Restricted Payment Capacity. Crescent Harbor may seek to tighten the restricted payment covenants, including (i) a reduction of the general restricted payment basket from $25,000,000 per fiscal year to a lower amount, and (ii) a reduction of the builder basket "starter amount" from $50,000,000 to a lower figure. A reduction in restricted payment capacity would limit the Borrower's ability to make dividends, distributions, share repurchases, and other restricted payments in the future, which could constrain Granite Peak's ability to extract value from its investment in Nexford during the life of the Facility.
Incremental Facility Terms. Crescent Harbor may seek to tighten the incremental facility provisions, including (i) a reduction of the "free-and-clear" incremental basket from the greater of $280,000,000 and 100% of LTM EBITDA (currently approximately $385 million) to a lower amount, and (ii) a reduction of the ratio-based incurrence test from 4.50x first lien net leverage (pro forma after giving effect to the incremental borrowing) to 4.00x or lower. Tightening the incremental facility terms would reduce the Borrower's flexibility to incur additional senior secured debt in the future, whether for acquisitions, refinancing, or other purposes.
Change of Control. Crescent Harbor may seek to reduce the change of control trigger from the base case threshold of 35% voting equity acquisition (the percentage at which a change of control event occurs, triggering a mandatory offer to purchase at 101) to a lower percentage, such as 30% or even 25%. A lower threshold increases the risk that a partial equity disposition by Granite Peak, or a co-investment transaction, could inadvertently trigger a change of control event.
Maturity. It is theoretically possible, though unlikely in practice, that Crescent Harbor could seek to shorten the seven-year tenor of the Facility. A maturity reduction would be highly unusual in the context of a leveraged Term Loan B and would likely be met with significant resistance from institutional syndicate lenders, who generally prefer longer maturities for the purposes of CLO reinvestment period and yield curve considerations. We include this note for completeness but do not consider it a material risk.
VI. Flex Exercise Mechanics and Procedures
Beyond the substantive scope of the flex provisions, the mechanics governing how and when flex may be exercised are critically important. The procedural framework determines the arranger's operational flexibility in exercising flex and the Borrower's ability to participate in, or at minimum be informed of, flex decisions.
Consultation Requirement. As noted above, the Commitment Letter provides that Crescent Harbor shall "consult with" the Borrower prior to exercising any pricing or structural flex. However, the ultimate decision to exercise flex remains at the "sole discretion" of the arranger. This formulation is standard in leveraged finance commitment letters but provides limited protection to the Borrower, as the consultation obligation does not require the arranger to obtain the Borrower's consent or to defer to the Borrower's views. In practice, the consultation requirement typically means that Crescent Harbor will inform the Borrower of its intention to exercise flex and provide an opportunity for the Borrower to respond, but the arranger retains the final decision-making authority.
We recommend negotiating for a "good faith consultation" standard, under which Crescent Harbor would be required to engage in a meaningful discussion with the Borrower and consider the Borrower's views in good faith before exercising flex. While this does not give the Borrower a veto, it establishes a higher procedural threshold and creates a record of engagement that could be relevant in any subsequent dispute regarding the reasonableness of the flex exercise.
Exercise Period. The flex rights under the Commitment Letter are exercisable during the period commencing on the date of the Commitment Letter (February 14, 2025) and ending on the earlier of (i) the commitment letter expiration date, which is 90 days from execution (approximately May 15, 2025), and (ii) the closing date of the Term Loan B (target: March 28, 2025). After the closing date, the terms of the credit agreement govern, and no further flex adjustments are permitted.
In practice, because the target closing date (March 28, 2025) precedes the commitment letter expiration date (May 15, 2025), the effective flex exercise window is approximately six weeks from the date of the Commitment Letter through the closing date. Most flex decisions will be made during the syndication period, with any flex exercise typically occurring after the bank meeting (February 27, 2025) and before the target general syndication close (March 21, 2025).
Incremental Exercise. The Commitment Letter permits flex to be exercised in stages rather than requiring a single, all-at-once exercise. This means that Crescent Harbor could, for example, exercise a partial spread flex of 25 basis points after the bank meeting and subsequently exercise an additional 25 basis points of spread flex if the syndication fails to reach its targets. While incremental exercise provides operational flexibility to the arranger, it creates uncertainty for the Borrower, which may not know the final terms of the Facility until shortly before closing. We recommend negotiating a deadline for all flex exercises to be completed, such as five business days prior to the scheduled closing date, to provide the Borrower with adequate notice of the final economics.
Notice Requirement. The Commitment Letter requires Crescent Harbor to provide the Borrower with at least two (2) business days' prior written notice before exercising any flex. This notice period is at the shorter end of market practice (which typically ranges from two to five business days) and may not provide the Borrower with sufficient time to evaluate the impact of the proposed flex, consult with its advisors, and formulate a response. We recommend extending the notice period to three (3) business days, which would provide additional time for the Borrower to assess the implications of the flex exercise and, if appropriate, push back on the arranger's proposal.
Sunset Provisions. The Commitment Letter does not contain explicit sunset provisions under which flex rights would lapse upon the achievement of specific syndication benchmarks. The absence of sunset provisions means that Crescent Harbor retains the right to exercise flex up to the closing date, even if the syndication has been fully committed. This is a significant gap in the Borrower's protections.
We recommend negotiating sunset provisions under which the flex rights expire upon the earliest to occur of (i) the closing date, (ii) the completion of general syndication, and (iii) the receipt of binding commitments from syndicate lenders equal to at least 90% of the Facility amount (i.e., $1,260,000,000). The rationale for the 90% threshold is that once the syndication is substantially committed, the arranger's underwriting risk is sufficiently mitigated that the flex should no longer be available as a tool to modify the deal economics.
Interaction Between Pricing and Structural Flex
The Commitment Letter does not clearly address whether the exercise of pricing flex reduces the scope of structural flex, or vice versa. In other words, it is not clear whether the flex provisions operate on an "either/or" basis (where the arranger must choose between pricing and structural adjustments) or on a cumulative "and" basis (where the arranger may exercise both pricing and structural flex to their full extent).
Based on our reading of the Commitment Letter, the flex provisions appear to be cumulative — that is, Crescent Harbor may exercise both pricing and structural flex to the maximum extent permitted, without regard to whether one category of flex has already been exercised. This interpretation is consistent with market practice, as arrangers generally insist on having the full suite of flex tools available and resist any formulation that limits their ability to use pricing flex and structural flex in combination.
However, we recommend negotiating a "flex budget" mechanism under which the aggregate economic impact of all flex exercises (pricing and structural combined) is subject to an overall cap. This approach, while not commonly accepted by arrangers, would provide the Borrower with a meaningful limit on the total economic cost of flex exercise and would incentivize the arranger to exercise flex judiciously rather than across all categories simultaneously.
VII. Borrower Protections and Negotiation Recommendations
Based on our analysis of the flex provisions, current market conditions, and the specific circumstances of the Nexford transaction, we recommend the following negotiation strategy to protect the Borrower's and Sponsor's interests. These recommendations should be presented to Crescent Harbor through the mark-up of the term sheet and, subsequently, in the negotiation of the credit agreement.
A. Caps on Pricing Flex
We recommend negotiating a hard cap on the aggregate all-in yield increase resulting from the combined exercise of spread flex and OID flex. Specifically, we propose that the maximum permissible increase in the all-in yield to lenders (measured on the basis of the spread plus the annualized OID based on a four-year assumed average life) not exceed 100 to 125 basis points above the base case all-in yield of approximately 8.575%.
With respect to the OID flex specifically, we recommend expressing the cap in dollar terms rather than (or in addition to) percentage terms. We propose a maximum additional OID of $14,000,000 (equivalent to approximately 100 basis points of additional OID, or 150 basis points total including the 50 basis point base case OID) rather than the $21,000,000 maximum (150 basis points additional) currently provided in the Commitment Letter. Framing the cap in dollar terms provides greater clarity and certainty for the Borrower, particularly with respect to the impact on the sources and uses waterfall and the dividend amount.
We further recommend that any increase in the SOFR floor not count toward the all-in yield cap, given that a floor increase has no current economic impact in the prevailing rate environment. This carve-out would preserve the Borrower's ability to accept the SOFR floor flex (which is relatively benign in the current environment) without consuming a portion of the overall yield cap.
B. Reverse Flex Commitment
We recommend negotiating a mandatory reverse flex trigger, under which Crescent Harbor would be obligated to exercise reverse flex if the syndication achieves a specified level of oversubscription. Specifically, we propose that if the aggregate commitments received from syndicate lenders exceed 150% of the Facility amount ($2,100,000,000 in aggregate commitments) within ten (10) business days of the bank meeting (i.e., by approximately March 13, 2025), Crescent Harbor shall be required to exercise reverse flex to reduce the spread by at least 25 basis points and tighten the OID toward par.
As an alternative or supplement, we propose a lower mandatory reverse flex trigger at 125% of the Facility amount ($1,750,000,000 in aggregate commitments), with a minimum reverse flex of 12.5 basis points on the spread and a 25 basis point reduction in OID.
These mandatory reverse flex triggers are justified by the principle that the flex provisions exist to protect the arranger against syndication risk. If the syndication demonstrates robust market demand, the risk that the flex was designed to address has been mitigated, and the Borrower should share in the benefit of favorable market conditions.
C. Structural Flex Limitations
We recommend the following specific caps and protections on structural flex: