Covenant Headroom After a Debt-Funded Acquisition
You are a credit analyst reviewing a $250 million term loan for a mid-market industrial borrower. The credit agreement requires net leverage no greater than 3.50x, tested quarterly, and defines EBITDA to permit add-backs: restructuring up to $10 million, stock compensation up to $5 million, and 'run-rate synergies' up to $15 million for acquisitions. The borrower announces a $60 million acquisition funded with a $40 million incremental term loan and $20 million cash. Latest reported EBITDA is $70 million; pro forma EBITDA including the target is $80 million before add-backs. Proposed add-backs are $8 million restructuring, $4 million stock compensation, and $12 million synergies. Debt before the deal is $250 million and cash is $30 million; after the deal, debt is $290 million and cash is $10 million. The agreement also contains a Material Adverse Change clause and cross-default. The borrower requests consent.
1. Calculate pro forma net leverage under the stated EBITDA definition and state the headroom. Then show what happens if the synergies add-back is rejected.
Read the worked answer
Base case under the stated definition:
- Net debt = $290m debt − $10m cash = $280m.
- EBITDA = $80m + $8m restructuring + $4m stock comp + $12m synergies = $104m.
- Net leverage = $280m ÷ $104m = 2.69x.
- Headroom to 3.50x = 0.81x.
If the $12m synergies are rejected: EBITDA = $92m, so leverage = $280m ÷ $92m = 3.04x. Headroom falls to 0.46x.
If all add-backs are rejected: EBITDA = $80m, so leverage = 3.50x exactly-no headroom and immediate covenant pressure.
The key judgement is that the base-case 2.69x is not a comfortable number; it is manufactured by $24m of add-backs. The lender should not treat the 0.81x headroom as real until the add-backs are validated. A single quarter of underperformance or a missed synergy would erase most of it.
2. Which add-back is most contestable, and what documentation would you require before including it? Explain how the MAC clause changes your analysis.
Read the worked answer
Most contestable: the $12m run-rate synergies. Restructuring and stock compensation are at least based on incurred or accrued items, even if they are non-cash or one-time. Synergies are forward-looking and depend on integration actions that have not occurred. The credit agreement may permit them, but permission is not the same as evidence.
Documentation required:
- A bottom-up integration plan with cost-to-achieve, timing, and owner.
- Quality-of-earnings report tying the target's EBITDA to the pro forma $80m.
- Board-approved synergy schedule, not a management slide.
- A cap and a sunset: only include synergies realized within four quarters, and reduce the add-back if milestones slip.
MAC clause effect: the MAC is not just a closing condition; it changes the risk that the pro forma EBITDA never materializes. If the target suffers a material adverse change before closing, the $80m base case is unreliable and the cross-default provision could spread the problem to the borrower. The lender should require a bring-down certificate at closing and a re-test if closing is delayed.
3. Recommend consent conditions or refusal. Include at least one covenant cushion mechanism.
Read the worked answer
Recommend conditional consent, not refusal and not a clean waiver. Refusal risks a relationship breakdown and a cross-default event; clean consent accepts a knife-edge covenant. The conditions should create real cushion.
Conditions:
- Require $10m of equity or subordinated debt before closing, reducing net debt to $270m. At the all-add-backs-rejected EBITDA of $80m, leverage becomes 3.38x rather than exactly 3.50x.
- Cap synergies at documented run-rate and exclude any synergy not realized within four quarters. Recalculate leverage in each compliance certificate.
- Updated quality-of-earnings and pro forma compliance certificate delivered five business days before closing.
- MAC bring-down and cross-default carve-out: no consent if the target has a material adverse change or a default at closing.
- Quarterly covenant testing with no equity cure unless the cure is pre-funded and disclosed.
The principle is to grant the business request while converting an unverified EBITDA definition into a monitored one. Consent should be a risk-control instrument, not a formality.