Pitfalls and Issues for Lenders to Consider in Connection with LIBOR to SOFR Transition

Mar 10, 2021

Reading Time : 4 min

Cessation of LIBOR:

On March 5, 2021, IBA published its LIBOR Feedback Statement on Consultation on Potential Cessation (the “Feedback Statement”)1 reporting its intent to cease publication of (i) 1 week and 2 month USD LIBOR settings immediately following the LIBOR publication on December 31, 2021, and (ii) the Overnight and 1, 3, 6 and 12 month USD LIBOR settings immediately following the LIBOR publication on June 30, 2023. The Alternative Reference Rates Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank (ARRC) has published recommended standard provisions with respect to the LIBOR–SOFR transition (the “ARRC Standard Language”), which have been making their way in to recent loan documentation2, pursuant to which the Feedback Statement constitutes a “Benchmark Transition Event” as defined in the ARRC Standard Language because it is a “a public statement or publication of information by or on behalf of the administrator . . . announcing that such administrator has ceased or will cease to provide all [available interest periods] of such [interest rate benchmark] (or such component thereof), permanently or indefinitely. . .” (emphasis added).3 The ARRC Standard Language has both an amendment approach, whereby parties are permitted to amend the relevant loan documentation to reflect the new benchmark after a Benchmark Transition Event, and a hardwired approach, whereby the transition occurs automatically. As a result, we expect that borrowers with loan documents that follow the amendment approach will begin to get inbounds from their lenders to start the process of reflecting the new benchmark, and borrowers with loan documentation with the hardwired approach will make the transition to SOFR automatically once the administrator indefinitely ceases to provide the applicable LIBOR rate. Finally, to the extent that loan documents lack the ARRC Standard Language but require a conversion to an “alternate base rate” if LIBOR falls away, such loan documents will shift from LIBOR to the “alternate base rate” (rather than SOFR) once LIBOR is retired (unless the loan documents are affirmatively amended).

Discrepancies Between LIBOR and SOFR “Floors”:

LIBOR loan documents often include interest rate “floors” providing that, regardless of actual LIBOR at any given time, “LIBOR” shall never be deemed to fall below a certain threshold under the loan document. For example, a loan document with a 1.00 percent LIBOR floor would calculate LIBOR at 1.00 percent if LIBOR’s actual value were below that threshold (and a loan document with a 0.00 percent LIBOR floor would never include negative LIBOR in the calculation of applicable interest rates). However, some LIBOR loan documents—even those with LIBOR replacement language—do not take into account that yield loss could arise from the upcoming LIBOR transition due to a “mismatch” between the LIBOR and SOFR floors. Although the NYFRB has published fallback language that includes a “spread adjustment” intended to make up the difference between LIBOR and SOFR, this adjustment may not be sufficient, from a lender’s perspective, when considered in light of the corresponding interest rate floors.

As an illustration, assume that (i) the loan documents have a 1.00 percent LIBOR floor, but no floor for SOFR or a comparable interest rate, (ii) the current applicable interest period is one-month LIBOR, (iii) the applicable margin is 3.50 percent and (iv) the loan documents include “spread adjustment provisions” with an applicable spread adjustment (as recommended by the NYFRB) of 0.20 percent. If the one-month LIBOR at the time of calculation is 0.12 percent, the applicable LIBOR interest rate would be the floor (1.00 percent) plus the applicable margin (3.50 percent) for a total yield of 4.50 percent. However, if the applicable benchmark has transitioned from LIBOR to SOFR and the one-month SOFR is 0.06 percent, the applicable SOFR interest rate at the same time would be the one-month SOFR (0.12 percent)4 plus the applicable spread adjustment (0.20 percent) plus the applicable margin (3.50 percent) for a total yield of 3.82 percent (or 0.68 percent less than the applicable LIBOR interest rate).

Differences in interest rate floors could thus cause unexpected adverse consequences for lenders due to the LIBOR transition; accordingly, lenders should review their existing loan documentation and consider amending it to the extent a discrepancy exists between the LIBOR and SOFR floors. Lenders should also consider any necessary consents they may need to obtain from other lenders (discussed below) in order to remedy this issue, as loan documents typically require the consent of all affected lenders to amend any economic provisions (which would include the amendment of an interest rate floor).

Voting Issues:

Finally, lenders whose loan documents do not currently include transition language should consider potential inter-lender voting issues as LIBOR’s transition approaches. As discussed above, all affected lenders likely need to consent to any change in interest rate calculation, which may include adding or amending fallback provisions. Although these issues may not be present in deals with a limited number of lenders (or deals where the interests of all lenders are closely aligned), lenders participating in broadly syndicated loans should carefully consider how to address the LIBOR transition in their loan documents and what lender consents would be required to do so. The lender consent process can be time-consuming, particularly in broad syndication loans, and lenders should also recognize that third-party administrative agents may also need to consent to these changes (and may also have their own required supplemental transition language).


1 ICE Benchmark Administration, ICE LIBOR Feedback Statement on Consultation on Potential Cessation (March 5, 2021), https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/ICE_LIBOR_feedback_statement_on_consultation_on_potential_cessation.pdf.

2 Alternative Reference Rates Committee, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, ARRC Recommendations Regarding More Robust Fallback Language for New Originations of LIBOR Syndicated Loans (April 25, 2019), https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/Microsites/arrc/files/2019/Syndicated_Loan_Fallback_Language.pdf.

3 Alternative Reference Rates Committee, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, ARRC Recommendations Regarding More Robust Fallback Language for New Originations of LIBOR Syndicated Loans (June 30, 2020), https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/Microsites/arrc/files/2020/Updated-Final-Recommended-Language-June-30-2020.pdf.

4 SOFR rates are publicly available at the NYFRB’s website: https://apps.newyorkfed.org/markets/autorates/sofr-avg-ind.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.