COVID-19’s Impact on Entertainment Finance

Apr 15, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

Even before the pandemic occurred, there was some concern last year that large, highly leveraged media giants were already treading dangerously in a volatile stock market. Last year, Netflix, with approximately $12 billion in debt, sold $2.2 billion of junk bonds to raise additional capital. This year, in a span of just days, Fox Corp., Comcast and ViacomCBS have cumulatively offered around $10 billion in debt to raise capital in response to COVID-19. Meanwhile, companies like Discovery have drawn on their revolvers to ensure they have sufficient cash on hand.

While many have alluded to parallels between today and the 2008 recession, the causes and impact of a present-day recession differ greatly. The 2008 recession was a result of a financial crisis that impacted corporate lending as a whole, resulting in tightening of lending standards and a more critical focus on creditworthiness of borrowers across all industries. In comparison, the measure of impact of any recession that may occur this year that may disproportionately affect the entertainment industry will largely depend on the length of time it will take (1) to flatten the curve and (2) for people to resume engaging in forms of entertainment that are currently prohibited in most jurisdictions, such as movie theaters, theme parks and live events.

While production loans may be delayed due to production shutdowns, producers can still focus on financing post-production, which can largely be accomplished during this time of social distancing, until new or halted production activity resumes. Entertainment companies looking to utilize general corporate facilities to finance their operations, development or productions should ensure that the definition of “material adverse effect” in their credit facilities carves out events that impact the entertainment industry as a whole. Lenders, on the other hand, should focus on ensuring borrowers can adequately comply with financial covenants, such as examining potential events that may affect liquidity and adding or tightening a new liquidity covenant, and consider instituting interest rate fluctuation protection given the lasting effects COVID-19 may have on the economy.

Lenders should also consider that entertainment financing will likely bounce back once the stay-at-home orders are lifted. According to a study by analytics company EDO, 70 percent of moviegoers indicated they were likely to return to theaters, although 45 percent would wait a few weeks, and 11 percent would wait several months. In addition, certain studios, including Netflix and HBO, are still paying cast members their talent fees, while other studios, including WarnerMedia and NBCUniversal, have set up funds for employees and production crews instead of conducting layoffs. These are promising signs that they intend to resume production as soon as possible and will need capital to do so. While residual fear of contracting COVID-19 may continue to impact revenues for some time, the recovery period may still be shorter compared with the effects of the 2008 recession, when players were dependent on recovery of the entire economy. For instance, after lending peaked in mid-2008, it declined rapidly through 2009 before resuming around 2011 at a much slower pace than in the early 2000s. Post-COVID-19, however, production lending will resume since it has no dependency on the economy as a whole.

In addition, with more than 90 percent of Americans subject to stay-at-home orders, alternative means of entertainment are still available. According to a recent Nielsen analysis, streaming has been up 85 percent for the first three weeks of March 2020, compared to the same three-week period in 2019. Meanwhile, traditional broadcasters are still able to depend on basic-cable reality television—in fact, some networks’ ratings have risen and even doubled. Looking forward, lenders and investors should take comfort in knowing that the entertainment industry, while constantly changing, will still be active.

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.