������Ƶ

An Intercreditor Agreement sets clear rules between multiple lenders who have claims on the same borrower, especially common in Danish corporate financing. It establishes who gets paid first, how to handle collateral, and what happens if the borrower defaults - much like a roadmap for lenders to avoid conflicts.

Under Danish law, these agreements are particularly important when dealing with syndicated loans and secured financing arrangements. They help coordinate actions between senior and junior lenders, including major Danish banks and international creditors, ensuring everyone understands their rights and responsibilities in line with Danish financial regulations and market practices.

Use an Intercreditor Agreement anytime multiple lenders provide financing to the same Danish business, especially when dealing with different levels of debt priority. This becomes crucial in scenarios like corporate restructuring, project financing, or when adding new debt to existing loan arrangements.

The agreement proves particularly valuable when mixing Danish and international lenders, or combining bank loans with bond financing. It prevents costly disputes by clearly defining each lender's rights before problems arise. Many Danish financial institutions now require these agreements for complex lending structures involving multiple creditors or when dealing with significant corporate assets.

• Primary-Secondary Structure: Most common in Danish corporate lending, where senior bank lenders take priority over junior creditors for both payment and security rights
• Pari Passu Arrangements: All creditors share equal ranking and rights, often used in syndicated loans among Danish banks
• First-Second Lien: Popular in real estate financing, defining rights between mortgage holders and subsequent lenders
• Mezzanine Debt Structure: Coordinates between senior lenders and mezzanine investors, common in Danish private equity deals
• Project Finance Type: Specifically designed for large infrastructure projects, managing multiple creditor classes with different security interests

• Senior Lenders: Usually major Danish banks or financial institutions who hold first-priority claims and often initiate the Intercreditor Agreement
• Junior Creditors: Secondary lenders, bondholders, or mezzanine financiers who agree to subordinate their claims
• Corporate Borrowers: Danish companies receiving multiple layers of financing, who must acknowledge and comply with the agreement terms
• Legal Counsel: Danish corporate lawyers who draft and negotiate the agreements, ensuring compliance with local financial regulations
• Security Agents: Financial institutions managing collateral and enforcing rights on behalf of multiple creditors

• Identify All Parties: Gather details of all lenders, their priority rankings, and the borrower's complete corporate information
• Loan Documentation: Collect existing loan agreements, security documents, and details of all debt facilities involved
• Security Interests: Map out all collateral, their rankings, and how they'll be shared among creditors
• Payment Terms: Define payment waterfall, default scenarios, and standstill periods
• Enforcement Rights: Outline voting rights, decision-making thresholds, and circumstances for independent creditor action
• Danish Compliance: Ensure alignment with local financial regulations and security registration requirements

• Parties and Definitions: Clear identification of all creditors, borrower, and key terms used throughout
• Priority Rankings: Explicit statement of payment and security priorities among different classes of creditors
• Enforcement Provisions: Rules for taking action against the borrower and standstill periods
• Payment Waterfall: Detailed order of payment distribution among creditors
• Security Sharing: Terms for sharing and managing collective security interests
• Governing Law: Explicit choice of Danish law and jurisdiction clauses
• Amendment Rules: Procedures for modifying agreement terms and required consent levels
• Dispute Resolution: Clear mechanisms for resolving conflicts between creditors

An Intercreditor Agreement differs significantly from a Control Agreement, though both deal with financial relationships and security interests. While Intercreditor Agreements manage relationships between multiple lenders, Control Agreements focus on establishing control over specific financial accounts or assets.

• Scope and Purpose: Intercreditor Agreements cover broad lending relationships and priorities, while Control Agreements specifically deal with account access and control rights
• Parties Involved: Intercreditor Agreements involve multiple lenders and a borrower, whereas Control Agreements typically involve a single lender, account holder, and financial institution
• Security Focus: Intercreditor Agreements address all collateral and security interests, while Control Agreements concentrate on specific financial accounts or assets
• Enforcement Mechanisms: Intercreditor Agreements establish complex creditor rights hierarchies, but Control Agreements simply define access and control procedures for specific accounts