The term “pari passu” refers to the equal treatment and ranking of obligations or creditors in finance. Pari passu means “with equal step” or “on equal footing” and originates from a Latin term. It is a legal principle used in commercial agreements and contracts to indicate that certain debts or creditors will be treated equally. Obligations or rights within these agreements are often held pari passu to ensure they have the same class and priority, emphasizing the importance of fairness and equity among all parties involved.
When applied to debt obligations, a pari passu clause ensures that all the specified debts will rank equally and not have preference or priority over one another. This means if the debtor goes bankrupt or enters liquidation, the pari passu debts will be paid pro rata or at an equal pace.
For instance, suppose a company issues £100 million worth of pari passu bonds with ranking and subsequently has £50 million for repayment. In such a scenario, each bondholder would receive 50% of the amount repaid. No creditors are given precedence over others.
The principle of pari passu is designed to prevent any advantages given to lenders or security holders regarding seniority, collateral rights, or payment schedules. It safeguards the interests of creditors and investors by requiring the borrower to pay for debts of ranking. Passu is a Latin phrase that underscores the principle of “on equal footing,” ensuring that in various legal and financial situations, such as commercial real estate, finance, bankruptcies, loans, and bonds, all parties are treated equally and without preference.
In finance, a pari passu clause is commonly included in loan agreements and indentures to specify that certain creditors or debt instruments will rank equally, ensuring no preference in priority and thus ranking equally in terms of their legal claim. This means they will be paid pro rata or receive an equal fractional share if a borrower’s assets need to be liquidated or distributed.
The pari passu concept reflects the equitable principle that creditors of the same class should be treated fairly, with no preferences or subordination. It provides that assets will be divided and obligations will be settled on a proportional, pro rata basis among equivalent creditors.
By including a passu provision in a loan contract or bond agreement lenders can ensure they receive a portion of any payments or distributions from a debtor company. This provision proves valuable in scenarios like bankruptcy where creditors may attempt to assert priority over one another.
The legal roots of pari passu thus arise from basic notions of fairness and equal treatment under the law, which were later codified in lending agreements to govern creditor rights. The term gained wider usage in finance as a tool to balance interests in multi-creditor structures.
In finance, the pari passu principle is frequently incorporated through clauses in financial instruments such as loan agreements and debt securities. These clauses are crafted to uphold treatment, among creditors across equity classes and debt tranches.
In cases where a company secures financing from lenders or issues debt securities, the pari passu provision dictates that all debts are equally ranked. This stops lenders from getting precedence over others when making demands, on the business's resources or profits.
For instance, in a scenario where a company owes money to both banks and has issued bonds publicly, the pari passu provision guarantees that neither group receives treatment. All creditors are entitled to a share of the company's resources and revenue. This protects creditors from being subordinated without consent.
Pari passu clauses also impact creditor rights and recoveries in the event a company declares bankruptcy or insolvency. The clause prevents creditors of equal rank from being treated differently in liquidation. All pari passu ranking debts get an equal, pro-rata share of remaining assets based on claim amounts. In the event of a company's bankruptcy, pari passu clauses ensure that all creditors receive the same fractional amount of any available assets, emphasizing the equal treatment principle.
By contractually binding creditors to equal footing, the pari passu clause aims to prevent preferential payouts to select creditors in distress scenarios. This provides important protection for investors and lenders when analyzing default risks.
However, pari passu clauses have faced challenges. Courts have sometimes upheld secured creditors’ collateral rights over unsecured pari passu creditors. The enforceability of pari passu remains contentious in certain jurisdictions. But overall, pari passu remains an important tool for establishing fair treatment in corporate finance.
The pari passu principle also applies to sovereign debt obligations issued by governments. When a country issues bonds or takes loans, these are typically governed by contracts that contain pari passu clauses. This means all the external debt obligations of the sovereign are intended to rank equally without any seniority or preference.
However, pari passu has been controversial in sovereign debt restructurings and workouts. If a country defaults, creditors fear violations of pari passu may subordinate their claims. Some distressed debt funds have used litigation to enforce pari passu, disrupting restructuring negotiations.
A notable case involved Argentina defaulting on bonds containing a pari passu clause in 2001. Holdout creditors sued Argentina and obtained injunctions in US courts based on the pari passu clause. This prevented Argentina from paying restructured bondholders without also paying the holdouts. After a lengthy legal battle, Argentina settled with some holdout creditors in 2016.
The Argentina pari passu case highlighted risks in sovereign debt restructuring. Creditors can potentially use pari passu litigation to disrupt orderly restructurings and obtain better recovery terms. As a result, newer sovereign bonds have moved away from traditional pari passu clauses. But risks still remain regarding previously issued debt with pari passu clauses.
Going forward, sovereigns and creditors must pay close attention to pari passu in debt renegotiations. Clear contracts and balanced forums for dispute resolution will be needed. The principle of pari passu remains vitally important, but further evolution in its application to sovereign debt restructuring may occur.
The pari passu principle has some important exceptions and limitations in practice. Secured debt often takes priority over unsecured debt in repayment, overriding the equal treatment of pari passu. Collateral gives secured lenders a prior claim on certain assets, ahead of unsecured creditors.
Subordination agreements can also change the pari passu ranking, contractually establishing certain creditors as junior to others. This voluntary subordination is common with mezzanine and junior debt. Statutory exceptions may also apply, such as employee wages and taxes getting priority in bankruptcy under insolvency laws.
Pari passu works for creditors of the same class, but different creditor classes can have differing rights. Secured lenders get paid before unsecured lenders, who in turn have priority over subordinated creditors per the contractual agreements. So pari passu does not strictly mean all lenders share equal rights, but rather equal rights within a class.
There are also limits around enforcing pari passu, especially with sovereign debt obligations. While pari passu clauses are legally binding, creditors have struggled to enforce equal treatment against defaulting countries. Overall, pari passu functions well conceptually but faces real-world constraints from security interests, subordination, and collectability challenges.
Enforcing pari passu clauses can be difficult in practice. Holdout creditors may attempt creative legal interpretations to gain an advantage, despite the intended equal treatment principle.
Pari passu relies on voluntary compliance by debtors. If a debtor violates the clause by paying certain creditors ahead of others, aggrieved creditors must take legal action to enforce their rights. This can be an expensive and time-consuming process.
Some creditors may hold out from broader restructuring agreements, and then litigate to recover disproportionate payments based on pari passu arguments. These "vulture funds" exploit legal uncertainties around enforcing the equal ranking principle.
There have been cases where holdout creditors convinced courts to issue injunctions blocking payments to creditors who agreed to debt restructuring. This controversial interpretation views payment to some creditors as a violation of pari passu rights of holdouts.
Overall, the lack of clarity around pari passu enforcement introduces risks for creditors. Relying on voluntary compliance or winning judgments against debtors who violate the principle is difficult. This enables certain holdout creditors to gain leverage through creative legal arguments.
The enforceability and interpretation of pari passu clauses have been a source of significant controversy and debate among legal scholars, economists, and industry practitioners. Some of the key areas of disagreement include:
Academic and Industry Debates
Arguments For and Against Enforceability
Proposals for Alternative Approaches
The academic and policy debates on pari passu continue as its prevalence and legal interpretation evolves. The search for balanced approaches to preserve creditor rights while enabling cooperative solutions remains ongoing.
The interpretation and legal enforceability of pari passu clauses have been tested in courts around the world, with mixed rulings that continue to spark debate. Here are some key legal cases involving pari passu:
Belgium: Elliott Associates vs Peru
In 2000, US hedge fund Elliott Associates held bonds containing such a clause. Following Peru's default, Elliott pursued action, in Belgium to claim Peru's interest payments ahead of creditors based on its pari passu status. The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled in Elliott's favor in 2000, forcing Peru to settle.
This case brought the previously obscure pari passu clause into the spotlight. It set a precedent that pari passu obligated debtors to pay all creditors proportionally, not just equally in legal rank. This ruling was seen as an aggressive interpretation of pari passu by empowering holdout creditors.
UK: Red Mountain vs Democratic Republic of Congo
In May 2005, the hedge fund Red Mountain Finance took action, against the Democratic Republic of Congo in London regarding bonds with a pari passu clause. The fund claimed it should receive a share of payments compared to creditors with a similar ranking.
The UK High Court ruled against Red Mountain in 2007, distinguishing this case from Elliott vs Peru. The judge emphasized that pari passu only requires equal legal ranking, not pro rata payments, limiting the applicability of the controversial Belgian decision.
US: NML Capital vs Argentina
In 2012 several creditors, including NML Capital filed lawsuits against Argentina in US courts due to defaulted debt that included pari passu clauses. A district court in New York issued an order preventing Argentina from paying its restructured bondholders unless it also settled with the holdouts who were taking action such as NML.
A US appeals court upheld the controversial injunction in 2014. However, the interpretation of pari passu remained murky. The injunction was based on violating the "Equal Treatment" provision of the bonds, rather than the pari passu clause itself.
UK: NML Capital vs Argentina
After the US injunction, holdout creditors led by NML Capital sought to intercept Argentina's payments to its other bondholders through UK courts. The UK Supreme Court partially allowed this in 2014, ruling that Argentina couldn't make payments on restructured bonds without also paying the holdouts.
The UK decision provided another enforcement mechanism for holdout creditors invoking pari passu. However, Argentina ultimately resolved the dispute by agreeing to settle with NML and repaying its arrears in 2016.
These high-profile cases put pari passu clauses in the spotlight and on uncertain legal footing. The scope and enforceability of pari passu remain disputed. Creditors continue invoking it to secure better recoveries, while debtors try limiting its reach. The legacy of these legal battles lingers on.
When investing in debt issued on a pari passu basis, there are several practical considerations for investors to evaluate:
By evaluating these factors, investors can better assess the risk-return profile of pari passu debt relative to other instruments when constructing their portfolio. The pari passu structure itself does not necessarily make the debt more or less risky on its own.
In recent years, there has been growing debate about whether the traditional pari passu clause remains suitable for modern finance. Some argue that the pari passu principle is outdated and needs reform. There is also concern that holdout creditors can use pari passu as a weapon to disrupt good-faith debt restructurings.
As a result, alternatives to pari passu have been proposed. One is the "proration clause," which specifies a proportional sharing of payments if a borrower cannot pay all creditors in full. Proration clauses aim to facilitate orderly debt restructurings.
However, defenders argue that pari passu remains essential to preserve creditor rights and prevent subordination without consent. Removing pari passu could undermine basic principles of fairness and legal certainty. Reformers counter that proportional proration can be fair if implemented properly.
The debate is likely to continue, and only time will tell if pari passu remains viable or is replaced by new mechanisms. How these issues are resolved will significantly impact sovereign and corporate borrowing costs and the balance of power between creditors and debtors. But for now, pari passu remains the dominant model for ensuring equal treatment in cross-border finance.
