Tag: Finance

Posted on

Suing the International Finance Corporation, and Chicago police’s destroy-or-sell policy

Petitions of the week


By Andrew Hamm

on Jan 21, 2022
at 3:49 pm

Jeffrey Fisher argues for the plaintiffs in Jam v. Intercontinental Finance Corp. in 2018. (Artwork Lien)

This 7 days we spotlight cert petitions that talk to the Supreme Court to consider, among the other factors, whether the Intercontinental Finance Company is immune from accommodate above its actions relating to the Tata Mundra Electricity Plant in Gujarat, India, and whether Chicago police’s plan of destroying or providing arrestees’ residence remaining unretrieved after 30 times violates the Fourth or Fifth Amendments.

The Overseas Sovereign Immunities Act’s commercial-exercise exception

On Tuesday, the Supreme Courtroom in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation listened to oral argument in a circumstance below the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act about preference-of-regulation procedures. In Jam v. Worldwide Finance Company, the Supreme Court docket faces another challenge under the FSIA in a situation that is back right before the justices right after they remanded it to the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in early 2019. Jam started in 2015, when farmers and fishermen who reside near the Tata Mundra Energy Plant in Gujarat, India, as nicely as other petitioners, sued the IFC in federal district court docket in Washington, D.C. The petitioners alleged that the electrical power plant — which the IFC financed and authorized from its headquarters in Washington — has “devastated” the local surroundings and way of lifestyle. In the to start with Jam situation, the Supreme Court docket dominated that the IFC did not have absolute immunity as an international business, but only “restrictive immunity,” which means that plaintiffs could sue the IFC for promises involving its industrial action carried on in the United States, or they could sue if the IFC experienced waived its immunity.

On remand, the D.C. Circuit yet again ruled that the IFC was immune from the petitioners’ go well with. Initial, affirming the district courtroom, the courtroom of appeals reasoned that the FSIA’s commercial-action exception did not apply. Simply because the “construction and operation” of the ability plant in India were being what “actually injured” the petitioners, their claims ended up not centered on any of the IFC’s professional action in the United States. Second, even with language in the IFC’s charter stating that “[a]ctions may possibly be introduced against” it, the courtroom of appeals regarded alone “obliged” by precedent to obtain waivers of immunity only if a waiver would “benefit” the organization — and the courtroom reasoned that it would not in this scenario.

In their ask for for the justices’ assessment, the petitioners preserve that the D.C. Circuit developed a new circuit split with its technique to the FSIA’ business-action exception and invented its doctrine staying away from waiver in the encounter of seemingly simple textual content waiving immunity.

Chicago police’s destroy-or-offer plan

In Conyers v. City of Chicago, Illinois, Blake Conyers challenges the Chicago Police Department’s plan of selling or destroying the individual house seized from arrestees if the arrestee does not retrieve it within just 30 days. Immediately after the Chicago law enforcement destroyed an earring, a bracelet, and two cell phones belonging to Conyers (who was in pretrial detention when the 30 days handed), Conyers sued underneath the Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments. The U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of Conyers’ promises, in part on the floor that he had recognize of his have to have to reclaim home.

These and other petitions of the 7 days are under:

Conyers v. Town of Chicago, Illinois
21-898
Situation: Whether a municipality may possibly, steady with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and pursuant to an express coverage, damage or provide residence seized throughout the stock search of an arrestee for the reason that the arrestee remains in custody awaiting trial for much more than 30 days and is unable to retrieve the residence.

Crow v. Fontenot
21-970
Situation: Irrespective of whether “new” proof, as referred to in Schlup v. Delo and McQuiggin v. Perkins, indicates evidence that was not out there at the time of trial or, less than the wide examining adopted below, encompasses any evidence, including evidence acknowledged by the defendant and/or obtainable with owing diligence, not offered at trial.

Idaho v. Howard
21-975
Challenge: Irrespective of whether, when officers lawfully deploy a narcotics-detection pet dog on the exterior of a motor vehicle and, without any course, prompting, or facilitation by officers, the canine briefly touches the motor vehicle or locations its snout through an open window, the dog’s perform constitutes a Fourth Amendment search by officers.

Helix Electrical power Answers Team, Inc. v. Hewitt
21-984
Concern: Irrespective of whether a supervisor making over $200,000 every single calendar year is entitled to additional time pay back since the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 remains issue to the in depth prerequisites of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 when pinpointing irrespective of whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the Good Labor Requirements Act’s overtime-fork out necessities.

Jam v. Intercontinental Finance Corporation
21-995
Troubles: (1) Irrespective of whether the professional activity exception to immunity for international sovereigns and worldwide businesses beneath the International Sovereign Immunities Act allows accommodate when the alleged functions of the defendant that give increase to its legal responsibility constitute industrial action carried on in the United States, regardless of no matter whether a further party’s carry out much more straight brought on the injury and (2) no matter whether a treaty provision stating that “[a]ctions may well be introduced towards the [international organization]” waives the organization’s immunity.

Posted on

Digitisation proving positive for finance companies

Finance firms who invested in digitisation during 2021 are presently encountering the constructive outcomes, according to a new survey by Broadridge Financial Solutions.

Broadridge surveyed 750 financial establishments, with total property or AUM of providers in the sample ranging from USD$1 billion to more than $500 billion globally. They had been requested a assortment of issues about their implementation of electronic transformation and technological uptake.

44{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of corporations in Asia-Pacific indicated that the pandemic has accelerated the pace of their technological innovation implementation, and on ordinary, organizations in Asia earmark about 11{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of their full once-a-year IT finances for digital transformation. In two decades the the greater part of these companies anticipate to increase their expending to 14{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}.

China experienced the best surveyed reaction for acceleration, with 62{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of firms reporting implementation owning gotten more rapidly.

There was also an amplified curiosity in blockchain and cloud-based finance selections as effectively. The study showed that though 78{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of corporations have presently designed progress in their use of the cloud over the previous calendar year, the range of firms achieving mid or advanced levels of implementation amplified to 80{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} in 2021. This statistic is anticipated to leap significantly to 91{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} more than the next two decades.

The use of blockchain is stated to also considerably widen heading forward, with far more than two-thirds (69{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}) of companies scheduling to get to the afterwards levels of this form of implementation in two several years.

Digital ledgers were being also a intensely pointed out thought in the survey, with the total of electronic ledger implementations raising from 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} to 37{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}. 

Practically all firms categorised as leaders in the maturity framework have been uncovered to be at a mid-to-superior level of implementation on the other hand, only 11{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} of inexperienced persons in the maturity framework were at mid-to-state-of-the-art stages of implementation. This suggests a additional have to have to target on encouraging rookies with effortless and successful answers to suit their small business requirements.

Although inexperienced persons are reporting decreased numbers, the study exhibits that two-thirds of corporations have by now begun location up a centralised information platform with access to facts throughout divisions, which makes it possible for them to provide prospects additional holistically and make much better strategic decisions.

Broadridge chief govt officer Tim Gokey claims that prospects are wondering about new ways to scale up and thus searching to new technologies.

“Digital leaders are succeeding with a very clear eyesight and roadmap that prioritises digitised communications, encounters, and workflows leveraging robust info and analytics,” he says.

“This year’s study confirms that major corporations are much more pushed than at any time to apply the critical pillars of a electronic-very first long run. As a outcome, digital transformation leaders are seeing accelerated progress.”

Posted on

Ferroglobe Finance Company, PLC — Moody’s affirms Ferroglobe’s Caa1 CFR, changes outlook to positive

Rating Action: Moody’s affirms Ferroglobe’s Caa1 CFR, changes outlook to positiveGlobal Credit Research – 17 Jan 2022London, 17 January 2022 — Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has today affirmed Ferroglobe PLC’s (“Ferroglobe”, or “the company”) Caa1 corporate family rating (CFR) and the company’s Caa1-PD probability of default rating (PDR). Concurrently, Moody’s affirmed the Caa3 instrument rating of Ferroglobe’s $350 million backed senior unsecured notes due in March 2022, the B2 instrument rating of the company’s $60 million backed senior secured notes due in 2025, and the Caa2 rating of the $345 million backed senior secured notes due in 2025 both issued by Ferroglobe Finance Company, PLC. The outlook on all ratings was changed to positive from stable.RATINGS RATIONALEThe affirmation of the Caa1 CFR and Caa1-PD PDR ratings reflects Moody’s view that Ferroglobe’s liquidity is currently not commensurate with a higher rating despite improving profitability and significantly upward adjusted base case projections for 2022.Ferroglobe’s Q3 2021 results affirmed that the company continues its turnaround in terms of reported EBITDA generation with $35 million generated in Q3 2021 compared with $32 million in Q2 2021 and a loss of $12 million in Q3 2020. At the same time, the company needed to invest materially into its working capital with an associated cash outflow of $72 million in Q3 2021. Despite additional liquidity of $60 million in Q3 2021 from the issuance of $20 million of senior secured notes (this was the final tranche of the $60 million senior secured notes) and $40 million of equity, both part of the earlier exchange of the March 2022 notes, the company’s unrestricted cash balance reduced to $89 million at the end of September 2021 from $100 million at the end of June 2021. Moody’s believes that Ferroglobe’s liquidity likely needs to be strengthened over the next few months to accommodate further working capital requirements driven by rising raw material prices, higher prices of the company’s finished goods as well as rising production volume.Moody’s has revised upward its base case projections for Ferroglobe for 2022 driven by significantly higher prices of silicon metal, silicon-based alloys, and manganese-based alloys. Especially silicon metal prices have increased multiple times in recent months and now stand at an all-time high level. We believe that Ferroglobe will start benefitting materially from these higher price levels in 2022 when annual contracts at lower fixed prices are being adjusted to the current high prices. Rising contracted prices are expected to more than offset increasing production cost driven by higher energy and raw material cost resulting in substantially improving earnings in 2022-23.Accordingly, Moody’s forecasts the company’s sales to rise by around 40{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} to $2.3 billion from an estimated $1.6 billion in 2021 with Moody’s adjusted EBITDA increasing to above $400 million from an expected $150 million in 2021. Despite substantial working capital cash outflow and higher capital investments than in recent years, the rating agency projects Ferroglobe to achieve positive free cash flow (FCF) generation in 2022. These projection result in materially stronger credit metrics at year-end 2022 with Moody’s adjusted debt / EBITDA falling to around 2x from around 11x as of the last twelve months (LTM) to September 2021.Despite the forecast for positive FCF generation in 2022, Moody’s remains concerned about Ferroglobe’s liquidity during the first half of 2022 as the larger working capital might require funding at the start of the year.LIQUIDITYFerroglobe’s liquidity remains weak despite the materially improved debt maturity profile driven by the exchange of the March 2022 $350 million backed senior unsecured notes in 2021 with only around $5 million still outstanding. As of September 2021, the company reported unrestricted cash and cash equivalents of only $89 million. The company does not have a committed credit facility.Although the exchange of the notes alongside the injection of fresh capital in 2021 improved Ferroglobe’s liquidity to some extent and despite the rating agency’s projection of positive FCF generation in 2022, Moody’s still considers the company’s liquidity position as weak. This assessment is driven by the expected significant cash outflow in H1 2022 related to working capital funding. As there is a wide range of scenarios for the company’s working capital requirements in 2022, Moody’s highlights that Ferroglobe might need to raise additional capital to fund working capital.STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONSThe B2 rating of the $60 million backed senior secured notes reflects the senior ranking in the capital structure ahead of the $345 million backed senior secured 2025 notes which are rated Caa2. Ferroglobe’s senior unsecured notes due in March 2022 are rated Caa3, two notches below the CFR. This reflects the severe subordination driven by the $60 million backed senior secured notes as well as the $345 million backed senior secured notes, which both rank senior to the 2022 notes. The B2 rating of the new $60 million backed senior secured notes takes into account the possibility of Ferroglobe entering into a new asset based loan which is permitted under the debt documentation.RATIONALE FOR OUTLOOKThe positive outlook reflects the gradual recovery of the company’s earnings during the first three quarters of 2021 and Moody’s expectation of a material improvement of Ferroglobe’s financial performance in 2022 driven by better market conditions and the company’s cost efficiency measures.FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGSPositive pressure on the ratings could develop if the company:» Improves its operating profitability and credit metrics with Moody’s-adjusted gross debt/EBITDA falling to less than 6.0x and positive free cash flow (FCF) generation on a sustained basis» further improves its liquidity position such that it can be considered adequateThe ratings could be downgraded in case of a renewed market downturn, preventing further meaningful recovery in the company’s profitability in the next twelve months. In particular, a downgrade could be triggered if its Moody’s-adjusted gross debt/EBITDA remains above 8.0x for a prolonged period.PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGYThe principal methodology used in these ratings was Manufacturing published in September 2021 and available at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1287885. Alternatively, please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.COMPANY PROFILEHeadquartered in London, Ferroglobe PLC is a leading producer of silicon metal and silicon/manganese alloys, with revenue of $1.1 billion in 2020. Ferroglobe, which is 49.3{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996} owned by Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U. (Grupo Villar Mir), was formed in December 2015 through the combination of the Europe-based Ferroatlántica, a subsidiary of the Spanish Villar Mir industrial conglomerate, and the US-based competitor Globe Specialty Metals Inc. The company is listed on the NASDAQ and had a market capitalisation of $1.1 billion as of 13 January 2022.REGULATORY DISCLOSURESFor further specification of Moody’s key rating assumptions and sensitivity analysis, see the sections Methodology Assumptions and Sensitivity to Assumptions in the disclosure form. Moody’s Rating Symbols and Definitions can be found at: https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_79004.For ratings issued on a program, series, category/class of debt or security this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to each rating of a subsequently issued bond or note of the same series, category/class of debt, security or pursuant to a program for which the ratings are derived exclusively from existing ratings in accordance with Moody’s rating practices. For ratings issued on a support provider, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the credit rating action on the support provider and in relation to each particular credit rating action for securities that derive their credit ratings from the support provider’s credit rating. For provisional ratings, this announcement provides certain regulatory disclosures in relation to the provisional rating assigned, and in relation to a definitive rating that may be assigned subsequent to the final issuance of the debt, in each case where the transaction structure and terms have not changed prior to the assignment of the definitive rating in a manner that would have affected the rating. For further information please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page for the respective issuer on www.moodys.com.For any affected securities or rated entities receiving direct credit support from the primary entity(ies) of this credit rating action, and whose ratings may change as a result of this credit rating action, the associated regulatory disclosures will be those of the guarantor entity. Exceptions to this approach exist for the following disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary Services, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated entity.The ratings have been disclosed to the rated entity or its designated agent(s) and issued with no amendment resulting from that disclosure.These ratings are solicited. Please refer to Moody’s Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Ratings available on its website www.moodys.com.Regulatory disclosures contained in this press release apply to the credit rating and, if applicable, the related rating outlook or rating review.Moody’s general principles for assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in our credit analysis can be found at http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1288235.The Global Scale Credit Rating on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by one of Moody’s affiliates outside the EU and is endorsed by Moody’s Deutschland GmbH, An der Welle 5, Frankfurt am Main 60322, Germany, in accordance with Art.4 paragraph 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit Rating Agencies. Further information on the EU endorsement status and on the Moody’s office that issued the credit rating is available on www.moodys.com.Please see www.moodys.com for any updates on changes to the lead rating analyst and to the Moody’s legal entity that has issued the rating.Please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for additional regulatory disclosures for each credit rating. Sven Reinke Senior Vice President Corporate Finance Group Moody’s Investors Service Ltd. One Canada Square Canary Wharf London E14 5FA United Kingdom JOURNALISTS: 44 20 7772 5456 Client Service: 44 20 7772 5454 Mario Santangelo Associate Managing Director Corporate Finance Group JOURNALISTS: 44 20 7772 5456 Client Service: 44 20 7772 5454 Releasing Office: Moody’s Investors Service Ltd. One Canada Square Canary Wharf London E14 5FA United Kingdom JOURNALISTS: 44 20 7772 5456 Client Service: 44 20 7772 5454 © 2022 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE APPLICABLE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK.All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. MOODY’S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY’S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications.To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.Additional terms for Japan only: Moody’s Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY100,000 to approximately JPY550,000,000.MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements. ​

Posted on

Home Credit Vietnam Finance Company Limited — Moody’s withdraws Home Credit Vietnam Finance Company’s ratings due to business reasons

Rating Motion: Moody’s withdraws Residence Credit score Vietnam Finance Firm’s scores thanks to company reasonsGlobal Credit history Investigate – 13 Jan 2022Singapore, January 13, 2022 — Moody’s Traders Support has right now withdrawn the adhering to rankings of Household Credit history Vietnam Finance Enterprise Constrained.- Extensive-time period Issuer Scores (Overseas and Local Currency) of B3- Company Relatives Ranking of B3The rating outlook was secure prior to the withdrawal.Ratings RATIONALEMoody’s has resolved to withdraw the ratings for its very own enterprise causes. You should refer to the Moody’s Traders Service Policy for Withdrawal of Credit history Rankings, readily available on its website, www.moodys.com.Home Credit score Vietnam Finance Organization Minimal (HCV), headquartered in Ho Chi Minh Metropolis, claimed full assets of VND22 trillion as of 31 December 2020.REGULATORY DISCLOSURESFor any influenced securities or rated entities obtaining immediate credit history assist from the principal entity(ies) of this credit rating rating motion, and whose ratings might adjust as a final result of this credit score rating motion, the affiliated regulatory disclosures will be those people of the guarantor entity. Exceptions to this solution exist for the adhering to disclosures, if applicable to jurisdiction: Ancillary Providers, Disclosure to rated entity, Disclosure from rated entity.The scores have been disclosed to the rated entity or its specified agent(s) and issued with no amendment resulting from that disclosure.These ratings are solicited. Make sure you refer to Moody’s Policy for Designating and Assigning Unsolicited Credit Rankings readily available on its website www.moodys.com.Regulatory disclosures contained in this press launch use to the credit rating rating and, if applicable, the linked rating outlook or score evaluation.Moody’s normal concepts for evaluating environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks in our credit rating assessment can be observed at http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBC_1288235.The World Scale Credit Ranking on this Credit Rating Announcement was issued by a person of Moody’s affiliates outside the house the EU and is endorsed by Moody’s Deutschland GmbH, An der Welle 5, Frankfurt am Key 60322, Germany, in accordance with Art.4 paragraph 3 of the Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit score Rating Agencies. More facts on the EU endorsement standing and on the Moody’s business office that issued the credit score rating is obtainable on www.moodys.com.The International Scale Credit score Score on this Credit Score Announcement was issued by 1 of Moody’s affiliate marketers outside the house the British isles and is endorsed by Moody’s Buyers Services Limited, One Canada Sq., Canary Wharf, London E14 5FA under the law applicable to credit ranking agencies in the British isles. Further more facts on the British isles endorsement position and on the Moody’s business office that issued the credit score score is available on www.moodys.com.Be sure to see www.moodys.com for any updates on variations to the direct rating analyst and to the Moody’s legal entity that has issued the ranking.Remember to see the rankings tab on the issuer/entity web page on www.moodys.com for more regulatory disclosures for each credit history score. Rebecca Tan VP-Senior Analyst/CSR Monetary Institutions Group Moody’s Traders Services Singapore Pte. Ltd. 50 Raffles Location #23-06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 48623 Singapore JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Consumer Support: 852 3551 3077 Graeme Knowd MD – Banking Fiscal Establishments Group JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Shopper Provider: 852 3551 3077 Releasing Office environment: Moody’s Buyers Support Singapore Pte. Ltd. 50 Raffles Position #23-06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 48623 Singapore JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Consumer Support: 852 3551 3077 © 2022 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Assistance, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All legal rights reserved.Credit Scores ISSUED BY MOODY’S Credit Scores Affiliate marketers ARE THEIR Current Views OF THE RELATIVE Long run Credit rating Danger OF ENTITIES, Credit rating COMMITMENTS, OR Debt OR Credit card debt-LIKE SECURITIES, AND Products, Items, Solutions AND Information Posted BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, “PUBLICATIONS”) May well Consist of These types of Recent Thoughts. MOODY’S DEFINES Credit rating Hazard AS THE Threat THAT AN ENTITY May possibly NOT Satisfy ITS CONTRACTUAL Fiscal OBLIGATIONS AS THEY Come Due AND ANY Estimated Financial Decline IN THE Celebration OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE Relevant MOODY’S Score SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR Data ON THE Types OF CONTRACTUAL Money OBLIGATIONS Addressed BY MOODY’S Credit history Rankings. Credit rating Rankings DO NOT Handle ANY OTHER Hazard, Including BUT NOT Limited TO: LIQUIDITY Chance, Sector Worth Danger, OR Cost VOLATILITY. Credit rating Ratings, NON-Credit history ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER Thoughts Integrated IN MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF Recent OR Historic Fact. MOODY’S PUBLICATIONS May well ALSO Consist of QUANTITATIVE Model-Based mostly ESTIMATES OF Credit score Possibility AND Related Viewpoints OR COMMENTARY Printed BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS Affiliates. MOODY’S Credit history Scores, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Views AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT Represent OR Offer Investment decision OR Economic Assistance, AND MOODY’S Credit Ratings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Views AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT Provide Recommendations TO Acquire, Offer, OR Hold Individual SECURITIES. MOODY’S Credit history Rankings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Thoughts AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT Comment ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN Financial investment FOR ANY Unique Trader. MOODY’S Concerns ITS Credit history Scores, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER Thoughts AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND Understanding THAT Each and every Investor WILL, WITH Owing Care, MAKE ITS Possess Study AND Analysis OF Just about every Security THAT IS Beneath Thought FOR Order, Holding, OR SALE.MOODY’S Credit Scores, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Thoughts, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT Meant FOR USE BY RETAIL Investors AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL Investors TO USE MOODY’S Credit score Ratings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Thoughts OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN Creating AN Expenditure Determination. IF IN Question YOU Must Contact YOUR Money OR OTHER Professional ADVISER.ALL Details CONTAINED HEREIN IS Protected BY Law, Such as BUT NOT Restricted TO, COPYRIGHT Legislation, AND NONE OF These kinds of Information and facts May possibly BE COPIED OR Or else REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, Further TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR Saved FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY These kinds of Intent, IN Total OR IN Section, IN ANY Type OR Manner OR BY ANY Indicates By any means, BY ANY Particular person With out MOODY’S PRIOR Prepared CONSENT.MOODY’S Credit score Rankings, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Viewpoints AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT Intended FOR USE BY ANY Man or woman AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT Phrase IS Described FOR REGULATORY Applications AND Should NOT BE Used IN ANY WAY THAT COULD Consequence IN THEM Remaining Regarded as A BENCHMARK.All info contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources thought by it to be accurate and trustworthy. For the reason that of the probability of human or mechanical error as effectively as other components, even so, all data contained herein is delivered “AS IS” with out guarantee of any type. MOODY’S adopts all needed actions so that the data it utilizes in assigning a credit rating score is of adequate quality and from resources MOODY’S considers to be reliable together with, when ideal, independent third-bash sources. On the other hand, MOODY’S is not an auditor and are unable to in every instance independently verify or validate details received in the score process or in making ready its Publications.To the extent permitted by regulation, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, brokers, reps, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any human being or entity for any oblique, unique, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in relationship with the details contained herein or the use of or lack of ability to use any such info, even if MOODY’S or any of its administrators, officers, workforce, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is encouraged in advance of the possibility of these kinds of losses or damages, together with but not minimal to: (a) any reduction of existing or future income or (b) any decline or harm arising where the related economic instrument is not the topic of a certain credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.To the extent permitted by regulation, MOODY’S and its administrators, officers, personnel, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any human being or entity, which include but not constrained to by any carelessness (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of legal responsibility that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law can not be excluded) on the element of, or any contingency in just or outside of the handle of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees, brokers, associates, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in relationship with the information and facts contained herein or the use of or inability to use any this sort of data.NO Guarantee, Categorical OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE Accuracy, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR Health FOR ANY Distinct Reason OF ANY Credit score Ranking, Assessment, OTHER Belief OR Information and facts IS Specified OR Designed BY MOODY’S IN ANY Form OR Method In any respect.Moody’s Investors Assistance, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of credit card debt securities (together with company and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and business paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Provider, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit score score, agreed to pay back to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and solutions rendered by it expenses ranging from $1,000 to about $5,000,000. MCO and Moody’s Buyers Service also maintain policies and methods to handle the independence of Moody’s Buyers Service credit score scores and credit rating score processes. Information concerning particular affiliations that may well exist among directors of MCO and rated entities, and concerning entities who keep credit history ratings from Moody’s Buyers Assistance and have also publicly described to the SEC an possession fascination in MCO of additional than 5{21df340e03e388cc75c411746d1a214f72c176b221768b7ada42b4d751988996}, is posted every year at www.moodys.com less than the heading “Investor Relations — Company Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”Additional conditions for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Economical Providers License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Assistance Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as relevant). This doc is supposed to be provided only to “wholesale clients” inside of the this means of part 761G of the Organizations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from inside of Australia, you stand for to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the doc as a agent of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you symbolize will right or indirectly disseminate this doc or its contents to “retail clients” in just the this means of area 761G of the Firms Act 2001. MOODY’S credit history rating is an belief as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the fairness securities of the issuer or any form of stability that is offered to retail traders.Added conditions for Japan only: Moody’s Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating company subsidiary of Moody’s Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody’s Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody’s SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit ranking company subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Business (“NRSRO”). For that reason, credit rating ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit rating Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit score Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, therefore, the rated obligation will not qualify for selected kinds of procedure underneath U.S. guidelines. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating score agencies registered with the Japan Money Products and services Company and their registration figures are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (together with company and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and professional paper) and preferred inventory rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as relevant) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating score, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as relevant) for credit score ratings opinions and expert services rendered by it charges ranging from JPY100,000 to somewhere around JPY550,000,000.MJKK and MSFJ also maintain guidelines and methods to handle Japanese regulatory requirements. ​

Posted on

CEO admits stealing $15 million from her company to finance clothing boutique, Plaza Hotel visits, and $200K on relative’s wedding

That is some significant-conclusion embezzlement.

The U.S. main executive of a German saw-blade maker has pleaded responsible to stealing $15 million from the firm to bankroll a luxurious clothes and household furniture boutique she ran on the facet.

Donna Osowitt Steele, 52, of Taylorsville, N.C. experienced worked for Tigra United states due to the fact 1999, commencing in the delivery section and increasing to develop into chief executive. Prosecutors say that commencing in 2013, Steele commenced pilfering from the HIckory-N.C.- primarily based company’s coffers, ultimately pocketing hundreds of thousands.

Crafting enterprise checks to herself and making use of business credit rating cards, Steele utilised $350,000 of the hard cash to launch a luxury clothing and furnishings company known as Opulence by Steele. 

Serial embezzler

Nevertheless, the responsible plea was not the first time Steele had been accused of embezzlement. In 1995, she pleaded guilty to thieving $500,000 above a six month time period from a loved ones-operate signal company in which she labored, in accordance to the Hickory Everyday Report. She served almost a calendar year in condition prison and was ordered to shell out the funds again.

She also had before convictions for grand larceny and creating negative checks.   

Extravagant spending

She also was accused of paying out in excess of $1 million on lavish journeys, which include $255,000 at the Plaza Resort in New York and $155,000 at the Ritz Carlton Kapalua in Hawaii. She also put in $6,800 for a excursion to see a Notre Dame-Virginia Tech soccer game.

Steele was charged with investing over $200,000 of the company’s funds to pay for a relative’s wedding day, and $100,000 on slice bouquets additionally another $100,000 on Gucci clothing and bags.

Prosecutors also billed Steele with shelling out above $500,000 on jewelry. 

Steele pleaded responsible on Wednesday in federal courtroom in North Carolina to wire fraud. She faces up to 20 yrs in prison. A concept left with her legal professional wasn’t promptly returned. 

Covering her tracks

In accordance to courtroom files, when credit score-card corporations flagged the purchases as suspicious, Steele would tell them they had been authorized.

For the reason that of her lavish paying, the company began experiencing problems paying suppliers and covering its personal payroll charges. Business employees also commenced looking at prices becoming denied on their corporate credit history cards, 

To even further protect her tracks, prosecutors said Steele explained to employees the dad or mum enterprise in Germany was acquiring monetary problems. She also instructed them to limit communications with their counterparts in Germany and to hand more than passwords to all the company’s methods to her. 

Company officers in Germany sooner or later grew suspicious and began investigating, and identified big discrepancies in the firm’s books. They then fired Steele and contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

“We are gratified that justice is becoming completed,” reported Bernd Motzer, a member of the family that owns Tigra who took over as president and CEO of its U.S. division after Steele was fired.

Posted on

Horizon Technology Finance Provides Fourth Quarter 2021 Portfolio Update

FARMINGTON, Conn., Jan. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: HRZN) (“HRZN” or the “Company”), a leading specialty finance company that provides capital in the form of secured loans to venture capital backed companies in the technology, life science, healthcare information and services, and sustainability industries, today provided its portfolio update for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2021 and an update on the lending platform (“Horizon Platform”) of Horizon Technology Finance Management LLC (“HTFM”), its investment adviser.

“We had another exceptional quarter, closing $118 million of loans originated through our lending platform, including $80 million of loans for HRZN,” said Gerald A. Michaud, President of HTFM. “For the year, the Horizon Platform originated over $425 million in new loans, including a record-high $297 million for the HRZN portfolio.”

“In addition, the committed backlog originated by the Horizon Platform grew to $153 million of debt investments, including $125 million in HRZN commitments, while the Horizon Platform maintained a considerable pipeline of new investment opportunities at the end of 2021,” added Mr. Michaud. “This positions the Horizon Platform and HRZN for additional growth in 2022 and further evidences the increasing power of the Horizon brand to attract unique, diverse and transformative companies.”

“Also in the fourth quarter, HRZN received $55 million in loan prepayments – validating our predictive pricing strategy and providing HRZN with additional fee income and accelerated interest income. Entering 2022, we are excited by the opportunity to further grow the Horizon Platform and HRZN loan portfolio and to deliver more value to HRZN’s shareholders,” concluded Mr. Michaud.

Fourth Quarter 2021 Portfolio Update

Originations

During the fourth quarter of 2021, a total of $118.2 million of loans funded through the Horizon Platform, including 17 loans totaling $79.9 million funded by HRZN as follows:

  • $12.5 million to a new portfolio company, Interior Define, Inc., an e-commerce platform that designs, sells and markets customized furniture direct to consumers.
  • $8.5 million to an existing portfolio company, Branded Online, Inc. (d/b/a Nogin), a company offering commerce-as-a-service to consumer and lifestyle brands.
  • $7.5 million to a new portfolio company, GreenLight Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing ribonucleic acid (RNA) solutions for human health and agricultural challenges.
  • $7.5 million to a new portfolio company, IMV Inc. (NASDAQ: IMV), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing a new class of cancer immunotherapies and infectious disease vaccines.
  • $7.0 million to a new portfolio company, an online platform offering high quality used cars to consumers on a subscription basis.
  • $5.0 million to a new portfolio company, a builder of conservation memorial forests that offer sustainable alternatives to cemeteries.
  • $5.0 million to an existing portfolio company, Emalex Biosciences, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing treatments for central nervous system movement disorders and fluency disorders.
  • $5.0 million to an existing portfolio company, Supply Network Visibility Holdings LLC (d/b/a Everstream Analytics), a provider of supply chain risk management software.
  • $5.0 million to an existing portfolio company, Provivi, Inc., a developer of cost-effective natural crop protection products which utilize pheromones to disrupt the typical insect mating cycle.
  • $5.0 million to an existing portfolio company, Ceribell, Inc., a developer of an FDA-cleared rapid response electroencephalography (EEG) medical device, which measures the amount of electrical activity in different regions of the brain in order to diagnose seizures.
  • $3.5 million to a new portfolio company, a family experience creator that combines play, media and merchandise designed to inspire and engage families.
  • $2.5 million to an existing portfolio company, a developer of technology that can identify microbes in order to accelerate treatment and improve public health.
  • $2.5 million to a new portfolio company, a data platform that enables marketers to build personalized digital experiences and 1-to-1 marketing campaigns by focusing on behavioral data.
  • $1.25 million to an existing portfolio company, Unagi, Inc., a developer of premium portable electric scooters that are offered for sale and on an affordable monthly subscription program.
  • $1.0 million to an existing portfolio company, Alula, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of security systems sold exclusively to professional distributors and dealers.
  • $1.0 million to an existing company, InfoBionic, Inc., a developer of an FDA-cleared SaaS remote monitoring system to help treat cardiac arrhythmia.

Liquidity Events

HRZN experienced liquidity events from seven portfolio companies in the fourth quarter of 2021, including principal prepayments of $55.0 million and receipt of warrant and equity proceeds totaling $0.4 million, compared to $50.4 million of principal prepayments and $1.6 million of warrant proceeds during the third quarter of 2021: 

  • In October, Getaround, Inc. prepaid its outstanding principal balance of $25.0 million on its venture loan, plus interest, end-of-term payment and prepayment fee.  HRZN continues to hold warrants in the company.
  • In October, Topia Mobility, Inc. prepaid its outstanding principal balance of $10.0 million on its venture loan, plus interest, end-of-term payment and prepayment fee.  HRZN continues to hold warrants in the company.
  • In October, HRZN received warrant proceeds of $0.1 million from its investment in Education Elements, Inc.
  • In November, CVRx, Inc. prepaid its outstanding principal balance of $20.0 million on its venture loan, plus interest, end-of-term payment and prepayment fee.  HRZN continues to hold warrants in the company.
  • In November, MVI (ABC), LLC (assignee of Stereovision Inc.) paid its outstanding principal balance of $3.5 million on its venture loan, plus interest. 
  • In December, HRZN received $7.0 million from the sale of its debt investment in Betabrand Corporation.  
  • In December, HRZN received cash proceeds of $0.3 million from the sale of shares in Qualtrics International Inc., which HRZN received in connection with the sale of Clarabridge, Inc.

Principal Payments Received

During the fourth quarter of 2021, HRZN received regularly scheduled principal payments on investments totaling $2.9 million, compared to regularly scheduled principal payments totaling $3.2 million during the third quarter of 2021.

Commitments

During the quarter ended December 31, 2021, HRZN closed new loan commitments totaling $114.9 million to 10 companies, compared to new loan commitments of $91.0 million to 11 companies in the third quarter of 2021. HTFM’s other managed funds, during the quarter, closed new loan commitments totaling $38.8 million of unfunded loan approvals and commitments.

Pipeline and Term Sheets

As of December 31, 2021, HRZN’s unfunded loan approvals and commitments (“Committed Backlog”) were $124.5 million to 23 companies. This compares to a Committed Backlog of $100.6 million to 21 companies as of September 30, 2021. HRZN’s portfolio companies have discretion whether to draw down such commitments and the right of a portfolio company to draw down its commitment is often subject to achievement of specific milestones and other conditions to borrowing.  Accordingly, there is no assurance that any or all of these transactions will be funded by HRZN. HTFM’s other managed funds ended the quarter with a total of $28.0 million of unfunded loan approvals and commitments.

During the quarter, HTFM received signed term sheets that are in the approval process, which may result in the Horizon Platform providing up to an aggregate of $135 million of new debt investments.  These opportunities are subject to underwriting conditions including, but not limited to, the completion of due diligence, negotiation of definitive documentation and investment committee approval, as well as compliance with HTFM’s allocation policy. Accordingly, there is no assurance that any or all of these transactions will be completed or funded by HRZN.

Capital Markets Activity – Warrant and Equity Portfolio

As of December 31, 2021, HRZN held a portfolio of warrant and equity positions in 77 portfolio companies, including 64 private companies, which provides the potential for future additional returns to HRZN’s shareholders.

About Horizon Technology Finance

Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (NASDAQ: HRZN) is a leading specialty finance company that provides capital in the form of secured loans to venture capital backed companies in the technology, life science, healthcare information and services, and sustainability industries. The investment objective of HRZN is to maximize its investment portfolio’s return by generating current income from the debt investments it makes and capital appreciation from the warrants it receives when making such debt investments. Horizon Technology Finance Management LLC is headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut, with a regional office in Pleasanton, California, and investment professionals located in Portland, Maine, Austin, Texas, and Reston, Virginia. To learn more, please visit www.horizontechfinance.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

 Statements included herein may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements other than statements of historical facts included in this press release may constitute forward-looking statements and are not guarantees of future performance, condition or results and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including those described from time to time in Horizon’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Horizon undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statement made herein. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release.

Contacts:

Investor Relations:
ICR
Garrett Edson
[email protected]
(860) 284-6450

Media Relations:
ICR
Chris Gillick
[email protected] 
(646) 677-1819

SOURCE Horizon Technology Finance Corporation