.avif)
Learn how to structure $50M+ HoldCo financing or dividend recapitalizations using private credit, senior debt and asset-backed capital.
A company can be highly valuable, profitable and conservatively financed while its shareholders still have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in the business.
Selling the company is one way to create liquidity.
It is not the only way.
For larger North American companies, a HoldCo financing or dividend recapitalization can potentially create shareholder liquidity without requiring a full sale. Both structures introduce additional leverage, however, and the location of that debt can materially change lender risk, cash-flow requirements, legal considerations and refinancing exposure.
The important question is therefore not simply, "Can we borrow another $50 million?"
It is: Where should the debt sit, what cash flow will service it, and what happens to the operating business after the distribution?
Quick Answer: A $50 million+ HoldCo financing places debt above the operating company and generally relies on permitted cash distributions to service it. A dividend recapitalization typically places new debt directly at the operating-company level and distributes proceeds to shareholders. HoldCo debt can preserve OpCo debt capacity, but structural subordination usually makes it more expensive and dependent on upstream cash availability.
The difference is primarily where the debt sits.
In a traditional dividend recapitalization, the operating company raises additional debt and distributes some or all of the proceeds to its shareholders.
The operating company therefore receives both the debt obligation and the associated interest, amortization, covenants and security package.
A HoldCo financing works differently.
The borrower is a parent or intermediate holding company above the operating business. Instead of lending directly against the OpCo's assets, the HoldCo lender may rely on the equity interests in subsidiaries, distributions from those subsidiaries and the value of the overall corporate group.
Jones Day describes HoldCo financing as debt sitting above underlying operating or project companies and being serviced through dividends, distributions, intercompany payments or other cash moving upward through the structure. The core credit issue is structural subordination: operating-company creditors generally have claims against operating assets before value can move to HoldCo.
That distinction fundamentally changes how the transaction should be underwritten.
The most common reason is shareholder liquidity without selling control.
Potential uses include:
A recap can also occur alongside a refinancing.
For example, a company with USD $80 million of existing debt could raise a new USD $150 million facility, use USD $80 million to refinance existing obligations and distribute part of the remaining proceeds to shareholders.
The transaction should still leave enough liquidity for operations.
A company that distributes every available dollar and then depends on its revolver for ordinary payroll, inventory or capital expenditures has probably pushed the recap too far.
For Canadian borrowers evaluating non-bank debt generally, Mehmi's guide to private credit in Canada explains the differences between senior private debt, unitranche, subordinated facilities and special-situations structures.
HoldCo debt can be attractive when management wants liquidity without reopening or materially increasing the existing operating-company financing.
Imagine an OpCo already has a well-priced senior syndicated bank facility.
The company is performing strongly, but its existing credit agreement restricts additional OpCo leverage or management does not want to refinance favourable senior debt solely to create shareholder liquidity.
A HoldCo lender may potentially lend higher in the structure.
That can preserve the operating facility, but it does not eliminate leverage.
The HoldCo lender still needs to be repaid.
If HoldCo does not have meaningful independent operations, the repayment source will generally depend on cash legally and contractually moving up from the OpCo.
That means the borrower should model:
A HoldCo facility that assumes 100% of theoretical excess cash can move upward is fragile.
Senior OpCo documents may contain dividend blockers or restricted-payment provisions that prevent exactly that.
Because the lender is farther away from the assets that actually produce cash.
Suppose Parent HoldCo owns 100% of Manufacturing OpCo.
Manufacturing OpCo owns the factories, receivables, inventory, machinery and customer contracts.
If HoldCo borrows USD $60 million but OpCo already owes USD $150 million to operating-company creditors, the HoldCo lender does not automatically jump in front of those OpCo creditors simply because its own loan agreement calls the facility "senior secured."
Senior to what?
That is the question.
A HoldCo lender may be senior to HoldCo equity while remaining structurally behind creditors located at OpCo.
Jones Day notes that HoldCo PIK instruments are commonly structurally subordinated to debt at the operating group and often rely on security over shares rather than direct first-ranking security over operating assets.
This is why HoldCo debt may require higher pricing, greater equity cushion or more restrictive protections.
Often, the most important collateral is the ownership interest in the underlying business.
Depending on the jurisdiction and transaction, a HoldCo lender may seek:
But the security package cannot be evaluated in isolation.
Existing OpCo financing may restrict share pledges, changes of control, additional guarantees or distributions.
The legal documentation therefore needs to answer both:
In Canadian structures involving competing claims over operating assets, Mehmi's first-lien versus second-lien financing guide explains why priority, lender consent and intercreditor restrictions matter.
A dividend recap may be cleaner when the operating business itself has substantial unused debt capacity.
Assume an OpCo has:
If the company can prudently support another USD $75 million of senior or unitranche debt, financing directly at OpCo may be less expensive and structurally simpler than issuing expensive HoldCo debt.
The lender is closer to the cash flow and collateral.
The tradeoff is that the new debt directly reduces the operating company's borrowing capacity.
Future uses of capital may become harder.
A dividend recap today can affect the company's ability to finance:
The right analysis therefore compares the shareholder liquidity generated today against the strategic flexibility removed from tomorrow.
Do not start with the size of dividend shareholders want.
Start with sustainable free cash flow.
Credit should normally examine:
There is no universal leverage multiple that makes a $50M+ recap safe.
A software company with predictable contractual revenue and minimal capital expenditure can support debt differently from a cyclical manufacturer that must constantly reinvest in inventory and machinery.
Lenders will also scrutinize why the debt is being raised.
Financing a productive acquisition gives the company another earnings-producing asset.
A dividend recap instead sends capital out of the company.
The lender is therefore underwriting the existing company's ability to service more debt without receiving an operating asset in exchange.
That usually makes downside analysis especially important.
Private credit can be useful where conventional banks are unwilling to provide the full leverage or structural flexibility shareholders want.
In the United States, Federal Reserve Financial Accounts data through Q2 2026 show private-credit loans at 7.1% of total nonfinancial corporate debt, approaching the share represented by non-mortgage loans from depository institutions.
Canada remains more bank-centred. The Bank of Canada reported in August 2026 that loans from non-bank lenders have represented roughly 15% of loans to Canadian businesses over the past decade.
Those markets are different, but the practical financing implication is similar.
A $50M+ transaction may potentially involve:
Private credit may offer more leverage or flexibility, but borrowers should compare the complete economics.
Mehmi's Canadian private-credit guide emphasizes that the real cost includes not only interest but also fees, reporting, prepayment restrictions and covenant controls. Read Mehmi's private-credit structuring guide
Potentially.
Before adding expensive cash-flow debt, examine what the company already owns.
A large manufacturer or distributor may have tens of millions of dollars tied up in:
Those assets may support a separate facility.
For a Canadian business with substantial receivables and inventory, Mehmi's asset-based lending guide and borrowing-base guide explain why eligible collateral, reserves and concentration matter more than gross balance-sheet values.
Likewise, businesses with significant owned equipment can evaluate equipment refinancing or a sale-leaseback structure.
These alternatives do not create free money.
They simply move financing to the assets best suited to support it.
The recap should be assessed after considering the entire capital structure.
Do not let the distribution consume the company's liquidity cushion.
If the operating business historically requires USD $20 million to USD $30 million of seasonal borrowing, that need still exists after shareholders receive their dividend.
In fact, the company may need more liquidity because it now has higher fixed debt service.
Management should separately model:
A revolving line should support recurring timing needs rather than become the permanent funding source for a shareholder distribution.
For Canadian operating companies, Mehmi's working-capital loan versus line-of-credit guide explains why long-term capital needs and revolving cash-flow needs should be separated.
Where liquidity is heavily tied to receivables, invoice factoring and receivables financing may be another financing lane rather than increasing permanent HoldCo debt.
It can reduce current cash payments.
It does not reduce the economic cost.
PIK, or payment-in-kind interest, is added to the loan principal instead of being paid immediately in cash.
That can be attractive where HoldCo has valuable equity but limited current distributions.
For example, a HoldCo note could have a cash-pay component plus a PIK component.
Cash-pay interest must be funded currently.
PIK compounds the amount due later.
Jones Day notes that PIK instruments can add leverage without imposing the same immediate cash-pay burden on the operating group, but repayment still ultimately depends on future distributions, refinancing or exit value.
This makes the maturity analysis critical.
A company may appear comfortable because HoldCo cash-pay interest is modest while its repayment obligation quietly grows every quarter or year.
PIK should therefore be stress-tested against realistic future enterprise values, not an assumed perfect exit multiple.
Assume shareholders of a North American industrial company want to create USD $60 million of liquidity without refinancing the existing OpCo senior facility.
A private-credit provider offers a hypothetical HoldCo facility with:
At 11.5%, the monthly cash-interest payment would be approximately USD $575,000.
That equals USD $6.9 million of annual cash interest.
Over five years, assuming the rate remains fixed and there is no principal amortization, total cash interest would equal USD $34.5 million.
At maturity, the company would still owe the original USD $60 million principal.
Including the assumed USD $1.2 million upfront fee, total cash outflow through maturity would therefore be approximately USD $95.7 million.
The credit question is not whether the company can technically raise USD $60 million.
It is whether the corporate group can reliably upstream at least USD $6.9 million annually after OpCo debt service, taxes, capital expenditures, working capital and distribution restrictions, while still having a credible strategy to repay or refinance USD $60 million five years later.
If distributions can be blocked under the OpCo credit agreement, even strong consolidated EBITDA may not solve the HoldCo lender's problem.
This example is illustrative only and is not a Mehmi Financial Group financing offer or indication of market terms.
Corporate-law rules depend on the company's jurisdiction of incorporation.
For a federally incorporated Canadian company, section 42 of the Canada Business Corporations Act prohibits a dividend where there are reasonable grounds to believe the corporation cannot pay liabilities as they become due after the payment, or where realizable asset value would fall below liabilities plus stated capital.
Provincially incorporated companies are governed by the applicable provincial corporate legislation, which should be reviewed separately.
Security over personal property also varies by province.
Common-law provinces generally use PPSA frameworks, while Quebec uses its Civil Code and RDPRM system. Ontario's PPSR, for example, permits creditors to register security interests used to establish rights against personal-property collateral.
That is one reason a recap involving several subsidiaries cannot simply be documented as if every Canadian entity sits in the same legal regime.
U.S. corporate law depends on the state of incorporation.
For example, Delaware General Corporation Law section 170 permits dividends generally from legally available surplus or, in specified circumstances, net profits. That test should not be generalized automatically to corporations organized elsewhere.
U.S. security interests in many forms of personal property are generally governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted by the relevant states.
Article 9 contains rules covering attachment, perfection and priority among competing security interests.
Large recapitalizations should therefore involve corporate, finance and insolvency counsel before the distribution is declared.
No.
Never underwrite a recap assuming every dollar of interest will create a current tax deduction.
Canada's EIFEL rules can limit net interest and financing expense deductions for affected taxpayers. CRA states that the fixed-ratio cap is generally 30% of adjusted taxable income for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, subject to exclusions, elections and other rules.
In the United States, IRC section 163(j) generally limits deductible business interest for affected taxpayers to business interest income plus 30% of adjusted taxable income and eligible floor-plan financing interest, subject to exceptions and detailed rules.
HoldCo structures create an additional issue: the interest expense may sit in a different entity from the operating income.
Tax advisers therefore need to review the actual entity structure, use of proceeds, intercompany arrangements and jurisdiction before management models after-tax debt cost.
A recap should never be structured by taking a U.S. tax conclusion and merely converting the dollar signs to CAD, or vice versa.
Occasionally, a shareholder liquidity transaction forms part of a broader refinancing that cannot close simultaneously.
A bridge may make sense where there is a defined takeout such as:
It is much weaker where the proposed exit is simply "we will refinance later."
For Canadian companies evaluating temporary capital, Mehmi's commercial bridge financing guide explains why the lender's central question is the credibility of the exit.
When the operating business needs the borrowing capacity more than shareholders need liquidity.
Warning signs include:
Sometimes the economically stronger decision is a smaller dividend.
Sometimes it is raising minority equity.
Sometimes shareholders should wait.
The purpose of financing should be to improve how capital is allocated, not maximize leverage simply because leverage is available.
Potentially, provided lenders approve the transaction and the distribution complies with the applicable corporate, financing, insolvency and tax requirements. Financeability depends on cash flow, leverage, collateral, existing agreements and the post-transaction balance sheet.
It can be senior debt at the HoldCo borrower while still being structurally subordinated to creditors at underlying operating companies. The corporate location of the debt matters as much as its contractual label.
Not necessarily. Some structures intentionally avoid OpCo guarantees because existing senior lenders prohibit them. Without upstream guarantees or direct OpCo security, however, the HoldCo lender may have less direct access to operating assets.
Yes, certain institutional structures use PIK interest to reduce current cash-pay requirements. The tradeoff is that unpaid interest increases principal and therefore increases the future refinancing or exit obligation.
Yes. A new facility can refinance existing debt while providing additional proceeds, subject to lender underwriting and legal distribution capacity. Management should distinguish debt required to refinance existing obligations from debt used to fund the shareholder distribution.
No. A dividend recap generally creates shareholder liquidity through additional company debt without requiring shareholders to sell their ownership interests. The economic tradeoff is higher leverage rather than equity dilution.
OpCo debt can often carry a lower cost because lenders have closer access to operating cash flow and collateral. HoldCo financing usually introduces structural subordination and cash-upstreaming risk. Actual pricing depends on the company and structure.
For a $50M+ transaction, expect historical financial statements, current interim results, quality-of-earnings or EBITDA support where appropriate, forecasts, a detailed debt schedule, existing credit agreements, organizational charts, cash-flow waterfalls, collateral information, tax analysis, legal diligence, shareholder information and a downside case.
For a large recapitalization, prepare the financing amount, U.S. or Canada, state or province, proposed use of funds, existing capital structure, operating-company EBITDA and cash flow, shareholder liquidity objective, and desired transaction timing.
Mehmi Financial Group operates as a financing brokerage and intermediary rather than a direct lender. For large and specialized transactions, Mehmi can review the financing requirement and determine whether institutional, private-credit, asset-based or specialty-capital sources may be relevant. Final underwriting, pricing, structure and approval remain with the participating capital providers.
Call 833-863-4644 or use the Mehmi Financial Group contact page to discuss the transaction.
.svg){kind=small}