Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Is there room for more than one concept of Material Adverse Change in your Facility Agreement?
© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All rights reserved.
This article was inspired by the UCL ‘Contract Law and the Unexpected’ conference on 16 May 2025 (Conference). At that conference a paper was presented which argued that material adverse change (MAC) clauses are similar to force majeure clauses and deal with uncertain events, but often with insufficient clarity. In this article we look at whether conventional MAC clauses in facility agreements are fit for purpose, and what that purpose is. We also look at a hybrid approach which creates a contractual renegotiation obligation when there is a change which may have a material adverse effect on the business or operations of the Borrower but falls short of being likely to cause a financial covenant breach or insolvency. This is also considered in the context of the debate about the role of good faith in contracts and its application to debt financing arrangements.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
