| |
• | intended to incur, or believed or should have believed we would incur, indebtedness beyond our ability to pay as such indebtedness matures; or |
| |
• | were a defendant in an action for money damages, or had a judgment for money damages docketed against us or such guarantor if, in either case, after final judgment, the judgment was unsatisfied. |
A court may also void an issuance of notes, a guarantee or grant of security, without regard to the above factors, if the court found that we issued the notes or the guarantors (if any) entered into their respective guaranty with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud current or future creditors.
Many of the foregoing terms are defined in or interpreted under those fraudulent transfer statutes and as judicially interpreted. A court could find that we did not receive fair consideration or reasonably equivalent value for the incurrence of the indebtedness represented by the notes.
The measure of insolvency for purposes of the foregoing considerations will vary depending on the law of the jurisdiction that is being applied in any such proceeding. Generally, a company would be considered insolvent if, at the time it incurred the indebtedness:
| |
• | the sum of its indebtedness (including contingent liabilities) is greater than its assets, at fair valuation; |
| |
• | the present fair saleable value of its assets is less than the amount required to pay the probable liability on its total existing indebtedness and liabilities (including contingent liabilities) as they become absolute and matured; or |
| |
• | it could not pay its debts as they became due. |
We cannot assure you of the standard a court would apply in determining our solvency and whether it would conclude that we were solvent when we incurred our obligations under the notes.
In addition, although we do not expect there to be any guarantee of the notes, it should be noted that any such guarantee (if any) may be subject to review under various laws for the protection of creditors. A court would likely find that we or a guarantor did not receive reasonably equivalent value or fair consideration for the notes or the guarantees, respectively, if we or a guarantor did not substantially benefit directly from the issuance of the notes. If a court were to void an issuance of the notes or the guarantees, you would no longer have a claim against us or the guarantors. Sufficient funds to repay the notes may not be available from other sources, including the remaining guarantors, if any. In addition, the court might direct you to repay any amounts that you already received from us or the guarantors. In addition, any payment by us pursuant to the notes made at a time we were found to be insolvent could be voided and required to be returned to us or to a fund for the benefit of our creditors if such payment is made to an insider within a one-year period prior to a bankruptcy filing or within 90 days for any outside party and such payment would give the creditors more than such creditors would have received in a distribution under the bankruptcy code.
Changes in credit ratings issued by nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations could adversely affect our cost of financing and the market price of our securities, including the notes.
Credit rating agencies rate our debt securities and our subsidiaries’ debt securities on factors that include our operating results, actions that we take, their view of the general outlook for our industry and their view of the general outlook for the economy. Actions taken by the rating agencies can include maintaining, upgrading, or downgrading the current rating or placing us or our subsidiaries on a watch list for possible future downgrading. Downgrading the credit rating of our debt securities or our subsidiaries’ debt securities or placing us or our subsidiaries on a watch list for possible future downgrading would likely increase our cost of financing, limit our access to the capital markets and have an adverse effect on the market price of our securities, including the notes offered hereby.
Risks Related to the 2022 Notes
The 2022 notes are structurally subordinated to all liabilities of our subsidiaries and are effectively subordinated to HRG’s existing and future secured debt to the extent of the value of the collateral securing such debt.
The 2022 notes are our senior unsecured obligations. The 2022 notes are not, and are not expected to be, guaranteed by any of our current or future subsidiaries. As a result of our holding company structure, claims of creditors of our subsidiaries will generally have priority as to the assets of our subsidiaries over our claims and over claims of the holders of our indebtedness, including the 2022 notes. As of September 30, 2015, the total liabilities of Spectrum Brands were approximately $5.7 billion, including trade payables. As of September 30, 2015, the total liabilities of FGL were approximately $23.4 billion, including approximately $17.8 billion in annuity contractholder funds, approximately $3.5 billion in future policy benefits and approximately $300.0 million of indebtedness under the FGH Notes. As of September 30, 2015, the total liabilities of HAMCO were approximately $1.4 million and were approximately $379.4 million when consolidated with the Asset Managers. As of September 30, 2015, the total liabilities of HGI Energy were approximately $502.0 million.
The creditors of our subsidiaries have direct claims on the subsidiaries and their assets and the claims of holders of the 2022 notes are “structurally subordinated” to any existing and future liabilities of our subsidiaries. This means that the creditors of our subsidiaries have priority in their claims on the assets of the subsidiaries over our creditors, including the 2022 noteholders. All of our consolidated liabilities are obligations of our subsidiaries and are effectively senior to the 2022 notes.
