A refresher on rated note feeder structures in subscription credit facilities: key enforceability considerations under New York and US bankruptcy law

As rated note feeder ("RNF") structures have become a well-established feature of subscription credit facilities, it is worth revisiting the specific enforceability- and bankruptcy-related issues they raise for lenders and structuring counsel. With sponsors continuing to broaden their investor base and access additional pools of capital through debt instruments alongside traditional equity commitments, these structures remain highly relevant and warrant periodic reassessment.

This client alert provides a high-level overview of RNF structures within subscription credit facilities, identifies key enforceability concerns under New York law and United States Bankruptcy law, and outlines market approaches to addressing these risks in recent transactions.

Recap: How rated note feeder structures differ from traditional feeders

• Traditional feeder funds. Feeder funds channel investor capital to a master fund, which is typically the borrower under a subscription credit facility. Capital may pass through additional vehicles (such as blockers) before reaching the master fund. Lenders are generally comfortable with these structures where capital call rights and pledged accounts are appropriately documented and tailored to the multitier capital flow.
• Rated note feeder funds. A rated note feeder serves the same core purpose but raises capital through both limited partnership interests and debt instruments (notes) issued to investors. This dual funding mechanism can facilitate senior tranching and accommodate investors such as insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, mutual funds and family offices, but it introduces complexities that do not arise in a pure equity feeder structure.
• Note issuance and capital contributions. Under typical RNF constituent documents, investors purchase notes pursuant to a note purchase agreement and are simultaneously required to make capital contributions equal to the principal amount of those notes. The RNF then uses the contributed capital to fund its commitment to the master fund borrower. Economically, this mimics a standard capital call; legally, the debt mechanisms and separate instruments raise distinct enforcement and bankruptcy concerns.

Key statutory "safety nets" that may not apply

• Limited reach of DRULPA Section 17-502(b)(1). In a standard Delaware limited partnership subscription facility, lenders often rely on Section 17-502(b)(1) of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act as a statutory safeguard against amendments that retroactively diminish investor commitment obligations. In an RNF context, this protection may be less certain, because note purchase obligations may be characterized as debt commitments under a separate New York law-governed note purchase agreement rather than "partner contributions" under the partnership agreement. As a result, DRULPA Section 17-502(b)(1) may not clearly extend to investors' note purchase obligations.
• UCC Section 9-406 not directly applicable. In traditional subscription facilities, unfunded capital commitments are generally treated as "accounts" under UCC Section 9-102(a)(2), enabling lenders to rely on UCC Section 9-406 notification and payment direction mechanics. By contrast, an RNF investor's obligation to fund under notes is more appropriately categorized as "payment intangible" or "general intangible" under UCC Section 9-102(a)(42) and (a)(61). UCC Section 9-406 applies to accounts, not payment intangibles or general intangibles, so the statutory protections often relied upon for equity commitments do not automatically apply to RNF note obligations.
  
  Contractual "work-arounds". To address these gaps, RNF documentation commonly (i) requires the RNF and its general partner to direct all investor capital contributions to a pledged collateral account, (ii) provides that any funds received outside that account are subject to a lien and held for the secured parties pending deposit, and (iii) establishes Article 9 "control" over the collateral account in favor of the security agent, with exclusive instruction rights on a declared default. These contractual provisions are designed to replicate the benefits of DRULPA Section 17-502(b)(1) and UCC Section 9-406 in an RNF setting.

Executory contract and financial accommodation risk

• Debt-like characterization in bankruptcy. If an investor's note purchase obligation is treated as a debt commitment rather than an equity subscription, it may, in a US bankruptcy scenario, resemble an undrawn loan commitment. Under the US Bankruptcy Code, a counterparty holding such an unfunded commitment may be treated as a lender with no obligation to advance further funds, and bankruptcy courts have generally been reluctant to compel performance of agreements to make loans or extend financial accommodations.
• Executory contracts under Section 365. Note purchase agreements may be viewed as executory contracts if material, unperformed obligations remain on both sides. To the extent such contracts are treated as agreements to make a loan or extend financial accommodations, Bankruptcy Code Section 365(c)(2) provides that they may not be assumed by a debtor or trustee and the non-debtor counterparty cannot be compelled to perform. If applied to RNF note purchase obligations, this could limit the enforceability of debt commitments in a bankruptcy of the RNF.
• Implications for subscription facility lenders. In a downside scenario where lenders rely on RNF investors in their borrowing base, this analysis raises concern that they may not be able to force investors to fund the debt portion of their commitments if the RNF becomes subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Given that a substantial portion of RNF commitments is often structured as debt, this risk needs to be factored into facility structuring and enforcement planning.

Market solutions: Day one equity and equity commitment letters

• Day one equity approach. One of the most widely adopted contractual solutions is to bifurcate investor commitments at inception into (i) a debt obligation under the note purchase agreement and (ii) a contemporaneous equity commitment under the RNF partnership agreement. Under this structure, investors are admitted as limited partners and receive partnership interests while simultaneously entering into note arrangements and associated capital contribution obligations. The equity commitment exists independently of any bankruptcy or insolvency event and is not created by an ipso facto trigger, which is intended to reduce exposure to financial accommodation and executory contract challenges under the Bankruptcy Code. This approach is generally considered preferable to the alternative "conversion" method, under which an investor's debt commitment automatically converts to an equity obligation upon the occurrence of a bankruptcy or insolvency event. Because such a conversion is expressly conditioned on insolvency, it risks being deemed unenforceable under the ipso facto restrictions of Bankruptcy Code Sections 365(e)(1) and 541(c)(1), which invalidate contractual provisions that modify obligations solely because of the debtor's insolvency or financial condition. The day one equity approach avoids this vulnerability by ensuring that the equity commitment exists from inception rather than arising because of bankruptcy.
• Bankruptcy remoteness features. RNF documentation often includes features designed to make the RNF more bankruptcy-remote, including (i) non-petition covenants in equity commitment letters under which parties agree to not commence or join bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings against the RNF for so long as the commitments remain in place and (ii) restrictions in the partnership agreement that limit the RNF's business purpose to investing its assets in the master fund borrower and prohibit or discourage additional borrowings beyond the notes. These provisions aim to reduce the likelihood that the RNF will independently become insolvent or seek bankruptcy protection.
  
  Equity call mechanics. Equity commitment letters typically permit drawdown notices in respect of the equity commitment amount only upon the occurrence and continuance of a "Declared Default" under the subscription facility, which may encompass a broad range of events of default, not only bankruptcy. Tying the equity call trigger to facility defaults generally, rather than solely to insolvency, is designed to improve the resilience of the structure against ipso facto limitations under Bankruptcy Code Sections 541(c) and 365(e). Equity capital calls are often structured to reduce each investor's corresponding note funding obligation on a dollar-for-dollar basis, while keeping the equity obligation outstanding even if note obligations are suspended or in default.

Security structure and enforcement mechanics

• Cascading pledges. RNF security documents are commonly drafted to create a cascading security structure: (i) at the RNF level, the RNF and its general partner grant a security interest over investor commitment rights, drawdown rights and related proceeds, and pledge the RNF collateral account; (ii) at the master fund borrower level, the borrower assigns and pledges those same rights to the security agent and collateral-assigns its right under the RNF security documents. The security agent is designated as an express third-party beneficiary with direct enforcement rights, and amendments to RNF security documents typically require the security agent's prior written consent.
  
  Direct privity and waivers. An RNF acknowledgement and confirmation typically creates direct contractual privity between the RNF and the security agent, with the RNF confirming its unconditional obligation to fund in response to drawdown notices without defense, counterclaim or offset, including defenses under Bankruptcy Code Section 365. In addition, partnership agreements and equity commitment letters often include explicit waivers of financial accommodation and executory contract defenses, and provisions stating that investors will not assert that their commitments are executory contracts or financial accommodations that cannot be assumed, assigned or enforced in bankruptcy.
• Preferred enforcement path. Because the collateral is typically limited to capital call rights and related proceeds (rather than equity interests in the RNF), the preferred enforcement strategy is for the security agent, upon a declared default, to (i) exercise exclusive control over the pledged collateral account and (ii) step into the shoes of the RNF/general partner to issue drawdown notices directly to investors. Although foreclosure and sale of collateral are technically available under the UCC, they are generally viewed as impractical given the illiquid and bespoke nature of capital call rights.

Key takeaways and residual risk

• Integrated contractual framework. RNF structures increasingly employ an integrated framework that combines day one equity commitments, bankruptcy remoteness features, cascading security documents, direct privity with the security agent and robust waivers of defenses, all aimed to preserve enforceability of investor funding obligations and protect lenders against structural and bankruptcy-related risks.
  
  Unsettled case law. Despite widespread market adoption, no US court has yet tested these RNF constructs in a bankruptcy or enforcement context. There is currently no judicial guidance on whether the day one equity approach fully mitigates financial accommodation or executory contract risk, or on the enforceability of cascading RNF security structures. Lenders and sponsors should therefore recognize residual legal risk and factor it into their credit assessments and enforcement planning.
• Need for careful structuring. Given the complexity and novelty of RNF structures, parties should take particular care when drafting partnership agreements, note purchase agreements, equity commitment letters and security documents to align with market practices intended to mitigate these risks, and to ensure consistency across the document set.

_{White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.}

_{This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.}

_{© 2026 White & Case LLP}