Introduction
The IG covenant package is one of the structural features that defines the product. Where high-yield indentures run to dozens of pages with full incurrence-based restrictions on debt, restricted payments, liens, sales of assets, and a 101% change-of-control put, IG indentures are deliberately light: typically just a limitation on liens, a limitation on mergers, a limitation on sale of all or substantially all assets, and a double-trigger change-of-control put at 101%. The contrast is intentional. IG issuers are creditworthy enough that bondholders accept structural-protection covenants rather than ongoing financial-test compliance, and the lighter covenant burden translates directly into lower coupons.
This article walks through the standard IG covenant package in detail. It covers the limitation-on-liens negative pledge (and its practical limits), the merger and sale-of-assets covenants, the double-trigger change-of-control put (and the structural quirks that have produced unexpected outcomes), and the absence of maintenance financial covenants that distinguishes IG from leveraged loans and HY bonds.
The Limitation on Liens (Negative Pledge)
The limitation on liens, also known as the "negative pledge" covenant, is the central protective provision in an IG indenture. It restricts the issuer from granting liens on its assets to other lenders without simultaneously and ratably securing the bonds. The mechanic protects bondholders from being structurally subordinated to other creditors over time.
How the Equal-and-Ratable Mechanic Works
If the issuer grants a lien on, say, a manufacturing plant to secure a new bank loan, the negative pledge requires the issuer to also grant a ratable lien on that plant to the existing bondholders. The bondholders thus participate equally in the security with the new lender. The mechanic preserves the bondholders' relative position in the capital structure as the issuer takes on additional secured borrowings.
- Negative Pledge
A covenant in an investment-grade bond indenture that restricts the issuer from granting liens or security interests on its assets to other lenders without simultaneously and ratably securing the existing bondholders. The mechanic ensures bondholders are not structurally subordinated to subsequent secured creditors. Negative pledges include carve-outs for permitted liens (purchase-money liens on newly acquired assets, customary working-capital security, and certain specified categories), and many IG negative pledges have basket exceptions allowing limited additional unsecured-bondholder dilution. The negative pledge is the central protective mechanism in plain-vanilla IG indentures.
Permitted Liens
Negative pledges carve out "permitted liens" the issuer can grant without triggering the equal-and-ratable requirement. Standard permitted liens include purchase-money liens (liens on newly acquired assets securing only that financing), customary working-capital security, liens for taxes and statutory obligations, capital lease obligations, and (in some indentures) liens on specified ring-fenced subsidiaries. The carve-outs are negotiated during documentation, and their breadth affects the strength of the negative pledge.
The Subsidiary Asset Loophole
A meaningful weakness in some IG indentures is that the negative pledge often applies only to the parent issuer's direct assets, not to assets held by subsidiaries. An issuer can sometimes grant secured debt at the subsidiary level (where the subsidiary itself pledges its assets) without triggering the parent-level negative pledge. The structural mechanism lets the issuer effectively layer secured debt below the unsecured IG bonds without the equal-and-ratable mechanic activating, which is one of the reasons sophisticated IG investors look closely at indenture drafting on this specific provision.
The Merger and Sale-of-Assets Covenants
The merger and sale-of-assets covenants together restrict the issuer's ability to materially reorganize its corporate structure without bondholder protection.
Merger Covenant
The merger covenant restricts the issuer from merging with or into another entity unless the surviving entity assumes the issuer's bond obligations. In practice, most merger structures preserve the issuer or have the surviving entity assume the bonds as a matter of standard documentation, so the covenant is more procedural than substantive.
Sale of All or Substantially All Assets
The sale-of-assets covenant restricts the issuer from selling "all or substantially all" assets unless the buyer assumes the bond obligations. The "substantially all" standard is vague but typically interpreted as 75 to 85% of the issuer's consolidated asset base. The covenant rarely creates issues for normal divestitures but serves as a backstop against transformative dispositions that would leave bondholders holding bonds against an empty shell.
| Covenant | What it restricts | What's allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation on liens | Granting liens on issuer assets to other lenders | Permitted liens (purchase-money, statutory, capital lease) and ratably secured bonds |
| Merger covenant | Merging the issuer into another entity without bond assumption | Mergers where surviving entity assumes the bonds |
| Sale of substantially all assets | Selling 75-85%+ of assets without bond assumption | Normal asset divestitures; sales where buyer assumes bonds |
| Change of control put | Issuer-level CoC + downgrade to non-IG | Single trigger alone (just CoC, just downgrade) does not activate |
The Double-Trigger Change-of-Control Put
The change-of-control (CoC) put at 101% is the most consequential covenant in many IG indentures because it gives bondholders an explicit exit right at a premium price under specific conditions. The IG version of this put is structured as a "double trigger" that activates only when both a change of control AND a credit-rating downgrade to below investment grade occur, in contrast to the HY version which typically activates on the change of control alone.
- Change of Control Put
A bondholder protection that lets investors require the issuer to repurchase their bonds, typically at 101% of par plus accrued interest, if control of the company changes hands. Investment-grade bonds use a "double-trigger" version: the put activates only if a change of control occurs AND the issuer is downgraded to below investment grade within a defined window, so a change of control that leaves the rating intact does not trigger it. High-yield bonds, by contrast, generally use a single trigger that activates on the change of control alone.
How the Double Trigger Works
The standard IG double-trigger requires both a "change of control" event (one or more parties acquiring 50% or more of voting stock or all or substantially all of assets) and a "below investment grade rating event" (a downgrade by both Moody's and S&P to below investment grade within a defined window, typically 60 days before, during, or 60 days after the change of control). Both triggers must occur for the put to activate. A change of control without a downgrade does not trigger; a downgrade without a change of control does not trigger.
The 101% Repurchase Price
When both triggers occur, bondholders can elect to put the bonds back to the issuer at 101% of the principal amount plus accrued and unpaid interest:
The 101% level is conventional and represents a modest premium that compensates bondholders for the deterioration in credit quality plus the inconvenience of the forced sale. The issuer must make a tender offer to all bondholders within a defined window after the trigger event; bondholders elect whether to put on a bond-by-bond basis.
Structural Quirks
The double-trigger structure has produced unexpected outcomes when rating agencies have not behaved as draftsmen anticipated. Common failure modes include: agencies declining to publicly state that a downgrade was caused by the change of control (some indentures require explicit attribution); the downgrade falling outside the trigger window; an agency ceasing to rate the bonds (which can disable the trigger); and qualifiers ("under review with negative implications") that may or may not satisfy the downgrade definition. Drafting precision matters, and well-advised investors push for broader trigger language.
What's NOT in the IG Covenant Package
The absence of certain covenants in IG indentures is as important as the presence of others. The contrast with high-yield indentures and leveraged loans clarifies what IG bondholders specifically do not have.
No Maintenance Financial Covenants
IG indentures do not include maintenance financial covenants: no leverage tests, coverage tests, liquidity floors, or other ongoing financial-compliance covenants. The issuer can take on additional debt, pay dividends, repurchase stock, or make investments without triggering any indenture compliance test. The contrast with leveraged loans (which typically include maintenance covenants requiring ongoing compliance with leverage and coverage ratios) and with high-yield bonds (which include incurrence-based restrictions on additional debt) is one of the structural reasons IG bonds price tighter.
No Restricted Payments or Debt Incurrence Restrictions
HY indentures include detailed restrictions on debt incurrence (additional debt limited by ratio thresholds and basket limits), restricted payments (dividends, buybacks, subordinated-debt prepayment limited to specified amounts plus retained-earnings buildup), and other capital-allocation restrictions. IG indentures include none of these, giving IG issuers full flexibility to manage their capital structures.
The IG covenant package is what defines the product's pricing and execution dynamics relative to high yield and leveraged loans. The next article walks through the institutional investor base that drives demand for IG paper, with a particular focus on insurance, pension, mutual fund, and sovereign wealth allocations.
Free Interview PDF Guide