Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“A lot of the work that I do is historic-the maximum sentences change at different points of time. It's really complicated and people get it wrong all the time. That's when having a timeline is really useful.”

1 High Pavement

Access all documents on Clean-down

Clean-down meaning

What does Clean-down mean?
In loan agreements, a clean-down is a covenant requiring the borrower to repay revolving credit facility (RCF) drawings so that no (or only a de minimis amount of) RCF loans are outstanding for a short, consecutive period—typically a few business days—once or twice in each financial year. It evidences that the RCF is being used for working capital, not as term debt, which has regulatory capital and commercial implications for lenders. This is a market term used in UK and Irish syndicated lending (often in LMA-style documentation), not a concept defined in legislation or case law. Drafting commonly allows a net clean-down, meaning available cash in the group is netted against outstanding RCF loans to test compliance, sometimes on a consolidated basis. The period, frequency, threshold and evidence (for example, bank statements or a compliance certificate) are negotiated. Breach is typically a breach of undertaking under the loan agreement, with the usual consequences. Usage and effect are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, though precise mechanics (days, thresholds, netting and reporting) vary by lender and facility. Common search terms: clean-down covenant, net clean-down, RCF clean-down, working capital RCF.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related Checklists about Clean-down

CHECKLISTS
Admitting New Partners to a Limited Partnership: Legal Checklist for General and Limited Partners

General partners Does the limited partnership agreement permit the appointment of a new general partner? If so, what steps must be followed? If not, which additional documents are needed (for example, a deed of variation)? Will the current general partner step down or be removed from office? Please state the name and address of the incoming general partner...

Read More Right Arrow
CHECKLISTS
Website intellectual property assignment and domain name transfer: drafting and negotiation checklist

How to use this Checklist This Checklist flags common matters that arise when negotiating and drafting agreements to transfer intellectual property rights (IPRs) in a website. Many of the same points are also pertinent to other types of transaction. Key commercial considerations technical and functional requirements defining the relevant IPRs any cross‑licensing arrangements the terms underpinning the transfer of rights rights held by third parties Use the third column to capture observations or remarks as you work through the Checklist. Checklist for the transfer of intellectual property rights in a website &x2610; Verify each party’s legal status and whether any third parties (such as group affiliates) will benefit from the proposed agreement. &x2610; Confirm when the transfer becomes effective and whether it is contingent on any other agreements or events. &x2610; Confirm if the deal is a one‑off assignment of IPRs or if there will be ongoing licensing or support; where continuing...

Read More Right Arrow
CHECKLISTS
SRA-compliant firm closure checklist for solicitors (England and Wales)

This checklist is intended to guide you if you need to close your firm. Read it alongside subtopic: Firm closure plan, particularly Practice Note: Firm closure plan-key considerations. Plan and dates ☐ Create a firm closure plan (see Precedent: Firm closure plan). Recommended to show you can carry out an orderly wind-down of your activities, as required by the SRA-SRA Code for Firms, para 2.4. (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm’s arrangements) ☐ Allocate responsibility for the plan. Recommended. (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm’s arrangements) ☐ Set a closure date. Recommended. (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm’s arrangements) Notifications ☐ Send a completed Firm Closure Notification form to the SRA. Compulsory-SRA Code for Firms, para 2.5. (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding your firm’s arrangements) ☐ Notify staff. Recommended. (Insert any comments you may wish to make regarding...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Flowcharts about Clean-down

FLOWCHARTS
Liquidated damages and penalty clauses: checklist on the legitimate interest test (Makdessi/ParkingEye), drafting and evidence, default interest, construction considerations, burden of proof, and accrual/enforceability on termination (Triple Point).

Practice Note: Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty clauses As highlighted in this Practice Note, working out whether a liquidated damages provision will be struck down as a penalty is seldom straightforward and often demands careful judgment. Although each dispute turns on the court’s construction of the contract, there are several points to weigh when examining the ambit of a supposed liquidated damages term and its potential exposure to a penalty challenge, both in substance and effect. When you are drafting such a clause, it is vital to keep these considerations in view, and to think about how it sits alongside connected provisions, including any related terms that operate with it. See: Drafting and negotiating a liquidated damages clause—checklist Precedent: Liquidated damages clause For targeted analysis of the way authorities have treated provisions in commercial agreements that stipulate ‘default interest’, see the following materials: Penalty interest rates in commercial contracts Contract interpretation—distinguishing between liquidated damages and penalty...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related News about Clean-down

NEWS
EU competition update: CJEU dismisses RWE/E.ON–Innogy appeals, no single concentration; AG on co-operative fine cap; GBER ruling on natural-person control; merger clearances and notifications

Mergers Court of Justice dismisses appeals by German energy utility companies regarding Commission’s decision to approve the acquisition by E.ON of the distribution and retail energy business as well as certain general assets of Innogy The Court of Justice has handed down its judgments in joined appeals C-171/24 P, C-172/24 P, C-173/24 P, C-174/24 P, C-175/24 P, C-176/24 P, C-177/24 P, C-178/24 P, and C-179/24 P, brought by German energy utilities against the Commission. These challenges targeted the General Court’s rulings that had rejected actions seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision conditionally authorising a related transaction involving E.ON and RWE’s assets. Each appeal was dismissed by the Court of Justice. The nine appeals concerned the General Court’s judgments in cases T-53/21, T-55/21, T-56/21, T-58/21, T-59/21, T-61/21, T-62/21, T-64/21, and T-53/21, which upheld the Commission’s 17 September 20219 decision conditionally clearing the acquisition by RWE of E.ON’s renewable and nuclear electricity generation assets (M.8870). The Court of Justice dismissed all nine appeals. Background RWE and E.ON are...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
EU competition law daily briefing: Article 101 probe into Deutsche Börse–Nasdaq derivatives; merger clearances (ADIT/Bpifrance; Prima Assicurazioni/AXA–Neurone); €700m Spanish clean-tech State aid; upcoming dates

Antitrust Commission launches Article 101 investigation in derivatives markets The Commission has opened a probe under Article 101 TFEU into possible coordination involving Deutsche Börse and Nasdaq Inc concerning the listing, trading and clearing of financial derivatives markets across the EEA (Case AT.40945)...

Read More Right Arrow
NEWS
EU competition law daily update: merger clearances and notifications, policy dialogue, and CISAF state aid for Spanish EV value chain, plus key dates (5 March 2026)

Mergers The Commission approved Brookfield Corporation’s takeover of sole control of Oaktree Capital Group Holdings, LLC (M.12284) following a phase I review—see further, Midday Express The Commission received filings for: Clarios/Ecobat Germany/Ecobat Austria (M.12145) (ordinary merger procedure) JLL/PIF/FMTECH (M.12358) (simplified merger procedure) NOTE—For all active merger probes before the Commission, see further, EU mergers—ongoing cases tracker Competition policy The Commission stated that Executive Vice-President, Teresa Ribera, convened an implementation dialogue on the effects of mergers, productivity, sustainability, and the cost of living—see further, implementation dialogue and Midday Express NOTE—For all current EU competition law legislative, guidance and wider policy work, see further, EU competition horizon scanning—2026 and beyond State aid The Commission adopted a decision under the Clean Industrial Deal State Aid Framework (CISAF) authorising a Spanish measure (valued at €200m) to back strategic investments expanding manufacturing capacity across the electric...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Practice Notes about Clean-down

PRACTICE NOTES
UK taxation of trading by trustees and personal representatives: badges of trade, computation of profits, capital allowances, basis period reform, loss relief, and reporting

Trustees and personal representatives can, in fact, carry on a trade. For example, where a self-employed trader dies, the personal representative may keep the business running until it is wound down or sold. In the same way, trustees or interest in possession beneficiaries might be trading and could qualify for reliefs such as roll-over relief or business asset disposal relief. The broad tax rules governing trading apply to all traders alike, whether they are individuals, trustees, or personal representatives. This Practice Note sets out those principles below. Is there a trade? The key issue to examine is whether there is a trade. At times this will be clear, for instance when personal representatives step in to continue the deceased’s business; however, in other situations even a solitary transaction can amount to a trade. As an illustration, trustees who buy a property to renovate may, depending on the circumstances, be regarded as operating a property development business. If so, any gain on the later sale would fall within income...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
VIMC v Commission (T‑431/16): EU General Court confirms Article 13(1) Regulation 1/2003 rejection of complaint where Austrian NCA is dealing with the same practice

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub sets out the position as at the judgment of 23 October 2017; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts ARCHIVE 26/10/2017 Outline An appeal to the General Court against the European Commission decision refusing VIMC’s complaint pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation 1/2003. Latest developments On 23 October 2017, the General Court handed down its judgment, rejecting in full the action to annul the European Commission’s decision to refuse VIMC’s complaint, on the basis that the matters raised were already being examined by a national competition authority (Case AT.40231). The General Court held that the Commission correctly applied the principles in Article 13(1) of Regulation 1/2003, exercising its discretion not to open an investigation because the Austrian national competition authority was already conducting one...

Read More Right Arrow
PRACTICE NOTES
UK tax structuring for cross‑border IP development and acquisition: IFA regime, merged RDEC/ERIS, overseas R&D restrictions, transfer pricing, trading requirement, capital allowances, and patent box nexus

Successive UK governments have aimed to cement the UK as one of the world’s most appealing settings for innovation and enterprise. To that end, a wide-ranging suite of tax incentives has been rolled out to encourage innovative companies, supporting both investors and trading entities, and assisting businesses at every phase of a business’s life cycle. These incentives include: R&D tax reliefs patent box business asset disposal relief (previously entrepreneurs’ relief) capital allowances for purchases of: knowhow patents, and plant and machinery venture capital trusts the enterprise investment scheme, and the seed enterprise investment scheme This Practice Note outlines the UK position on key tax considerations when determining how to structure an innovative business with international or global aspirations. The observations are general in nature and work on the basis of a clean slate; revisiting an existing IP ownership arrangement will inevitably demand a bespoke solution (notably...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Precedents about Clean-down

PRECEDENTS
Balanced UK supply chain compliance schedule: anti-bribery, modern slavery, failure to prevent tax evasion and fraud; policies, training, records, audit and monitoring, flow-down, breach/termination, indemnity

The Schedule 1 Definitions 1.1 In this Schedule: Adequate Procedures – must be interpreted in line with BA 2010 and any guidance issued under it; Associated Person – means any or all of: (a) the officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, subsidiaries, and individuals Associated With a party (Associates); and (b) persons Associated With any of those Associates, in every instance engaged in carrying out services for, or on behalf of, that party, the Services, and/or this Agreement; and Associated With – where used: (a) in paragraph 2 and in relation to bribery, is to be construed in accordance with BA 2010 and guidance issued under it; (b) in paragraph 4 and regarding the facilitation of tax evasion, is to be construed in accordance with Part 3 of CFA 2017 and guidance issued under it; (c) in paragraph 5 and as regards fraud, is to be construed in accordance with Part 5 of ECCTA 2023 and guidance issued under it; BA 2010 – means the...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
No-fault divorce under the DDSA 2020: client guide to procedure, timings, joint applications and costs (England and Wales)

This document offers general guidance on divorce procedure. Your family solicitor can provide advice tailored to your circumstances. Specific advice will depend on your circumstances, and your family solicitor can provide this. No fault divorce The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (DDSA 2020) substantially reshaped divorce law, aiming to lower acrimony by bringing in the commonly called ‘no fault divorce’. The legislation removes the need to attribute fault when initiating proceedings, rather than apportion blame at the outset. It entirely dispenses with attributing blame at the commencement of divorce proceedings. Historically, to obtain a divorce in England and Wales, the applicant had to demonstrate that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, which required proving one of five facts. Three rested on fault—adultery, unreasonable behaviour, and desertion—while two depended on a qualifying period of separation: two years with consent, or five years without consent...

Read More Right Arrow
PRECEDENTS
Precedent notice-and-takedown letter to hosting provider/online platform under Regulation 22 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002: trade mark infringement (UK)

[ Postal address for internet service provider/host online platform ] [ Date ] Sent via registered post and email: [ email address for internet service provider/host online platform ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] Notice and take-down letter—trade mark infringement on [ website URL ] We act for [ name of client ] of [ client’s address ] (our Client) in connection with the enforcement of intellectual property rights. [ This correspondence relates to the website accessible at [ website URL ] (the Website). OR This correspondence concerns content available on your platform at [ website URL ] (the Website). ] The Website is directed at consumers in the UK...

Read More Right Arrow

View the related Q&As about Clean-down

Q&As
Child maintenance capitalisation in a clean break consent order

Broadly, a capitalised maintenance order is intended to achieve a clean break, bringing to an end each party’s financial responsibilities owed to the other, both during life and on death, pursuant to the relevant statutory provisions of section 25A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) See the Practice Notes: Capitalised maintenance—Duxbury calculations, and Financial clean break orders in family proceedings...

Read More Right Arrow
Q&As
Limits on contracting authority framework management charges

Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, reg 33(2) defines a framework agreement as: Regulation 33(2) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/102) describes a framework agreement as an arrangement between one or more contracting authorities and one or more economic operators, intended to set the terms that will govern contracts awarded over a specified period, notably concerning price and, where appropriate, the quantities anticipated. The Crown Commercial Service (CCS) guidance interprets a framework agreement as a broad term for arrangements with providers that lay down the terms and conditions under which agreements for specific purchases—referred to as call-off contracts—can be put in place throughout the life of the agreement...

Read More Right Arrow
Q&As
Deed of Appropriation: when and to whom—second estate property sale

Sale by PRs or appropriation to beneficiaries We understand you are asking when it is better for the personal representatives (PRs) to dispose of an estate property, or instead to appropriate it to the beneficiaries so that they handle the sale themselves. This choice typically arises where: the beneficiary(ies) has/have part or all of their capital gains tax (CGT) annual exemption available the beneficiary(ies) will pay CGT at 18% on any part of a gain the beneficiary(ies) has/have losses available to offset against any gain the sale will make a loss and the PRs will not be making any further disposals that may produce gains to utilise the loss A death is not usually a chargeable occasion for CGT. For these purposes the PRs are treated as acquiring the assets at market value on the date of death; effectively, all prior accrued gains are eliminated and the PRs start again with a clean slate...

Read More Right Arrow