beppa in 2012, page-80

emark, it is you that is confused.

'recourse' debt is attached to the asset it is lent on. Like a mortgage. You sell the asset, you pay back the recourse debt automatically. The lenders effectively have 'recourse' to the assets. As long as all of BBI's assets continue to service the debt that is attached to them, the 'recourse' lenders have little cause to complain really as long as covenants are not breached.

'non-recourse' debt is a general loan lent against the company, like an overdraft. These people tend to have a charge over the company's assets.

The 'non-recourse' lenders would not allow lower priority commitments like the preference shares and subordinated bonds to have cash spent on them in a buyback situation until their non recourse lending hs been fully paid off.

Similarly, a senior bondholder (like the BBI Networks bonds are) would be likewise miffed if they started buying back pref shares that have a lower priority. The company would need to convince them of the merits of this before a bondholders would agree to this, hence my comments above.