I am not a banker and since bobwins is away today, I figured I make something up <g>. Most likely within the fine print of the revolving credit doc's is language that lets the bank cancel the loans and call them based upon certain triggers and most likely financial ratio's, such as current ratio, quick ratio, etc. If they are at risk of a big payout, then that could change those ratios. eom
larrybaz....sorry for the delay in responding. Went to Reno to eat and gamble. Succeeded in eating too much and getting too little sleep. Mission accomplished.
Regarding the USOO PR. Banks typically build a lot of boilerplate protection into their loan agreements. They may have anticipated the negative impact of this suit and put something in there that allowed them to bail if USOO lost the suit. The insurance carrier bailing is really bad news. They don't even put in the normal "our attorneys feel that we have substantial grounds to contest their decision and will pursue legal action to enforce our insurance policy". Not good.
Even if the Bank didn't put anything specific in the loan agreement, the settlement of this suit will wreck havoc with the company ratios if they are forced to settle. That will give the Bank an out.
This is a non asset carrier. They hire owner/drivers with their own rigs. They have to have a line of credit to operate under this concept. They have to pay expenses to the owner/driver until they collect the receivable. Trucking receivables have quick turnaround but the company does need to advance fuel costs and traveling expenses to these drivers to get the loads delivered. The line of credit is crucial. Without it, they are out of business.
Of course they could always shop for another lender. But the terms likely wouldn't be pretty and could chew up any profits. Bobwins
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
