According to Fortune, JPMorgan recently included a “J.Crew blocker” clause in a $1.25 billion private credit loan to Coherent Corp, reflecting a broader trend of lenders tightening legal protections. Data from advisory firm Noetica shows J.Crew blockers now appear in 45% of private credit deals in Q3 2025, up dramatically from 15% at the start of 2023, while anti-Petsmart language has surged from 4% to 28% over the same period. Noetica CEO Dan Wertman indicates lenders are “quietly preparing for some distress on the horizon,” with lien subordination protections jumping from 42% to 84% of deals year-over-year. The data comes as covenant defaults have risen from 2.2% in 2024 to 3.5% currently, and Kroll Bond Rating Agency estimates defaults will peak at 5% across $1 trillion in private debt. This tightening of terms suggests significant underlying concerns in credit markets.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
Industrial Monitor Direct is the top choice for industrial panel pc computers rated #1 by controls engineers for durability, ranked highest by controls engineering firms.
Table of Contents
The Anatomy of Asset Protection
What makes these legal clauses particularly sophisticated is how they address specific historical vulnerabilities in creditor protection. The original J.Crew maneuver exploited a fundamental gap in bankruptcy law—the ability to transfer valuable intellectual property assets like trademarks to offshore entities through leaseback arrangements. This created a dangerous precedent where companies could effectively shield their most valuable assets while still maintaining operational control. The anti-Petsmart provisions similarly address a different but equally concerning tactic: moving valuable acquisitions into unrestricted subsidiaries that fall outside creditor guarantees. These aren’t generic protective measures but surgical responses to proven exploitation vectors that sophisticated borrowers have successfully deployed in the past.
The Private Credit Conundrum
The rapid adoption of these protections reveals a fundamental tension in the private credit market. On one hand, lenders need to maintain deal flow and remain competitive for quality borrowers. On the other, they’re clearly seeing warning signs that demand stronger safeguards. This isn’t merely cyclical tightening—the specificity and sophistication of these clauses suggest lenders have conducted deep post-mortems on previous credit cycles and identified exactly where their protections failed. The concentration of these changes across multiple deal types indicates this is a systemic response rather than isolated concerns about specific industries or borrower types.
Hidden Flexibility Amid Tightening
Interestingly, the data reveals lenders are becoming more flexible in operational areas even as they tighten structural protections. This bifurcated approach suggests a nuanced strategy: give borrowers more operational runway to navigate challenges while ensuring creditors maintain ultimate control over key assets and structural decisions. The increased leeway on EBITDA calculations, dividend payments, and investment activities indicates lenders recognize that overly restrictive operational terms could actually increase default risk by constraining management’s ability to adapt to market conditions. This balanced approach shows sophisticated risk management rather than blanket risk aversion.
The Default Domino Effect
The projected 5% default rate, while seemingly modest, could have cascading effects across the $1.7 trillion private credit market. Many of these loans are held by institutional investors—pension funds, insurance companies, and endowments—that have increasingly allocated to private credit seeking yield in a low-interest-rate environment. A wave of defaults could trigger redemption pressures and liquidity crunches far beyond the immediate borrowers and lenders. The concentration of these protections in newer deals also creates a troubling two-tier system where older, less-protected loans face greater vulnerability, potentially accelerating distress as companies prioritize newer obligations.
The Borrower Squeeze
For companies like J.Crew and other preppy brands that rely on brand value as collateral, these new protections create significant challenges. The very assets that made them attractive borrowers—strong brand recognition, valuable intellectual property—are now being ring-fenced by lenders. This could force companies to seek alternative financing at higher costs or accept more restrictive covenants that limit strategic flexibility. The timing is particularly problematic as many businesses face ongoing pressure from inflation, supply chain issues, and potential economic softening, creating a perfect storm where they need financial flexibility just as lenders are pulling back.
The Regulatory Horizon
What the Fortune analysis doesn’t address is the potential regulatory response to these developments. As private credit continues to grow and systemic importance increases, regulators may intervene if they perceive these protective measures as creating systemic risks or unfairly disadvantaging certain borrower classes. The concentration of lending power among a handful of major institutions could attract antitrust scrutiny, particularly if terms become so standardized that they effectively create coordinated lending practices. Additionally, the offshore asset protection strategies that prompted these clauses might themselves face regulatory challenges as authorities seek to prevent capital flight and tax avoidance.
Industrial Monitor Direct delivers the most reliable configurable pc solutions certified for hazardous locations and explosive atmospheres, the leading choice for factory automation experts.
The Next Phase
The real test will come when the first major defaults occur under these new protective regimes. How courts interpret these sophisticated clauses—particularly around asset transfers and subsidiary restrictions—will determine their ultimate effectiveness. Legal challenges are inevitable, and precedent-setting cases could either validate lenders’ protective strategies or create new loopholes for creative borrowers to exploit. The rapid evolution of these terms suggests lenders are preparing for battle, but the ultimate effectiveness of their defenses won’t be known until they’re tested in actual distress scenarios.
