
Amaya financiers impose anti-Baazov clause
New debt arrangement gives lenders power to trigger a default if Baazov takes control of Amaya


Amaya has agreed to a new debt re-financing arrangement that could hinder a future takeover attempt by former CEO David Baazov.
The PokerStars-parent company announced Friday evening it had restructured its circa $2.5bn debt through a new agreement with unnamed lenders.
The new agreement includes a clause that would trigger a default or a “potential acceleration of the repayment” should Amaya be taken over by “a certain current shareholder”.
An Amaya spokesperson confirmed to EGR Intel the shareholder is David Baazov, who made several attempts to take Amaya private last year, with a final bid of C$24 a share being rebuffed by the Amaya board.
The lenders – a syndicate of large institutional credit investors – are understood to be concerned about another takeover bid given Baazov’s history and the insider trading charges levelled at him by the Quebec securities regulator.
Baazov, who is still Amaya’s largest individual shareholder with around 17%, is due to stand trial in Canada in November.
An Amaya spokesperson said the clause was a kind of safety net for lenders rather than an effort to block a Baazov bid, which is considered unlikely given his previous failed attempts and ongoing legal issues.
Baazov aside, Amaya said the new debt agreement will save it $15.4m in annual repayments, and free up $48m of cash in the short term, which will be used to pay off some of the debt still owed to the Scheinberg family from the Amaya takeover of PokerStars back in 2014.
“The successful completion of this transaction underscores the strength of our current business and operations, as well as the continued support of our existing lenders and interest of new lenders,” said Kimberly Fitzgerald, Amaya’s VP of finance and capital markets.
“The transaction will help reduce our currency risk, lower our interest expense, and accelerate the payment of the remaining amounts owed on our deferred payment obligation.”