Private Credit Editing and Proofreading Services

Three pages separate the covenant summary from the definition that operates it. The summary states a covenant tested at 4.5 times. The definition of EBITDA, set out later in the same credit paper, permits run-rate cost savings with no cap and exceptional add-backs with no list. Nobody on the committee reads the two passages together, because the paper never puts them on the same page. The question of which figure the covenant actually tests arrives eighteen months later, at the meeting where the borrower's advisors are already in the room.

The documents we edit for Private Credit

Credit papers and investment committee memoranda make up the bulk of this work, along with term sheets and commitment letters. Facility agreement summaries, negotiation trackers, covenant packages, and headroom calculations come next. Borrower monitoring and quarterly portfolio reviews, watchlist and impairment memoranda, restructuring and amendment proposals, and valuation policies with their independent support arrive in the same volume. Fund documentation, including limited partnership agreements, investor reporting, capital account statements, fundraising material, track record presentations, and due diligence questionnaires from institutional allocators, completes the list. Our editors read the credit paper against the documents it describes.

What the editing involves

Our first pass sets the summary beside the definition and reports the distance between them. Where a paper states 4.5 times in the investment case and the defined term admits uncapped add-backs, we mark both passages and ask which one the committee is being asked to approve. We do not form a view on whether the add-back is appropriate. The credit team decides that, and the answer comes back in their own words, which we then hold consistent everywhere the covenant is described.

The description of a protection should sit next to the mechanics that deliver it. A paper describing an equity cure as "customary" without stating the cap, the lookback period for cost savings, whether third-party verification is required, or how many times a cure may be used has described a protection the reader cannot size. We ask for those figures and place them in the sentence that mentions the cure rather than in an appendix. Where the credit team has run the ratio on both the covenant definition and their own adjusted numbers, both results belong in the paper, with the difference between them written as a figure rather than as a comment.

Where the committee is being asked to accept weaker terms to win a deal, the recommendation should say so rather than leave the trade sitting in the gap between a headline and a definition. A recommendation reading "terms are broadly market standard" tells a reader nothing about which terms moved. One line naming what was conceded, what was held, and what the fund is relying on instead costs a paragraph now and saves an afternoon of reconstruction when the position is reviewed again. Portfolio reviews written against papers of that kind can still be read two years later as a record of a decision.

Confidentiality and the limits of our role

Everything you send us is treated in confidence, including borrower information, credit papers, and fund documents still in draft. We are editors, not lawyers, credit analysts, or investment advisors, and nothing we write is legal or investment advice. What we can do is make the analysis legible and the protections described as the documents describe them.