Mitel sells on-premise, cloud, and hybrid business-communications systems — telephone hardware, software, and subscription and support services — to customers across healthcare, hospitality, education, financial services, government, and other sectors. For fiscal year 2024, the company reported approximately $426 million in software and subscription revenue (about 43% of the total), roughly $276 million in professional and support services (28%), and about $205 million in hardware (20%). At the petition date it employed approximately 760 people, supplemented by about 57 independent contractors and 162 temporary staff.
Searchlight Capital Partners acquired Mitel in a 2018 leveraged buyout valued at approximately $2 billion. Through a chain of holding companies, funds managed by Searchlight held 99.89% of the ultimate Cayman Islands parent, "TopCo," which in turn owned the English holding company MNIL and the Canadian operating subsidiary, Mitel Networks Corporation.
Janine Yetter, Chief Financial Officer of Mitel (Delaware), Inc., attributed the company's distress to persistent liquidity pressure from the upfront cost of optimizing operations, shifting capital toward new market opportunities, debt-service obligations, inflationary pressures, and a material increase in interest rates. By November 2024, management concluded that the company could neither refinance its existing funded indebtedness nor service its interest expense beyond the first quarter of 2025, and that it needed a meaningful deleveraging transaction to right-size the balance sheet. The company filed to cut roughly $1 billion of debt with creditor support already in hand.
Mitel entered chapter 11 with approximately $1.31 billion of secured funded debt layered across eight instruments with distinct lien priorities. The result of the 2018 buyout and a 2022 liability-management transaction, the structure split the senior creditor group into priority, second-lien, and third-lien tranches, with two legacy facilities ranking junior to all of them.
| Facility | Outstanding | Lien Priority | Maturity |
|---|
| Swiss ABL Loans | $3 million | Separate collateral package | May 2027 |
| Non-Swiss ABL Loans | $14 million | Separate collateral package | May 2027 |
| Priority Lien Term Loans | $156 million | 1st among Senior Loans | October 2027 |
| Incremental Revolving Loans | $65 million | 1st among Senior Loans | November 2025 |
| Second Lien Term Loans | $576 million | 2nd among Senior Loans | October 2027 |
| Third Lien Term Loans | $157 million | 3rd among Senior Loans | October 2027 |
| Legacy Senior Term Loans | $235 million | Junior to Senior Loans | November 2025 |
| Legacy Junior Term Loans | $108 million | Junior to Senior Loans | November 2026 |
The two ABL facilities — $3 million of Swiss ABL loans and $14 million of non-Swiss ABL loans — sat outside the Omnibus Intercreditor Agreement on a separate collateral package and were the only funded debt that survived the restructuring intact. Within the Senior Loans, the $156 million Priority Lien Term Loans ranked first, followed by $576 million of Second Lien Term Loans and $157 million of combined Third Lien Term Loans, all maturing in October 2027. The $65 million Incremental Revolving Loans shared first priority but matured in November 2025. Ranking below the entire Senior Loan stack were $235 million of Legacy Senior Term Loans and $108 million of Legacy Junior Term Loans. This layered priority scheme determined which creditors received reorganized equity and which were left out of the money.
To fund the cases, the debtors obtained a $131,029,800 debtor-in-possession facility combining $69 million of new-money term loans (inclusive of fees and premiums payable in kind) with a $62,029,800 roll-up of prepetition Priority Lien loans into DIP obligations. The court entered an interim DIP order on March 11, 2025, and a final order on April 1, 2025. S&P rated the new-money DIP term loan, reflecting the facility's first-priority position in the reorganized capital structure.
The DIP loans priced at the borrower's election at SOFR plus 8.00% or ABR plus 7.00%, payable in cash, with Acquiom Agency Services LLC and Seaport Loan Products LLC serving as co-administrative agents. The DIP motion provided for a 12.0% backstop premium on the aggregate new-money term loans, payable in kind, and set an outside maturity at the earliest of July 3, 2025, the effective date of a chapter 11 plan, the consummation of a sale of substantially all assets, or acceleration of the DIP obligations. As adequate protection, the final order granted the prepetition secured parties replacement liens, superpriority administrative-expense claims, authorization to use prepetition cash collateral, and protection against any diminution in the value of their collateral.
The confirmed plan delivered approximately $1.15 billion of balance-sheet deleveraging by converting the senior secured claims into the equity of the reorganized company. Holders of Class 4 Priority Lien Claims received a pro rata share of 66.7% of the New Common Equity, subject to dilution, in addition to the $62 million of Priority Lien loans that were rolled up and equitized through the DIP. Holders of Class 5 Non-Priority Lien Term Loan Deficiency Claims received a pro rata share of the remaining 33.3% of the New Common Equity, subject to dilution.
The reorganized debtors incurred an Exit Term Loan Facility in two tranches on the effective date: $20 million of Tranche A-1 Term Loans and $123.75 million of Tranche A-2 Term Loans. The Tranche A-2 loans comprised $69 million of converted DIP new-money term loans, $51 million of new-money Tranche A-2 term loans, and $3.75 million of incremental Tranche A-2 term loans issued as fee consideration. Consenting junior lenders received $5 million in fee consideration on the effective date — $1.25 million in cash plus $3.75 million of the incremental Tranche A-2 term loans.
Most other classes rode through unimpaired. Class 3 ABL Loan Claims were reinstated, with the ABL facilities continuing in full force under amended and restated credit agreements and a cash consent fee paid to the consenting ABL lender; Class 1 Other Secured Claims, Class 2 Other Priority Claims, and Class 6 General Unsecured Claims were reinstated or paid. Class 9 Existing Mitel Interests — Searchlight's equity — was deemed to reject and received no recovery. The Restructuring Support Agreement had been signed before filing by holders of 100% of the ABL Loan Claims, 72.1% of the Priority Lien Claims, and more than 81.1% of the Non-Priority Lien Term Loan Deficiency Claims. Final balloting confirmed near-unanimous support: Class 4 accepted with 99.3% of holders and 95.4% of dollars voting in favor, and Class 5 accepted unanimously across more than $1.0 billion of claims. Following the effective date, S&P Global Ratings assigned a 'CCC+' rating with a negative outlook to the reorganized company, noting that the restructuring reduced total funded debt to approximately $161 million — an 88% reduction from the prepetition load — while citing ongoing liquidity risks.
The Region 7 U.S. Trustee filed the case's lone confirmation objection on April 10, 2025, arguing the plan was patently unconfirmable because of its third-party releases and related injunctions. The objection invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., contending that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize non-consensual third-party releases and that the plan's "opt-out" mechanism — deeming consent for parties who failed to affirmatively opt out — could not establish the consent that state contract law requires, particularly for non-voting classes that received only a release opt-out form. The U.S. Trustee also challenged the plan's "gatekeeper" provisions, which required bankruptcy-court approval before pursuing claims against released or exculpated parties, as inconsistent with Purdue and Fifth Circuit precedent, and objected that the releases reached unknown claims and lacked a carve-out for governmental police and regulatory claims. The argument tracked the U.S. Trustee's broader position that the plan was unconfirmable as drafted.
The bankruptcy court overruled the objection and confirmed the modified plan, finding the third-party release consensual rather than imposed. The court relied on the conspicuous, boldface release language appearing in the plan, disclosure statement, ballots, and notices; the actual notice given to releasing parties (with publication notice for unknown parties); and the instruction that parties would be deemed to consent unless they checked the opt-out box and returned it by the voting deadline. The release also excluded post-effective-date obligations, distribution and employment-agreement rights, confidentiality and non-compete obligations, and claims for actual fraud, gross negligence, willful misconduct, or criminal conduct.
Mitel's 2022 liability-management transaction, which issued the new "Senior Loans" to address short-term capital constraints, had drawn litigation from junior lenders who alleged it violated the junior credit agreements — one of the uptier disputes that became common after similar transactions across the leveraged-loan market. The challenge, brought by Ocean Trails CLO VII and others against MLN Topco, reached the New York Appellate Division, First Department, which on December 31, 2024 ordered dismissal of all counts, finding that the 2022 transaction complied with the junior credit agreements.
The Restructuring Support Agreement contemplated a consensual resolution of the remaining 2022 transaction litigation, with the parties agreeing to inform the New York Court of Appeals of a settlement. Bloomberg reported at confirmation that the restructuring's approval also resolved the uptier suit.
Because Mitel Networks Corporation is a Canadian entity, the debtors commenced parallel recognition proceedings under Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) on March 10, 2025. The recognition motion sought to have the U.S. chapter 11 cases recognized as the foreign main proceeding, with FTI Consulting Canada serving as Information Officer to report to the Canadian court and coordinate relief over the Canadian debtor.
On the U.S. side, the debtors retained Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP as lead counsel, Porter Hedges LLP as Texas co-counsel, PJT Partners LP as investment banker, FTI Consulting, Inc. as financial advisor, and Ernst & Young LLP and KPMG LLP for tax services. Final fee applications covering the March 9 through June 20, 2025 period reported $4.97 million in fees for Paul Weiss over roughly 2,977 hours and $1.69 million for FTI Consulting. The largest professional line item was PJT Partners' engagement-letter fee of approximately $11.5 million, which included a capital-raising fee tied to the DIP and exit financing, bringing total approved professional fees above $18.5 million for roughly three and a half months of work.
| Date | Milestone |
|---|
| March 7, 2025 | Voting record date |
| March 9–10, 2025 | Chapter 11 petitions filed; disclosure statement and original prepackaged plan filed |
| March 10, 2025 | Canadian CCAA recognition proceedings commenced in Ontario |
| March 11, 2025 | Interim DIP order entered |
| April 1, 2025 | Final DIP order entered |
| April 3, 2025 | Plan supplement filed |
| April 10, 2025 | Voting and objection deadlines; U.S. Trustee objection filed |
| April 15, 2025 | Modified prepackaged plan and confirmation brief filed |
| April 17, 2025 | Combined hearing; plan confirmed |
| June 20, 2025 | Effective date |
| June 23, 2025 | Final decree closing the chapter 11 cases |
Who is the solicitation and tabulation agent for Mitel?
Stretto served as the solicitation and tabulation agent and filed the voting declaration certifying the balloting results across the impaired classes.
How much debt did the Mitel plan eliminate?
The plan delivered approximately $1.15 billion of balance-sheet deleveraging, reducing roughly $1.31 billion of prepetition funded debt by equitizing the Priority Lien and Non-Priority Lien Term Loan Deficiency Claims into reorganized equity.
What happened to Searchlight's ownership of Mitel?
Existing Mitel equity interests held through Searchlight's holding-company structure were classified in Class 9, deemed to reject the plan, and received no recovery. Control of the reorganized company passed to the former Priority Lien and Non-Priority Lien lender classes.
How long did the Mitel chapter 11 take?
The court confirmed the prepackaged plan 39 days after filing, on April 17, 2025, and the company emerged on June 20, 2025, with a final decree closing the cases on June 23, 2025.
For more bankruptcy case coverage, visit the ElevenFlo bankruptcy blog.
