Belgium has one of the highest concentrations of family-owned SMEs in Europe. In these structures, related-party transactions are often the ordinary fabric of how business is conducted: the founder charges a management fee through a holding company, family premises are rented to the operating entity, a brother-in-law manages sales on a services contract. None of this is unusual, and none of it is inherently problematic to a bank. What is problematic is when these arrangements are undocumented, priced at whatever was convenient at the time, or structured in ways that quietly drain cash from the operating company that the bank is relying on to repay the loan.
The affiliate transaction restriction — sometimes called a related-party transaction covenant or arm's-length covenant — is the bank's contractual answer to this risk. It does not prohibit transactions between the borrowing company and its owners, subsidiaries, or associated entities. It requires that those transactions be conducted on terms that a genuinely independent party would accept, that they be formally documented, and that the bank be informed when they exceed defined thresholds. The covenant is both a disclosure obligation and a pricing discipline, and Belgian SME borrowers frequently underestimate how seriously credit analysts scrutinise it at annual review.
This article explains what arm's-length pricing means in practice for Belgian family businesses, where the Belgian Companies Code (WVV/CSA) overlaps with and diverges from the credit covenant, what documentation banks actually expect, and how to negotiate the restriction before you sign. For shareholder loans specifically — which are simultaneously related-party transactions and subject to a separate subordination obligation — see subordination requirement. For the parallel constraint on cash leaving the operating company as dividends, see dividend restriction.
What Is an Affiliate Transaction Restriction?
An affiliate transaction restriction is a negative covenant that governs financial dealings between the borrowing entity and its affiliates — a term the loan agreement defines broadly to capture any party with a significant ownership relationship or common control. This typically includes the shareholders themselves, sibling companies under common ownership, the founder's personal holding company (patrimoniumvennootschap), directors, and their immediate family members. Some facilities extend the definition to entities in which the borrower holds a material minority stake, so the scope can reach further than borrowers expect.
The core obligation has two components. First, any transaction with an affiliate must be conducted on arm's-length terms: the price, payment schedule, and commercial conditions must be consistent with what an independent, unrelated party would agree to in a comparable transaction. Second, transactions above a defined threshold — typically expressed as a euro amount, a percentage of annual turnover, or both — must be notified to the bank and sometimes require prior written consent. The threshold varies by facility; in Belgian SME lending, notification thresholds of €50,000 to €150,000 per transaction are common, with consent thresholds set higher.
It is important to be precise about what arm's-length means under this covenant. It is a contractual obligation, not a statutory one arising from Belgian company law. The WVV/CSA (Wetboek van Vennootschappen en Verenigingen / Code des Sociétés et Associations), reformed in 2019, does impose procedural requirements on related-party transactions — Articles 7:96 (BV/SRL) and 7:115 (NV/SA) require board-level approval and, in certain cases, a special report from the statutory auditor — but those provisions address process, not pricing. Belgian company law does not require that all related-party transactions be priced at market rates. The credit covenant does. These are two parallel but distinct obligations, and satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
A breach of the affiliate transaction restriction is typically classified as an event of default rather than a financial covenant breach, which means the bank does not need to wait for a testing date to act. If the bank discovers that the operating company has been paying above-market management fees to the founder's holding company, or that premises are rented at three times market rent, it can call the loan or suspend drawings under a revolving credit facility without the cure periods that apply to financial covenant breaches. This classification makes the restriction more consequential than many borrowers appreciate.
Why Banks Restrict Related-Party Transactions
The bank's concern is straightforward: the cash flows it is counting on to repay the loan can be redirected to affiliated parties through related-party transactions that look like ordinary operating costs but function as value extraction. A management fee paid by the operating company to a holding company reduces the operating company's EBITDA, weakens its debt service coverage, and channels money to a legal entity that is not party to the loan. From the bank's perspective, this is economically equivalent to an unauthorised dividend — except that it is dressed as a business expense and therefore more difficult to detect at the annual review.
Belgian credit analysts at KBC, BNP Paribas Fortis, ING Belgium, and Belfius are specifically trained to examine related-party transaction flows during credit file review. They look at the management accounts, the auditor's notes, and the annual disclosure of related-party transactions required under Belgian accounting rules. An operating company whose EBITDA margin is 2 percentage points below its sector benchmark will typically attract a question about management fees, rent, and intercompany service charges. If those charges are not documented and benchmarked, the analyst has no basis to confirm they are arm's-length, and the credit file may be escalated for additional review.
There is also a Basel III capital adequacy dimension. Under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), banks must apply heightened due diligence to exposures where related-party transactions create uncertainty about the borrower's true earnings power. A facility where the borrower routinely transacts with affiliates without documentation is treated as carrying higher operational risk, which affects the internal risk rating the bank assigns to the loan and, indirectly, the pricing and terms it is willing to offer at renewal.
Belgian Family Business Structures and the Arm's Length Test
In Belgian family businesses, the most common related-party transaction categories are management fee arrangements, property leases, and shareholder loans. Each has its own arm's-length reference point, and each presents distinct documentation challenges. Understanding what the bank's credit analyst is actually checking for each type is more useful than a general commitment to 'market rates'.
Management fees charged by a patrimoniumvennootschap or a founder's personal holding company to the operating entity are extremely common in Belgium, driven primarily by tax efficiency. Banks accept these arrangements — they are not inherently suspicious — but require a formal management service agreement specifying the services provided, the calculation basis for the fee, and the payment schedule. The fee must be proportionate to the services actually rendered. For a Belgian SME with turnover of €2–3 million, a management fee in the range of €50,000 to €150,000 per year is broadly defensible depending on what services the holding company genuinely provides. Above that range, a credit analyst will expect benchmarking evidence — typically a comparison to the cost of hiring equivalent expertise directly, or to published remuneration surveys for comparable roles. Fees that are set as a percentage of turnover without a service breakdown are particularly difficult to defend under an arm's-length test.
Property leases where founders hold commercial real estate personally or through a separate legal entity and lease premises to the operating company are also standard in Belgian practice. The arm's-length reference is market rent for comparable commercial space in the same location, established by reference to comparable lettings or a formal valuation report from a Belgian immobiliënexpert / expert immobilier. The lease must be in writing, at a defined rent, with standard commercial terms. Banks become concerned when rent is set informally, revised without documentation, or structured so that the operating company bears maintenance, insurance, and renovation costs that would normally be a landlord's responsibility — these arrangements inflate the effective rent beyond the nominal figure.
Shareholder loans sit at the intersection of the affiliate transaction restriction and the subordination requirement. A loan from the founder or a holding company to the operating entity is a related-party transaction subject to arm's-length pricing — the interest rate must reflect what an independent lender would charge for a comparable subordinated facility — and simultaneously subject to the subordination covenant, which requires the shareholder creditor to rank behind the bank. Belgian Royal Decree of 29 June 2016 implementing OECD transfer pricing guidelines may also apply to cross-border intercompany loans above €1 million, providing an additional documentation reference for the interest rate. For Belgian intragroup transactions generally, the bank's credit analyst may request the company's transfer pricing documentation as part of the annual compliance package.
Belgian company law (WVV/CSA Articles 7:96 and 7:115) requires procedural compliance for related-party transactions — board approval and sometimes a statutory auditor report — but does NOT require arm's-length pricing as a matter of statute. Your credit covenant's arm's-length obligation is a separate contractual requirement. Satisfying the WVV/CSA procedure does not satisfy the bank.
Typical Requirements in Belgian SME Lending
Affiliate transaction restrictions in Belgian SME facilities are structured in layers: a blanket obligation to conduct all related-party transactions at arm's length, combined with a tiered notification and consent regime based on transaction size. The blanket obligation applies regardless of amount — even a small management fee must be arm's-length. The notification and consent tiers apply only above defined thresholds.
For a mid-market Belgian SME facility (loan amount €500,000 to €5 million), a typical structure would require: written notice to the bank within 15 to 30 business days of any individual related-party transaction exceeding €50,000 to €75,000; prior written consent of the bank for any transaction exceeding €150,000 to €250,000, or any transaction that would, in aggregate with related-party transactions in the same financial year, exceed a percentage of annual turnover (typically 5% to 10%). Revolving or recurring arrangements — such as monthly management fees under a standing service agreement — are usually treated as a single transaction assessed at their annual value, so a monthly management fee of €10,000 is assessed as €120,000 annually for threshold purposes.
The reporting requirement covenant works in tandem with the affiliate transaction restriction. Standard annual compliance certificates require the borrower to confirm that all related-party transactions during the reporting period were conducted at arm's-length terms and that no transaction above the notification threshold occurred without the required notice or consent. Some facilities additionally require the borrower to deliver, with the annual compliance certificate, a schedule of all related-party transactions above a de minimis amount — typically €25,000 — with a brief description and confirmation of the arm's-length basis. If your facility contains this requirement, ensure your external accountant or statutory auditor is aware of it before the financial year closes.
Consent requirements carry practical timing implications. If you intend to enter a new related-party arrangement — say, relocating to premises owned by the founder's holding company, or adding a new management service line — you must seek bank consent before the transaction is entered into, not after. Belgian credit managers consistently report that borrowers discover the consent requirement only when they are already committed to the arrangement, creating a situation where the bank must either give retrospective approval (which it is under no obligation to do) or note a technical breach in the credit file.
What to Watch After Signing
The affiliate transaction restriction is one of the covenants most often breached inadvertently in Belgian family businesses, because the relationships it governs are dynamic. A management fee arrangement that was documented and defensible when the loan was signed can drift over time: the services covered expand informally, the fee is increased without a written amendment, or the payment schedule becomes irregular. None of this triggers an immediate bank inquiry — it accumulates silently until the annual credit review, when the analyst compares this year's intercompany costs to last year's and asks why the management fee increased by 35% with no corresponding change in the service agreement.
Real estate arrangements are particularly prone to undocumented evolution. A lease signed at market rent in 2019 may not have been formally renewed or renegotiated when the term expired, leaving the operating company paying rent under an expired agreement with no written basis. Belgian banks treat an undocumented or expired lease as a red flag, not because they assume bad faith, but because they cannot confirm arm's-length terms from documentation that does not exist. If your lease with a related party is approaching its expiry date, renegotiate it in writing before the annual credit review — not after.
The dividend restriction operates alongside the affiliate transaction restriction as a complementary constraint on value extraction from the operating company. A borrower who cannot pay a dividend above a defined threshold might be tempted to substitute an above-market management fee or an inflated rent as an alternative distribution mechanism. Banks are aware of this substitution risk, and credit analysts in Belgian SME units are specifically instructed to examine whether related-party transaction costs increased in the same period that dividend payments were constrained. The two covenants work in tandem; attempting to circumvent one through the other is a high-risk strategy that credit managers will identify and that can result in a material adverse change declaration.
Maintain a simple related-party transaction register updated quarterly. For each arrangement, record: the counterparty, the nature of the transaction, the annual value, the arm's-length basis (with source — comparable market data, valuation report, or benchmark), and the date of any bank notification or consent received. This register costs almost nothing to maintain and provides immediate answers when the bank's credit manager sends a query. Businesses that cannot answer related-party questions quickly are perceived as disorganised — and disorganised is not a quality that helps at annual facility renewal.
How to Negotiate the Affiliate Transaction Restriction
The most important negotiation is over the definition of affiliate. Belgian bank standard-form credit agreements often use a very broad definition that can capture minority stakes, family members of directors, and entities in which any director holds any ownership interest. Push back on definitions that sweep in genuinely arm's-length commercial counterparties that happen to share a shareholder. A workable definition should capture entities under common control (more than 50% ownership or the right to appoint a majority of the board), family members of shareholders holding more than a defined ownership percentage (typically 25% or more), and directors acting in their personal capacity. Entities where the borrower holds a passive minority stake below 20%, and where there is no common management, should generally be excluded.
On notification and consent thresholds, the opening position in most Belgian facility term sheets is set conservatively. Push to have the notification threshold tied to a percentage of annual turnover — 2% to 3% is defensible — rather than a fixed euro amount that does not scale with business growth. For the consent threshold, argue that existing, documented arrangements that were in place at loan closing should be grandfathered: the bank has already underwritten the facility knowing that these arrangements exist, so requiring consent for their continuation (as opposed to material amendments) is unnecessary. Request that the consent threshold for new arrangements be set at 5% of annual turnover, with a requirement only for prior written notice (not consent) for transactions between the notification and consent thresholds.
Where your business has a standing management fee arrangement with a holding company, negotiate to have it specifically disclosed and approved in the facility agreement at closing. Frame it as part of the credit information package: provide the bank with the service agreement, the fee calculation basis, and a benchmarking note prepared by your accountant. A management fee arrangement that is expressly acknowledged in the credit agreement — even if only by reference — is far safer than one that exists in parallel without formal bank awareness. Belgian banks will generally accept this approach when the arrangement is reasonable and well-documented; what they resist is learning about it for the first time during an annual review.
Finally, negotiate the cure mechanic carefully. If a related-party transaction that was entered into in good faith turns out on review to have been not fully arm's-length — perhaps because market rents moved and the lease was not updated — you want the ability to remedy the situation rather than face an immediate event of default. A well-drafted restriction should include a cure period of 30 to 60 days from written notice, during which the borrower can bring the arrangement into compliance (for example, by adjusting the rent, repaying an excess fee, or obtaining a retrospective valuation). This cure right is standard in larger leveraged finance facilities and is increasingly negotiated into Belgian SME credit agreements by borrowers with competent legal advisors.
The fastest way to see whether a Affiliate transaction restriction covenant — and every other condition — is in your term sheet is to let Credia read it for you. Upload the PDF and you get every covenant identified and explained, in plain language, in under two minutes.
Analyse your term sheetNew to term sheets? Read our term sheet guide.
Frequently asked questions
What is a Affiliate transaction restriction covenant?
An affiliate/related-party transaction restriction requires all transactions with related parties (owners, family members, affiliated companies) to be at arm’s length terms.
What does a Affiliate transaction restriction covenant restrict?
Management fees, intercompany pricing, and owner benefits are subject to scrutiny. Cannot use the company to benefit related parties on non-market terms.
Can you negotiate a Affiliate transaction restriction covenant?
Most covenant terms are negotiable at the term sheet stage, before the legal documentation is drawn up. With the Affiliate transaction restriction covenant, focus on the definition, the threshold, the testing frequency, and the cure period. Ask your relationship manager what flexibility exists, and have your accountant confirm the level is one your business can hold comfortably. Read every line.