---

       T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

                          E U R O P E

          Friday, February 4, 2022, Vol. 23, No. 20

                           Headlines



B E L A R U S

BELAGROPROMBANK JSC: S&P Affirms 'B' ICR, Outlook Negative


C Z E C H   R E P U B L I C

ENERGO-PRO: Fitch Gives USD435M Notes Final 'BB-' Sr. Unsec. Rating


D E N M A R K

DKT HOLDINGS: Fitch Places 'B+' LT IDR on Watch Negative


F R A N C E

DERICHEBOURG: S&P Upgrades Long-Term ICR to 'BB+', Outlook Stable
GROUPE ECORE: S&P Withdraws 'CCC+' Long-Term Issuer Credit Rating
PROMONTORIA MMB: S&P Affirms 'BB+' ICR, Outlook Developing


I R E L A N D

ARMADA EURO IV: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class F Notes
HAYFIN EMERALD I: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class F-R Notes
HENLEY CLO IV: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class F Notes
OCP EURO 2022-5: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to EUR11.7MM F Notes


I T A L Y

FABBRICA ITALIANA: Moody's Gives B3 CFR & Rates EUR350MM Notes B3
INTER MEDIA: S&P Puts Preliminary 'B' LT Issue Rating to New Bonds
SAIPEM SPA: Moody's Lowers CFR to B1, Under Review for Downgrade


U N I T E D   K I N G D O M

CASUAL DINING: Plans Lodged for Former Cafe Rouge Chester Branch
DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL: Buyers Frustrated at Lack of Progress
LUXURY HOME: Enters Administration, Ceases Trading
MIDAS: Councillor Seeks Urgent Talks on Future of Housing Scheme
NMC GROUP: To Exit Administration in First Quarter of 2022

STRATTON MORTGAGE 2021-1: Fitch Affirms 'BB' Class E Notes Rating


X X X X X X X X

[*] BOOK REVIEW: Hospitals, Health and People

                           - - - - -


=============
B E L A R U S
=============

BELAGROPROMBANK JSC: S&P Affirms 'B' ICR, Outlook Negative
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its issuer credit ratings on three
Belarusian banks and maintained the outlooks. This follows a
revision to S&P's criteria for rating banks and nonbank financial
institutions and for determining a Banking Industry Country Risk
Assessment.
The affirmations include:

-- Belarusbank (B/Negative/B);
-- Belagroprombank JSC (B/Negative/B); and
-- Bank BelVEB OJSC (B/Negative/B).

S&P said, "Our assessments of economic risk and industry risk in
Belarus are unchanged at '9' and '10', respectively. These scores
determine the BICRA and the anchor, or starting point, for our
ratings on financial institutions that operate primarily in that
country. As a result, the anchor for banks operating in Belarus
remains 'b'. The trends we see for both economic and industry risk
are stable.

"Our base-case scenario remains that the Belarusian banking
sector's asset quality and profitability will remain under pressure
as political instability continues weighing on economic recovery
prospects. In the absence of structural reforms, the number of
state-owned companies, which tend to have low efficiency and in
many cases are loss-making, could further impact asset quality in
the sector. Although deposit withdrawals slowed after the peak
observed in 2020, funding stability and liquidity remain under
pressure.

"The recent rapid spread of the omicron variant highlights the
inherent uncertainties of the pandemic but also the importance and
benefits of vaccines. Although the risk of new, more severe
variants displacing omicron and evading existing immunity cannot be
ruled out, our current base-case assumes that existing vaccines can
continue to provide significant protection against severe illness.
Furthermore, many governments, businesses and households around the
world are tailoring policies to limit the adverse economic impact
of recurring COVID-19 waves. Consequently, we do not expect a
repeat of the sharp global economic contraction seen in
second-quarter 2020. Meanwhile, we continue to assess how well
individual issuers adapt to new waves in their geography or
industry."

Belarusbank
Primary analyst: Ekaterina Ermolenko

S&P said, "We affirmed our 'B/B' ratings on Belarusbank. We
consider the bank, which is the the country's largest and under
state ownership, a government-related entity (GRE) with a
moderately high likelihood of receiving extraordinary support from
the Belarusian government.

"Our ratings reflect the bank's high dependence on volatile
economic conditions in Belarus, its reliance on ongoing and
extraordinary capital and liquidity support from the state, and
substantial lending to and funding from government bodies and
state-owned enterprises."

With market share exceeding 40% of total assets and loans,
Belarusbank's superior business position in its domestic market
remains a rating strength versus domestic peers. S&P expects the
bank's capitalization to remain constrained over the next 12-18
months, while its capital buffers are weak in an international
context. Belarusbank's risk profile balances the benefits of
diversification and exposure to large state-owned enterprises. Some
of these companies benefit from government support (about 15% of
the loan portfolio is covered by government guarantees) but several
are less efficient and perform poorly, which could eventually
pressure asset quality. Wide access to corporate and retail
deposits continues to support the bank's funding, with customer
deposits accounting for about 62% of total liabilities at June 30,
2021, of which about half are retail deposits.

The 'B' long-term rating on Belarusbank is one notch lower than
S&P's 'b+' stand-alone credit profile (SACP) assessment, because it
views the sovereign's creditworthiness as the main ratings
constraint. The bank's state ownership makes it strongly dependent
on the strength of the Belarusian government's fiscal position.
Furthermore, the bank operates exclusively in Belarus and remains
highly exposed to country risk.

Outlook
S&P's negative outlook on Belarusbank mirrors that on the
sovereign.

Downside scenario: A negative rating action on Belarus would
trigger a similar action on the bank.

Upside scenario: S&P could revise the outlook to stable should it
revises the outlook on the sovereign to stable.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: B/Negative/B
  Stand-alone credit profile: b+

  Anchor: b
  Business position: Strong (+1)
  Capital and earnings: Constrained (0)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and Adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: 0

  Additional loss-absorbing capacity (ALAC) support: 0
  Government-related entity (GRE) support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG credit indicators: E-2, S-1, G-4

Belagroprombank JSC
Primary analyst: Ekaterina Ermolenko

S&P said, "We affirmed our 'B/B' ratings on Belagroprombank. Our
ratings account for Belarus' high economic risk and weak operating
environment, which results in high credit and foreign currency
risks. This is balanced against the bank's sound business position,
as the second largest lender in the country, and ongoing support
from the Belarusian government in the form of capital, funding, and
liquidity. Belagroprombank's asset quality appears somewhat weaker
than the banking sector average. However, its focus on the
agricultural sector, which has shown fairly resilient performance
during the pandemic, is expected to stabilize asset quality to some
extent. Balancing those factors with the bank' relatively weak
capitalization in a global context and adequate funding and
liquidity, we assess its SACP at 'b'. The bank's state ownership
makes it strongly dependent on the Belarusian government's
creditworthiness. In our view, Belagroprombank has high systemic
importance and we view it as a GRE, resulting in a moderately high
likelihood of government support in the case of need."

Outlook

S&P's negative outlook on Belagroprombank mirrors that on Belarus
and reflects pressure on its asset quality over the next 12
months.

Downside scenario: A negative rating action on Belarus would
trigger a similar action on the bank. S&P could also take a
negative rating action if the bank's credit fundamentals
deteriorate significantly. This could happen if asset quality
noticeably weakens below the system average, resulting in a
material increase in credit costs and new provisions not offset by
corresponding capital injections to mitigate the eventual impact.

Upside scenario: S&P could revise the outlook to stable if it
revises the outlook on the sovereign rating to stable, combined
with Belagroprombank achieving asset quality close to the system
average, while maintaining sufficient liquidity buffers.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: B/Negative/B
  Stand-alone credit profile: b

  Anchor: b
  Business position: Adequate (0)
  Capital and earnings: Constrained (0)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and Adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: 0

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG credit indicators: E-2, S-1, G-4

Bank BelVEB OJSC
Primary analyst: Ekaterina Ermolenko

S&P said, "We affirmed our 'B/B' ratings on Bank BelVEB. Our
ratings are constrained by the foreign currency sovereign credit
ratings on Belarus because the bank operates exclusively in Belarus
and remains highly exposed to country risks.

"We consider Bank BelVEB a strategically important subsidiary of
Russia's VEB.RF (BBB-/Stable/A-3). This means we expect that the
Russian parent will continue providing financial and operational
support. Such support is important for the stability of the bank's
funding base, in our view. Although Bank BelVEB's liquidity profile
benefits from ongoing parental support, we believe that it cannot
fully mitigate the high risks of operating in Belarus. We therefore
cap the ratings at the level of our foreign currency sovereign
credit ratings on Belarus (B/Negative/B).

"In our view, Bank BelVEB's SACP, which we see at 'b', benefits
from its moderate capitalization, with an S&P Global Ratings
risk-adjusted capital ratio consistently above 5% over the forecast
horizon, and adequate risk position."

Outlook

S&P's negative outlook on Bank BelVEB mirrors that on Belarus. A
deterioration of Bank BelVEB's credit fundamentals won't
automatically lead to a downgrade because our rating could
incorporate up to three notches of uplift for parental support.

Downside scenario: A negative rating action on Belarus would
trigger a similar action on the bank.

Upside scenario: S&P could revise the outlook to stable should it
revises the outlook on the sovereign to stable.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: B/Negative/B
  Stand-alone credit profile: b

  Anchor: b
  Business position: Adequate (0)
  Capital and earnings: Moderate (0)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and Adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: 0

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG credit indicators: E-2, S-2, G-4

  Ratings List

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  BELAGROPROMBANK JSC

   Issuer Credit Rating         B/Negative/B

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  BELARUSBANK

   Issuer Credit Rating         B/Negative/B

  RATINGS AFFIRMED

  BANK BELVEB OJSC

   Issuer Credit Rating         B/Negative/B




===========================
C Z E C H   R E P U B L I C
===========================

ENERGO-PRO: Fitch Gives USD435M Notes Final 'BB-' Sr. Unsec. Rating
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has assigned ENERGO-PRO a.s.'s (EPas) USD435 million
8.5% notes due 2027 a final senior unsecured 'BB-' rating, in line
with the utility company's Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) of
'BB-', which is on Negative Outlook.

The final rating of the notes reflects the bond's final terms.

The Negative Outlook on EPas's Long-Term IDR reflects Fitch's
expectation that, in the absence of the company's Turkish-projects
acquisition, leverage in 2022-2024 will be slightly above Fitch's
negative rating sensitivity, despite an improvement in 2021.
Coverage ratios will also be under pressure from 2023 as the coupon
on the new notes is significantly higher than on the notes being
refinanced.

The Long-Term IDR reflects EPas's small size relative to other
rated European utilities', cash-flow volatility, foreign-exchange
(FX) exposure, operating-environment risk and key-person risk from
ultimate ownership by one individual. It also incorporates
increased distribution tariffs in Georgia, a supportive regulatory
regime for utilities networks in Bulgaria, and geographic
diversification.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Final Notes Terms: The notes constitute direct, unconditional,
unsubordinated and unsecured obligations of EPas and rank pari
passu among themselves and equally with all its other unsecured
obligations. The notes are fully, unconditionally and irrevocably
guaranteed by seven companies within the EPas group, which covered
around 85% of consolidated EBITDA in 2021. The proceeds are being
used for the early repayment of EPas's EUR370 million notes due
December 2022. EPas will not proceed with its Turkish-projects
acquisition, which was planned previously.

High Leverage Metrics: Fitch expects funds from operations (FFO)
net leverage (adjusted for connection fees and guarantees) to be
slightly above Fitch's negative rating sensitivity of 5.5x over
2022-2024. Fitch assumes EBITDA stabilisation from 2022, following
a strong performance in 2021. This is based on Fitch's forecast
that exceptionally high energy prices in 2H21 will level off in
2022, and that the Turkish lira will continue depreciating against
the dollar and euro. Fitch also expects interest coverage to be
under pressure from a tightening monetary policy cycle globally,
affecting EPas's refinancing terms.

Turkish Projects Consolidation Terminated: EPas has decided not to
proceed with the Turkish asset acquisition as their consolidation
would not be leverage-reducing for the group, given EPas's strong
2021 results, and also because its existing bond covenants would
not permit it. Another contributing factor to the decision was the
unstable macroeconomic environment in Turkey. EPas's guarantee for
the loan to Akbank related to the Karakurt project with a limit of
USD50 million will remain, and Fitch will continue to include it as
an off-balance-sheet obligation in FFO net leverage calculation.

EBITDA Volatility: EPas's Fitch-calculated EBITDA ranged between
EUR96 million and EUR164 million in 2016-2020, due to variable
hydro generation and tariff changes. In 9M21, Fitch-calculated
EBITDA was around EUR150 million, up around 50% yoy, due to
increased distribution tariffs in Georgia, higher electricity
prices across all regions of operations and the low base effect of
2020 (Fitch-calculated EBITDA of EUR105 million), which were
partially offset by cessation of feed-in tariffs (FiT) for EPas's
hydro assets in Turkey.

Shareholder Distribution: EPas distributed EUR40 million to
shareholders in 2020 and EUR10 million in 2021. Fitch's rating case
includes distributions of EUR10 million-EUR20 million annually over
2022-2025. EPas expects its dividend policy to remain flexible and
subject to business needs.

Evolving Regulated, Quasi-Regulated Shares: EPas's EBITDA is
dominated by regulated and quasi-regulated activities (70% in 9M21,
down from 89% in 2017, based on company estimates). Fitch expects
this share to decrease as the business mix shifts towards
market-based activities, following cessation of FiTs in Turkey from
end-2020, gradual hydro power plant (HPP) liberalisation in
Georgia, and the expiry of reference-price-plus-premium mechanism
in Bulgaria over 2024-2025. These developments have a mixed
financial effect. Fitch may tighten its rating sensitivities if
Fitch expects cash-flow predictability to decrease.

HPP Liberalisation in Georgia: In 2020 Georgia adopted the
electricity market model, meaning that electricity producers with
installed capacity below 120MW will gradually be relieved of
public-service obligation as they transition to market-based
principles. EPas's HPPs will gradually be deregulated in 2021-2027.
Fitch expects this to have a positive effect as market prices are
materially higher than regulated ones.

FX Risks: EPas remains subject to foreign-exchange (FX)
fluctuations, as its debt at end-2021, which consisted mainly of
Eurobonds, was euro-denominated. This is in contrast to its
local-currency denominated revenue, although the Bulgarian leva is
pegged to the euro. EPas does not use hedging instruments, other
than holding some cash in foreign currencies.

EPas has an ESG Relevance Score of '5' for Group Structure as the
company has issued guarantees in favour of its sister companies
within the DK Holding group, and higher-than-expected distributions
have had a material impact on its credit ratios. These factors
resulted in a revision of Outlook to Negative from Stable in
December 2020.

DERIVATION SUMMARY

EPas is smaller than other rated European utilities such as Energa
S.A. (BBB-/Rating Watch Positive) or Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD
(BB/Positive), although it is one of the largest utilities in
Georgia and Bulgaria. The company is focused on hydro generation
with a close-to-zero carbon footprint. Its EBITDA was more volatile
over 2013-2021 than that of many peers, but it benefits from
positive pre-dividend free cash flow (FCF) generation and a large
portion of regulated and quasi-regulated income. EPas's leverage is
higher than Energa's.

EPas has greater geographic diversification and benefits from more
stable regulation and integration into networks than DTEK
Renewables B.V. (B-/Stable), one of the largest renewables (wind
and solar) energy producers in Ukraine that operate under FiT, and
Uzbekhydroenergo JSC (BB-/Stable), a hydro producer with a monopoly
in Uzbekistan rated at the same level as the Republic of Uzbekistan
(BB-/Stable), reflecting its strong links with the state.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

-- Bulgarian, Georgian and Turkish GDP to increase 3%-4.7%, 4%-
    7.8%, 4.5%-10.5%, respectively, in 2021-2025;

-- Bulgarian, Georgian, and Turkish CPI on average at 2.2%, 3.7%,
    17.7%, respectively, over 2021-2025;

-- Electricity generation to increase to about 2.6 TWh annually
    in 2022-2024 from about 2.4 TWh in 2021;

-- Capex on average at about EUR70 million annually over 2021-
    2025;

-- Distributions to shareholder of EUR10 million-EUR20 million
    annually over in 2022-2025;

-- EUR/USD1.18- 1.19, USD/TRY10.65-TRY19.4 and EUR/GEL3.9-GEL4.1
    over 2021-2025;

-- Around EUR45 million guarantees included as off-balance-sheet
    obligations in 2021-2025;

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- Fitch does not anticipate an upgrade as reflected in the
    Negative Outlook. Nevertheless, improved FFO net leverage
    (excluding connection fees and including group guarantees) to
    below 4.5x and FFO interest coverage consistently above 4x
    would be positive for the rating;

-- The Outlook could be revised to Stable if the negative
    sensitivities below are not breached.

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- Higher distributions to shareholder and lower profitability
    and cash generation leading to FFO net leverage (excluding
    connection fees and including group guarantees) above 5.5x and
    FFO interest coverage below 3x on a sustained basis;

-- Continued low hydro generation;

-- Significant weakening of the business profile with lower
    predictability of cash flows may lead to a tighter leverage
    sensitivity or a downgrade.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO

International scale credit ratings of Non-Financial Corporate
issuers have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the
99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of four notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAA' to 'D'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings are
based on historical performance.

LIQUIDITY AND DEBT STRUCTURE

Manageable Liquidity: EPas's liquidity has improved following the
refinancing of EUR370 million Eurobonds due December 2022 with the
new notes issuance. At end-September 2021 EPas had EUR28 million of
unrestricted cash and equivalents and a EUR17 million available
under revolving credit facilities, against short-term financial
liabilities of EUR50 million. The company expects to repay or
extend loans on maturity.

ISSUER PROFILE

EPas is a utility company headquartered in the Czech Republic with
operating companies in Bulgaria, Georgia and Turkey. Its core
activities are power distribution to over two million customers and
electricity generation at HPPs with a total installed capacity of
747MW and a gas-fired plant of 110MW.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL ADJUSTMENTS

-- Fitch has included guarantees of EUR45 million at end-2020
    issued by EPas under loan agreements of its sister companies
    as off-balance-sheet obligations in Fitch's adjusted debt
    calculations.

-- For the purpose of FFO net leverage (excluding connection
    fees) and FFO interest cover (excluding connection fees)
    calculations Fitch reduced FFO by the amount of customer
    connection fees received as they are set off against capex.

-- Surplus from inventory and property, plant and equipment (PPE)
    counts, income from penalties and fines, income from insurance
    claims, gains less losses on disposal of PPE and intangible
    assets, changes in inventory of products and in work in
    progress were excluded from EBITDA.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS

EPas has an ESG Relevance Score of '5' for Group Structure, due to
issuance of guarantees in favour of its sister companies within the
DK Holding group, and higher-than-expected distributions. These
factors have a negative impact on the credit profile, and are
highly relevant to the rating, resulting in the revision of Outlook
to Negative from Stable in December 2020.

EPas has an ESG Relevance Score of '4' for Governance Structure,
due to the company being part of the larger DK Holding, which is
ultimately owned by one individual. This has a negative impact on
the credit profile, and is relevant to the rating in conjunction
with other factors.

Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of
ESG credit relevance is a score of '3'. This means ESG issues are
credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity,
either due to their nature or the way in which they are being
managed by the entity.



=============
D E N M A R K
=============

DKT HOLDINGS: Fitch Places 'B+' LT IDR on Watch Negative
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has placed DKT Holdings ApS's (DKT), the owner of
Danish telecoms company TDC Holding A/S (TDC), Long-Term Issuer
Default Rating (IDR) of 'B+' on Rating Watch Negative (RWN). All
instrument ratings have been placed on Rating Watch Evolving
(RWE).

The rating action follows the signing of new EUR3.3 billion
committed bank facilities by TDC's network subsidiary, TDC NET, and
the ring-fencing of the subsidiary from the rest of the group.
Fitch believes that stronger ring-fencing around the main operating
subsidiary may constrain the upstreaming of cash to the parent DKT
and result in the deconsolidation of the entity from the group. The
proceeds from the new bank debt will be used to refinance TDC's
senior secured debt and repay EUR500 million EMTN due in March
2022.

The remaining GBP425 million EMTN due in 2023 will continue to
benefit from the statutory demerger liability under the Danish
Companies Act, which allows us to rate the instrument on a par with
the existing senior secured debt at TDC. Fitch places DKT's
instruments' ratings on RWE as they may not necessarily be
disadvantaged by the new funding structure.

Fitch expects to resolve the rating watch once Fitch has more
clarity on the group's capital structure and plans on the amount
and type of debt at financing vehicle DKT Finance ApS and services
subsidiary Nuuday.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

IDR Construction Change: A strong ring-fencing around operating
subsidiaries may lead to a change in the rating approach from a
consolidated group to a holding company as the parent now has
reduced control over cash being up-streamed from subsidiaries in
such group structures. DKT's IDR of 'B+' is based on Fitch's
analysis of the group on a consolidated basis with no constraints
on cash upstreaming from its operating subsidiaries TDC NET and
Nuuday.

With the new ring-fenced debt at TDC NET in place, DKT will only
have access to cash flows from Nuuday and rely on dividend payments
from TDC NET within the limitations of the ringfence. The rating
approach to DKT will depend on whether the parent will have
constraints in accessing cash flows from Nuuday if the subsidiary
raises new debt.

Low Recoveries for DKT Finance Debt: Fitch expects the recovery
prospects of the senior notes at DKT Finance to remain limited
versus other debt instruments' but this will be subject to the
amount of debt at its level. The rating of the notes will depend on
the final composition and type of debt at TDC's operating
subsidiaries as well as on the availability of credit facilities at
DKT Finance to support its liquidity. At this stage, Fitch does not
have a visibility on the targeted final capital structure of the
group.

Total Debt Unchanged: Fitch expects the total debt amount at TDC to
remain largely the same, as most of the new debt will be used to
refinance existing debt. Fitch does not rule out further changes to
the group's capital structure, including standalone financing at
Nuuday. TDC has secured a new RCF at Nuuday to support its
liquidity.

DERIVATION SUMMARY

DKT's ratings reflect TDC's leading position within the Danish
telecoms market. The company has strong in-market scale and market
shares in both the fixed and mobile segments. Ownership of both the
cable and copper-based local access network infrastructure partly
reduces the company's operating risk profile, even though TDC faces
network competition from FTTH fibre deployed by Danish electricity
companies in parts of the country. Domestic European incumbent
peers typically face infrastructure-based competition from cable
network operators.

DKT is rated lower than other peer incumbents, such as Royal KPN
N.V (BBB/Stable), due to higher leverage. It is more in line with
cable operators with similarly high leverage, such as VodafoneZiggo
Group B.V. (B+/Stable) and Telenet Group Holding N.V. (BB-/Stable).
DKT's incumbent status, leading positions in both the fixed-line
and mobile markets, and unique infrastructure ownership justify
higher leverage thresholds than cable peers.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

Fitch's key assumptions within its rating case for the issuer
include:

-- Largely flat revenue in 2022-2024;

-- Fitch-defined EBITDA margin at around 36%-37% in 2022-2024;

-- Capex around 24%-26% of revenue in 2022-2024, including
    spectrum.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The resolution of rating watch for instruments' ratings will depend
on the final group structure and the amount and type of debt at its
subsidiaries Nuuday, TDC NET and DKT Finance.

Factor that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- Positive rating action on the IDR is unlikely given the RWN.

Factor that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- Debt ring-fencing at the operating subsidiaries will likely
    lead to a change in the rating construction and may result in
    the downgrade of the IDR if the amount of debt at DKT Finance
    remains high and no liquidity facilities are put in place.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO

International scale credit ratings of Non-Financial Corporate
issuers have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the
99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of four notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAA' to 'D'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings are
based on historical performance.

LIQUIDITY AND DEBT STRUCTURE

Sufficient Liquidity: Fitch expects DKT to maintain healthy
liquidity, supported by RCFs at its operating subsidiaries.

ISSUER PROFILE

DKT is a holding company for TDC, which is the incumbent telecom
operator of Denmark. TDC offers unbundled products covering mobile,
broadband, TV and telephony. In 2019 the company separated TDC
group into network company (TDC NET) and services company (Nuuday)
with the goal to attract other telecom operators onto its
infrastructure while maintaining a competitive leadership in
digital services.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS

Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of
ESG credit relevance is a score of '3'. This means ESG issues are
credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity,
either due to their nature or the way in which they are being
managed by the entity.



===========
F R A N C E
===========

DERICHEBOURG: S&P Upgrades Long-Term ICR to 'BB+', Outlook Stable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings raised to 'BB+' from 'BB' its long-term issuer
credit and issue ratings on Derichebourg and the company's EUR300
million unsecured notes, due 2028.

The stable outlook reflects the expected build-up of rating
headroom over the next 12-18 months, thanks to deleveraging and no
large acquisitions, that could comfortably accommodate sizable
growth.

Record high profitability in 2021 and the ECore acquisition have
propelled Derichebourg into a promising 2022. A surge in steel
prices in 2021 alongside strong demand created ideal conditions for
Derichebourg's EBITDA generation. In the 12 months ended Sept. 30,
2021, the company reported EBITDA of EUR506 million. S&P said,
"Under our current forecast, we incorporate an EBITDA contribution
from Ecore of nearly EUR100 million for fiscal 2022, pushing total
EBITDA to a projected EUR400 million, at most, versus our previous
forecast of EUR370 million-EUR380 million for the same period. That
said, the favorable market conditions were atypical, and we
understand that prices and demand softened in the last quarter of
2021."

Derichebourg's shifted attention to deleveraging should sustain
adjusted debt to EBITDA in line with the 'BB+' rating over the
coming 12-18 months. The acquisition of Ecore for about EUR220
million caused a surge in Derichebourg's debt to about EUR950
million including leases, as of Dec. 31, 2021. The company's debt
could have been much higher if market conditions were slightly less
supportive. However, we understand management does not have further
expansion plans, opting instead to deleverage to historical lows of
reported net debt to EBITDA of 1x, which is equivalent to S&P
Global Ratings-adjusted debt to EBITDA of 2x. S&P said, "Under our
base case, we anticipate that discretionary cash flow (DCF; free
operating cash flow minus capital expenditure [capex] and
dividends) of about EUR100 million a year should enable the company
to reach its objective by 2024-2025. We also assume that limited
risk of large acquisitions will lead the company to allocate more
cash flow to dividends in the coming few years. We view an adjusted
debt to EBITDA between 2x-3x as commensurate with the 'BB+'
rating."

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our assumption that, over
the coming 12-18 months, Derichebourg's calmed expansion plans
following the Ecore acquisition and its focus on deleveraging
should enable the build-up of rating headroom, gradually providing
some capacity to fund sizable growth.

"Under our base case, we expect EBITDA of close to EUR400 million
in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2022, translating into free
cash flow of about EUR150 million and adjusted debt to EBITDA of
about 2.5x. Moreover, under normalized market conditions, we expect
the company to report EBITDA of EUR350 million-EUR400 million.

"We view an adjusted debt to EBITDA of 2x-3x as commensurate with
the 'BB+' rating.

"At this stage, we see limited rating pressure given the cash
balance and favorable market environment. Rating downside could
materialize, though, if leverage markedly exceeded 3x for more than
a year. This could occur if the company pursues large debt-funded
acquisitions with limited EBITDA contribution or shifts to a less
prudent financial policy with higher allocation of cash flow to
capex or dividends.

"In our view, the company should have sufficient headroom under the
current rating to absorb weak market conditions, even to the extent
of 2020, all else being equal.

"In our view, a positive rating action in the coming 12-18 months
is unlikely. Ratings upside would hinge on a long track record of
reported net debt to EBITDA sustained at about 1x (ideally
supported by a public objective), better visibility on the
company's growth plans, and strong liquidity. Alternatively, upside
could materialize if the company expanded its footprint materially
outside France."


GROUPE ECORE: S&P Withdraws 'CCC+' Long-Term Issuer Credit Rating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings withdrew its 'CCC+' long-term issuer credit
rating on France-based Groupe Ecore Holding S.A.S at the company's
request. The rating was on CreditWatch positive at the time of the
withdrawal.



PROMONTORIA MMB: S&P Affirms 'BB+' ICR, Outlook Developing
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings has affirmed its issuer credit ratings,
resolution counterparty credit ratings, and issue ratings on the
following 12 French banks and selected entities of the
corresponding groups. The affirmations follow a revision to S&P's
criteria for rating banks and nonbank financial institutions and
for determining a Banking Industry Country Risk Assessment (BICRA).
S&P's outlooks as well as its group stand-alone credit profiles
(SACPs) on these banks and related entities are unchanged, with the
exception of its group SACP for the larger Opel Bank SA.

The affirmations include:

-- BNP Paribas;
-- BPCE;
-- Credit Agricole S.A. (central body of Credit Agricole group);
-- Societe Generale;
-- La Banque Postale;
-- Dexia Credit Local;
-- RCI Banque;
-- Oney Bank;
-- Carrefour Banque;
-- Socram Banque;
-- Opel Bank S.A. Niederlassung Deutschland (German branch of Opel
Bank SA); and
-- My Money Bank.

S&P's assessments of economic risk and industry risk in France also
remain unchanged at '3' and '4', respectively. These scores
determine the BICRA and the anchor, or starting point, for its
ratings on financial institutions that operate primarily in that
country. The trends for economic risk and industry risk both remain
stable.

BNP Paribas
Primary analyst: Nicolas Malaterre

S&P affirmed its ratings on BNP Paribas (BNPP) and selected
subsidiaries and branches of the group. The ratings reflect BNPP's
high geographic and business diversity, which enables very
resilient revenue generation. The group is not as strong an earner
as some of its peers, notably those in the U.S. However, it
generally displays more stable earnings through the cycle.

Outlook

S&P said, "The stable outlook indicates our view that BNPP will
demonstrate good resilience to the economic implications from the
pandemic, and sufficiently mitigate the negative effect of low
interest rates on revenue. We anticipate that the group will
incrementally improve cost efficiency in the next couple of years,
delivering profitability that covers its cost of capital. We also
assume that BNPP will continue to focus on organic growth and small
bolt-on acquisitions, and sustain its adequate capitalization in
the coming two years. The positive outlook on Banca Nazionale del
Lavoro SpA (BNL) mirrors that on Italy (unsolicited;
BBB/Positive/A-2)."

Downside scenario: Downward rating pressure would most likely stem
from weakening profitability, either due to the group's inability
to largely offset the persistent negative effect of low interest
rates on its retail banking revenue, or a less-supportive
environment for its capital market activities. In a less-benign
credit and market environment, BNPP's heavier cost base than that
of large international peers could become a more pronounced rating
weakness. Any material expansion in countries with higher economic
risk than the rest of the group could also weigh on the ratings.

S&P said, "Under these scenarios, we could revise down BNPP's group
SACP and in turn lower the issue ratings on its senior nonpreferred
debt and other hybrids. Whether we also lower the issuer credit
rating could depend on its progress in building its ALAC buffer;
indeed, with the group SACP at the lower 'a-' level, we could
include an additional notch of ALAC if the buffer exceeded
sustainably our threshold for a second ALAC notch on BNPP."

Upside scenario: S&P said, "We consider an upgrade a remote
prospect. Upward rating pressure would most likely arise only if
BNPP undertakes a sizable increase in its capital ratios. We would
also need to see material improvements in cost efficiency and
returns, closing the gap with the strongest global peers, including
Nordic and large U.S. banks."

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: A+/Stable/A-1
  Stand-alone credit profile: a
  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Very strong (+2)
  Capital and earnings: Adequate (0)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +1

  ALAC support: +1
  Government-related entity (GRE) support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

BPCE
Primary analyst: Nicolas Malaterre

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on BPCE and its rated group
entities. BPCE's business model and revenue structure are more
sensitive than those of French peers to prolonged low interest
rates in the eurozone, considering its past stable but modest
profitability and weaker efficiencies. Given BPCE's continued
objective to maintain its capital strength, we project our
risk-adjusted capital (RAC) ratio before diversification will
revert to above 10%."

Outlook

The outlook on BPCE and its rated entities is stable. S&P takes
into account BPCE's good positioning in domestic activities as the
No. 2 player and aligned segments such as insurance that should
support earnings in the coming two years.

Downside scenario: The main downside risk S&P sees for BPCE in the
next 18-24 months is if its SACP further deteriorates. This could
happen if the bank does not adjust its business, including in
retail banking, to the evolving interest rate environment, and
S&P's RAC trajectory fails to revert above 10%, for example, on the
back of materially reduced earnings prospects or a material
increase in risk exposure.

Upside scenario: S&P said, "Although unlikely in the next two
years, upside could come from profitability, cost-to-income
efficiency, and solvency sustainably in line with those of rated
peers with an 'a' SACP. At the 'a-' SACP, our issuer credit and
resolution counterparty ratings on the bank could also benefit from
a second notch of ALAC support if its bail-in-able debt is
sustainably above 6%. A prerequisite would be that we consider that
such outcome would better reflect the group's creditworthiness."

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: A/Stable/A-1
  Stand-alone credit profile: a-

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Adequate (0)
  Capital and earnings: Strong (+1)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +1

  ALAC support: +1
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

Credit Agricole Group
Primary analyst: François Moneger

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on Credit Agricole S.A. (CASA)
and selected banking entities of the Credit Agricole group (GCA).
Our ratings reflect that GCA is one of the strongest bank-insurance
groups in Europe, with a high degree of business diversity and deep
retail foothold, notably in France. The group sustains a solid
capital position and enjoys predictable revenue. Although we
believe that low interest rates will continue to weigh on retail
banking interest margins, we anticipate a sizable improvement in
core earnings in 2021, essentially on the back of a normalizing
cost of risk. Our ratings also reflect GCA's strong risk
diversification and granularity, and its high nonperforming loan
(NPL) coverage. We incorporate one notch of ALAC support, since we
expect the group will continue building its ALAC buffer far above
our 275 basis-point (bp) threshold for one notch of ALAC
extraordinary support on CASA."

Outlook

S&P said, "Our stable outlooks on CASA and GCA's other core banking
entities reflect our view that GCA will maintain the 'a' group SACP
in the coming two years, with a leading franchise in its key
business segments, especially domestic retail, asset management,
and insurance. We also expect GCA will keep disciplined
underwriting standards and comparatively superior coverage of its
impaired assets, reflecting its low-risk profile. We expect that
the group will sustain satisfactory cost efficiency and adequate
capitalization. We believe that GCA will continue to demonstrate
good resilience to the economic implications from the pandemic, and
sufficiently mitigate the negative effects from persisting low
interest rates on its retail revenue.

"Our stable outlooks on the group's core insurance entities--
Predica, Pacifica IARD, and the insurance holding company Credit
Agricole Assurances--all of which we rate in reference to GCA's
group SACP, reflect that we see no particular upward or downward
pressure on the group SACP. The stable outlooks on these entities
are also supported by our favorable view of their stand-alone
credit quality."

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could lower our ratings if GCA's
asset quality deteriorates to an extent that is insufficient to
maintain a low-risk profile. Downward rating pressure could also
stem from weakening profitability if GCA does not continue largely
offsetting the negative effect of low interest rates on its retail
revenue, or if there is a rapid increase in investments and
operating costs in a context of accelerated digital transformation.
In addition, although we do not consider this a likely scenario,
any significant geographic expansion into areas with higher
economic risks than the rest of the group could weigh on overall
creditworthiness. Under all these scenarios, we could also revise
down our assessment of GCA's group SACP and lower our issue ratings
on its senior nonpreferred debt and other hybrids."

Upside scenario: S&P considers that an upgrade would entail
structural changes and hence consider it unlikely in the
short-to-medium term.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: A+/Stable/A-1
  Stand-alone credit profile: a

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Strong (+1)
  Capital and earnings: Adequate (0)
  Risk position: Strong (+1)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +1

  ALAC support: +1
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2,S-2,G-2

Societe Generale
Primary analyst: Philippe Raposo

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on Societe Generale (SG) and all
the group's rated core entities. The challenges around
profitability and sustainability of its business model are well
captured in our 'bbb+' SACP. As a listed bank, the group is
competing domestically with large domestic cooperatives, which have
only modest return targets. We continue to follow how the ongoing
corporate and investment bank (GBIS) optimization and the merger of
French retail banks Societe Generale and Credit du Nord will
improve SG's cost to income and returns relative to those of
peers." SG's volumes of bail-in-able debt issued and its policy to
keep a high bail-in-able buffer support the current two notches of
ALAC uplift.

Outlook

S&P said, "The stable outlooks on SG and its core subsidiaries
reflect the ongoing economic recovery in countries in which the
group operates. We anticipate asset quality will deteriorate in the
coming quarters as government support measures are gradually lifted
but believe SG will maintain manageable credit costs of 30 bps-40
bps in next two years. We also incorporate in our projections that
SG will maintain a buffer of bail-in-able securities commensurate
with a two-notch ALAC uplift above the 'bbb+' group SACP."

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could lower the ratings on SG and
its core entities in the next two years if profitability lowers
materially. This could happen if credit losses are far higher than
our projections, or if the group cannot sustainably improve its
efficiency ratio to be at least in line with historical standards.
Although less likely, pressure on the long-term issuer credit
rating could also come if the bank cannot maintain a sufficient
ALAC buffer."

Upside scenario: An upgrade, although unlikely in the next 12
months, could come at a later stage if SG improves its efficiency
and profitability, and achieves a sustainable business model on par
with those of 'A+' rated banks. S&P would also expect better
operating conditions in SG's retail markets, good results from the
merger of its two French networks, and solid performance from
investment banking activities.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: A/Stable/A-1
  Stand-alone credit profile: bbb+

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Adequate (0)
  Capital and earnings: Adequate (0)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +2

  ALAC support: +2
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

La Banque Postale
Primary analyst: Mathieu Plait

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on La Banque Postale (LBP). We
align our long- and short-term issuer credit ratings on LBP with
those on La Poste S.A. (A+/Stable/A-1), given our view that LBP is
a core subsidiary of La Poste. This is four notches higher than our
assessment of LBP's stand-alone creditworthiness. The latter
reflects its prominent domestic franchise in low-risk residential
housing, of which more than 95% is secured by a financial guarantee
or a mortgage. But also, our view that the upcoming acquisition of
CNP Assurances' minorities will materially weigh on our measure of
LBP's capitalization.

"At the same time, we affirmed our 'A+/A-1' long- and short-term
issuer credit ratings on La Poste, given that LBP's stand-alone
creditworthiness is a key input for the ratings. The outlook
remains stable."

Outlook

S&P said, "The stable outlook on LBP mirrors that on La Poste. We
continue to see LBP as a core subsidiary of La Poste group, and any
rating action on the parent would lead to a similar action on LBP.
We expect La Poste group will maintain a strong, lasting interest
in LBP in the near future." LBP is an integral part of the group's
strategy, and we see it as strongly integrated within the group.

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could lower the rating on LBP if
we take a negative rating action on La Poste, which could follow a
negative rating action on France or weakening of the blended SACP
of the La Poste group. Given the enduring, strategic, and
operational integration of LBP into La Poste, we see limited risk
of weaker interest or support from the parent in the next two
years. However, such a scenario could emerge if LBP becomes a less
profitable or riskier subsidiary, which in turn could lead us to
reconsider its core status to La Poste group and result in rating
pressure."

S&P could revise downward its assessment of LBP's SACP and lower
its ratings on its hybrids if:

-- LBP fails to deliver on its new strategic plan or is unable to
develop and adjust its business to the evolving interest-rate
environment. This could be indicated by materially reduced earnings
prospects or erosion of revenue; or

-- LBP's robust funding and liquidity profile weakens compared
with that of other French banks, and this is not offset by
strengthening of other factors.

Upside scenario: S&P could take a positive rating action on LBP if
we take a similar action on La Poste, which S&P views as unlikely
at this time.

A positive rating action on France would not automatically trigger
a positive rating action on La Poste, although it is a
prerequisite.

S&P could revise its assessment of LBP's SACP upward if, contrary
to our base-case scenario, the bank rebuilds its capital base after
the acquisition while increasing diversification toward lending to
professionals, consumer finance activities, and local authorities,
contributing to stronger overall risk-adjusted profitability than
we expect; and maintains higher funding and liquidity than domestic
peers.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

Issuer credit rating: A+/Stable/A-1
Stand-alone credit profile: bbb

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Adequate (0)
  Capital and earnings: Moderate (-1)
  Risk position: Moderate (-1)
  Funding and liquidity: Strong and strong (1)
  Comparable rating analysis: 0
  Support: +4

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: +4
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

Dexia Credit Local
Primary analyst: Mathieu Plait

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on Dexia Credit Local (DCL). Our
ratings encompass the continued strong commitment of the Belgian
and French governments to assist the group in its orderly
wind-down. Our rating incorporates three notches of uplift above
Dexia's group SACP, reflecting our opinion that there is a high
likelihood of timely and sufficient extraordinary support from the
Belgian and French states in the event of financial distress.
Dexia's stand-alone creditworthiness stands at 'bb'. The bank
remains constrained by its dependence on its shareholders' funding
support through its sovereign-guaranteed debt programs and
potentially significant liquidity needs. Under the new criteria,
our funding and liquidity assessment is weighing more negatively on
its SACP, but this is balanced by a positive comparable ratings
analysis (CRA) adjustment reflecting our view that Dexia
stand-alone creditworthiness is at 'bb'."

Outlook

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our expectation that the
bank will implement an orderly wind-down of its operations and
continue to benefit from the strong commitment of the Belgian and
French governments in this process over the next two years. The
ratings already factor in our expectation that, although DCL will
be loss-making for several years, its capitalization will
adequately cover risks, as deleveraging continues. A downgrade of
Belgium or France would not in itself prompt us to lower the issuer
credit ratings on DCL. However, it would affect our issue ratings
on DCL's debt that is guaranteed by these states."

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We might lower the ratings on DCL if,
contrary to our expectations, the bank is unable to maintain
sufficient access to market funding to implement its wind-down
plan. We could also lower the ratings if the likelihood of
government support diminishes, or if the pandemic induces material
delays in the bank's deleveraging plan or affects its results and
solvency beyond our expectations."

Upside scenario: Ratings upside is remote, given the level of
ongoing and extraordinary government support we factor into the
ratings.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB/Stable/A-2
  Stand-alone credit profile: bb

  Anchor: bbb
  Business position: Adequate (0)
  Capital and earnings: Adequate (0)
  Risk position: Constrained (-2)
  Funding and liquidity: Moderate and moderate (-2)
  Comparable ratings analysis: +1
  Support: +3

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: +3
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2
  
RCI Banque
Primary analyst: Mathieu Plait

S&P affirmed its ratings on RCI Banque, which is fully owned by
Renault S.A. S&P's ratings reflect its concentrated business model
and high dependence on wholesale funding compared to larger and
diversified banks as well as its strong and recurring risk-adjusted
profitability compared to peers. The bank has strong fundamentals
among auto-captive peers, with one of the lowest cost-to-income
ratios of 33% at June 2021 and highest levels of profitability.

Outlook

The stable outlook on RCI Banque incorporates S&P's view that the
bank's financial risk profile will remain strong, with steady
risk-adjusted profitability and continued conservative capital
management over the next two years. Furthermore, a downgrade to
Renault would not automatically entail a similar rating action on
RCI Banque.

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could downgrade the bank if
Renault's creditworthiness comes under further material pressure
and RCI Banque is unable to maintain its strong financial risk
profile. In particular, we could consider a downgrade if the bank's
capitalization is no longer a strength, with RAC falling
sustainably below 10%, or if contagion risks from Renault start
affecting RCI's access to debt markets or cost of funding."

Upside scenario: S&P said, "An upgrade could happen only if
Renault's creditworthiness doesn't deteriorate further. To raise
our long-term rating on the bank, we would need to revise the SACP
upward. A higher SACP would require RCI Banque's capital and
funding strategy to fundamentally shift and strengthen. We regard
this as a remote scenario."

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB-/Stable/A-3
  Stand-alone credit profile: bbb-

  Anchor: bbb
  Business position: Moderate (-1)
  Capital and earnings: Strong (+1)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Moderate and adequate (-1)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: 0

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

Oney Bank
Primary analyst: Emna Chahed

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on Oney Bank (OB). We consider
that the ongoing integration of OB within BPCE group will further
strengthen OB's risk-management framework, capabilities, and
ultimately asset quality. Although the strengthening ongoing
support from the parent to its strategically important subsidiary
counters our view of a more challenging operating environment, we
now see limited upside to the rating.

"We expect OB's risk management will further strengthen and
harmonize thanks to its affiliated status since BPCE's 50.1%
acquisition in 2019 and related responsibilities for BPCE to
guarantee OB's solvability, as well as the ongoing integration."

Outlook

S&P said, "The stable outlook on OB reflects our view of the
benefits of its ongoing integration within BPCE group, particularly
in capital, risk, funding, and liquidity management. The stable
outlook also reflects our view that OB will remain a strategically
important subsidiary of BPCE group over the next two years."

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could consider a downgrade if BPCE
group proves reluctant to provide funding and liquidity support, or
if we see that the bank's importance within BPCE weakens markedly.
We currently consider this scenario remote."

Upside scenario: S&P said, "We currently deem rating upside
limited. However, we could consider a positive rating action if
OB's business prospects materially improve stemming from its
integration with BPCE. This could only happen if ongoing funding
and liquidity support provided by BPCE doesn't weaken."

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB/Stable/A-2
  Stand-alone credit profile: bb

  Anchor: bbb
  Business position: Constrained (-2)
  Capital and earnings: Moderate (-1)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Adequate and adequate (0)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +3

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: +3
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

Carrefour Banque
Primary analyst: Clement Collard

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on Carrefour Banque (CB). Our
rating on CB reflect its strategic importance to BNP Paribas group
and as such is currently three notches higher than its 'bb' SACP.
The latter reflects its concentrated business profile toward the
French unsecured consumer lending and revolving credit segment, a
segment under pressure in a highly competitive market. It also
reflects our view that its robust capitalization sufficiently
balances its relatively low asset quality."

Outlook
The negative outlook on CB indicates that S&P could lower the
ratings in the coming two years if pressure on its financial
profile, especially capitalization, intensifies and ceases to be a
rating strength.

Downside scenario: S&P could lower its long-term issuer credit
rating by one notch if it believed CB were unable maintain its RAC
ratio above 10% by end-2022. This could be caused by stronger
risk-weighted assets growth due to a higher share of problem loans,
a higher dividend pay-out ratio, or weaker performance stemming
from a lack of business prospects, among other deterring factors.

S&P said, "Although less likely, we could also lower our long-term
rating by one notch if Carrefour or the BNP Paribas group proved
reluctant to provide funding and liquidity support, or if we saw
that the bank's importance within the BNP Paribas group weakened
markedly. This would include a reduction in the BNP Paribas group's
ownership of CB."

Upside scenario: S&P said, "We could revise the outlook to stable
if CB's RAC increases in line with our expectations--with our ratio
surpassing the 10% threshold, while the bank is able to grow its
portfolio, all else being equal--and if the bank successfully
implemented its business transformation. We could also revise the
outlook to stable if we upgraded Carrefour to 'BBB+', all else
being equal."

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB/Negative/A-2
  Stand-alone credit profile: bb

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Constrained (-3)
  Capital and earnings: Strong (1)
  Risk position: Moderate (-1)
  Funding and liquidity: Moderate and adequate (-1)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +3

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: +3
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

Socram Banque
Primary analyst: Mathieu Plait

S&P affirmed our ratings on Socram Banque (SB). Its ratings on SB
reflect its moderately strategic importance to BPCE group and SB's
business model concentrated in the competitive French auto loans
segment. The bank has suffered from a lack of new drivers of
growth, and difficulties to deliver a strategy to added-value
offerings.

Outlook
The negative outlook on SB reflects S&P's view of the execution
risks for the bank's transformation plan in a highly competitive
consumer finance market. The outlook also reflects the uncertainty
it sees in SB's capacity to strengthen its distribution network and
reinforce its business prospects and profitability over the coming
12-24 months.

Downside scenario: S&P could consider a downgrade if it thinks SB's
low business volumes could last beyond 2021, or if a lack of
business prospects and transformational charges undermine its
profitability. This could translate into an even weaker assessment
of SC's business risk profile.

S&P could also lower the rating if, in the absence offsetting
factors, SC's overall importance to BPCE diminishes and leads to a
potential weakening of extraordinary support from BPCE group, that
it incorporates in the rating on SB.

Upside scenario: S&P could revise the outlook on SB to stable if
the bank strengthens its loan production while remaining
profitable, demonstrating its ability to tap the large client base
of its mutual shareholders while keeping very high capitalization
levels and a low risk profile.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB/Negative/A-2
  Stand-alone credit profile: bbb-

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Constrained (-3)
  Capital and earnings: Very strong (+2)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Moderate and adequate (-1)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: +1

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: +1
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

Opel Bank S.A. Niederlassung Deutschland
Primary analyst: Emna Chahed

S&P affirmed its ratings on Opel Bank S.A. Niederlassung
Deutschland. S&P derives these ratings from its assessment of the
creditworthiness of the larger group Opel Bank S.A., and the
strategic importance to BNP Paribas group. The revised group
stand-alone creditworthiness incorporates weaker profitability
metrics and scale compared to European auto-captive peers.

Outlook

S&P said, "The stable outlook on the German branch of Opel Bank
reflects our view that the bank's business and financial profiles
should remain resilient over the next two years, and that FCA's
merger reduced potential risks to the bank and its branch from the
carmaker. It also reflects our assumption that Stellantis' credit
quality will remain stable, and the likelihood of support from the
BNP Paribas group unchanged."

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could lower our rating on the
branch in case of pressure on the creditworthiness of Stellantis.
This could happen in the event of a lingering downturn in the
European auto market, or if Stellantis specifically experiences any
strategic or financial difficulties that would spill over to the
bank. A perceived weaker interest from the other partner, BNPP, in
the joint venture, and therefore lower propensity to provide
support if needed, could have implications for the rating.
Currently, however, we consider this scenario remote."

Upside scenario: Upward rating pressure is remote, considering the
still-challenging business environment with sluggish production of
new vehicles that will likely linger in 2022.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB+/Stable/A-2
  Stand-alone credit profile: bb+

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Constrained (-2)
  Capital and earnings: Strong (+1)
  Risk position: Adequate (0)
  Funding and liquidity: Moderate and adequate (-1)
  Comparable ratings analysis: -1
  Support: +3

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: +3
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  Note: The above scores reflect S&P's view of the larger Opel Bank
group

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2

My Money Bank
Primary analyst: Mehdi El mrabet

S&P said, "We affirmed our ratings on My Money Bank (MMB). Our
investment-grade rating on MMB is underpinned by the bank's high
solvency ratio, as well as its solid performance track record in
terms of credit losses. We project that capital will remain a
strength for the rating and buffer against its
transformation-linked costs from the upcoming acquisition of French
retail business of HSBC Continental Europe. MMB accelerated its
deposit collection and achieved a more diversified and
cost-effective funding with covered bonds. We see potential
positive developments from the acquisition through access to stable
retail deposits that will lower the group's reliance on
institutional and bank investors."

Outlook
The developing outlook indicates that S&P may raise, lower, or
affirm the long-term rating on MMB over the next 12-24 months,
depending on our evaluation of the impact of the planned
acquisition.

If the regulator does not approve the acquisition, or it does not
take place as is currently foreseen, we may reevaluate the
ratings.

Downside scenario: S&P said, "We could lower the ratings on MMB if
the planned acquisition significantly weakens the group's
creditworthiness. Specifically, we consider elevated restructuring
charges related to the transformation will incur losses that could
weaken the bank's business profile.

"We could also lower the ratings if My Money Group's solvency
weakened unexpectedly, with a projected RAC ratio approaching 15%.
This could materialize from delays in the transformation that could
hamper capitalization. Potential spill-over effects on its funding
and liquidity position could also lead us to lower the ratings."

Upside scenario: S&P could raise the ratings on MMB if it foresees
that the access to retail deposits and limited clientele attrition
following the closing will lead to a more diversified and stable
funding profile.

  Ratings Score Snapshot

  Issuer credit rating: BBB-/Developing/A-3
  Stand-alone credit profile: bbb-

  Anchor: bbb+
  Business position: Constrained (-2)
  Capital and Earnings: Very strong (+2)
  Risk position: Moderate (-1)
  Funding and liquidity: Moderate and adequate (-1)
  Comparable ratings analysis: 0
  Support: 0

  ALAC support: 0
  GRE support: 0
  Group support: 0
  Sovereign support: 0
  Additional factors: 0

  ESG Credit Indicators: E-2, S-2, G-2


  Ratings List

  BNP PARIBAS               

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  BNP PARIBAS
  EXANE S.A.
  EXANE DERIVATIVES S.N.C.
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (MILAN BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (MADRID BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (LUXEMBOURG BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (LONDON BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (FRANKFURT BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.
  BNP PARIBAS SA (MILAN BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SA (DUBLIN BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS PERSONAL FINANCE
  BNP PARIBAS ISSUANCE B.V.
  BNP PARIBAS FORTIS SA/NV
  BNP PARIBAS FORTIS (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS (LONDON BRANCH)
  BGL BNP PARIBAS S.A.

   Issuer Credit Rating               A+/Stable/A-1

  BNP PARIBAS
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (MADRID BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (LUXEMBOURG BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (LONDON BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (FRANKFURT BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES
  BNP PARIBAS SA (DUBLIN BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS PERSONAL FINANCE
  BNP PARIBAS ISSUANCE B.V.
  BNP PARIBAS FORTIS SA/NV
  BNP PARIBAS FORTIS (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS (LONDON BRANCH)
  BGL BNP PARIBAS S.A.

   Resolution Counterparty Rating     AA-/--/A-1+

  CARREFOUR BANQUE

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB/Negative/A-2

  OPEL BANK S.A. NIEDERLASSUNG DEUTSCHLAND

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB+/Stable/A-2

  BNP PARIBAS (CHINA) LTD.

   Issuer Credit Rating               A-/Stable/A-2

  BNP PARIBAS SA (MILAN BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES SERVICES (MILAN BRANCH)
  BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.

   Resolution Counterparty Rating     A+/--/A-1

  BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO SPA

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB+/Positive/A-2
   Resolution Counterparty Rating     A-/--/A-2

  BPCE                 

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  
  BPCE
  NATIXIS S.A.
  NATIXIS FINANCIAL PRODUCTS LLC
  NATIXIS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.
  NATIXIS (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  BRED - BANQUE POPULAIRE

   Issuer Credit Rating               A/Stable/A-1

  BPCE
  NATIXIS S.A.
  NATIXIS (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  BRED - BANQUE POPULAIRE

   Resolution Counterparty Rating     A+/--/A-1

  SOCRAM BANQUE

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB/Negative/A-2

  COMPAGNIE EUROPEENNE DE GARANTIES ET CAUTIONS

   Issuer Credit Rating               A/Stable/--
   Financial Strength Rating          A/Stable/--

  CREDIT FONCIER DE FRANCE

   Issuer Credit Rating               A-/Stable/A-2
   Resolution Counterparty Rating     A/--/A-1

  PARNASSE GARANTIES

   Issuer Credit Rating               A/Stable/--

  CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.             

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.
  CREDIT LYONNAIS
  CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK
  CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DU NORD-EST
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DU MORBIHAN
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DU LANGUEDOC
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DU FINISTERE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DU CENTRE OUEST
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DES SAVOIE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DES COTES D'ARMOR
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE LA TOURAINE ET DU
POITOU
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE LA REUNION
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE LA
MARTINIQUE-GUYANE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE LA GUADELOUPE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE L'ANJOU ET DU
MAINE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE NORMANDIE-SEINE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE LORRAINE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE LOIRE-HAUTE LOIRE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE FRANCHE-COMTE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE CHARENTE-MARITIME
DEUX SEVRES
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE
CHAMPAGNE-BOURGOGNE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE CENTRE-FRANCE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL DE CENTRE LOIRE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL D'ILLE ET VILAINE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL D'AQUITAINE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL VAL DE FRANCE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL TOULOUSE 31
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL SUD-MEDITERRANEE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL SUD RHONE-ALPES
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL PYRENEES-GASCOGNE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL PROVENCE COTE D'AZUR
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL PARIS ILE-DE-FRANCE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL NORMANDIE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL NORD DE FRANCE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL NORD MIDI-PYRENEES
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL CHARENTE PERIGORD
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL CENTRE-EST
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL BRIE PICARDIE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL ATLANTIQUE VENDEE
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL ALSACE-VOSGES
  CAISSE REGIONALE DE CREDIT AGRICOLE MUTUEL ALPES PROVENCE
  CACEIS
  CA CONSUMER FINANCE

   Issuer Credit Rating               A+/Stable/A-1
   Resolution Counterparty Rating     AA-/--/A-1+

   DEXIA S.A.                

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  DEXIA CREDIT LOCAL

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB/Stable/A-2

  DEXIA CREDIOP SPA

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB/Negative/A-2

  ONEY BANK                 

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  ONEY BANK

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB/Stable/A-2

  LA POSTE                

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  LA BANQUE POSTALE
  LA POSTE

   Issuer Credit Rating               A+/Stable/A-1

  PROMONTORIA MMB              

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  MY MONEY BANK

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB-/Developing/A-3

  PROMONTORIA MMB

   Issuer Credit Rating               BB+/Developing/B

  RENAULT S.A.               

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  RCI BANQUE
  DIAC S.A.

   Issuer Credit Rating               BBB-/Stable/A-3

  SOCIETE GENERALE              

  RATINGS AFFIRMED  

  SOCIETE GENERALE
  SOCIETE GENERALE BANK & TRUST
  SOCIETE GENERALE (NEW YORK BRANCH)
  SG AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC

   Issuer Credit Rating               A/Stable/A-1

  SOCIETE GENERALE
  SOCIETE GENERALE BANK & TRUST
  SOCIETE GENERALE (NEW YORK BRANCH)

   Resolution Counterparty Rating     A+/--/A-1

  SG AMERICAS SECURITIES LLC

   Resolution Counterparty Rating     A/--/A-1




=============
I R E L A N D
=============

ARMADA EURO IV: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class F Notes
--------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded Armada Euro CLO IV DAC's class D and E
notes and affirmed the class X, A, B, C, and F notes. The class B
through F notes have been removed from Under Criteria Observation
(UCO). The Rating Outlook for all the notes remains Stable.

     DEBT             RATING           PRIOR
     ----             ------           -----
Armada Euro CLO IV DAC

A XS2066869368   LT AAAsf  Affirmed    AAAsf
B XS2066870291   LT AAsf   Affirmed    AAsf
C XS2066870887   LT Asf    Affirmed    Asf
D XS2066871422   LT BBBsf  Upgrade     BBB-sf
E XS2066873394   LT BBsf   Upgrade     BB-sf
F XS2066872404   LT B-sf   Affirmed    B-sf
X XS2066869442   LT AAAsf  Affirmed    AAAsf

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

Armada Euro CLO IV DAC is a cash flow collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) comprised of mostly senior secured obligations.
The transaction is actively managed by Brigade Capital Europe
Management LLP and will exit its reinvestment period in July 2024.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

CLO Criteria Update: The rating actions mainly reflect the impact
of Fitch's recently updated CLOs and Corporate CDOs Rating
Criteria, and the shorter risk horizon incorporated in Fitch's
updated stressed portfolio analysis. The analysis considered cash
flow modelling results for the stressed portfolios based on the
Jan. 5, 2022 trustee report.

Fitch's updated analysis applied the agency's collateral quality
matrix specified in the transaction documentation. The transaction
has six matrices, based on 15% and 23% top 10 obligor concentration
limits and 0%, 5%, and 10% fixed rate assets. Fitch analyzed the
matrices specifying the 23% top 10 obligor limit and 0% and 10%
fixed rate assets, as the agency viewed these as the most relevant.
Fitch also applied a haircut of 1.5% to the weighted average
recovery rate (WARR), as the calculation of the WARR in transaction
documentation reflects an earlier version of Fitch's CLO criteria.

The Stable Outlooks on all classes reflect Fitch's expectation that
the classes have sufficient levels of credit protection to
withstand potential deterioration in the credit quality of the
portfolio in stress scenarios commensurate with such class's
rating.

Deviation from Model-Implied Ratings: The rating actions for all
notes, except for the class X and A notes, are one notch below the
respective model implied ratings (MIRs) produced from Fitch's cash
flow analysis. The deviation reflects the remaining long
reinvestment period until July 2024 during which the portfolio can
change significantly due to reinvestment or negative portfolio
migration.

Stable Asset Performance: The transaction metrics indicate stable
asset performance. The transaction is passing all coverage tests,
collateral quality tests, and portfolio profile tests. Exposure to
assets with a Fitch-derived rating (FDR) of 'CCC+' and below is
3.9% excluding non-rated assets, as calculated by Fitch.

'B' Portfolio: Fitch assesses the average credit quality of the
transaction's underlying obligors in the 'B' category. The Fitch
weighted average rating factor (WARF), as calculated by the
trustee, was 32.7, which is below the maximum covenant of 34.0. The
WARF, as calculated by Fitch under the updated criteria, was 24.1.

High Recovery Expectations: Senior secured obligations comprise
97.7% of the portfolio as calculated by the trustee. Fitch views
the recovery prospects for these assets as more favorable than for
second-lien, unsecured and mezzanine assets. The Fitch WARR
reported by the trustee was 69.9%, against the covenant at 68.1%.

Diversified Portfolio: The portfolio is well-diversified across
obligors, countries and industries. The top 10 obligor
concentration is 16.6%, and no obligor represents more than 2.0% of
the portfolio balance, as reported by the trustee.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- An increase of the rating default rate (RDR) at all rating
    levels by 25% of the mean RDR and a decrease of the rating
    recovery rate (RRR) by 25% at all rating levels in the
    stressed portfolio will result in downgrades of up to four
    notches, depending on the notes;

-- Downgrades may occur if the build-up of the notes' credit
    enhancement (CE) does not compensate for a larger loss
    expectation than initially assumed due to unexpectedly high
    levels of defaults and portfolio deterioration.

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- A reduction of the RDR at all rating levels by 25% of the mean
    RDR and an increase in the RRR by 25% at all rating levels in
    the stressed portfolio would result in an upgrade of up to
    five notches, depending on the notes;

-- Except for the tranches already at the highest 'AAAsf' rating,
    upgrades may occur in the case of better than expected
    portfolio credit quality and deal performance that leads to
    higher CE and excess spread available to cover losses in the
    remaining portfolio.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO

International scale credit ratings of Structured Finance
transactions have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as
the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of seven notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of seven notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAAsf' to 'Dsf'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings
are based on historical performance.

DATA ADEQUACY

Fitch has checked the consistency and plausibility of the
information it has received about the performance of the asset pool
and the transaction. Fitch has not reviewed the results of any
third party assessment of the asset portfolio information or
conducted a review of origination files as part of its ongoing
monitoring.

The majority of the underlying assets or risk presenting entities
have ratings or credit opinions from Fitch and/or other Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations and/or European
Securities and Markets Authority registered rating agencies. Fitch
has relied on the practices of the relevant groups within Fitch
and/or other rating agencies to assess the asset portfolio
information or information on the risk presenting entities.

Overall, and together with any assumptions referred to above,
Fitch's assessment of the information relied upon for the agency's
rating analysis according to its applicable rating methodologies
indicates that it is adequately reliable.

HAYFIN EMERALD I: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class F-R Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded Hayfin Emerald CLO I DAC's class E-R
notes, and affirmed the class A-R, B1-R, B2-R, C-R, D-R and F-R
notes. The class B1-R through F-R notes have been removed from
Under Criteria Observation and the Rating Outlook remains Stable
for all classes of notes.

     DEBT                RATING            PRIOR
     ----                ------            -----
Hayfin Emerald CLO I DAC

A-R XS2307881206    LT AAAsf   Affirmed    AAAsf
B1-R XS2307881974   LT AAsf    Affirmed    AAsf
B2-R XS2307882600   LT AAsf    Affirmed    AAsf
C-R XS2307883244    LT Asf     Affirmed    Asf
D-R XS2307883913    LT BBB-sf  Affirmed    BBB-sf
E-R XS2307884564    LT BBsf    Upgrade     BB-sf
F-R XS2307884721    LT B-sf    Affirmed    B-sf

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

Hayfin Emerald CLO I DAC is a cash flow collateralized loan
obligation (CLO) comprised of mostly senior secured obligations.
The transaction is actively managed by Hayfin Emerald Management
LLP and will exit its reinvestment period in September 2025.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

CLO Criteria Update: The rating actions mainly reflect the impact
of Fitch's recently updated "CLOs and Corporate CDOs Rating
Criteria" and the shorter risk horizon incorporated in Fitch's
updated stressed portfolio analysis. The analysis considered cash
flow modelling results for the current portfolio and stressed
portfolio is based on the Jan. 5, 2022 trustee report.

Fitch's updated analysis applied the agency's collateral quality
matrix specified in the transaction documentation. The transaction
has four matrices, based on 0% and 10% fixed rate assets and 16%
and 25% top 10 obligor concentration limits. Fitch analyzed the
matrices specifying the 16% top 10 obligor limit and 0% and 10%
fixed rate limits as the agency viewed these as the most rating
relevant. Fitch also applied a haircut of 1.5% to the weighted
average recovery rate (WARR) as the calculation of the WARR in
transaction documentation reflects an earlier version of Fitch's
CLO criteria.

The Stable Outlooks on all classes reflect Fitch's expectation that
the classes have sufficient levels of credit protection to
withstand potential deterioration in the credit quality of the
portfolio in stress scenarios commensurate with such class's
rating.

Deviation from Model-Implied Ratings: The rating actions for the
class C-R, E-R and F-R notes are one notch below their respective
model-implied ratings (MIRs) produced from Fitch's cash flow
analysis, reflecting the longer remaining reinvestment period until
September 2025 during which the portfolio can change significantly
due to reinvestment or negative portfolio migration. The rating
actions for all other classes were in line with the MIRs.

Stable Asset Performance: The transaction metrics indicate stable
asset performance. The transaction is passing all coverage tests,
collateral quality tests, and portfolio profile tests. Exposure to
assets with a Fitch-derived rating of 'CCC+' and below is 2.7%
excluding non-rated assets, as calculated by Fitch.

'B'/'B-' Portfolio: Fitch assesses the average credit quality of
the transaction's underlying obligors in the 'B'/'B-' category. The
weighted average rating factor (WARF) as calculated by the trustee
was 33.3, which is below the maximum covenant of 36.0. The WARF, as
calculated by Fitch under the updated criteria, was 25.4.

High Recovery Expectations: Senior secured obligations comprise
95.1% of the portfolio as calculated by the trustee. Fitch views
the recovery prospects for these assets as more favorable than for
second-lien, unsecured and mezzanine assets. The Fitch WARR
reported by the trustee was 65.5%, against the covenant at 63.1%.

Diversified Portfolio: The portfolio is well-diversified across
obligors, countries and industries. The top 10 obligor
concentration is 17.1%, and no obligor represents more than 2.1% of
the portfolio balance, as reported by the trustee.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- An increase of the rating default rate (RDR) at all rating
    levels by 25% of the mean RDR and a decrease of the rating
    recovery rate (RRR) by 25% at all rating levels in the
    stressed portfolio will result in downgrades of up to four
    notches, depending on the notes;

-- Downgrades may occur if the build-up of the notes' credit
    enhancement (CE) does not compensate for a larger loss
    expectation than initially assumed due to unexpectedly high
    levels of defaults and portfolio deterioration.

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- A reduction of the RDR at all rating levels by 25% of the mean
    RDR and an increase in the RRR by 25% at all rating levels in
    the stressed portfolio would result in an upgrade of up to
    five notches, depending on the notes;

-- Except for the tranches already at the highest 'AAAsf' rating,
    upgrades may occur in the case of better than expected
    portfolio credit quality and deal performance that leads to
    higher CE and excess spread available to cover losses in the
    remaining portfolio.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO

International scale credit ratings of Structured Finance
transactions have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as
the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of seven notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of seven notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAAsf' to 'Dsf'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings
are based on historical performance.

DATA ADEQUACY

Fitch has checked the consistency and plausibility of the
information it has received about the performance of the asset pool
and the transaction. Fitch has not reviewed the results of any
third-party assessment of the asset portfolio information or
conducted a review of origination files as part of its ongoing
monitoring.

The majority of the underlying assets or risk presenting entities
have ratings or credit opinions from Fitch and/or other Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations and/or European
Securities and Markets Authority registered rating agencies. Fitch
has relied on the practices of the relevant groups within Fitch
and/or other rating agencies to assess the asset portfolio
information or information on the risk presenting entities.

Form ABS Due Diligence-15E was not provided to, or reviewed by,
Fitch in relation to this rating action

Overall, and together with any assumptions referred to above,
Fitch's assessment of the information relied upon for the agency's
rating analysis according to its applicable rating methodologies
indicates that it is adequately reliable.

HENLEY CLO IV: Fitch Affirms B- Rating on Class F Notes
-------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded Henley CLO IV DAC's class D and E notes
and affirmed all other classes of notes. The class B-1 through F
notes have been removed from Under Criteria Observation (UCO), and
the Rating Outlook remains Stable for all classes.

    DEBT               RATING            PRIOR
    ----               ------            -----
Henley CLO IV DAC

A XS2291281751     LT AAAsf  Affirmed    AAAsf
B-1 XS2291281918   LT AAsf   Affirmed    AAsf
B-2 XS2291282130   LT AAsf   Affirmed    AAsf
C XS2291283021     LT Asf    Affirmed    Asf
D XS2291282486     LT BBBsf  Upgrade     BBB-sf
E XS2291282569     LT BBsf   Upgrade     BB-sf
F XS2291283377     LT B-sf   Affirmed    B-sf

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

Henley CLO IV DAC is a cash flow collateralized loan obligation
(CLO) comprised of mostly senior secured obligations. The
transaction is actively managed by Napier Park Global Capital Ltd.
and will exit its reinvestment period in July 2025.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

CLO Criteria Update: The rating actions mainly reflect the impact
of the recently updated Fitch CLOs and Corporate CDOs Rating
Criteria and the shorter risk horizon incorporated in Fitch's
updated stressed portfolio analysis. The analysis considered cash
flow modelling results for the stressed portfolios based on the
Dec. 15, 2021 trustee report.

Fitch's updated analysis applied the agency's collateral quality
matrix specified in the transaction documentation. The transaction
has four matrices, based on 18% and 26.5% top 10 obligor
concentration limits and 0% and 15% fixed rate assets. Fitch
analyzed the matrices specifying the 18% top 10 obligor limit and
0% and 15% fixed rate assets as the agency viewed these as the most
relevant.

The Stable Outlooks on all classes reflect Fitch's expectation that
the classes have sufficient levels of credit protection to
withstand potential deterioration in the credit quality of the
portfolio in stress scenarios commensurate with such class's
rating.

Deviation from Model-Implied Ratings: The ratings for all notes,
except for class A and F, are one notch below the respective model
implied ratings (MIRs) produced from Fitch's cash flow analysis.
The deviations reflect the remaining long reinvestment period until
July 2025 during which the portfolio can change significantly due
to reinvestment or negative portfolio migration.

Stable Asset Performance: The transaction metrics indicate stable
asset performance. It is passing all coverage tests, collateral
quality tests, and portfolio profile tests. Exposure to assets with
a Fitch-derived rating (FDR) of 'CCC+' and below is 2.6% excluding
non-rated assets, as calculated by Fitch.

'B'/'B-' Portfolio: Fitch assesses the average credit quality of
the transaction's underlying obligors in the 'B'/'B-' category. The
Fitch weighted average rating factor (WARF), as calculated by the
trustee, was 35.0, which is below the maximum covenant of 36.0. The
WARF, as calculated by Fitch under the updated criteria, was 26.4.

High Recovery Expectations: Senior secured obligations comprise
96.1% of the portfolio as calculated by the trustee. Fitch views
the recovery prospects for these assets as more favorable than for
second-lien, unsecured and mezzanine assets. The Fitch WARR
reported by the trustee was 61.4%, against the covenant at 59.1%.

Diversified Portfolio: The portfolio is well-diversified across
obligors, countries and industries. The top 10 obligor
concentration is 16.2%, and no obligor represents more than 2.3% of
the portfolio balance, as reported by the trustee.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- An increase of the rating default rate (RDR) at all rating
    levels by 25% of the mean RDR and a decrease of the rating
    recovery rate (RRR) by 25% at all rating levels in the
    stressed portfolio will result in downgrades of up to four
    notches, depending on the notes;

-- Downgrades may occur if the build-up of the notes' credit
    enhancement (CE) does not compensate for a larger loss
    expectation than initially assumed due to unexpectedly high
    levels of defaults and portfolio deterioration.

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- A reduction of the RDR at all rating levels by 25% of the mean
    RDR and an increase in the RRR by 25% at all rating levels in
    the stressed portfolio would result in an upgrade of up to
    five notches, depending on the notes;

-- Except for the tranches already at the highest 'AAAsf' rating,
    upgrades may occur in the case of better than expected
    portfolio credit quality and deal performance that leads to
    higher CE and excess spread available to cover losses in the
    remaining portfolio.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO

International scale credit ratings of Structured Finance
transactions have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as
the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of seven notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of seven notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAAsf' to 'Dsf'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings
are based on historical performance.

DATA ADEQUACY

Fitch has checked the consistency and plausibility of the
information it has received about the performance of the asset pool
and the transaction. Fitch has not reviewed the results of any
third-party assessment of the asset portfolio information or
conducted a review of origination files as part of its ongoing
monitoring.

The majority of the underlying assets or risk presenting entities
have ratings or credit opinions from Fitch and/or other Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations and/or European
Securities and Markets Authority registered rating agencies. Fitch
has relied on the practices of the relevant groups within Fitch
and/or other rating agencies to assess the asset portfolio
information or information on the risk presenting entities.

Overall, and together with any assumptions referred to above,
Fitch's assessment of the information relied upon for the agency's
rating analysis according to its applicable rating methodologies
indicates that it is adequately reliable.

OCP EURO 2022-5: Moody's Assigns (P)B3 Rating to EUR11.7MM F Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service announced that it has assigned the
following provisional ratings to the notes to be issued by OCP Euro
CLO 2022-5 Designated Activity Company (the "Issuer"):

EUR248,000,000 Class A Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2035, Assigned (P)Aaa (sf)

EUR32,500,000 Class B-1 Senior Secured Floating Rate Notes due
2035, Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

EUR7,500,000 Class B-2 Senior Secured Fixed Rate Notes due 2035,
Assigned (P)Aa2 (sf)

EUR28,000,000 Class C Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2035, Assigned (P)A2 (sf)

EUR26,000,000 Class D Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2035, Assigned (P)Baa3 (sf)

EUR19,300,000 Class E Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2035, Assigned (P)Ba3 (sf)

EUR11,700,000 Class F Senior Secured Deferrable Floating Rate
Notes due 2035, Assigned (P)B3 (sf)

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rationale for the ratings is based on a consideration of the
risks associated with the CLO's portfolio and structure as
described in Moody's methodology.

The Issuer is a managed cash flow CLO. At least 90% of the
portfolio must consist of senior secured obligations and up to 10%
of the portfolio may consist of senior unsecured obligations,
second-lien loans, mezzanine obligations and high yield bonds. The
portfolio is expected to be 90% ramped as of the closing date and
to comprise of predominantly corporate loans to obligors domiciled
in Western Europe. The remainder of the portfolio will be acquired
during the six month ramp-up period in compliance with the
portfolio guidelines.

Onex Credit Partners, LLC will manage the CLO with Onex Credit
Partners Europe LLP acting as sub manager (together 'Onex'). It
will direct the selection, acquisition and disposition of
collateral on behalf of the Issuer and may engage in trading
activity, including discretionary trading, during the transaction's
four-year reinvestment period. Thereafter, subject to certain
restrictions, purchases are permitted using principal proceeds from
unscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of credit
risk obligations or credit improved obligations.

In addition to the seven classes of notes rated by Moody's, the
Issuer will issue EUR32,500,000 of Subordinated Notes which are not
rated.

The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage tests which,
if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds to pay down
the notes in order of seniority.

Methodology underlying the rating action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's Global
Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published in
December 2021.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings:

The rated notes performance is subject to uncertainty. The notes
performance is sensitive to the performance of the underlying
portfolio, which in turn depends on economic and credit conditions
that may change. The collateral manager's investment decisions and
management of the transaction will also affect the notes
performance.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based on
the Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3 of
the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized Loan
Obligations" rating methodology published in December 2021.

Moody's used the following base-case modeling assumptions:

Par Amount: EUR400,000,000

Diversity Score: 54

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3030

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.97%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 4.5%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 43%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 7.5 years



=========
I T A L Y
=========

FABBRICA ITALIANA: Moody's Gives B3 CFR & Rates EUR350MM Notes B3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service assigned a B3 corporate family rating and
a B3-PD probability of default rating to Fabbrica Italiana
Sintetici S.p.A. (FIS) (the "Issuer", "FIS", "the company").
Concurrently, Moody's assigned a B3 instrument rating to the
proposed EUR350 million Sustainability-Linked Senior Secured Notes.
The outlook on the ratings is positive.

The proceeds from the transaction will be used to repay FIS legacy
debt as well as to pay a one-time EUR40 million dividend and
associated transaction fees.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The B3 rating of Fabbrica Italiana Sintetici S.p.A. (FIS) is
supported by the company's (1) underlying growth potential from
rising demand for health-related goods and services and continued
outsourcing by pharmaceutical companies; (2) high barriers to entry
from stringent regulation and strong and long-standing relationship
with key customers in the pharmaceutical industry; (3) resilient
performance during the coronavirus outbreak and ongoing focus on
efficiency; and (4) stability through economic cycles.

The B3 rating is constrained by the company's (1) high product,
customer, geographic and supplier concentration and the expected
patent expiry of FIS' most significant (by revenue) molecule in
mid-2024; (2) small scale with EUR0.5 billion of annual revenues
(2020); (3) adequate, but tight liquidity with around EUR30 million
starting cash, negative FCF in the period 2022-23 resulting from
high capital investments, reliance on factoring programmes to
manage working capital as well as high inventories; and (4) low
EBITA margin compared to peers; operating margins have weakened
owing to supply chain constraints and higher input costs.

Meaningful customer, product and supplier concentration constrain
FIS' credit profile. For the last twelve months (LTM) ending Sep
2021, FIS generated 24% of sales from its top custom molecule, and
this molecule's patent expires in June 2024, leading to potential
revenue losses. Moody's expects the relative contribution from the
company's top-selling molecule to decrease given the pipeline of
new products. FIS currently has 15 custom and 15 generic drugs in
the development phase, and Moody's expects a continued increase of
revenues from new products to help reduce the product concentration
and mitigate the negative impact on group revenue and profitability
of the patent expiry.

Input cost inflation has resulted in lower EBITDA margins due to
higher raw materials prices that account for the majority of FIS'
total costs. Moody's will monitor FIS ability to pass on higher
costs to its customers, a process that the company has initiated by
collecting an additional EUR29.5 million in December 2021. The
management confirmed that on average FIS is able to pass on to
customers around 90% of the price increases it faces. Moody's
expects EBITDA margins to gradually approach the high teens (%) by
2024 as the company benefits from earnings growth, cost
pass-through and economies of scale, up from 14.1% for the last
twelve months ending September 2021.

FIS benefits from high barriers to entry because of high capital
spending requirements to set up facilities and the long lead time
for regulatory approval. FIS has long-standing business
relationships with its main customers, with many of its contracts
under multi-year agreements. The average length of its
relationships with its top 10 customers is 20 years. FIS often
provides multiple products to clients and is the sole supplier of
certain molecules, which limits competition.

LIQUIDITY PROFILE

FIS' liquidity profile is adequate, but tight. Although the company
at closing will have cash and cash equivalents of around EUR30
million and access to an undrawn EUR50 million RCF, Moody's expects
negative free cash flow (FCF) of EUR57 million in 2022 (after the
one-off dividend of EUR40 million) and negative EUR10 million in
2023 due to higher capital investments. Consequently, Moody's
expects FIS to draw at least EUR5 million of its RCF in 2023 to
fund the cash flow deficit and to cover its working cash of around
3% of annual revenues. FIS currently uses two factoring programmes
including a reverse factoring programme with an outstanding amount
of EUR27.4 million, and a non-recourse programme of EUR40 million
that is fully utilized. The company intends to reduce the size of
the latter programme to EUR30 million in 2023.

STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS

The B3 rating on the proposed 5.5 year EUR350 million
Sustainability-Linked Senior Secured Notes is in line with the CFR.
The proposed notes rank behind the proposed super senior EUR50
million revolving credit facility (RCF). Moody's includes the
convertible bond, held directly and indirectly by members of the
Ferrari families, in its debt adjustments. The convertibles rank
junior to the notes and add approximately 0.5 times to debt to
EBITDA. Trade claims rank pari passu with the notes. The company
has no leases and pensions are very small at around EUR0.3
million.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS

Historically, FIS paid dividends, including EUR26 million in 2017
and EUR14 million in 2018 [1]. FIS has refrained from dividends
since the debt restructuring in 2019. In conjunction with the
proposed refinancing, FIS will pay a one-off EUR40 million
dividend. Post the proposed refinancing FIS intends to pay EUR2
million annually to Nine Tree Group (NTG), so that the parent
holding can cover its operating costs.

The company is wholly-owned by the Ferrari Family. FIS' management
is led by operative CEO Michele Gavino; Mr. Gavino is the third
external (non-family member) CEO since 2018. Three branches of the
Ferrari family have consolidated their FIS holding in NTG. NTG
holds other assets related to the CDMO sector, with which FIS has
limited commercial links. Moody's understands that FIS is the main
asset that NTG holds. FIS wholly-owns two subsidiaries, one each in
Japan and the US. Although FIS owns these entities, they are
consolidated in NTG's financial statements pursuant to an exemption
under Italian law. For the last twelve months ending September
2021, total sales of these entities were EUR2.7 million and total
EBITDA EUR0.9 million; hence the contribution is not material [2].

OUTLOOK

The positive outlook reflects Moody's expectation that FIS'
operating performance will improve over the next 12 to 18 months so
that Moody's adjusted gross leverage falls towards 4.5x by year-end
2023, driven by EBITDA growth. Moody's also expects positive free
cash flow in 2024 after the 2022-23 period of high investments. The
positive outlook also assumes that the company will not undertake
any major debt-funded acquisitions or make any shareholder
distributions beyond the planned EUR2 million annual dividend
payment (and the EUR40 million dividend expected in conjunction
with the proposed transaction).

FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS

Moody's could upgrade the rating if FIS had (i) Debt to EBITDA
sustained below 4.5x; (ii) EBITDA margin sustainably in the
high-teens (%); evidence of ability to pass on higher input costs
to customers to protect margins; and (iii) a stronger liquidity
profile with sustained positive FCF. An upgrade would also require
greater diversification of revenues to offset revenue and EBITDA
loss from the patent expiry of its top-selling molecule in
mid-2024.

Moody's could downgrade the ratings with (i) Debt to EBITDA
sustained above 6.0x; (ii) EBITDA margin in the low teens (%) on a
sustained basis; (iii) weakening of liquidity, such as persistent
negative free cash flow and/or unexpected unwinding of factoring
programmes.

PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Chemical
Industry published in March 2019.

COMPANY PROFILE

Fabbrica Italiana Sintetici S.p.A. (FIS), based in Montecchio
Maggiore/Italy, is a contract development and manufacturing company
(CDMO) that specializes in the production and development of small
molecule active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). FIS' businesses
are organised in four divisions: Custom (LTM Sep 2021: 70% of net
sales); Generic (26%); R&D Services (3%); and Animal Health (1%).
The company has approximately 1,900 employees and operates three
production facilities in Italy. FIS is wholly owned by Nine Trees
Group S.p.A., the holding company of the Ferrari family. In 2020,
FIS generated revenue of around EUR500 million and reported EBITDA
of EUR80 million.

INTER MEDIA: S&P Puts Preliminary 'B' LT Issue Rating to New Bonds
------------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its preliminary 'B' long-term issue
rating to Inter Media And Communication SpA's (MediaCo) proposed
bonds.

The stable outlook reflects S&P's expectation that Inter will
continue playing in Italian football's top division, allowing
MediaCo to benefit from sufficient cash flows to service its new
debt issuance and support its refinancing needs when the bonds
mature in 2027.

Inter Media and Communication SpA (MediaCo) is the main financing
vehicle for Italian football club F.C. Internazionale (Inter or
TeamCo). MediaCo services its bond issuances through media and
sponsorship contracts receivables. TeamCo depends on the
distributions it receives from MediaCo to fund part of its
operations.

MediaCo's new issuance will help alleviate near term liquidity
risks at TeamCo, but substantial refinancing risk exposure will
remain on the bond maturity date. The proposed bond issuance will
extend TeamCo's debt tenor and remove contractual debt maturities
inside of the next 12 months. S&P said, "This, in conjunction with
our expectation that TeamCo will receive limited support from its
shareholders, somewhat alleviates liquidity pressures over the next
12-18 months. On the negative side, most principal will remain
outstanding on the January 2027 bond maturity date, exposing
creditors to substantially larger refinancing risk. We anticipate
that approximately $390 million (more than 90% of the issuance
amount) will remain outstanding on its maturity date. This
refinancing risk, combined with somewhat limited visibility on
long-term operating and financial performance, as well as a
reliance on access to additional financing to service its
quasi-bullet debt, constrains our rating assessment. That said, we
also note that the project life coverage ratio (PLCR) at maturity
of about 2.50x, which denotes some coverage and project value
beyond the proposed debt life."

MediaCo is exposed to high cashflow volatility given its dependence
on TeamCo's on-pitch performance. A significant portion of
MediaCo's revenue entitlement is associated with TeamCo's media
rights revenue from Serie A and the Union of European Football
Associations (UEFA) competitions. Such revenues depend to different
degrees on TeamCo's on-pitch performance, which S&P considers
inherently unpredictable and, to a significant degree, on TeamCo's
economic resources and investment in players. That said, Serie A
revenue is moderately stable, based on the current allocation
method, in which 50% of the proceeds are shared equally among the
Series A teams, while historical performance is considered for the
allocation of the remaining share. In contrast, UEFA revenue is
strictly dependent on Inter's Serie A ranking in each season and,
thereafter, on its progress in either the UEFA Champions League or
UEFA Europa League. Consequently, this revenue is more exposed to
on-pitch performance compared to Serie A revenue. The commercial
exploitation of the F.C. Internazionale brand through sponsorship
contracts is also strictly related to sport performance and
especially on the club's international visibility, which it can
improve through successful participation in UEFA competitions. Poor
performance by TeamCo's first team could adversely affect its
popularity, brand, and ability to attract and retain top players.
As a result, being associated with the team may be of less value to
sponsors.

Nevertheless, TeamCo's long standing position in Serie A, Italian
football's top division, provides some stability to MediaCo's
revenue base. Inter has participated in all Serie A seasons since
its inception and it is the only club that has never been relegated
to Serie B. Provided that TeamCo continues to play in Serie A, S&P
expects that MediaCo will have access to a moderately stable
revenue from Serie A media rights, which represents its main line
of income.

S&P said, "We also believe that MediaCo benefits from a strong
brand that promotes sponsorship revenue and mitigates renewal
risks. Inter is one of the most popular teams in Serie A, making
its brand one of the most recognizable and valuable. Although
sponsorship contracts tend to have short-term maturities, we
believe that the team's performance, combined with the strength of
Inter's brand, can mitigate the risk that such contracts may not be
renewed or replaced by new sponsors on similar terms." With limited
live sports because of the COVID-19 pandemic, MediaCo has faced a
tougher sponsorship market, following the expiration of its
longstanding contract with Pirelli and the termination of its
lucrative Asian sponsorship contract with iMedia that was worth
about EUR25 million a year. Nonetheless, the club has been able to
leverage its strong brand and alleviate the impact, with a
beneficial multi-sponsor strategy for the main shirt sponsorship,
partnering with Socios.com (not rated), Zytara Labs (not rated),
and Lenovo Group Ltd. (BBB-/Positive/--) from 2022.

Despite its structurally senior position to the majority of Inter's
financial and operational expenses, MediaCo's and TeamCo's
financial conditions are closely related. If the first team, which
TeamCo manages and pays for, does not compete, MediaCo's cash flow
may suffer, since it has priority access to most of TeamCo's
revenue. In turn, if MediaCo does not collect its receivables, or
if it is prevented from upstreaming cash to TeamCo, TeamCo may not
have sufficient resources to fund its operating costs and
operations, since MediaCo is only responsible for marginal
operating costs. Employee wages--most of which are player
salaries--represent the bulk of operating costs for a football
club, being the responsibility of TeamCo. This, and the fact that
MediaCo owns the Inter brand, provides creditors with some
protection if TeamCo enters a financial distress scenario. However,
in S&P's opinion, this does not completely eliminate the risk
associated with TeamCo's operating and financial performance.

Compared with most secured financing that S&P rates, the creation
and perfection of security interests is more challenging. Italian
law does not permit the grant of security over the receivables
arising from future contracts or arrangements. Therefore, MediaCo
and TeamCo will be required to enter into future security
assignment agreements in respect of receivables arising under
future sponsorship agreements and media contracts. The recurrent
need to create and perfect security interests under Italian law
exposes creditors to an ongoing risk of potential challenges by an
insolvency administrator or by other creditors of TeamCo under the
rules of avoidance or clawback in Italian bankruptcy law.

The final ratings will depend upon receipt and satisfactory review
of all final transaction documentation, including legal opinions.
Accordingly, the preliminary ratings should not be construed as
evidence of final ratings. If S&P Global Ratings does not receive
final documentation within a reasonable time frame, or if final
documentation departs from materials reviewed, S&P Global Ratings
reserves the right to withdraw or revise its ratings.

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our expectation that Inter
will continue playing in Italian football's top division, allowing
MediaCo to benefit from sufficient cash flows to service its new
debt issuance and support its refinancing needs at that point.

"We could lower the issue-level ratings if we consider that the
pandemic could cause permanent operational and financial damage to
Italian football or if there are liquidity concerns at TeamCo. This
could occur, for example, if we expect a significant repricing of
key contracts or if any key stakeholders take steps that
demonstrate elevated risk to TeamCo's business model."

An upgrade is unlikely in the near future, given the rating is
driven by the post-refinancing phase. This would require greater
visibility regarding the long-term cash flow, supported by
contracted revenue.


SAIPEM SPA: Moody's Lowers CFR to B1, Under Review for Downgrade
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service downgraded the corporate family rating of
Saipem S.p.A. to B1 from Ba3 and its probability of default rating
to B1-PD from Ba3-PD. Moody's also downgraded the backed senior
unsecured MTN program rating of Saipem's guaranteed subsidiary
Saipem Finance International B.V. to (P)B1 from (P)Ba3 as well as
the subsidiary's backed senior unsecured rating to B1 from Ba3.
Moody's also placed all the ratings under review for downgrade. The
outlook has been changed to ratings under review from stable.

RATINGS RATIONALE

The rating action follows Saipem's announcement that its statutory
financial statements in 2021 are likely to show a loss for more
than one third of its equity, which triggers the application of
Article 2446 of the Italian Civil Code. This event increases
default risk because lenders could accelerate repayment of certain
loans outstanding absent shareholder support, which could also
trigger a cross default to other debt instruments. Furthermore, the
projected results highlight the risk of weaker cash flow generation
and profitability in the next 12 to 18 months, as well as a
potential need to accelerate restructuring and downsizing of its
operations.

Moody's believes that Saipem will need substantial support
primarily from its shareholders to ensure the long-term viability
of its business and to avoid a default in the next 12-18 months.
The B1 CFR assumes that its two largest shareholders that
economically exercise joint control - Italian oil and gas producer
Eni S.p.A. (Baa1 stable) and the major Italian promotional
institution for economic development Cassa Depositi e Prestiti
S.p.A. (Baa3 stable) through its subsidiary CDP Industria S.p.A.,
with their direct and indirect ties to the Government of Italy
(Baa3 stable), will support Saipem, considering the company's
importance to the Italian economy.

However, significant uncertainties as to whether the support will
be sufficient to restore the confidence of the company's customers,
financing partners and debt holders, remain, which prompted the
agency to place Saipem's ratings under review for further
downgrade. During the review, Moody's will assess the form of the
shareholder support; the execution risk of a timely capital
injection considering sizeable free float; the company's steps to
maintain its financing arrangements to be able to operate and to
address upcoming debt maturities, including the EUR500 million bond
due in April 2022; and the achievability of its business plan
presented last October. Moody's understands that at this point the
company has not appointed advisors for the purpose of debt
restructuring.

Saipem now expects its consolidated EBITDA in 2H 2021, as adjusted
by Saipem, to be approximately negative EUR1 billion, substantially
below Moody's expectations and the company's October 2021 guidance
for positive adjusted EBITDA in 2H 2021 presented in connection
with its new business plan. The company's backlog review for
Onshore E&C projects indicates only partial recovery of the
increase in costs for materials and logistics, depending on the
type of contract; as well as further difficulties in offshore wind
projects, resulting from delays in critical supplies and revised
estimates of execution times and costs. The company reported
negative EBITDA in 1H 2021, also burdened by difficulties in the
execution of wind projects.

The downgrade to B1 incorporates the higher likelihood of
persistently weak credit metrics below the rating agency's
expectations for the Ba3 rating over the next 12-18 months. The
company's technology leadership, especially in Offshore E&C where
it is one of the world's leading companies; sizeable backlog,
albeit with increasing concerns about its profitability; and
potential for improvement in credit metrics beyond the next 12-18
months, especially if the momentum in the oil and gas market
remains positive, support the B1 CFR.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS

Corporate governance considerations were among the key drivers of
this action, reflecting Saipem's weakened liquidity profile, the
increased variability in results and the history of the company's
operational underperformance over the last couple of quarters,
notwithstanding Moody's expectation that Saipem will focus on
deleveraging once it returns to sustained free cash flow
generation. Environmental considerations include Saipem's carbon
transition strategy centered around its commitment to reducing its
greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1 and 2) by 50% in 2035 from the
2018 baseline while achieving scope 2 neutrality by 2025, primarily
through the ongoing shift from oil business toward businesses
related to natural gas and renewable energy.

FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS

Confirmation of B1 CFR is contingent primarily upon strengthening
of the company's liquidity and equity position. Downward pressure
is likely absent a meaningful equity injection or with any
indication of the existence of a concrete debt restructuring plan
likely to result in diminished value relative to the debt's
original promise, and in such scenarios a downgrade could exceed
one notch.

LIST OF AFFECTED RATINGS:

Issuer: Saipem Finance International B.V.

Downgrades, Placed On Review for further Downgrade:

BACKED Senior Unsecured Medium-Term Note Program, Downgraded to
(P)B1 from (P)Ba3

BACKED Senior Unsecured Regular Bond/Debenture, Downgraded to B1
from Ba3

Outlook Actions:

Outlook, Changed To Ratings Under Review From Stable

Issuer: Saipem S.p.A.

Downgrades, Placed On Review for further Downgrade:

LT Corporate Family Rating, Downgraded to B1 from Ba3

Probability of Default Rating, Downgraded to B1-PD from Ba3-PD

Outlook Actions:

Outlook, Changed To Ratings Under Review From Stable

PRINCIPAL METHODOLOGY

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Construction
published in September 2021.



===========================
U N I T E D   K I N G D O M
===========================

CASUAL DINING: Plans Lodged for Former Cafe Rouge Chester Branch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Porter at CheshireLive reports that plans have been lodged to
turn Chester city centre's former Cafe Rouge branch into a new
restaurant.

According to CheshireLive, the proposed refurbishment would
transform the vacant, Grade II-listed Bridge Street premises into a
"high-quality" venue.

A listed building consent application has been submitted to
Cheshire West and Chester Council on behalf of the client, Boheme,
CheshireLive relates.

Cafe Rouge, which had been based in Chester city centre for several
years, closed back in 2020, CheshireLive recounts.

Parent group, Casual Dining Group, went into administration during
that summer and the Bridge Street premises never reopened following
the easing of the first Covid lockdown restrictions, CheshireLive
discloses.

Boheme's plans for the vacant property include a new bar, banquet
seating and window repair works, CheshireLive states.

DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL: Buyers Frustrated at Lack of Progress
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Gardner at Independent reports that one of the groups
interested in buying Derby County are understood to be getting
increasingly frustrated at the apparent lack of progress in
resolving the impasse caused by Middlesbrough and Wycombe's legal
claims against the club.

The Binnie family made their bid for the Rams on Jan. 13 in the
knowledge that the claims existed, Independent relates.

But it is understood they are concerned that, as far as they see
it, no meaningful movement has occurred since and that Boro and
Wycombe's decision to pursue those actions is driving Derby towards
liquidation, Independent states.

For the Binnie's investment firm, Carlisle Capital, the risk of
losing in court -- however unlikely that may be -- or the cost of
settling the claims make the investment in Derby difficult to
justify, Independent notes.

If other investors take the same view, liquidation of the club
starts to look like the only remaining option, according to
Independent.

Both clubs are seeking compensation relating to Derby's breaching
of financial rules, Independent relays.  It has not been confirmed
whether they would be classed as football creditors and therefore
entitled to the full amount awarded if their claims are successful,
Independent notes.

Derby were placed into administration by the club's then owner, Mel
Morris in September last year, Independent recounts.

The Binnie family's bid, understood to be in the region of GBP28
million, excluded the stadium, Independent discloses.  Its
intention would be to utilise an existing GBP1.1 million annual
commercial lease on the stadium and training ground, Independent
says.

          About Derby County Football Club

Founded in 1884, Derby County Football Club is a professional
association football club based in Derby, Derbyshire, England.
The
club competes in the English Football League Championship (EFL,
the
'Championship'), the second tier of English football.  The team
gets its nickname, The Rams, to show tribute to its links with the
First Regiment of Derby Militia, which took a ram as its mascot.
Mel Morris is the owner while Wayne Rooney is the manager of the
club.  

On Sept. 22, 2021, the club went into administration.  The EFL
sanctioned a 12-point deduction on the club, putting the team at
the bottom of the Championship.  Andrew Hosking, Carl Jackson and
Andrew Andronikou, managing directors at business advisory firm
Quantuma, had been appointed joint administrators to the club.



LUXURY HOME: Enters Administration, Ceases Trading
--------------------------------------------------
Jo Winrow at Telegraph & Argus reports that Luxury Home Furniture
Limited, a Bradford online retailer selling high-end shabby chic
furniture and accessories, has gone into administration with the
loss of six jobs.

According to Telegraph & Argus, the company, trading as Shabby,
based in Idle, has ceased trading after suffering a slump in trade
and cashflow problems as a result of the pandemic and supply chain
issues, among other things.

Due to a lack of cash to fulfil outstanding orders or provide
refunds to customers awaiting goods, those affected are being
advised to contact their card provider or payment platform to
arrange a chargeback, Telegraph & Argus discloses.

Steven Wiseglass, of Manchester-based Inquesta Corporate Recovery &
Insolvency, has been appointed as administrator and is seeking to
sell the Shabby brand, website, goodwill and stock, Telegraph &
Argus relates.

Mr. Wiseglass, as cited by Telegraph & Argus, said Shabby had
expanded during the first lockdown but then became severely
impacted by shipping delays, increased operating and import costs,
the loss of its biggest UK supplier, adverse customer reaction to a
hike in prices, creditor pressure and, ultimately, falling sales.


MIDAS: Councillor Seeks Urgent Talks on Future of Housing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Telford at BusinessLive reports that a Plymouth city
councillor has asked for an urgent meeting with council chiefs to
review the GBP22 million rebuild of the Barne Barton estate after
shock news that construction giant Midas Group Plc is in financial
trouble.

St Budeaux councillor Sally Haydon (Labour) said residents are
concerned about the future of the long-awaited housing scheme and
wants Plymouth City Council to ensure the rebuild of ex-naval
housing goes ahead, BusinessLive relates.

According to BusinessLive, the project now faces uncertainty after
Midas Group, one of the UK's largest privately-owned construction
and property services companies, confirmed it wants to appoint an
administrator.

The UK's largest provider of affordable housing, Clarion Housing
Group, is transforming the Barne Barton area into a "sustainable
and vibrant community" and Midas was selected to develop the
4.65-hectare site within the neighbourhood via its Mi-space (UK)
Ltd housing company, BusinessLive discloses.

But Midas has filed notices of intention to appoint an
administrator for three companies: Midas Group, its construction
arm Midas Construction, and Mi-Space, BusinessLive relates.

Midas was recently ranked as the ninth largest private sector firm
in the South West, by the Western Morning News, with a reported
turnover of GBP291,267,008 and 498 employees, BusinessLive notes.

But rumours had been circulating in recent weeks that the company
was in financial trouble, after it announced a GBP2 million loss in
2021 -- its first deficit in 40 years of trading, BusinessLive
states.

The company has important construction jobs ongoing throughout the
region and has offices in Indian Queens in Cornwall, Exeter, Newton
Abbot, Bristol, Newport in South Wales and Southampton.


NMC GROUP: To Exit Administration in First Quarter of 2022
----------------------------------------------------------
Saeed Azhar at Reuters reports that the exit of NMC Group from
administration is expected in the first quarter of 2022 after
creditors voted overwhelmingly in favor of the group's debt
restructuring plan.

UAE's third-biggest lender, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank -- and as a
major lender to NMC -- will receive "exit instruments" in a US$2.25
billion debt claim equivalent to the expected future value of NMC
Group, Reuters notes.

As previously reported in the Troubled Company Reporter - Europe,
NMC, the largest private healthcare provider in the UAE, ran into
trouble in 2020 after the disclosure of more than US$4 billion in
hidden debt left many UAE and overseas lenders with heavy losses.
Founded by Indian entrepreneur Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty, NMC had a
market value of US$10 billion at its peak on the London Stock
Exchange before allegations of fraud pushed it into
administration.


STRATTON MORTGAGE 2021-1: Fitch Affirms 'BB' Class E Notes Rating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch Ratings has upgraded Stratton Mortgage Funding 2021-1 plc's
class B and C notes and affirmed the others.

    DEBT              RATING           PRIOR
    ----              ------           -----
Stratton Mortgage Funding 2021-1 plc

A XS2295993724   LT AAAsf  Affirmed    AAAsf
B XS2295994292   LT AA+sf  Upgrade     AAsf
C XS2295994532   LT A+sf   Upgrade     Asf
D XS2295995000   LT BBBsf  Affirmed    BBBsf
E XS2295995695   LT BBsf   Affirmed    BBsf

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

Stratton is a securitisation of non-prime owner-occupied (OO) and
buy-to-let mortgages backed by properties in the UK. The mortgages
were originated primarily by GMAC-RFC, Irish Permanent Isle of Man,
Platform Homeloans and Rooftop Mortgages.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Stable Performance; Increased CE: Asset performance has been stable
in terms of arrears levels since the transaction closed in February
2021.

The notes are amortising sequentially, and amounts released from
the amortisation of the liquidity reserve fund are applied through
the principal waterfall. This has led to a gradual increase in
credit enhancement (CE), which supported the upgrades and
affirmations.

Interest Cap: The interest-bearing notes from class B and below are
subject to a cap of compounded daily SONIA at 8.0%. The maximum
interest amount due will be equal to the cap plus the relevant
margin (before or after the step update). As the asset pool
comprises floating rate loans (linked mainly to Bank of England
base rate or Libor) and the cap does not apply to the asset yield,
Fitch views this transaction feature as credit positive in rising
interest rate scenarios and neutral in stable/decreasing interest
rate scenarios.

This feature has been captured in Fitch's analysis in line with its
interest rate stresses rating criteria.

Foreclosure Frequency Macroeconomic Adjustments: Fitch applied
foreclosure frequency (FF) macroeconomic adjustments to the UK
non-conforming (UKN) sub-pool because of the expectation of a
temporary mortgage underperformance (see Fitch Ratings to Apply
Macroeconomic Adjustments for UK Non-Conforming RMBS to Replace
Additional Stress). With the government's repossession ban ended,
there is still uncertainty regarding borrowers' performance in the
UKN sector where many borrowers have already rolled into late
arrears over recent months. Borrowers' payment ability may also be
challenged with the end of the furlough schemes. The adjustment is
of 1.59x at 'Bsf' while no adjustment is applied at 'AAAsf' as
assumptions are deemed sufficiently remote at this level.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative
rating action/downgrade:

-- The transaction's performance may be affected by changes in
    market conditions and economic environment. Weakening asset
    performance is strongly correlated to increasing levels of
    delinquencies and defaults that could reduce CE available to
    the notes.

-- Additionally, unanticipated declines in recoveries could also
    result in lower net proceeds, which may make certain notes
    susceptible to potential negative rating action depending on
    the extent of the decline in recoveries. Fitch conducts
    sensitivity analyses by stressing both a transaction's base
    case foreclosure frequency (FF) and recovery rate (RR)
    assumptions, and examining the rating implications on all
    classes of issued notes. Fitch tested a 15% increase in
    weighted average (WA) FF and a 15% decrease in WARR. The
    results indicate downgrades of up to four notches for the
    notes.

Factor that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive
rating action/upgrade:

-- Stable to improved asset performance driven by stable
    delinquencies and defaults would lead to increasing CE levels
    and potential upgrades. Fitch tested an additional rating
    sensitivity scenario by applying a decrease in the WAFF of 15%
    and an increase in the WARR of 15%, which would lead to the
    subordinated notes being upgraded by up to four notches.

BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO

International scale credit ratings of Structured Finance
transactions have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as
the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive
direction) of seven notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a
worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th
percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction)
of seven notches over three years. The complete span of best- and
worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges
from 'AAAsf' to 'Dsf'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings
are based on historical performance.

DATA ADEQUACY

Fitch has checked the consistency and plausibility of the
information it has received about the performance of the asset pool
and the transaction. Fitch has not reviewed the results of any
third party assessment of the asset portfolio information or
conducted a review of origination files as part of its ongoing
monitoring.

Prior to the transaction closing, Fitch reviewed the results of a
third party assessment conducted on the asset portfolio information
and concluded that there were no findings that affected the rating
analysis.

Overall, and together with any assumptions referred to above,
Fitch's assessment of the information relied upon for the agency's
rating analysis according to its applicable rating methodologies
indicates that it is adequately reliable.

ESG CONSIDERATIONS

Stratton Mortgage Funding 2021-1 plc has an ESG Relevance Score of
'4' for Customer Welfare - Fair Messaging, Privacy & Data Security
due to the pool exhibiting an interest-only maturity concentration
amongst the legacy non-conforming OO loans of greater than 40%,
which has a negative impact on the credit profile, and is relevant
to the ratings in conjunction with other factors.

Stratton Mortgage Funding 2021-1 plc has an ESG Relevance Score of
'4' for Human Rights, Community Relations, Access & Affordability
due to a significant proportion of the pool containing OO loans
advanced with limited affordability checks, which has a negative
impact on the credit profile, and is relevant to the ratings in
conjunction with other factors.

Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of
ESG credit relevance is a score of '3'. This means ESG issues are
credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity,
either due to their nature or the way in which they are being
managed by the entity.



===============
X X X X X X X X
===============

[*] BOOK REVIEW: Hospitals, Health and People
---------------------------------------------
Author: Albert W. Snoke, M.D.
Publisher: Beard Books
Softcover: 232 pages
List Price: $34.95
Order your personal copy today at
http://www.beardbooks.com/beardbooks/hospitals_health_and_people.html

Hospitals, Health and People is an interesting and very readable
account of the career of a hospital administrator and physician
from the 1930's through the 1980's, the formative years of today's
health care system. Although much has changed in hospital
administration and health care since the book was first published
in 1987, Dr. Snoke's discussion of the evolution of the modern
hospital provides a unique and very valuable perspective for
readers who wish to better understand the forces at work in our
current health care system.

The first half of Hospitals, Health and People is devoted to the
functional parts of the hospital system, as observed by Dr. Snoke
between the late 1930's through 1969, when he served first as
assistant director of the Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester,
New York, and then as the director of the Grace-New Haven Hospital
in Connecticut. In these first chapters, Dr. Snoke examines the
evolution and institutionalization of a number of aspects of the
hospital system, including the financial and community
responsibilities of the hospital administrator, education and
training in hospital administration, the role of the governing
board of a hospital, the dynamics between the hospital
administrator and the medical staff, and the unique role of the
teaching hospital.

The importance of Hospitals, Health and People for today's readers
is due in large part to the author's pivotal role in creating the
modern-day hospital. Dr. Snoke and others in similar positions
played a large part in advocating or forcing change in our hospital
system, particularly in recognizing the importance of the nursing
profession and the contributions of non-physician professionals,
such as psychologists, hearing and speech specialists, and social
workers, to the overall care of the patient. Throughout the first
chapters, there are also many observations on the factors that are
contributing to today's cost of care. Malpractice is just one
example. According to Dr. Snoke, "malpractice premiums were
negligible in the 1950's and 1960's. In 1970, Yale-New Haven's
annual malpractice premiums had mounted to about $150,000." By the
time of the first publication of the book, the hospital's premiums
were costing about $10 million a year.

In the second half of Hospitals, Health and People, Dr. Snoke
addresses the national health care system as we've come to know it,
including insurance and cost containment; the role of the
government in health care; health care for the elderly; home health
care; and the changing role of ethics in health care. It is
particularly interesting to note the role that Senator Wilbur Mills
from Arkansas played in the allocation of costs of hospital-based
specialty components under Part B rather than Part A of the
Medicare bill. Dr. Snoke comments: "This was considered a great
victory by the hospital-based specialists. I was disappointed
because I knew it would cause confusion in working relationships
between hospitals and specialists and among patients covered by
Medicare. I was also concerned about potential cost increases. My
fears were realized. Not only have health costs increased in
certain areas more than anticipated, but confusion is rampant among
the elderly patients and their families, as well as in hospital
business offices and among physicians' secretaries." This aspect of
Medicare caused such confusion that Congress amended Medicare in
1967 to provide that the professional components of radiological
and pathological in-hospital services be reimbursed as if they were
hospital services under Part A rather than part of the co-payment
provisions of Part B.

At the start of his book, Dr. Snoke refers to a small statue,
Discharged Cured, which was given to him in the late 1940's by a
fellow physician, Dr. Jack Masur. Dr. Snoke explains the
significance the statue held for him throughout his professional
career by quoting from an article by Dr. Masur: "The whole question
of the responsibility of the physician, of the hospital, of the
health agency, brings vividly to mind a small statue which I saw a
great many years ago.it is a pathetic little figure of a man, coat
collar turned up and shoulders hunched against the chill winds,
clutching his belongings in a paper bag-shaking, tremulous,
discouraged. He's clearly unfit for work-no employer would dare to
take a chance on hiring him. You know that he will need much more
help before he can face the world with shoulders back and
confidence in himself. The statuette epitomizes the task of medical
rehabilitation: to bridge the gap between the sick and a job."

It is clear that Dr. Snoke devoted his life to exactly that
purpose. Although there is much to criticize in our current
healthcare system, the wellness concept that we expect and accept
today as part of our medical care was almost nonexistent when Dr.
Snoke began his career in the 1930's. Throughout his 50 years in
hospital administration, Dr. Snoke frequently had to focus on the
big picture and the bottom line. He never forgot the importance of
Discharged Cured, however, and his book provides us with a great
appreciation of how compassionate administrators such as Dr. Snoke
have contributed to the state of patient care today. Albert Waldo
Snoke was director of the Grace-New Haven Hospital in New Haven,
Connecticut from 1946 until 1969. In New Haven, Dr.
Snoke also taught hospital administration at Yale University and
oversaw the development of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, serving as
its executive director from 1965-1968. From 1969-1973, Dr. Snoke
worked in Illinois as coordinator of health services in the Office
of the Governor and later as acting executive director of the
Illinois Comprehensive State Health Planning Agency. Dr. Snoke died
in April 1988.



                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Troubled Company Reporter-Europe is a daily newsletter co-
published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.
Marites O. Claro, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Ivy B. Magdadaro, and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2022.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1529-2754.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The TCR Europe subscription rate is US$775 per half-year,
delivered via e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for
members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription
or balance thereof are US$25 each.  For subscription information,
contact Peter Chapman at 215-945-7000.


                * * * End of Transmission * * *