Israel Canada Hotels: The 2026 Funding Map After the Bond, the Placement, and the Covenant Exclusions
The ILS 150 million bond and the Harel placement eased the 2026 squeeze, but the indenture leaves lease liabilities outside the core leverage test, allows specific liens, and gives bondholders narrower protection than the reported 52% ratio suggests. The real question is not whether time was bought, but how much protection came with it.
The main article argued that the financing steps at the start of 2026 bought Israel Canada Hotels time, but did not resolve the business-quality question. This follow-up isolates only the funding layer: what really improved after Series A bonds and the Harel placement, what the deed actually protects, and where the comforting covenant numbers only tell part of the story.
At the end of 2025 the company had only about ILS 28.8 million of cash, operating cash flow of roughly ILS 3.0 million, investing cash outflow of about ILS 160.9 million, and negative working capital of about ILS 158.8 million. That is not the funding profile of a business already through the transition phase. It is the profile of a company still heavily dependent on refinancing, injections, and timely access to capital markets.
Then January and February changed the calendar. Series A bonds added ILS 150 million of principal at a fixed, non-linked 5.84% coupon. Days later, the Harel private placement added roughly ILS 70 million. Near the publication date, cash had already climbed to about ILS 225 million. That is a real change, but it has to be read correctly: what improved here is the timetable, not the underlying hotel economics.
That chart exposes the most important point in the 2026 funding map. The two capital-markets steps almost explain the entire jump in cash on their own. Even after the bond and the placement, there is still a negative balancing item of about ILS 23.8 million between year-end and the report date. In other words, even during the same short period in which the company secured financing oxygen, cash was already being consumed by ongoing and strategic uses.
Where The Covenants Comfort, And Where They Don’t
On paper, Series A looks fairly comfortable. As of December 31, 2025 the company showed equity of about ILS 400.0 million and adjusted net financial debt to net CAP of 52%. The basic default thresholds sit at equity not falling below ILS 200 million for two consecutive calendar quarters, and adjusted net debt to net CAP not exceeding 80% for two consecutive calendar quarters. The coupon step-up mechanism is somewhat tighter, with a ILS 240 million equity threshold and a 76.5% leverage threshold.
If you stop there, the read becomes too calm. That is exactly the problem. The definition of adjusted net financial debt excludes three heavy items: lease liabilities tied to right-of-use assets, liabilities related to hotels under construction and new acquisitions, and even cash invested in those projects and acquisitions, subject to a balance-sheet cap. For a hotel platform that grew through leases, openings, and acquisitions, those are not technical footnotes. They are exactly where the economic burden accumulates.
| Item | Included in adjusted net debt to net CAP | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Lease liabilities | No | The heaviest fixed-charge burden stays outside the core covenant |
| Liabilities tied to hotels under construction and new acquisitions | No | Expansion can add obligations without immediately lifting the ratio |
| Cash invested in those projects and acquisitions | Deducted, subject to a cap | Even cash already committed to growth continues to ease the leverage test |
This is where covenant optics diverge from economic leverage. At the end of 2025 the company carried about ILS 856.5 million of lease liabilities, roughly ILS 34.0 million current and about ILS 822.6 million long-term. If you bring that number back into a broader analytical view, alongside adjusted net financial debt of about ILS 429.6 million and equity of roughly ILS 400.0 million, you get a ratio of about 76.3%. That is not the covenant ratio. It is, however, a much better approximation of the fixed burden the business actually carries.
The point of that chart is not that the company breached a covenant. The point is something else: the real cushion is narrower than the legal cushion. In practice, the main covenant does not measure everything that an equity holder or a bondholder should measure in a lease-heavy hotel platform. So 52% is a real number, but it is not the end of the discussion. It is mainly a number that explains why funding can continue, not why the economic risk has disappeared.
The timing matters too. A default event tied to the core financial covenants only builds after two consecutive calendar quarters. In plain language, the deed is designed to catch deterioration after it has already persisted. It is not meant to be the first place where weakening hotel economics show up.
What The Deed Protects, And What It Leaves Open
Series A did give the company something real: a fixed-rate funding source, non-linked to CPI, with a longer profile than short bank lines. That matters. But anyone reading the deed as if it created a hard ring-fence around the hotel assets is reading a different document.
The series is unsecured and unrated. The negative pledge sounds stronger than it is in practice. The company did undertake not to create a general floating charge over all of its direct assets without consent or an equal-ranking pledge for bondholders, but in the same breath it kept very broad freedom to create specific liens, create floating charges over specific assets, sell assets, transfer assets, and leave subsidiaries fully free to create their own liens. This is not a broad anti-encumbrance package. It is a narrow block on one specific scenario.
| Mechanism | What it does provide | What it does not provide |
|---|---|---|
| Unsecured, unrated series | Diversifies funding sources and locks in a fixed 5.84% coupon | Does not create asset-level protection over the hotels |
| Negative pledge | Blocks a general floating charge over all direct assets unless bondholders get equal treatment or approve it | Does not block specific liens, does not block subsidiary liens, and does not require approval for asset sales |
| Distribution restrictions | Caps distributions at 45% of surplus and requires at least ILS 300 million of equity, leverage of no more than 74%, and adjusted net debt to adjusted EBITDA of no more than 10 | Does not create a hard cash lockbox for bondholders, and still relies on the same narrow debt definition |
| Series expansion | Requires covenant compliance and no immediate default event | Does not give holders a veto, and the series can grow from ILS 150 million to ILS 300 million principal |
Two points in that table matter especially. The first is distributions. The deed does not allow free dividends, but it also does not freeze cash for bondholders. If the company meets the tests, it still has theoretical room to distribute, repurchase shares, or allocate capital elsewhere. The second is series expansion. Subject to the conditions, the deed allows the company to expand Series A up to ILS 300 million principal without asking existing holders for permission. From the issuer’s perspective that is flexibility. From the bondholder’s perspective it is a reminder that the series is not a closed box.
The cumulative meaning is straightforward: the new bond improved funding access, but it did not create a hard protection layer that prevents the company from continuing to manage assets, liens, and capital allocation in a highly flexible way.
The Amortization Schedule: Time Now, A Wall Later
This may be the most important part of the funding map. Series A is heavily back-ended. The first six principal payments are only 5.5% each, while the final payment is 67% of principal. On the current ILS 150 million issue, that means principal repayments of about ILS 8.25 million at the end of 2027, about ILS 16.5 million in each of 2028 and 2029, and then about ILS 108.75 million in 2030.
That is exactly why the bond buys time. Almost all of the weight is pushed forward. But that is also exactly why it does not resolve the funding question. It mainly swaps near-term pressure for a later wall, in the hope that by then the newer hotels will have matured and the legacy base will have stabilized.
The bank numbers reinforce that reading. At the end of 2025 the company had about ILS 147.2 million of short-term bank debt and current maturities, plus another roughly ILS 376.7 million of long-term bank debt, or total bank debt of about ILS 524.0 million. The company also states that during 2025 it refinanced both short-term loans that had reached maturity and long-term loans that had not yet reached maturity. So the bond is not an exit from the refinancing cycle. It is another layer inside that cycle.
In timing terms, the match is almost literal: the ILS 150 million bond sits nearly one-for-one against the roughly ILS 147.2 million of short-term bank debt and current maturities that existed at the end of 2025. That is a rational move. It also means the bond was designed first to move the wall, not to remove it.
What Has To Happen Now For The Map To Stay Open
Checkpoint one: the first quarter of 2026 has to show that the new cash balance really holds. A high cash number at one point in time is not enough. The market needs to see what remains after lease payments, financing costs, The George opening, and further investment uses.
Checkpoint two: EBITDA after lease expense has to improve. Covenants can ignore lease liabilities. Cash flow cannot. If the hotels, especially the expansion layer, do not start leaving more money after lease expense, funding flexibility will erode faster than the covenant package suggests.
Checkpoint three: investors have to watch whether the company starts using the flexibility that the deed leaves open. Series expansion, specific liens, or an early distribution would not necessarily breach the documents, but they would immediately change the quality of protection for both bondholders and shareholders.
Checkpoint four: bank refinancing still has to keep arriving on acceptable terms. Even after the bond, the map remains heavily banked. If refinancing becomes more expensive or harder to secure, the calm purchased by Series A will shorten quickly.
Bottom Line
Series A and the Harel placement mainly changed the timing of 2026. That matters, and it is not a small achievement. The company moved from a year-end position with thin cash and deeply negative working capital to the start of a year with roughly ILS 225 million of cash and a new, longer-dated funding layer. In that sense, the immediate pressure did genuinely ease.
But the protection that came with that extra time is narrower than the 52% ratio suggests. The main covenant leaves lease liabilities and part of the expansion burden outside the measure, the negative pledge is fairly narrow, the series is unsecured, and it can even be expanded later. So the new bond bought time, but it did not clean up the balance sheet.
That is the right lens for 2026. If the new hotels and the existing base start producing better EBITDA after lease expense and more accessible cash flow, the funding map will begin to look more stable. If not, the gap between covenant optics and the true economic burden will prove much smaller than the first read implies.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.