OFS Capital (OFS) Risk Factors

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, we will include in income certain amounts that we have not yet received in cash, such as the accrual of OID. This may arise if we purchase assets at a discount, receive warrants in connection with the making of a loan or in other circumstances, or through contracted PIK interest or dividends (meaning interest or dividends paid in the form of additional principal amount of the loan or equity security instead of in cash), which represents contractual interest or dividends added to the loan balance or equity security and due at the end of the investment term. Such OID, which could be significant relative to our overall investment activities, or increases in loan or equity investment balances as a result of contracted PIK arrangements, will be included in income before we receive any corresponding cash payments. We also may be required to include in income certain other amounts that we will not receive in cash. Since in certain cases we may recognize income before or without receiving cash representing such income, we may have difficulty meeting the requirement to distribute at least 90% of our net ordinary income and net short-term capital gains in excess of net long-term capital losses, if any, to maintain the tax benefits available to RICs. In such a case, we may have to sell some of our investments at times and/or at prices we would not consider advantageous, raise additional debt or equity capital or reduce new investment originations and sourcings to meet these distribution requirements. If we sell built-in-gain assets, we may be required to recognize taxable income in respect of the built-in-gain on such assets. In such a case, we would have to distribute all of our taxable gain (including the built-in-gain) in respect of such sale to avoid the imposition of entity-level tax on such gain. If we are not able to obtain such cash from other sources, we may fail to maintain the tax benefits available to RICs and thus be subject to corporate-level U.S. federal income tax.

The use of leverage magnifies the potential for gain or loss on amounts invested. The use of leverage is generally considered a speculative investment technique and increases the risks associated with investing in our securities. We may pledge up to 100% of our assets and may grant a security interest in all of our assets, other than assets held in SBIC I LP and OFSCC-FS, and our ownership interest in SBIC I LP and SBIC I GP, under the terms of any debt instruments we may enter into with lenders. In addition, under the terms of any credit facility or other debt instrument we enter into, we are likely to be required by its terms to use the net proceeds of any investments that we sell to repay a portion of the amount borrowed under such facility or instrument before applying such net proceeds to any other uses. If the value of our assets decreases, leveraging would cause NAV to decline more sharply than it otherwise would have had we not leveraged, thereby magnifying losses or eliminating our equity stake in a leveraged investment. Similarly, any decrease in our revenue or income will cause our net income to decline more sharply than it would have had we not borrowed. Such a decline would also negatively affect our ability to make dividend payments on our common stock or preferred stock. Our ability to service our debt will depend largely on our financial performance and will be subject to prevailing economic conditions and competitive pressures. Moreover, because the management fee payable to OFS Advisor is payable based on our total assets (other than cash and cash equivalents and intangible assets related to the SBIC Acquisition but including assets purchased with borrowed amounts and including assets owned by any consolidated entity), OFS Advisor has a financial incentive to incur leverage which may not be consistent with our stockholders' interests. In addition, our common stockholders will bear the burden of any increase in our expenses as a result of our use of leverage, including interest expenses and any increase in the management fee payable to OFS Advisor. On May 3, 2018, the Board, including a "required majority" (as such item is determined in section 57(o) of the 1940 Act) of the Board, approved the application of a reduced 150% asset coverage ratio to us; therefore, provided certain conditions are met, we became subject to the reduced asset coverage ratio as of May 3, 2019. See "Item 1A. Risk Factors--Risks Related to our Business and Structure--Because we have received the approval of our Board, we became subject to 150% Asset Coverage effective May 3, 2019." As of December 31, 2021, our asset coverage ratio was 173%, excluding the debt held by SBIC I LP. The following table illustrates the effect of leverage on returns from an investment in our common stock assuming various annual returns, net of expenses. The calculations in the table below are hypothetical and actual returns may be higher or lower than those appearing in the table below. Assumed Return on Our Portfolio (Net of Expenses)Assumed Return on Portfolio(10)%(5)%-%5%10%Corresponding return to common stockholder (1)(40.0)%(24.8)%(9.6)%5.6%20.8%(1) Assumes $507.1 million in investments at fair value, $349.9 million in outstanding debt, $166.6 million in net assets, and an average cost of funds of 4.58% as of December 31, 2021. Our investment portfolio must experience an annual return of 3.16% at least to cover interest payments on the outstanding debt. This example is for illustrative purposes only, and actual interest rates on our borrowings are likely to fluctuate. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Liquidity and Capital Resources- Borrowings" for additional information.

Any default under the agreements governing our indebtedness that is not waived and the remedies sought by the holders of such indebtedness could make us unable to pay principal, premium, if any, and interest on our other debt obligations. If we are unable to generate sufficient cash flow and are otherwise unable to obtain funds necessary to meet required payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness, or if we otherwise fail to comply with the various covenants, including financial and operating covenants, in the instruments governing our indebtedness, we could be in default under the terms of the agreements governing such indebtedness. Our ability to generate sufficient cash flow in the future is, to some extent, subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative and regulatory factors as well as other factors that are beyond our control. We cannot assure our stockholders that our business will generate cash flows from operations to meet the payment obligations of our debt.

Investment in middle-market companies is highly speculative and involves a high degree of risk of credit loss, and therefore our securities may not be suitable for someone with a low tolerance for risk. These risks are likely to increase during volatile economic periods, such as the U.S. and many other economies have recently been experiencing.

To the extent we borrow money or issue preferred stock to make investments, our net investment income will depend, in part, upon the difference between the rate at which we borrow funds or pay dividends on preferred stock and the rate at which we invest those funds. As a result, we can offer no assurance that a significant change in market interest rates will not have a material adverse effect on our net investment income in the event we use debt to finance our investments. In periods of rising interest rates, our cost of funds would increase, which could reduce our net investment income. We may use interest rate risk management techniques in an effort to limit our exposure to interest rate fluctuations. Such techniques may include various interest rate hedging activities to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act. A rise in the general level of interest rates typically leads to higher interest rates applicable to our debt investments. Accordingly, an increase in interest rates may result in an increase of the amount of incentive fees payable to OFS Advisor.

We may enter into reverse repurchase agreements as part of our management of our temporary investment portfolio. Under a reverse repurchase agreement, we will effectively pledge our assets as collateral to secure a short-term loan. Generally, the other party to the agreement makes the loan in an amount equal to a percentage of the fair value of the pledged collateral. At the maturity of the reverse repurchase agreement, we will be required to repay the loan and correspondingly receive back our collateral. While used as collateral, the assets continue to pay principal and interest which are for our benefit. Our use of reverse repurchase agreements, if any, involves many of the same risks involved in our use of leverage, as the proceeds from reverse repurchase agreements generally will be invested in additional securities. There is a risk that the market value of the securities acquired in the reverse repurchase agreement may decline below the price of the securities that we have sold but remain obligated to purchase. In addition, there is a risk that the market value of the securities retained by us may decline. If a buyer of securities under a reverse repurchase agreement were to file for bankruptcy or experience insolvency, we may be adversely affected. Also, in entering into reverse repurchase agreements, we would bear the risk of loss to the extent that the proceeds of such agreements at settlement are less than the fair value of the underlying securities being pledged. In addition, due to the interest costs associated with reverse repurchase agreements transactions, our NAV would decline, and, in some cases, we may be worse off than if we had not used such instruments.

In November 2020, the SEC adopted a rule regarding the ability of a BDC (or a registered investment company) to use derivatives and other transactions that create future payment or delivery obligations. Under the rule, BDCs that use derivatives would be subject to a value-at-risk leverage limit, a derivatives risk management program and testing requirements and requirements related to board reporting. These requirements will apply unless the BDC qualifies as a "limited derivatives user," as defined in the rule. Under the rule, a BDC may enter into an unfunded commitment agreement that is not a derivatives transaction, such as an agreement to provide financing to a portfolio company, if the BDC has, among other things, a reasonable belief, at the time it enters into such an agreement, that it will have sufficient cash and cash equivalents to meet its obligations with respect to all of its unfunded commitment agreements, in each case as it becomes due. Collectively, these requirements may limit our ability to use derivatives and/or enter into certain other financial contracts.

We have elected to be taxed for U.S. federal income tax purposes as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Code. If we meet certain requirements, including source of income, asset diversification and distribution requirements, and if we continue to qualify as a BDC, we will continue to qualify for tax treatment as RIC under the Code and will not have to pay corporate-level taxes on income we distribute to our stockholders as dividends, allowing us to substantially reduce or eliminate our corporate-level U.S. federal tax liability. Because we received the approval of our Board, we are generally required to meet a coverage ratio of total assets to total senior securities, which includes all of our borrowings and any preferred stock we may issue in the future, of at least 150% at the time we issue any debt or preferred stock. See "Item 1A. Risk Factors - Because we received the approval of our Board, we became subject to 150% Asset Coverage effective May 3, 2019". This requirement limits the amount that we may borrow. Because we will continue to need capital to grow our investment portfolio, this limitation may prevent us from incurring debt or preferred stock and require us to raise additional equity at a time when it may be disadvantageous to do so. We cannot assure investors that debt and equity financing will be available to us on favorable terms, or at all, and debt financings may be restricted by the terms of any of our outstanding borrowings. In addition, as a BDC, we are generally not permitted to issue common stock priced below net asset value without stockholder approval. If additional funds are not available to us, we could be forced to curtail or cease new lending and investment activities, and our NAV could decline.

The PWB Credit Facility provides us with a senior secured revolving line of credit of up to $25.0 million, with maximum availability equal to 50% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of eligible loans included in the borrowing base and otherwise specified in the PWB Credit Facility. The PWB Credit Facility is guaranteed by OFSCC-MB and secured by all of our current and future assets excluding assets held by SBIC I LP, OFSCC-FS, and our SBIC I LP and SBIC I GP partnership interests. The PWB Credit Facility contains customary terms and conditions, including, without limitation, affirmative and negative covenants such as information reporting requirements, a minimum tangible NAV, a minimum quarterly net investment income after incentive fees and a covenant restricting net losses, such that on each quarterly testing period, commencing on December 31, 2020, we shall not have incurred quarterly net losses (income after adjustments to the investment portfolio for gains and losses, realized and unrealized, also shown as net increase (decrease) in net assets resulting from operations) in excess of $1,000,000, in three of the trailing four quarters. The PWB Credit Facility also contains customary events of default, including, without limitation, nonpayment, misrepresentation of representations and warranties in a material respect, breach of covenant, cross-default to other indebtedness, bankruptcy, change in investment advisor, and the occurrence of a material adverse change in our financial condition. The PWB Credit Facility permits us to fund additional investments as long as we are within the conditions set out in the PWB Credit Facility. Our continued compliance with these covenants depends on many factors, some of which are beyond our control, and there are no assurances that we will continue to comply with these covenants. Our failure to satisfy these covenants could result in foreclosure by our lender, which would accelerate our repayment obligations under the PWB Credit Facility and thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, liquidity, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders. We had no outstanding balance under the PWB Credit Facility as of December 31, 2021 and March 1, 2022, respectively. Availability under the PWB Credit Facility as of December 31, 2021 was $25.0 million based on the stated advance rate of 50% under the borrowing base.

During the economic downturn in the United States that began in mid-2007, many commercial banks and other financial institutions stopped lending or significantly curtailed their lending activity. In addition, in an effort to stem losses and reduce their exposure to segments of the economy deemed to be high risk, some financial institutions limited routine refinancing and loan modification transactions and even reviewed the terms of existing facilities to identify bases for accelerating the maturity of existing lending facilities. As a result, should we experience another economic downturn in the United States, it may be difficult for us to obtain desired financing to finance the growth of our investments on acceptable economic terms, or at all. If we are unable to consummate credit facilities on commercially reasonable terms, our liquidity may be reduced significantly. If we are unable to repay amounts outstanding under any facility we may enter into and are declared in default or are unable to renew or refinance any such facility, it would limit our ability to initiate significant originations or to operate our business in the normal course. These situations may arise due to circumstances that we may be unable to control, such as inaccessibility of the credit markets, a severe decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, a further economic downturn or an operational problem that affects third parties or us, and could materially damage our business. Moreover, we are unable to predict when economic and market conditions may become more favorable. Even if such conditions improve broadly and significantly over the long term, adverse conditions in particular sectors of the financial markets could adversely impact our business.

BDCs generally are prohibited under the 1940 Act from knowingly participating in certain transactions with their affiliates without the prior approval of their independent directors and, in some cases, of the SEC. Those transactions include purchases from, sales to, and so-called "joint" transactions, in which a BDC and one or more of its affiliates engage in certain types of profit-making activities, with such affiliates. Any person that owns, directly or indirectly, five percent or more of a BDC's outstanding voting securities will be considered an affiliate of the BDC for purposes of the 1940 Act, and a BDC generally is prohibited from engaging in purchases of assets from or sales of assets to or joint transactions with such affiliates, absent the prior approval of the BDC's independent directors. Additionally, without the approval of the SEC, a BDC is prohibited from engaging in purchases of assets from, or sales of assets to or joint transactions with the BDC's officers, directors, and employees, and advisor (and its affiliates). BDCs may, however, invest alongside certain related parties or their respective other clients, in certain circumstances where doing so is consistent with current law and SEC staff interpretations. For example, a BDC may invest alongside such accounts consistent with guidance promulgated by the SEC staff permitting us and such other accounts to purchase interests in a single class of privately placed securities so long as certain conditions are met, including that the BDC's advisor, acting on the BDC's behalf and on behalf of other clients, negotiates no term other than price. Co-investment with such other accounts is not permitted or appropriate under this guidance when there is an opportunity to invest in different securities of the same issuer or where the different investments could be expected to result in a conflict between the BDC's interests and those of other accounts. The 1940 Act generally prohibits BDCs from making certain negotiated co-investments with certain affiliates absent an order from the SEC permitting the BDC to do so. On August 4, 2020, we received the Order from the SEC to permit us to co-invest in portfolio companies with Affiliated Funds subject to compliance with the Order. The Order superseded a previous order we received on October 12, 2016 and provides us with greater flexibility to enter into co-investment transactions with Affiliated Funds. Pursuant to the Order, we are generally permitted to co-invest with Affiliated Funds if a "required majority" (as defined in Section 57(o) of the 1940 Act) of our independent directors make certain conclusions in connection with a co-investment transaction, including that (1) the terms of the transactions, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to us and our stockholders and do not involve overreaching in respect of us or our stockholders on the part of any person concerned and (2) the transaction is consistent with the interests of our stockholders and is consistent with our investment objective and strategies. In addition, pursuant to an exemptive order issued by the SEC on April 8, 2020 and applicable to all BDCs with exemptive orders, through December 31, 2020, we were permitted, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, to co-invest in our existing portfolio companies with certain affiliates that are private funds, even if such other funds had not previously invested in such existing portfolio company. Without this order, such Affiliated Funds that are private funds would not be able to participate in such co-investments with us unless the Affiliated Funds had previously acquired securities of the portfolio company in a co-investment transaction with us. Although the conditional exemptive order expired on December 31, 2020, the SEC's Division of Investment Management has indicated that until March 31, 2022, it will not recommend enforcement action, to the extent that any BDC with an existing co-investment order continues to engage in certain transactions described in the conditional exemptive order, pursuant to the same terms and conditions described therein. When we invest alongside clients of OFSAM and its affiliates or their respective other clients, OFS Advisor will, to the extent consistent with applicable law, regulatory guidance, or the Order, allocate investment opportunities in accordance with its allocation policy. Under this allocation policy, if two or more investment vehicles with similar or overlapping investment strategies are in their investment periods, an available opportunity will be allocated based on the provisions governing allocations of such investment opportunities in the relevant organizational, offering or similar documents, if any, for such investment vehicles. In the absence of any such provisions, OFS Advisor will consider the following factors and the weight that should be given with respect to each of these factors: - investment guidelines and/or restrictions, if any, set forth in the applicable organizational, offering or similar documents for the investment vehicles;- the status of tax restrictions and tests and other regulatory restrictions and tests;- risk and return profile of the investment vehicles;- suitability/priority of a particular investment for the investment vehicles;- if applicable, the targeted position size of the investment for the investment vehicles - level of available cash for investment with respect to the investment vehicles;- total amount of funds committed to the investment vehicles; and - the age of the investment vehicles and the remaining term of their respective investment periods, if any. When not relying on the Order, priority as to opportunities will generally be given to clients that are in their "ramp-up" period, or the period during which the account has yet to reach sufficient scale such that its investment income covers its operating expenses, over the accounts that are outside their ramp-up period but still within their investment or re-investment periods. However, application of one or more of the factors listed above, or other factors determined to be relevant or appropriate, may result in the allocation of an investment opportunity to a fund no longer in its ramp-up period over a fund that is still within its ramp-up period. In situations where co-investment with other accounts is not permitted or appropriate, OFS Advisor will need to decide which account will proceed with the investment. The decision by OFS Advisor to allocate an opportunity to another entity could cause us to forego an investment opportunity that we otherwise would have made. These restrictions, and similar restrictions that limit our ability to transact business with our officers or directors or their affiliates, may limit the scope of investment opportunities that would otherwise be available to us.

Although we believe our portfolio is well-diversified across companies and industries, our portfolio is, and may in the future be, concentrated in a limited number of portfolio companies and industries. Beyond the asset diversification requirements associated with our qualification as a RIC under the Code, we do not have fixed guidelines for diversification. As a result, the aggregate returns we realize may be significantly adversely affected if a small number of investments perform poorly or if we need to write down the value of any one investment. Additionally, while we are not targeting any specific industries, our investments may be concentrated in relatively few industries. As a result, a downturn in any particular industry in which we are invested could also significantly impact the aggregate returns we realize.

Investment in leveraged companies involves a number of significant risks. Leveraged companies in which we invest may have limited financial resources and may be unable to meet their obligations under their debt securities that we hold due to the significant volatility of such companies. Negative developments may be accompanied by deterioration of the value of any collateral and a reduction in the likelihood of our realizing any guarantees that we may have obtained in connection with our investment. Such developments may ultimately result in the leveraged companies in which we invest entering into bankruptcy proceedings, which have a number of inherent risks. Many events in a bankruptcy proceeding are the product of contested matters and adversary proceedings and are beyond the control of the creditors. A bankruptcy filing by an issuer may adversely and permanently affect the issuer. If the proceeding is converted to a liquidation, the value of the issuer may not equal the liquidation value that was believed to exist at the time of the investment. The duration of a bankruptcy proceeding is also difficult to predict, and a creditor's return on investment can be adversely affected by delays until the plan of reorganization or liquidation ultimately becomes effective. The administrative costs in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding are frequently high and would be paid out of the debtor's estate prior to any return to creditors. Because the standards for classification of claims under bankruptcy law are vague, our influence with respect to the class of securities or other obligations we own may be lost by increases in the number and amount of claims in the same class or by different classification and treatment. In the early stages of the bankruptcy process, it is often difficult to estimate the extent of, or even to identify, any contingent claims that might be made. In addition, certain claims that have priority by law (for example, claims for taxes) may be substantial. In addition, since our mezzanine loans are generally subordinated to senior loans and are generally unsecured, other creditors may rank senior to us in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding. Our investments in debt instruments may include "covenant-lite" loans. Covenants are contractual restrictions that lenders place on companies to limit the corporate actions a company may pursue. Generally, the loans in which we expect to invest will have financial maintenance covenants, which are used to proactively address materially adverse changes in a portfolio company's financial performance. However, to a lesser extent, we may invest in "covenant-lite" loans. We use the term "covenant-lite" to refer generally to loans that do not have a complete set of financial maintenance covenants. Generally, "covenant-lite" loans provide borrower companies more freedom to negatively impact lenders because their covenants are incurrence-based, which means they are only tested and can only be breached following an affirmative action of the borrower, rather than by a deterioration in the borrower's financial condition. Accordingly, to the extent we invest in "covenant-lite" loans, we may have fewer rights against a borrower and may have a greater risk of loss on such investments as compared to investments in or exposure to loans with financial maintenance covenants.

From time to time, we invest in Structured Finance Notes that comprise the equity tranche of CLOs, which are junior in priority of payment and are subject to certain payment restrictions generally set forth in an indenture governing such investments. In addition, Structured Finance Notes generally do not benefit from any creditors' rights or ability to exercise remedies under the indenture governing such investments. Structured Finance Notes are not guaranteed by another party and are subject to greater risk than the secured notes issued by the CLO. CLOs are typically highly levered, utilizing up to approximately 9-13 times leverage, and therefore Structured Finance Notes are subject to a risk of total loss. There can be no assurance that distributions on the assets held by the CLO will be sufficient to make any distributions or that the yield on the Structured Finance Notes will meet our expectations. CLOs generally may make payments on Structured Finance Notes only to the extent permitted by the payment priority provisions of an indenture governing the notes issued by the CLO. CLO indentures generally provide that principal payments on Structured Finance Notes may not be made on any payment date unless all amounts owing under secured notes are paid in full. In addition, if a CLO does not meet the asset coverage tests or the interest coverage test set forth in the indenture governing the Structured Finance Notes issued by the CLO, cash would be diverted from the Structured Finance Notes to first pay the secured notes in amounts sufficient to cause such tests to be satisfied.

We are not responsible for, and have no influence over, the asset management of the portfolios underlying the Structured Finance Notes we hold as those portfolios are managed by non-affiliated third-party CLO collateral managers. Similarly, we are not responsible for and have no influence over the day-to-day management, administration or any other aspect of the issuers of the CLOs. As a result, the values of the portfolios underlying our Structured Finance Notes could decrease as a result of decisions made by third-party CLO collateral managers.

We have invested a substantial portion of our capital in senior secured, unitranche, second-lien and mezzanine loans issued by our portfolio companies. The portfolio companies may be permitted to incur other debt that ranks equally with, or senior to, the debt securities in which we invest. By their terms, such debt instruments may provide that the holders are entitled to receive payment of interest or principal on or before the dates on which we are entitled to receive payments in respect of the debt securities in which we invest. Also, in the event of insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of a portfolio company, holders of debt instruments ranking senior to our investment in that portfolio company would typically be entitled to receive payment in full before we receive any distribution in respect of our investment. After repaying senior creditors, the portfolio company may not have any remaining assets to use for repaying its obligation to us. In the case of debt ranking equally with debt securities in which we invest, we would have to share any distributions on an equal and ratable basis with other creditors holding such debt in the event of an insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of the relevant portfolio company. Additionally, certain loans that we make to portfolio companies may be secured on a second-priority basis by the same collateral securing first-priority debt of such companies. The senior-secured liens on the collateral will secure the portfolio company's obligations under any outstanding senior debt and may secure certain other future debt that may be permitted to be incurred by the portfolio company under the agreements governing the loans. The holders of obligations secured by first-priority liens on the collateral will generally control the liquidation of, and be entitled to receive proceeds from, any realization of the collateral to repay their obligations in full before us. In addition, the value of the collateral in the event of liquidation will depend on market and economic conditions, the availability of buyers and other factors. There can be no assurance that the proceeds, if any, from sales of all of the collateral would be sufficient to satisfy the loan obligations secured by the second-priority liens after payment in full of all obligations secured by the first-priority liens on the collateral. If such proceeds were not sufficient to repay amounts outstanding under the loan obligations secured by the second-priority liens, then we, to the extent not repaid from the proceeds of the sale of the collateral, would only have an unsecured claim against the portfolio company's remaining assets, if any. The rights we may have with respect to the collateral securing the loans we make to our portfolio companies with more senior debt outstanding may also be limited pursuant to the terms of one or more intercreditor agreements that we enter into with the holders of such senior debt. Under a typical intercreditor agreement, at any time that obligations that have the benefit of the first-priority liens are outstanding, any of the following actions that may be taken in respect of the collateral will be at the direction of the holders of the obligations secured by the first-priority liens: - the ability to cause the commencement of enforcement proceedings against the collateral;- the ability to control the conduct of such proceedings;- the approval of amendments to collateral documents;- releases of liens on the collateral; and - waivers of past defaults under collateral documents. We may not have the ability to control or direct such actions, even if our rights are adversely affected. We may also make unsecured loans to portfolio companies, meaning that such loans will not benefit from any interest in collateral of such companies. Liens on such portfolio companies' collateral, if any, will secure the portfolio company's obligations under its outstanding secured debt and may secure certain future debt that is permitted to be incurred by the portfolio company under its secured loan agreements. The holders of obligations secured by such liens will generally control the liquidation of, and be entitled to receive proceeds from, any realization of such collateral to repay their obligations in full before us. In addition, the value of such collateral in the event of liquidation will depend on market and economic conditions,the availability of buyers and other factors. There can be no assurance that the proceeds, if any, from sales of such collateral would be sufficient to satisfy our unsecured loan obligations after payment in full of all secured loan obligations. If such proceeds were not sufficient to repay the outstanding secured loan obligations, then our unsecured claims would rank equally with the unpaid portion of such secured creditors' claims against the portfolio company's remaining assets, if any.

We make subordinated investments that rank below other obligations of the obligor in right of payment. Subordinated investments are subject to greater risk of default than senior obligations as a result of adverse changes in the financial condition of the obligor or in general economic conditions. If we make a subordinated investment in a portfolio company, the portfolio company may be highly leveraged, and its relatively high debt-to-equity ratio may create increased risks that its operations might not generate sufficient cash flow to service all of its debt obligations.

A significant portion of our investments involve private securities. In connection with the disposition of an investment in private securities, we may be required to make representations about the business and financial affairs of the portfolio company typical of those made in connection with the sale of a business. We may also be required to indemnify the purchasers of such investment to the extent that any such representations turn out to be inaccurate, or with respect to potential liabilities. These arrangements may result in contingent liabilities that ultimately result in funding obligations that we must satisfy through our return of distributions previously made to us.

The 1940 Act generally requires that 70% of our investments be in issuers each of whom is organized under the laws of, and has its principal place of business in, any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or any other possession of the United States. Our investment strategy does not presently contemplate investments in securities of non-U.S. companies. We expect that these investments would focus on the same debt investments that we make in U.S. middle-market companies and accordingly would be complementary to our overall strategy and enhance the diversity of our holdings. Investing in securities of emerging market issuers involves many risks, including economic, social, political, financial, tax and security conditions in the emerging market, potential inflationary economic environments, regulation by foreign governments, different accounting standards and political uncertainties. Economic, social, political, financial, tax and security conditions also could negatively affect the value of emerging market companies. These factors could include changes in the emerging market government's economic and fiscal policies, the possible imposition of, or changes in, currency exchange laws or other laws or restrictions applicable to the emerging market companies or investments in their securities and the possibility of fluctuations in the rate of exchange between currencies. Engaging in either hedging transactions or investing in foreign securities would entail additional risks to our stockholders. We could, for example, use instruments such as interest rate swaps, caps, collars and floors and, if we were to invest in foreign securities, we could use instruments such as forward contracts or currency options and borrow under a credit facility in currencies selected to minimize our foreign currency exposure. In each such case, we generally would seek to hedge against fluctuations of the relative values of our portfolio positions from changes in market interest rates or currency exchange rates. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions would not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of such positions or prevent losses if the values of the positions declined. However, such hedging could establish other positions designed to gain from those same developments, thereby offsetting the decline in the value of such portfolio positions. Such hedging transactions could also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the underlying portfolio positions increased. Moreover, it might not be possible to hedge against an exchange rate or interest rate fluctuation that was so generally anticipated that we would not be able to enter into a hedging transaction at an acceptable price. While we may enter into such transactions to seek to reduce currency exchange rate and interest rate risks, unanticipated changes in currency exchange rates or interest rates could result in poorer overall investment performance than if we had not engaged in any such hedging transactions. In addition, the degree of correlation between price movements of the instruments used in a hedging strategy and price movements in the portfolio positions being hedged could vary. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we might not seek to establish a perfect correlation between the hedging instruments and the portfolio holdings being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation could prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. In addition, it might not be possible to hedge fully or perfectly against currency fluctuations affecting the value of securities denominated in non-U.S. currencies because the value of those securities would likely fluctuate as a result of factors not related to currency fluctuations.

When we invest in senior secured, unitranche, second-lien and mezzanine loans, we may acquire warrants or other equity securities of portfolio companies as well. We may also invest in equity securities directly. To the extent we hold equity investments, except as described below, we will attempt to dispose of them and realize gains upon our disposition of them. However, the equity interests we receive may not appreciate in value and may decline in value. As a result, we may not be able to realize gains from our equity interests, and any gains that we do realize on the disposition of any equity interests may not be sufficient to offset any other losses we experience. In the case of SBIC I LP, our wholly owned subsidiary, we will not receive direct benefits from the sale of assets in its portfolio. Rather, our return on our investment in such assets will depend on the ability of SBIC I LP's portfolio to generate cash flow in excess of payments required, as appropriate, to be made to other parties under the terms of the SBA debentures, and distribution, subject to SBA regulation, of the excess to us.

LIBOR was the basic rate of interest used in lending transactions between banks on the London interbank market and was widely used as a reference for setting the interest rate on loans globally. We typically used LIBOR as a reference rate in loans we extended to portfolio companies such that the interest due to us pursuant to a loan extended to a portfolio company was calculated using LIBOR. The terms of our debt investments generally included minimum interest rate floors which were calculated based on LIBOR. On March 5, 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA"), which regulates LIBOR, announced that the 1-week and 2-month U.S. dollar LIBOR settings would cease publication after December 31, 2021 and the overnight, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months U.S. dollar LIBOR settings will cease publication after June 30, 2023. However, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation encouraged banks to cease entering into new contracts that use U.S. dollar LIBOR as a reference rate no later than December 31, 2021. To identify a successor rate for U.S. dollar LIBOR, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee ("ARRC"), a U.S.-based group convened by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was formed. On July 29, 2021, the ARRC formally recommended Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") as its preferred alternative replacement rate for LIBOR for use in derivatives and other financial contracts currently indexed to LIBOR. SOFR is a measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight, collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, and is based on directly observable U.S. Treasury-backed repurchase transactions. The AARC has proposed a paced market transition plan to SOFR from LIBOR. There are significant differences between LIBOR and SOFR, such as LIBOR being an unsecured lending rate while SOFR is a secured lending rate, and SOFR is an overnight rate while LIBOR reflects term rates at different maturities. If our LIBOR-based borrowings are converted to SOFR, the differences between LIBOR and SOFR, plus the recommended spread adjustment, could result in higher interest costs for us, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and liquidity. Although SOFR is the ARRC's recommended replacement rate, it is also possible that lenders may instead choose alternative replacement rates that may differ from LIBOR in ways similar to SOFR. In addition, the discontinuance of LIBOR and/or changes to another index could result in mismatches with the interest rate of some of our investments. The transition from LIBOR to SOFR or other alternative reference rates may also introduce operational risks in our accounting, financial reporting, loan servicing, liability management and other aspects of our business. However, we cannot reasonably estimate the impact of the transition at this time. Recently, the CLOs we have invested in have included, or have been amended to include, language permitting the CLO investment manager to implement a market replacement rate (like those proposed by ARRC) upon the occurrence of certain material disruption events. However, we cannot ensure that all CLOs in which we are invested will have such provisions, nor can we ensure the CLO investment managers will undertake the suggested amendments when able. We believe that because CLO managers and other CLO market participants have prepared for a transition away from LIBOR, we do not anticipate such a transition to have a material impact on the liquidity or value of any of our LIBOR-referenced CLO investments. However, the specific effects of a transition away from LIBOR cannot be determined with certainty as of the date of this filing, a transition away from LIBOR could: -     adversely impact the pricing, liquidity, value of, return on and trading for a broad array of financial products, including any LIBOR-linked CLO investments;-     require extensive changes to documentation that governs or references LIBOR or LIBOR-based products, including, for example, pursuant to time-consuming renegotiations of existing documentation to modify the terms of outstanding investments;-     result in inquiries or other actions from regulators in respect of our preparation and readiness for the replacement of LIBOR with one or more alternative reference rates;-     result in disputes, litigation or other actions with CLO investment managers, regarding the interpretation and enforceability of provisions in our LIBOR-based CLO investments, such as fallback language or other related provisions, including, in the case of fallbacks to the alternative reference rates, any economic, legal, operational or other impact resulting from the fundamental differences between LIBOR and the various alternative reference rates;-     require the transition and/or development of appropriate systems and analytics to effectively transition our risk management processes from LIBOR-based products to those based on one or more alternative reference rates, which may prove challenging given the limited history of the proposed alternative reference rates; and -     cause us to incur additional costs in relation to any of the above factors. In addition, the effect of a phase out of LIBOR on U.S. senior secured loans, the underlying assets of the CLOs in which we invest, is currently unclear. To the extent that any replacement rate utilized for senior secured loans differs from that utilized for a CLO that holds those loans, the CLO would experience an interest rate mismatch between its assets and liabilities which could have an adverse impact on our net investment income and portfolio returns. Further, there may be disputes between market participants regarding the interpretation and enforceability of provisions in our LIBOR-based investments (or lack or such provisions) related to the economic floors in such investments, which may result in a loss or degradation of floor protection in the case of a transition from LIBOR to any one of the various alternative reference rates. Many underlying corporate borrowers can elect to pay interest based on 1-month LIBOR, 3-month LIBOR and/or other rates in respect of the loans held by CLOs in which we are invested, in each case plus an applicable spread, whereas CLOs generally pay interest to holders of the CLO's debt tranches based on 3-month LIBOR plus a spread. The mismatch in the rate at which CLOs earn interest and the rate at which they pay interest on their debt tranches negatively impacts the cash flows on a CLO's equity tranche, which may in turn adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations. The senior secured loans underlying the CLOs in which we invest typically have floating interest rates. A rising interest rate environment may increase loan defaults, resulting in losses for the CLOs in which we invest. In addition, increasing interest rates may lead to higher prepayment rates, as corporate borrowers look to avoid escalating interest payments or refinance floating rate loans. Further, a general rise in interest rates will increase the financing costs of the CLOs. However, since many of the senior secured loans within CLOs have LIBOR floors, if LIBOR is below the average LIBOR floor, there may not be corresponding increases in investment income resulting in smaller distributions to equity investors in these CLOs.

As a BDC, we may not acquire any assets other than "qualifying assets" unless, at the time of and after giving effect to such acquisition, at least 70% of our assets, as defined by the 1940 Act, are qualifying assets. We believe that most of the investments that we may acquire in the future will constitute qualifying assets. However, we may be precluded from investing in what we believe are attractive investments if such investments are not qualifying assets for purposes of the 1940 Act. If a sufficient portion of our assets are not qualifying assets, we could violate the 1940 Act provisions applicable to BDCs. As a result of such violation, specific rules under the 1940 Act could prevent us, for example, from making follow-on investments in existing portfolio companies (which could result in the dilution of our position) or could require us to dispose of investments at inappropriate times in order to come into compliance with the 1940 Act. If we need to dispose of such investments quickly, it could be difficult to dispose of such investments on favorable terms. We may not be able to find a buyer for such investments and, even if we do find a buyer, we may have to sell the investments at a substantial loss. Any such outcomes would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we do not maintain our status as a BDC, we would be subject to regulation as a registered closed-end investment company under the 1940 Act. As a registered closed-end fund, we would be subject to substantially more regulatory restrictions under the 1940 Act which would significantly decrease our operating flexibility.

The documents governing the loans underlying our CLO investments may allow for "priming transactions," where majority lenders or debtors can amend the documents to the detriment of other lenders, amend the documents in order to move collateral, or amend the documents in order to facilitate capital outflow to other parties/subsidiaries in a capital structure, any of which may adversely affect the rights and security priority with respect to such loans.

Investment in private and middle-market companies involves a number of significant risks. Generally, little public information exists about these companies, and we rely on the ability of OFS Advisor's investment professionals to obtain adequate information to evaluate the potential returns from investing in these companies. If we are unable to uncover all material information about these companies, we may not make a fully informed investment decision, and we may lose money on our investments. Middle-market companies may have limited financial resources and may be unable to meet their obligations under their debt securities that we hold, which may be accompanied by a deterioration in the value of any collateral and a reduction in the likelihood of our realizing any guarantees we may have obtained in connection with our investment. Such companies typically have shorter operating histories, narrower product lines and smaller market shares than larger businesses, which tend to render them more vulnerable to competitors' actions and market conditions, as well as general economic downturns. Middle-market companies are more likely to be considered lower grade investments, commonly called "junk bonds," which are either rated below investment grade by one or more nationally-recognized statistical rating agencies at the time of investment, or may be unrated but determined by the OFS Advisor to be of comparable quality. Lower grade securities or comparable unrated securities are considered predominantly speculative regarding the issuer's ability to pay interest and principal, and are susceptible to default or decline in market value due to adverse economic and business developments. The market values for lower grade debt tend to be very volatile and are less liquid than investment grade securities. For these reasons, an investment in our company is subject to the following specific risks: increased price sensitivity to a deteriorating economic environment; greater risk of loss due to default or declining credit quality; adverse company specific events are more likely to render the issuer unable to make interest and/or principal payments; and if a negative perception of the lower grade debt market develops, the price and liquidity of lower grade securities may be depressed. This negative perception could last for a significant period of time. Additionally, middle-market companies are more likely to depend on the management talents and efforts of a small group of persons. Therefore, the death, disability, resignation or termination of one or more of these persons could have a material adverse impact on our portfolio company and, in turn, on us. Middle-market companies also may be parties to litigation and may be engaged in rapidly changing businesses with products subject to a substantial risk of obsolescence. In addition, our executive officers, directors and OFS Advisor may, in the ordinary course of business, be named as defendants in litigation arising from our investments in the portfolio companies.

We have purchased, and may purchase in the future, common stock and other equity securities, including warrants, in various portfolio companies. Although equity securities historically have generated higher average total returns than debt securities over the long term, equity securities may experience more volatility in those returns than debt securities. The equity securities we acquire may fail to appreciate, decline in value or lose all value, and our ability to recover our investment will depend on our portfolio company's success. Investments in equity securities involve a number of significant risks, including the risk of further dilution in the event the portfolio company issues additional securities. Investments in preferred securities involve special risks, such as the risk of deferred distributions, illiquidity and limited voting rights.

If we obtain a control investment in a portfolio company, our ability to divest ourselves from a debt or equity investment could be restricted due to illiquidity in a private stock, limited trading volume on a public company's stock, inside information on a company's performance, insider blackout periods, or other factors that could prohibit us from disposing of the investment as we would if it were not a control investment. Additionally, we may choose not to take certain actions to protect a debt investment in a control investment portfolio company. As a result, we could experience a decrease in the value of our portfolio company holdings and potentially incur a realized loss on the investment.

In addition to the general risks associated with debt securities and structured products discussed herein, CLOs carry additional risks, including, but not limited to (i) the possibility that distributions from collateral securities will not be adequate to make interest or other payments; (ii) the quality of the collateral may decline in value or default; (iii) the possibility that the investments in CLOs are subordinate to other classes or tranches thereof, (iv) the potential of spread compression in the underlying loans of the CLO, which could reduce credit enhancement in the CLOs and (v) the complex structure of the security may not be fully understood at the time of investment and may produce disputes with the issuer or unexpected investment results. CLO equity securities that we may acquire are subordinated to more senior tranches of CLO debt. CLO equity securities are subject to increased risks of default relative to the holders of superior priority interests in the same securities. In addition, at the time of issuance, CLO equity securities are under-collateralized in that the liabilities of a CLO at inception exceed its total assets. When we invest in CLOs, we may be in a first loss or subordinated position with respect to realized losses on the assets of the CLOs in which it is invested. We may recognize phantom taxable income from our investments in the subordinated tranches of CLOs. Between the closing date and the effective date of a CLO, the CLO collateral manager will generally expect to purchase additional collateral obligations for the CLO. During this period, the price and availability of these collateral obligations may be adversely affected by a number of market factors, including price volatility and availability of investments suitable for the CLO, which could hamper the ability of the collateral manager to acquire a portfolio of collateral obligations that will satisfy specified concentration limitations and allow the CLO to reach the initial par amount of collateral prior to the effective date. An inability or delay in reaching the target initial par amount of collateral may adversely affect the timing and amount of interest or principal payments received by the holders of the CLO debt securities and distributions of the CLO on equity securities and could result in early redemptions which may cause CLO debt and equity investors to receive less than the face value of their investment. In addition, the portfolios of certain CLOs in which we may invest may contain "covenant-lite" loans. Accordingly, to the extent we are exposed to "covenant-lite" loans, we may have a greater risk of loss on such investments as compared to investments in or exposure to loans with financial maintenance covenants.The failure by a CLO in which we invest to satisfy financial covenants, including with respect to adequate collateralization and/or interest coverage tests, could lead to a reduction in the payments we receive from the CLO. In the event that a CLO fails certain tests, holders of CLO senior debt may be entitled to additional payments that would, in turn, reduce the payments we would otherwise be entitled to receive. Separately, we may incur expenses to the extent necessary to seek recovery upon default or to negotiate new terms, which may include the waiver of certain financial covenants, with a defaulting CLO or any other investment we may make. If any of these occur, it could adversely affect our operating results and cash flows. Our CLO investments will be exposed to leveraged credit risk. If a CLO does not meet certain minimum collateral value ratios and/or interest coverage ratios, primarily due to senior secured loan defaults, then cash flow that otherwise would have been available to pay us distributions may instead be used to redeem any senior notes or to purchase additional senior secured loans, until the ratios again exceed the minimum required levels or any senior notes are repaid in full.

We will at times take a security interest in the available assets of our portfolio companies, including the equity interests of their subsidiaries and, in some cases, the equity interests of our portfolio companies held by their stockholders. In the event of a default by a portfolio company on a secured loan, we will only have recourse to the assets collateralizing the loan. There is a risk that the collateral securing our loans may decrease in value over time, may be difficult to sell in a timely manner, may be difficult to appraise, and may fluctuate in value based upon the success or deterioration of the business and market conditions, including as a result of the inability of a portfolio company to raise additional capital. Additionally, in the case of certain of our investments, we do not have a first lien position on the collateral and may not receive the full value of the collateral upon liquidation. If the underlying collateral value is less than the loan amount, we will suffer a loss. In the event of bankruptcy of a portfolio company, we may not have full recourse to its assets in order to satisfy our loan, or our loan may be subject to equitable subordination. In addition, certain of our loans are subordinate to other debt of the portfolio company. If a portfolio company defaults on our loan or on debt senior to our loan, or in the event of a portfolio company bankruptcy, our loan will be satisfied only after the senior debt receives payment. Where debt senior to our loan exists, the presence of inter-creditor arrangements may limit our ability to amend our loan documents, assign our loans, accept prepayments, exercise our remedies (through "standstill" periods) and control decisions made in bankruptcy proceedings relating to the portfolio company. Bankruptcy and portfolio company litigation can significantly increase collection losses and the time needed for us to acquire the underlying collateral in the event of a default, during which time the collateral may decline in value, causing us to suffer losses. Borrowers of Broadly Syndicated Loans may be permitted to designate unrestricted subsidiaries under the terms of their financing agreements, which would exclude such unrestricted subsidiaries from restrictive covenants under the financing agreement with the borrower. Without restriction under the financing agreement, the borrower could take various actions with respect to the unrestricted subsidiary including, among other things, incur debt, grant security on its assets, sell assets, pay dividends or distribute shares of the unrestricted subsidiary to the borrower's shareholders. Any of these actions could increase the amount of leverage that the borrower is able to incur and increase the risk involved in our investments in Broadly Syndicated Loans accordingly. If the value of collateral underlying our loan declines or interest rates increase during the term of our loan, a portfolio company may not be able to obtain the necessary funds to repay our loan at maturity through refinancing. Decreasing collateral value and/or increasing interest rates may hinder a portfolio company's ability to refinance our loan because the underlying collateral cannot satisfy the debt service coverage requirements necessary to obtain new financing. If a borrower is unable to repay our loan at maturity, we could suffer a loss which may adversely impact our financial performance.

All of our assets are presently invested in illiquid securities, and a substantial portion of our investments in leveraged companies is subject to legal and other restrictions on resale or is otherwise less liquid than more broadly traded public securities. The illiquidity of these investments may make it difficult for us to sell such investments if the need arises. In addition, if we are required to liquidate all or a portion of our portfolio quickly, we may realize significantly less than the value at which we have previously recorded these investments. We may also face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a portfolio company to the extent that we, OFS Advisor, OFSAM or any of its other affiliates have material nonpublic information regarding such portfolio company.

As a BDC, we are required to carry our investments at market value or, if no market value is ascertainable, at fair value as determined in good faith by our Board. As part of the valuation process, we may take into account the following types of factors, if relevant, in determining the fair value of our investments: - a comparison of the portfolio company's securities to publicly traded securities;- the enterprise value of a portfolio company;- the nature and realizable value of any collateral;- the portfolio company's ability to make payments and its earnings and discounted cash flow;- the markets in which the portfolio company does business; and - changes in the interest rate environment and the credit markets generally that may affect the price at which similar investments may be made in the future and other relevant factors. When an external event such as a purchase transaction, public offering or subsequent equity sale occurs, we will use the pricing indicated by the external event to corroborate our valuation. We will record decreases in the market values or fair values of our investments as unrealized depreciation. Declines in prices and liquidity in the corporate debt markets may result in significant net unrealized depreciation in our portfolio. The effect of all of these factors on our portfolio may reduce our net asset value by increasing net unrealized depreciation in our portfolio. Depending on market conditions, we could incur substantial realized losses and may suffer additional unrealized losses in future periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our Unsecured Notes are not secured by any of our assets or any of the assets of any of our subsidiaries. As a result, the Unsecured Notes are effectively subordinated to any secured indebtedness we or our subsidiaries have outstanding (including the PWB Credit Facility and the BNP Facility) or that we or our subsidiaries may incur in the future (or any indebtedness that is initially unsecured as to which we subsequently grant a security interest) to the extent of the value of the assets securing such indebtedness. In any liquidation, dissolution, bankruptcy or other similar proceeding, the holders of any of our secured indebtedness or secured indebtedness of our subsidiaries may assert rights against the assets pledged to secure that indebtedness in order to receive full payment of their indebtedness before the assets may be used to pay other creditors, including the holders of the Unsecured Notes.

The Unsecured Notes are obligations exclusively of OFS Capital Corporation, and not of any of our subsidiaries. None of our subsidiaries are a guarantor of the Unsecured Notes, and the Unsecured Notes will not be required to be guaranteed by any subsidiary we may acquire or create in the future. Any assets of our subsidiaries will not be directly available to satisfy the claims of our creditors, including holders of the Unsecured Notes. Except to the extent we are a creditor with recognized claims against our subsidiaries, all claims of creditors of our subsidiaries will have priority over our equity interests in such entities (and therefore the claims of our creditors, including holders of the Unsecured Notes) with respect to the assets of such entities. Even if we are recognized as a creditor of one or more of these entities, our claims would still be effectively subordinated to any security interests in the assets of any such entity and to any indebtedness or other liabilities of any such entity senior to our claims. Consequently, the Unsecured Notes will be structurally subordinated to all indebtedness and other liabilities, including trade payables, of any of our existing or future subsidiaries, including SBIC I LP and OFSCC-FS. Certain of these entities currently serve as guarantors under the PWB Credit Facility or the BNP Facility, and in the future our subsidiaries may incur substantial additional indebtedness, all of which is and would be structurally senior to the Unsecured Notes.

The indenture under which the Unsecured Notes were issued offers limited protection to holders of the Unsecured Notes. The terms of the indenture and the Unsecured Notes do not restrict our or any of our subsidiaries' ability to engage in, or otherwise be a party to, a variety of corporate transactions, circumstances or events that could have a material adverse impact on your investment in the Unsecured Notes. In particular, the terms of the indenture and the Unsecured Notes will not place any restrictions on our or our subsidiaries' ability to: -     issue securities or otherwise incur additional indebtedness or other obligations, including (1) any indebtedness or other obligations that would be equal in right of payment to the Unsecured Notes, (2) any indebtedness or other obligations that would be secured and therefore rank effectively senior in right of payment to the Unsecured Notes to the extent of the values of the assets securing such debt, (3) indebtedness of ours that is guaranteed by one or more of our subsidiaries and which therefore is structurally senior to the Unsecured Notes and (4) securities, indebtedness or obligations issued or incurred by our subsidiaries that would be senior to our equity interests in those entities and therefore rank structurally senior to the Unsecured Notes with respect to the assets of our subsidiaries, in each case other than an incurrence of indebtedness or other obligation that would cause a violation of Section 18(a)(1)(A) as modified by such provisions of Section 61(a) of the 1940 Act as may be applicable to us from time to time or any successor provisions, whether or not we continue to be subject to such provisions of the 1940 Act, but giving effect, in each case, to any exemptive relief granted to us by the SEC. Currently, these provisions generally prohibit us from making additional borrowings, including through the issuance of additional debt or the sale of additional debt securities, unless our asset coverage, as defined in the 1940 Act, equals at least 200% (now 150%, effective since May 3, 2019) after such borrowings. See "Item 1A. Risk Factors - Because we received the approval of our Board, we are subject to 150% Asset Coverage, effective May 3, 2019";-     pay dividends on, or purchase or redeem or make any payments in respect of, capital stock or other securities ranking junior in right of payment to the Unsecured Notes, including subordinated indebtedness, in each case other than dividends, purchases, redemptions or payments that would cause our asset coverage to fall below the threshold specified in Section 18(a)(1)(B) as modified by such provisions of Section 61(a) of the 1940 Act as may be applicable to us from time to time or any successor provisions, giving effect to (i) any exemptive relief granted to us by the SEC and (ii) no-action relief granted by the SEC to another BDC (or to us if we determine to seek such similar no-action or other relief) permitting the BDC to declare any cash dividend or distribution notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Section 18(a)(1)(B) as modified by such provisions of Section 61(a) of the 1940 Act as may be applicable to us from time to time in order to maintain the BDC's status as a RIC under Subchapter M of the Code. These provisions generally prohibit us from declaring any cash dividend or distribution upon any class of our capital stock, or purchasing any such capital stock if our asset coverage, as defined in the 1940 Act, is below 200% (now 150%, effective since May 3, 2019) at the time of the declaration of the dividend or distribution or the purchase and after deducting the amount of such dividend, distribution or purchase. See "Item 1A. Risk Factors - Because we received the approval of our Board, we are subject to 150% Asset Coverage, effective May 3, 2019";-     sell assets (other than certain limited restrictions on our ability to consolidate, merge or sell all or substantially all of our assets);-     enter into transactions with affiliates;-     create liens (including liens on the shares of our subsidiaries) or enter into sale and leaseback transactions;-     make investments; or -     create restrictions on the payment of dividends or other amounts to us from our subsidiaries. In addition, the indenture does not require us to make an offer to purchase the Unsecured Notes in connection with a change of control or any other event. Furthermore, the terms of the indenture and the Unsecured Notes do not protect holders of the Unsecured Notes in the event that we experience changes (including significant adverse changes) in our financial condition, results of operations or credit ratings, if any, as they do not require that we or our subsidiaries adhere to any financial tests or ratios or specified levels of net worth, revenues, income, cash flow, or liquidity. Our ability to recapitalize, incur additional debt (including additional debt that matures prior to the maturity of the Unsecured Notes), and take a number of other actions that are not limited by the terms of the Unsecured Notes may have important consequences for you as a holder of the Unsecured Notes, including making it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to the Unsecured Notes or negatively affecting the trading value of the Unsecured Notes. Other debt we issue or incur in the future could contain more protections for its holders than the indenture and the Unsecured Notes, including additional covenants and events of default. The issuance or incurrence of any such debt with incremental protections could affect the market for, trading levels, and prices of the Unsecured Notes.

A portfolio company's failure to satisfy financial or operating covenants imposed by us or other lenders could lead to defaults and, potentially, termination of its loans and foreclosure on its assets. This could trigger cross-defaults under other agreements and jeopardize such portfolio company's ability to meet its obligations under the debt or equity securities that we hold. We may incur expenses to the extent necessary to seek recovery upon default or to negotiate new terms, which may include the waiver of certain financial covenants, with a defaulting portfolio company.

Under current SEC rules, we are required to report on our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related rules and regulations of the SEC. We are required to review our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis, and evaluate and disclose changes in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly and annual basis. As a result, we expect to continue to incur additional expenses that may negatively impact our financial performance and our ability to make distributions. This process also results in a diversion of management's time and attention. In the event that we are unable to maintain compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related rules, we and the market price of our securities may be adversely affected.

We have entered into a license agreement with OFSAM under which OFSAM has granted us a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use the name "OFS." See "Item 1. Business-License Agreement." In addition, we rent office space from a subsidiary of OFSAM and pay to that subsidiary our allocable portion of overhead and other expenses incurred in performing its obligations under the Administration Agreement, such as rent and our allocable portion of the cost of our officers, including our chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief compliance officer and chief accounting officer. This will create conflicts of interest that our Board must monitor.

The Investment Advisory Agreement and the Administration Agreement were negotiated between related parties. Consequently, their terms, including fees payable to OFS Advisor, may not be as favorable to us as if they had been negotiated with an unaffiliated third party. In addition, we could choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights and remedies under these agreements because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationship with OFS Advisor, OFS Services and their respective affiliates. Any such decision, however, would breach our fiduciary obligations to our stockholders.