Logan Ridge Finance (LRFC) Risk Factors

We may experience fluctuations in our quarterly and annual operating results due to a number of factors, including our ability or inability to make investments in companies that meet our investment criteria, any sales, dispositions or liquidity events of our portfolio companies, the interest rate payable on the debt securities we acquire, the level of portfolio dividend and fee income, the level of our expenses, variations in and the timing of the recognition of realized and unrealized gains or losses, the degree to which we encounter competition in our markets and general economic conditions. Given that the portfolio is concentrated, distributions, dispositions or liquidity events affecting a portfolio company in which we own a significant position may adversely affect our net asset value and results of operations. As a result of these factors, results for any period should not be relied upon as being indicative of performance in future periods.

We may distribute taxable dividends that are payable in part in our common stock. In accordance with certain applicable U.S. Department of Treasury regulations and published guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service, a publicly offered RIC may treat a distribution of its own stock as fulfilling the RIC distribution requirements if each shareholder may elect to receive his or her entire distribution in either cash or stock of the RIC, subject to a limitation that the aggregate amount of cash to be distributed to all shareholders must be at least 20.0% of the aggregate declared distribution. If too many shareholders elect to receive cash, the cash available for distribution must be allocated among the shareholders electing to receive cash (with the balance of the distribution paid in stock). In no event will any shareholder, electing to receive cash, receive less than the lesser of (a) the portion of the distribution such shareholder has elected to receive in cash or (b) an amount equal to his or her entire distribution times the percentage limitation on cash available for distribution. If these and certain other requirements are met, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the amount of the dividend paid in stock will be equal to the amount of cash that could have been received instead of stock. Taxable shareholders receiving such dividends will be required to include the amount of the dividends as ordinary income (or as long-term capital gain to the extent such distribution is properly reported as a capital gain dividend) to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits for U.S. federal income tax purposes. As a result, a U.S. shareholder may be required to pay tax with respect to such dividends in excess of any cash received. If a U.S. shareholder sells the stock it receives as a dividend in order to pay this tax, the sales proceeds may be less than the amount included in income with respect to the dividend, depending on the market price of our common stock at the time of the sale. Furthermore, with respect to non-U.S. shareholders, we may be required to withhold U.S. tax with respect to such dividends, including in respect of all or a portion of such dividend that is payable in common stock. In addition, if a significant number of our shareholders determine to sell shares of our common stock in order to pay taxes owed on dividends, it may put downward pressure on the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our consolidated financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on our business. We are required to disclose changes made in our internal controls and procedures over financial reporting on a quarterly basis and our management is required to assess the effectiveness of these controls annually. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls could detect problems that our management's assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation. As a public company, we may incur significant additional expenses in the near term, which may negatively impact our financial performance and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. This process also will result in a diversion of management's time and attention. We cannot be certain as to the timing of completion of any evaluation, testing and remediation actions or the impact of the same on our operations, and we may not be able to ensure that the process is effective or that our internal controls over financial reporting are or will be effective in a timely manner. In the event that we are unable to maintain or achieve compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related rules, the market price of our common stock may be adversely affected.

The use of leverage magnifies the potential for gain or loss on amounts invested and, therefore, increases the risks associated with investing in our securities. In addition to the 2026 Notes, the 2022 Notes, the 2022 Convertible Notes, and the KeyBank Credit Facility, we may borrow from and issue senior debt securities to banks, insurance companies and other lenders in the future. Holders of these senior securities will have fixed dollar claims on our assets that are superior to the claims of our common stockholders, and we would expect such lenders to seek recovery against our assets in the event of a default. If the value of our assets decreases, leverage would cause net asset value to decline more sharply than it otherwise would have had we not been leveraged. Similarly, any decrease in our income would cause net income to decline more sharply than it would have had we not borrowed. Such a decline could also negatively affect our ability to make distributions on our common stock. Leverage is generally considered a speculative investment technique. Our ability to service any debt that we incur will depend largely on our financial performance and will be subject to prevailing economic conditions and competitive pressures. Moreover, as the management fee payable to our Investment Advisor will be payable based on our gross assets, including those assets acquired through the use of leverage, our Investment Advisor will have a financial incentive to incur leverage that 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 leverage, including any increase in the management fee payable to our Investment Advisor. The KeyBank Credit Facility, and any other credit facility into which we may enter, imposes financial and operating covenants that restrict our business activities, including limitations that could hinder our ability to finance additional loans and investments or to make the distributions required to maintain our tax treatment as a RIC under the Code. Even though our Board has approved a resolution permitting the Company to be subject to a 150% asset coverage ratio, contractual leverage limitations under our existing KeyBank Credit Facility or future borrowings may limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness. 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 below. Assumed Return on Our Portfolio (1) (net of expenses)   (10.0)%   (5.0)%   0.0%   5.0%   10.0% Corresponding net return to common stockholder   -29.2%   -17.8%   -6.5%   4.8%   16.1%(1)Assumes $242.2 million in total assets, $124.9 million in debt outstanding and $107.0 million in net assets as of December 31, 2021. Assumes an average cost of funds of 5.6% which includes the stated interest rate. Actual interest payments may be different.

To the extent we borrow money to finance our investments, our net investment income will depend, in part, upon the difference between the rate at which we borrow funds 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 borrow money to finance our investments. In periods of rising interest rates, our cost of funds would increase, which could reduce our net investment income. We expect that our long-term fixed-rate investments will be financed primarily with equity and long-term debt. 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. Our Investment Advisor does not have significant experience with utilizing these techniques and did not implement these techniques to any significant extent with our portfolio. If we do not implement these techniques properly, we could experience losses on our hedging positions, which could be material.

In past economic downturns, such as the financial crisis in the United States that began in mid-2007 and during other times of extreme market volatility, 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. If these conditions recur, for example as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may be difficult for us to obtain desired financing to finance the growth of our investments on acceptable economic terms, or at all. So far, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in, among other things, increased draws by borrowers on revolving lines of credit and increased requests by borrowers for amendments, modifications and waivers of their credit agreements to avoid default or change payment terms, increased defaults by such borrowers and/or increased difficulty in obtaining refinancing at the maturity dates of their loans. In addition, the duration and effectiveness of responsive measures implemented by governments and central banks cannot be predicted. The commencement, continuation, or cessation of government and central bank policies and economic stimulus programs, including changes in monetary policy involving interest rate adjustments or governmental policies, may contribute to the development of or result in an increase in market volatility, illiquidity and other adverse effects that could negatively impact the credit markets and the Company. 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 the KeyBank Credit Facility or 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.

Under the structure of our Investment Advisory Agreement with our Investment Advisor, any general increase in interest rates will likely have the effect of making it easier for our Investment Advisor to meet the quarterly hurdle rate for payment of income incentive fees under the Investment Advisory Agreement without any additional increase in relative performance on the part of our Investment Advisor. In addition, in view of the catch-up provision applicable to income incentive fees under the Investment Advisory Agreement, our Investment Advisor could potentially receive a significant portion of the increase in our investment income attributable to such a general increase in interest rates. If that were to occur, our increase in net earnings, if any, would likely be significantly smaller than the relative increase in our Investment Advisor's income incentive fee resulting from such a general increase in interest rates.

Certain of our debt investments contain provisions providing for the payment of contractual PIK interest. Because PIK interest results in an increase in the size of the loan balance of the underlying loan, the receipt by us of PIK interest will have the effect of increasing our assets under management. As a result, because the base management fee that we pay to the Investment Advisor is based on the value of our gross assets, the receipt by us of PIK interest will result in an increase in the amount of the base management fee payable by us. In addition, any such increase in a loan balance due to the receipt of PIK interest will cause such loan to accrue interest on the higher loan balance, which will result in an increase in our pre-incentive fee net investment income and, as a result, an increase in incentive fees that are payable by us to the Investment Advisor.

Under the 1940 Act, we are required to carry our portfolio investments at market value or, if there is no readily available market value, at fair value as determined by us, with our Board having final responsibility for overseeing, reviewing and approving, in good faith, our estimate of fair value. Typically, there will not be a public market for the securities of the privately held companies in which we invest. As a result, we value these securities quarterly at fair value based on input from management, a third-party independent valuation firm and our audit committee, and with the oversight, review and approval of our Board. The determination of fair value and, consequently, the amount of unrealized gains and losses in our portfolio, are to a certain degree, subjective and dependent on a valuation process approved by our Board. Certain factors that may be considered in determining the fair value of our investments include external events, such as private mergers, sales and acquisitions involving comparable companies. Because such valuations, and particularly valuations of private securities and private companies, are inherently uncertain, they may fluctuate over short periods of time and may be based on estimates. Our fair value determinations may differ materially from the values that would have been used if a ready market for these securities existed. Due to this uncertainty, our fair value determinations may cause our net asset value on a given date to materially understate or overstate the value that we may ultimately realize on one or more of our investments. As a result, investors purchasing our common stock based on an overstated net asset value would pay a higher price than the value of our investments might warrant. Conversely, investors selling shares during a period in which the net asset value understates the value of our investments would receive a lower price for their shares than the value of our investments might warrant. In addition, we may not be able to realize the values on our investments needed to pay interest on our borrowings.

Our ability to achieve our investment objective depends on our ability to effectively manage and deploy capital, which depends, in turn, on our Investment Advisor's ability to identify, evaluate and monitor, and our ability to finance and invest in, companies that meet our investment criteria. Accomplishing our investment objective on a cost-effective basis is largely a function of our Investment Advisor's handling of the investment process, its ability to provide competent, attentive and efficient services and our access to investments offering acceptable terms. In addition to monitoring the performance of our existing investments, our Investment Advisor's investment team may also be called upon, from time to time, to provide managerial assistance to some of our portfolio companies as well as other funds that they manage. These demands on their time may distract them or slow our rate of investment. See also "- There are significant potential conflicts of interest that could negatively affect our investment returns." Even if we are able to grow and build upon our investment operations, any failure to manage our growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. The results of our operations depend on many factors, including the availability of opportunities for investment, readily accessible short and long-term funding alternatives in the financial markets, and economic conditions. Furthermore, if we cannot successfully operate our business or implement our investment policies and strategies, it could negatively impact our ability to make distributions.

The members of the Investment Advisor's investment team also monitor and service other affiliated investment funds. In addition, our executive officers and directors, as well as the current and future members of our Investment Advisor's investment team may serve as officers, directors or principals of other entities that operate in the same or a related line of business as we do. Accordingly, they may have obligations to investors in those entities, the fulfillment of which obligations may not be in the best interests of us or our stockholders. In the course of our investing activities, we pay management and incentive fees to the Investment Advisor and reimburse the Investment Advisor for certain expenses it incurs. As a result, investors in our common stock invest on a "gross" basis and receive distributions on a "net" basis after expenses, resulting in a lower rate of return than an investor might achieve through direct investments. Accordingly, there may be times when the management team of the Investment Advisor will have interests that differ from those of our stockholders, giving rise to a conflict. The Investment Advisor will not be reimbursed for any performance-related compensation for its employees. We pay our Administrator our allocable portion of overhead and other expenses incurred by our Administrator in performing its obligations under the Administration Agreement, including rent, the fees and expenses associated with performing compliance functions, and our allocable portion of the compensation of our chief financial officer, chief compliance officer and their respective administrative support staff. These arrangements create conflicts of interest that our Board must monitor. The Investment Advisor and its affiliates may also manage other funds in the future that may have investment mandates that are similar, in whole or in part to ours. To the extent permitted by the 1940 Act and interpretation of the SEC staff, the Investment Advisor and its affiliates may determine that an investment is appropriate for us and for one or more of those other funds. In such event, depending on the availability of such investment and other appropriate factors, the Investment Advisor or its affiliates may determine that we should invest side-by-side with one or more other funds. Any such investments will be made only to the extent permitted by applicable law and interpretive positions of the SEC and its staff, and consistent with the Investment Advisor's allocation procedures. As a BDC, we are substantially limited in our ability to co-invest in privately negotiated transactions with affiliated funds unless we obtain an exemptive order from the SEC. On October 23, 2018, the SEC issued an order granting an application for exemptive relief to an affiliate of our Investment Advisor that allows BDCs managed by the Investment Advisor, including Logan Ridge, to co-invest, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions in certain private placement transactions, with other funds managed by the Investment Advisor or its affiliates and any future funds that are advised by the Investment Advisor or its affiliated investment advisers. Under the terms of the exemptive order, in order for Logan Ridge to participate in a co-investment transaction, a "required majority" (as defined in Section 57(o) of the 1940 Act) of Logan Ridge's independent directors must conclude that (i) the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to Logan Ridge and its stockholders and do not involve overreaching with respect of Logan Ridge or its stockholders on the part of any person concerned, and (ii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the interests of Logan Ridge's stockholders and is consistent with Logan Ridge's investment objectives and strategies and certain criteria established by the Board. We believe this relief may not only enhance our ability to further our investment objectives and strategies, but may also increase favorable investment opportunities for us, in part by allowing us to participate in larger investments, together with our co-investment affiliates, than would be available to us in the absence of such relief. In the ordinary course of business, we may enter into transactions with portfolio companies that may be considered related party transactions. In order to ensure that we do not engage in any prohibited transactions with any persons affiliated with us, we have implemented certain written policies and procedures whereby our executive officers screen each of our transactions for any possible affiliations between the proposed portfolio investment and us, companies controlled by us or our executive officers and directors. We will not enter into any agreements unless and until we are satisfied that doing so will not raise concerns under the 1940 Act or, if such concerns exist, we have taken appropriate actions to seek review and approval by our Board or exemptive relief for such transaction. Our Board will review these procedures on an annual basis.

We invest primarily in first lien loans, second lien loans, subordinated debt investments and select equity investments issued by leveraged companies, each of which carries with it a significant degree of risk. First Lien Loans. 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 of the business and market conditions, including as a result of the inability of the portfolio company to raise additional capital, and, in some circumstances, our lien could be subordinated to claims of other creditors. In addition, deterioration in a portfolio company's financial condition and prospects, including its inability to raise additional capital, may be accompanied by deterioration in the value of the collateral for the loan. Consequently, the fact that a loan is secured does not guarantee that we will receive principal and interest payments according to the loan's terms, or at all, or that we will be able to collect on the loan should we be forced to enforce our remedies. Our first lien loans may also include unitranche loans. Unitranche loans combine characteristics of traditional first lien senior secured loans as well as second lien and subordinated loans. Unitranche loans will expose us to the risks associated with second lien and subordinated loans to the extent we invest in the "last out" tranche. These first lien loans and bonds may include payment-in-kind ("PIK") interest, which represents contractual interest accrued and added to the principal that generally becomes due at maturity. Second Lien Loans. Our second lien loans have a second priority security interest in all or substantially all of the assets of the borrower. As such, other creditors may rank senior to us in the event of an insolvency, which could likely in many cases result in a substantial or complete loss on such investment in the case of such insolvency. This may result in an above average amount of risk and loss of principal. Equity Investments. When we invest in loans, we may acquire equity securities as well. In addition, we may invest directly in the equity securities of portfolio companies. The equity interests we receive may not appreciate in value and, in fact, may decline in value. Accordingly, 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. The portfolio currently has several significant equity positions. Distributions, dispositions, or liquidity events of these investments may affect our results of operations and cause us to have to pay a special dividend relating to the realized gains from such investment in order to minimize to the greatest extent possible our U.S. federal income or excise tax liability. In addition, investing in lower middle-market and traditional middle-market companies involves a number of significant risks, including: - these 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 us realizing any guarantees we may have obtained in connection with our investment;- they 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;- they 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;- they generally have less predictable operating results, may from time to time be parties to litigation, may be engaged in rapidly changing businesses with products subject to a substantial risk of obsolescence, and may require substantial additional capital to support their operations, finance expansion or maintain their competitive position;- they may have difficulty accessing the capital markets to meet future capital needs, which may limit their ability to grow or to repay their outstanding indebtedness upon maturity; and - our executive officers, directors and our Investment Advisor may, in the ordinary course of business, be named as defendants in litigation arising from our investments in the portfolio companies.

Our investments may include original issue discount ("OID") instruments and contractual PIK interest, which represents contractual interest added to a loan balance and due at the end of such loan's term. To the extent OID or PIK interest constitute a portion of our income, we are exposed to typical risks associated with such income being required to be included in taxable and accounting income prior to receipt of cash, including the following: - OID instruments may have higher yields, which reflect the payment deferral and credit risk associated with these instruments;- OID accruals may create uncertainty about the source of our distributions to stockholders;- OID and PIK instruments may have unreliable valuations because their continuing accruals require continuing judgments about the collectability of the deferred payments and the value of the collateral; and - OID and PIK instruments may represent a higher credit risk than coupon loans.

Our ability to secure additional financing and satisfy our financial obligations under indebtedness outstanding from time to time will depend upon our future operating performance, which is subject to the prevailing general economic and credit market conditions, including interest rate levels and the availability of credit generally, and financial, business and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. The prolonged continuation or worsening of current economic and capital market conditions could have a material adverse effect on our ability to secure financing on favorable terms, if at all. If we are unable to obtain additional debt capital, then our equity investors will not benefit from the potential for increased returns on equity resulting from leverage to the extent that our investment strategy is successful, and we may be limited in our ability to make new commitments or fundings to our portfolio companies.

We currently have, and may acquire in the future, control investments in portfolio companies. Our ability to divest ourselves from a debt or equity investment in a controlled portfolio company 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.

To attempt to mitigate credit risks, we will typically take a security interest in the available assets of our portfolio companies. There is no assurance that we will obtain or properly perfect our liens. 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 of the business and market conditions, including as a result of the inability of a portfolio company to raise additional capital. In some circumstances, our lien could be subordinated to claims of other creditors. Consequently, the fact that a loan is secured does not guarantee that we will receive principal and interest payments according to the loan's terms, or that we will be able to collect on the loan should we be forced to enforce our remedies. In addition, because we may invest in technology-related companies, a substantial portion of the assets securing our investment may be in the form of intellectual property, if any, inventory and equipment and, to a lesser extent, cash and accounts receivable. Intellectual property, if any, that is securing our loan could lose value if, among other things, the company's rights to the intellectual property are challenged or if the company's license to the intellectual property is revoked or expires, the technology fails to achieve its intended results or a new technology makes the intellectual property functionally obsolete. Inventory may not be adequate to secure our loan if our valuation of the inventory at the time that we made the loan was not accurate or if there is a reduction in the demand for the inventory. Similarly, any equipment securing our loan may not provide us with the anticipated security if there are changes in technology or advances in new equipment that render the particular equipment obsolete or of limited value, or if the company fails to adequately maintain or repair the equipment. Any one or more of the preceding factors could materially impair our ability to recover principal in a foreclosure.

We generally invest in companies whose securities are not publicly traded, and whose securities will be subject to legal and other restrictions on resale or will otherwise be less liquid than publicly traded securities. There is no established trading market for the securities in which we invest. The illiquidity of these investments may make it difficult for us to sell these investments when desired. 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 had previously recorded these investments. As a result, we do not expect to achieve liquidity in our investments in the near-term. Further, we may face other restrictions on our ability to liquidate an investment in a portfolio company to the extent that we have material non-public information regarding such portfolio company.

Our portfolio may be concentrated in a limited number of portfolio companies. Beyond the asset diversification requirements associated with our RIC tax treatment under the Code, we do not have fixed guidelines for diversification, and our investments may be concentrated in relatively few companies. As our portfolio is less diversified than the portfolios of some larger funds, we are more susceptible to failure if a single loan fails. The disposition or liquidity of a significant investment may also adversely impact our net asset value and our results of operations. Similarly, 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.

Most of the loans in which we invest are not structured to fully amortize during their lifetime. Accordingly, a significant portion of the principal amount of such a loan may be due at maturity. As of December 31, 2021, all debt instruments in our portfolio, on a fair value basis, will not fully amortize prior to maturity. In order to create liquidity to pay the final principal payment, borrowers typically must raise additional capital. If they are unable to raise sufficient funds to repay us or we have not elected to enter into a new loan agreement providing for an extended maturity, the loan will go into default, which will require us to foreclose on the borrower's assets, even if the loan was otherwise performing prior to maturity. This will deprive Logan Ridge from immediately obtaining full recovery on the loan and prevent or delay the reinvestment of the loan proceeds in other, more profitable investments.

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 loans and debt securities that we hold. Such developments may be accompanied by a deterioration in 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. Smaller leveraged companies also may have less predictable operating results and may require substantial additional capital to support their operations, finance their expansion or maintain their competitive position.

Our portfolio companies may have, or may be permitted to incur, other debt that ranks equally with, or in some cases senior to, the debt in which we invest. By their terms, such debt instruments may entitle the holders to receive payment of interest or principal on or before the dates on which we are entitled to receive payments with respect to the debt instruments 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. After repaying such senior creditors, such portfolio company may not have sufficient remaining assets to repay its obligation to us. In the case of debt ranking equally with debt instruments in which we invest, we would have to share on an equal basis any distributions with other creditors holding such debt in the event of an insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or bankruptcy of the relevant portfolio company.

Certain loans that we make are secured by a second priority security interest in the same collateral pledged by a portfolio company to secure senior debt owed by the portfolio company to commercial banks or other traditional lenders. Often the senior lender has procured covenants from the portfolio company prohibiting the incurrence of additional secured debt without the senior lender's consent. Prior to and as a condition of permitting the portfolio company to borrow money from us secured by the same collateral pledged to the senior lender, the senior lender may require assurances that it will control the disposition of any collateral in the event of bankruptcy or other default. In many such cases, the senior lender requires us to enter into an "intercreditor agreement" prior to permitting the portfolio company to borrow from us. Typically the intercreditor agreements we are requested to execute expressly subordinate our debt instruments to those held by the senior lender and further provide that the senior lender shall control: (i) the commencement of foreclosure or other proceedings to liquidate and collect on the collateral; (ii) the nature, timing and conduct of foreclosure or other collection proceedings; (iii) the amendment of any collateral document; (iv) the release of the security interests in respect of any collateral; and (v) the waiver of defaults under any security agreement. Because of the control we may cede to senior lenders under intercreditor agreements we may enter, we may be unable to realize the proceeds of any collateral securing some of our loans.

We have made, and may 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 economic conditions in general. 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.

Substantially all of our investments involve loans and private securities. In connection with the disposition of an investment in loans and 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.

Even though we may have structured most of our investments as secured loans, if one of our portfolio companies were to go bankrupt, depending on the facts and circumstances, and based upon principles of equitable subordination as defined by existing case law, a bankruptcy court could subordinate all or a portion of our claim to that of other creditors and transfer any lien securing such subordinated claim to the bankruptcy estate. The principles of equitable subordination defined by case law have generally indicated that a claim may be subordinated only if its holder is guilty of misconduct or where the senior loan is re-characterized as an equity investment and the senior lender has actually provided significant managerial assistance to the bankrupt debtor. We may also be subject to lender liability claims for actions taken by us with respect to a borrower's business or instances where we exercise control over the borrower. It is possible that we could become subject to a lender's liability claim, including as a result of actions taken in rendering significant managerial assistance or actions to compel and collect payments from the borrower outside the ordinary course of business. Such risk of equitable subordination may be potentially heightened with respect to various portfolio investments that we may be deemed to control. See also "- Because we will not hold controlling equity interests in most of our portfolio companies, we may not be in a position to exercise control over our portfolio companies or to prevent decisions by management of our portfolio companies that could decrease the value of our investments."

As a BDC, we are required to carry our investments at market value or, if no market value is ascertainable, at the fair value as determined in good faith by our Board. Decreases in the market values or fair values of our investments will be recorded as unrealized depreciation. Any unrealized depreciation in our loan portfolio could be an indication of a portfolio company's inability to meet its repayment obligations to us with respect to the affected loans. This could result in realized losses in the future and ultimately in reductions of our income available for distribution in future periods.

We are subject to the risk that the investments we make in our portfolio companies may be repaid prior to maturity. When this occurs, we will generally reinvest these proceeds in temporary investments or repay any revolving credit facility, depending on expected future investment in new portfolio companies. Temporary investments will typically have substantially lower yields than the debt being prepaid, and we could experience significant delays in reinvesting these amounts. Any future investment in a new portfolio company may also be at lower yields than the debt that was repaid. As a result, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected if one or more of our portfolio companies elect to prepay amounts owed to us. Additionally, prepayments could negatively impact our return on equity, which could result in a decline in the market price of our common stock.

Certain investments that we may make include warrants or other equity securities. Investments in equity securities involve a number of significant risks, including the risk of further dilution as a result of additional issuances, inability to access additional capital and failure to pay current distributions. Investments in preferred securities involve special risks, such as the risk of deferred distributions, credit risk, illiquidity and limited voting rights. In addition, we may from time to time make non-control, equity investments in portfolio companies. Our goal is ultimately to realize gains upon our disposition of such equity interests. However, the equity interests we receive may not appreciate in value and, in fact, may decline in value. Accordingly, 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. We also may be unable to realize any value if a portfolio company does not have a liquidity event, such as a sale of the business, recapitalization or public offering, which would allow us to sell the underlying equity interests. We will often seek puts or similar rights to give us the right to sell our equity securities back to the portfolio company issuer. We may be unable to exercise these put rights for the consideration provided in our investment documents if the issuer is in financial distress.

Through comprehensive new global regulatory regimes impacting derivatives (e.g., the Dodd-Frank Act, European Market Infrastructure Regulation ("EMIR"), Markets in Financial Investments Regulation ("MIFIR")/Markets in Financial Instruments Directive ("MIFID II")), certain over-the-counter derivatives transactions in which we may engage are either now or will soon be subject to various requirements, such as mandatory central clearing of transactions which include additional margin requirements and in certain cases trading on electronic platforms, pre-and post-trade transparency reporting requirements and mandatory bi-lateral exchange of initial margin for non-cleared swaps. The Dodd-Frank Act also created new categories of regulated market participants, such as "swap dealers," "security-based swap dealers," "major swap participants," and "major security-based swap participants" who are subject to significant new capital, registration, recordkeeping, reporting, disclosure, business conduct and other regulatory requirements. The EU and some other jurisdictions are implementing similar requirements. Because these requirements are new and evolving (and some of the rules are not yet final), their ultimate impact remains unclear. However, even if the Company itself is not located in a particular jurisdiction or directly subject to the jurisdiction's derivatives regulations, we may still be impacted to the extent we enter into a derivatives transaction with a regulated market participant or counterparty that is organized in that jurisdiction or otherwise subject to that jurisdiction's derivatives regulations. Based on information available as of the date of this annual report on Form 10-K, the effect of such requirements will be likely to (directly or indirectly) increase our overall costs of entering into derivatives transactions. In particular, new margin requirements, position limits and significantly higher capital charges resulting from new global capital regulations, even if not directly applicable to us, may cause an increase in the pricing of derivatives transactions entered into by market participants to whom such requirements apply or affect our overall ability to enter into derivatives transactions with certain counterparties. Such new global capital regulations and the need to satisfy the various requirements by counterparties are resulting in increased funding costs, increased overall transaction costs, and significantly affecting balance sheets, thereby resulting in changes to financing terms and potentially impacting our ability to obtain financing. Administrative costs, due to new requirements such as registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance, even if not directly applicable to us, may also be reflected in our derivatives transactions. New requirements to trade certain derivatives transactions on electronic trading platforms and trade reporting requirements may lead to (among other things) fragmentation of the markets, higher transaction costs or reduced availability of derivatives, and/or a reduced ability to hedge, all of which could adversely affect the performance of certain of our trading strategies. In addition, changes to derivatives regulations may impact the tax and/or accounting treatment of certain derivatives, which could adversely impact us. In November 2020, the SEC adopted new rules regarding the ability of a BDC (or a registered investment company) to use derivatives and other transactions that create future payment or delivery obligations. BDCs that use derivatives would be subject to a value-at-risk leverage limit, certain other derivatives risk management program and testing requirements and requirements related to board reporting. These new requirements would apply unless the BDC qualified as a "limited derivatives user," as defined in the SEC's adopted rules. A BDC that enters into reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions would need to aggregate the amount of indebtedness associated with the reverse repurchase agreements or similar financing transactions could either (i) comply with the asset coverage requirements of the Section 18 of the 1940 Act when engaging in reverse repurchase agreements or (ii) choose to treat such agreements as derivative transactions under the adopted rule. Under the adopted 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 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. If the BDC cannot meet this test, it is required to treat unfunded commitments as a derivatives transaction subject to the requirements of the rule. Collectively, these requirements may limit our ability to use derivatives and/or enter into certain other financial contracts.

If we engage in hedging transactions, we may expose ourselves to risks associated with such transactions. We may utilize instruments such as forward contracts, currency options and interest rate swaps, caps, collars and floors to seek to hedge against fluctuations in the relative values of our portfolio positions from changes in currency exchange rates and market interest rates. Hedging against a decline in the values of our portfolio positions does not eliminate the possibility of fluctuations in the values of such positions or prevent losses if the values of such positions decline. However, such hedging can establish other positions designed to gain from those same developments, thereby offsetting the decline in the value of such portfolio positions. Such hedging transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the values of the underlying portfolio positions increase. It may not be possible to hedge against an exchange rate or interest rate fluctuation that is so generally anticipated that we are not able to enter into a hedging transaction at an acceptable price. Moreover, for a variety of reasons, we may not seek to establish a perfect correlation between such hedging instruments and the portfolio holdings being hedged. Any such imperfect correlation may prevent us from achieving the intended hedge and expose us to risk of loss. In addition, it may 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 is likely to fluctuate as a result of factors not related to currency fluctuations.

LIBOR, the London Interbank Offered Rate, is the basic rate of interest used in lending transactions between banks on the London interbank market and is widely used as a reference for setting the interest rate on loans globally. We typically use LIBOR as a reference rate in floating-rate loans we extend to portfolio companies such that the interest due to us pursuant to a term loan extended to a portfolio company is calculated using LIBOR. The terms of our debt investments generally include minimum interest rate floors which are calculated based on LIBOR. In the recent past, concerns have been publicized that some of the member banks surveyed by the British Bankers' Association ("BBA") in connection with the calculation of LIBOR across a range of maturities and currencies may have been under-reporting or otherwise manipulating the inter-bank lending rate applicable to them in order to profit on their derivative positions or to avoid an appearance of capital insufficiency or adverse reputational or other consequences that may have resulted from reporting inter-bank lending rates higher than those they actually submitted. A number of BBA member banks entered into settlements with their regulators and law enforcement agencies with respect to alleged manipulation of LIBOR, and investigations by regulators and governmental authorities in various jurisdictions are ongoing. On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (the "FCA"), which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit LIBOR rates after 2021. In addition, on March 25, 2020, the FCA stated that although the central assumption that firms cannot rely on LIBOR being published after the end of 2021 has not changed. In the United States, the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, in conjunction with the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a steering committee comprised of large U.S. financial institutions, is considering replacing U.S. dollar LIBOR with a new index calculated by short-term repurchase agreements, backed by Treasury securities called the Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR"). The Federal Reserve Bank of New York began publishing SOFR in April 2018. Whether or not SOFR attains market traction as a LIBOR replacement remains a question and the future of LIBOR at this time is uncertain. On November 30, 2020, LIBOR's administrator, the ICE Benchmark Administration Limited, or the IBA, announced a consultation beginning in early December 2020 on its intention to cease the publication of the one-week and two-month U.S. dollar LIBOR settings immediately following the LIBOR publication on December 31, 2021, and the remaining U.S. dollar LIBOR settings, including one-month LIBOR, immediately following the LIBOR publication on June 30, 2023. On March 5, 2021, the FCA released an announcement confirming that such LIBOR settings would cease to be provided by any administrator or no longer be representative as of the dates specified in the IBA proposal, and confirmed that the FCA does not expect any LIBOR settings will become unrepresentative before such dates. The IBA closed the consultation for feedback at the end of January 2021. Concurrent with the IBA's proposal, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released a statement that (i) encouraged banks to cease entering into new contracts that use U.S. dollar LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable and in any event by December 31, 2021, (ii) indicated that new contracts entered into before December 31, 2021 should either utilize a reference rate other than U.S. dollar LIBOR or have robust fallback language that includes a clearly defined alternative reference rate after U.S. dollar LIBOR's discontinuation and (iii) explained that extending the publication of certain U.S. dollar LIBOR tenors until June 30, 2023 would allow most legacy U.S. dollar LIBOR contracts to mature before LIBOR experiences disruptions. On March 8, 2021, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee confirmed that in its opinion the March 5, 2021 announcements by the IBA and the FCA on the future cessation and loss of the representativeness of the LIBOR benchmark rates constitutes a "benchmark transition event" with respect to all U.S. dollar LIBOR settings. A "benchmark transition event" may cause, or allow for, certain contracts to replace LIBOR with an alternative reference rate and such replacement could have a material and adverse impact on the CLO market, the leveraged loan market and/or us. On July 29, 2021, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee formally announced that it recommends the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's forward-looking SOFR term rates for use in business loans, including securities backed by such assets. However, forward-looking SOFR term rates will not be representative of three-month LIBOR, and there is no requirement that the Chicago Mercantile Exchange continue to publish forward-looking SOFR term rates, in which case we, our lenders, and our portfolio company borrowers may be required to use other measurements of SOFR, as applicable. As such, if LIBOR in its current form does not survive and a replacement rate is not widely agreed upon or if a replacement rate is significantly different from LIBOR, it could cause a disruption in the credit markets generally. Such a disruption could also negatively impact the market value and/or transferability of our portfolio company investments. Furthermore, disruptions related to loans and/or other debt financing securitizations (CLOs) in the marketplace could have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Investment Advisor or its affiliates to enter into loans in the future in accordance with our investment strategy and have a material adverse effect on us. We could also be materially and adversely impacted to the extent our Investment Advisor or its affiliates are unable to successfully implement an acceptable replacement rate in leverage utilized by us or if there is a prolonged period of mismatch on the interest rates on the interest rates payable on our leverage and our portfolio investments as a result of the continued publication of LIBOR. Further, if LIBOR does not survive and a replacement rate is not widely agreed upon, the mismatch on the interest rates payable by any leverage incurred by us and the interest rate payable on the portfolio company investments could result in a decrease in our net investment income and distributions we are able to pay to our stockholders.

We structure the debt investments in our portfolio companies to include business and financial covenants placing affirmative and negative obligations on the operation of the company's business and its financial condition. However, from time to time we may elect to waive breaches of these covenants, including our right to payment, or waive or defer enforcement of remedies, such as acceleration of obligations or foreclosure on collateral, depending upon the financial condition and prospects of the particular portfolio company. These actions may reduce the likelihood of our receiving the full amount of future payments of interest or principal and be accompanied by a deterioration in the value of the underlying collateral as many of these companies may have limited financial resources, may be unable to meet future obligations and may go bankrupt. This could negatively impact our ability to pay dividends, could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and cause the loss of all or part of your investment.

Following an initial investment in a portfolio company, we may make additional investments in that portfolio company as "follow-on" investments, in order to: (i) increase or maintain in whole or in part our equity ownership percentage; (ii) exercise warrants, options or convertible securities that were acquired in the original or a subsequent financing; or (iii) attempt to preserve or enhance the value of our investment. We may elect not to make follow-on investments or otherwise lack sufficient funds to make those investments. We will have the discretion to make any follow-on investments, subject to the availability of capital resources. The failure to make follow-on investments may, in some circumstances, jeopardize the continued viability of a portfolio company and our initial investment, or may result in a missed opportunity for us to increase our participation in a successful operation. Even if we have sufficient capital to make a desired follow-on investment, we may elect not to make a follow-on investment because we do not want to increase our concentration of risk, we prefer other opportunities, we are subject to BDC requirements that would prevent such follow-on investments, or the follow-on investment would affect our qualification as a RIC. For example, we may be prohibited under the 1940 Act from making follow-on investments in our portfolio companies that we may be deemed to "control" or in which affiliates of our Investment Advisor are also invested.

We are prohibited under the 1940 Act from participating in certain transactions with our affiliates without the prior approval of our independent directors and, in some cases, the SEC. Any person that owns, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of our outstanding voting securities will be our affiliate for purposes of the 1940 Act and we are generally prohibited from buying or selling any security from or to such affiliate without the prior approval of our independent directors. The 1940 Act also prohibits certain "joint" transactions with certain of our affiliates, which could include concurrent investments in the same company, without prior approval of our independent directors and, in some cases, the SEC. We are prohibited from buying or selling any security from or to any person that controls us or who owns more than 25% of our voting securities or certain of that person's affiliates, or entering into prohibited joint transactions with such persons, absent the prior approval of the SEC. As a result of these restrictions, we may be prohibited from buying or selling any security (other than any security of which we are the issuer) from or to any company that is advised or managed by our Investment Advisor or its affiliates without the prior approval of the SEC, which may limit the scope of investment opportunities that would otherwise be available to us. In the future, we may co-invest with investment funds, accounts and vehicles managed by our Investment Advisor or its affiliates when doing so is consistent with our investment strategy as well as applicable law and SEC staff interpretations. We generally will only be permitted to co-invest with such investment funds, accounts and vehicles where the only term that is negotiated is price. On October 23, 2018, the SEC issued an order granting an application for exemptive relief to an affiliate of our Investment Advisor that allows BDCs managed by the Investment Advisor, including Logan Ridge, to co-invest, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, in certain private placement transactions, with other funds managed by the Investment Advisor or its affiliates and any future funds that are advised by the Investment Advisor or its affiliated investment advisers. Under the terms of the exemptive order, in order for Logan Ridge to participate in a co-investment transaction, a "required majority" (as defined in Section 57(o) of the 1940 Act) of Logan Ridge's independent directors must conclude that (i) the terms of the proposed transaction, including the consideration to be paid, are reasonable and fair to Logan Ridge and its stockholders and do not involve overreaching with respect of Logan Ridge or its stockholders on the part of any person concerned, and (ii) the proposed transaction is consistent with the interests of the Logan Ridge's stockholders and is consistent with the Logan Ridge's investment objectives and strategies and certain criteria established by the Board. We believe this relief may not only enhance our ability to further our investment objectives and strategies, but may also increase favorable investment opportunities for us, in part by allowing us to participate in larger investments, together with our co-investment affiliates, than would be available to us in the absence of such relief. In addition, within our portfolio there are investments that may be deemed to be "controlled" investments under the 1940 Act. To the extent that our investments in such portfolio companies need to be restructured or that we choose to exit these investments in the future, our ability to do so may be limited if such restructuring or exit also involves the affiliates of our Investment Advisor because such a transaction could be considered a joint transaction prohibited by the 1940 Act in the absence of our receipt of relief from the SEC in connection with such transaction. For example, if an affiliate of our Investment Advisor were required to approve a restructuring of an investment in the portfolio and the affiliate of our Investment Advisor was deemed to be our affiliate, such a restructuring transaction may constitute a prohibited joint transaction under the 1940 Act.

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 secured assets, which could trigger cross-defaults under other agreements and jeopardize our portfolio company's ability to meet its obligations under the debt securities that we hold. We may incur expenses to the extent necessary to seek recovery upon default or to negotiate new terms with a defaulting portfolio company. Any extension or restructuring of our loans could adversely affect our cash flows. In addition, if one of our portfolio companies were to go bankrupt, even though we may have structured our interest as senior debt, depending on the facts and circumstances, including the extent to which we actually provided managerial assistance to that portfolio company, a bankruptcy court might recharacterize our debt holding and subordinate all or a portion of our claim to that of other creditors. If any of these occur, it could materially and adversely affect our operating results and cash flows.

Our portfolio consists primarily of debt and equity investments in smaller privately owned venture capital-backed companies. Investing in venture capital-backed companies involves a number of significant risks. Typically, the debt in which we will invest is not initially rated by any rating agency; however, we believe that if such investments were rated, they would be rated below investment grade. Below investment grade securities, which are often referred to as "high yield" or "junk," have predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to the issuer's capacity to pay interest and repay principal. Compared to larger publicly owned companies, these venture capital-backed companies may be in a weaker financial position and experience wider variations in their operating results, which may make them more vulnerable to economic downturns. Typically, these companies need more capital to compete; however, their access to capital is limited and their cost of capital is often higher than that of their competitors. Our portfolio companies often face intense competition from larger companies with greater financial, technical and marketing resources and their success typically depends on the managerial talents and efforts of an individual or a small group of persons. Therefore, any loss of its key employees could affect a portfolio company's ability to compete effectively and harm its financial condition. Further, some of these companies conduct business in regulated industries that are susceptible to regulatory changes. These factors could impair the cash flow of our portfolio companies and result in other events, such as bankruptcy. These events could limit a portfolio company's ability to repay its obligations to us, which may have an adverse effect on the return on, or the recovery of, our investment in these businesses. Deterioration in a borrower's financial condition and prospects may be accompanied by deterioration in the value of the loan's collateral. Generally, little public information exists about these companies, and we are required to rely on the ability of our Investment Advisor's investment team 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. Also, privately held companies frequently have less diverse product lines and smaller market presence than larger competitors. These factors could adversely affect our investment returns as compared to companies investing primarily in the securities of public companies.

We depend upon our Investment Advisor to maintain its relationships with venture capital and private equity firms, placement agents, investment banks, management groups and other financial institutions, and we expect to rely to a significant extent upon these relationships to provide us with potential investment opportunities. If our Investment Advisor fails to maintain such relationships, or to develop new relationships with other sources of investment opportunities, we will not be able to grow our investment portfolio. In addition, individuals with whom our Investment Advisor has relationships are not obligated to provide us with investment opportunities, and we can offer no assurance that these relationships will generate investment opportunities for us in the future.