Company Insights

TISI supplier relationships

Explore interactive graphBrowse insights index
TISI supplier relationship map

TEAM Inc (TISI) — Who gets paid when the balance sheet is repaired

Team, Inc. operates, contracts, and monetizes by selling specialty industrial services—mechanical, heat-treating, inspection and related asset performance solutions—to energy and industrial customers, collecting revenue from job-level services and proprietary processes while funding growth through a mix of secured credit facilities and private capital. The company closed a strategic $75 million preferred-equity-and-warrant private placement to shore up liquidity and reduce secured debt, shifting contractual exposure away from its ABL and second-lien lenders and toward new sponsor capital. For an operator or investor evaluating counterparty risk, the immediate story is capital restructuring that reduces near-term default risk but concentrates influence in new financial sponsors. Learn more about coverage and supplier mapping at https://nullexposure.com/.

What closed and why it matters: concise transaction context

On March 10, 2026, TEAM announced a private placement with affiliates of Stellex Capital Management that generated $75 million of proceeds before expenses. The proceeds were earmarked to repay $25 million under the ABL provided by Eclipse Business Capital and roughly $42 million under the second-lien term loan held by Corre Partners Management, while TEAM’s first-lien facility provided by HPS Investment Partners was amended to lower the applicable margin by 25 basis points to provide additional financial flexibility. Houlihan Lokey and Kirkland & Ellis LLP advised TEAM on the transaction, indicating a structured, mid-market financing process. The transaction is a classic sponsor-led recapitalization: it reduces near-term leverage service requirements and installs an equity-like investor with warrants and preferred economics.

Key takeaway: the company is exchanging short-term secured obligations for sponsor capital that preserves operations while concentrating governance influence with an active private market investor.

Who the company dealt with — counterparty-by-counterparty

Below are every relationship referenced in public coverage of the transaction, each summarized in plain English with source context.

Stellex Capital Management LLC

Stellex provided the $75 million in preferred stock and warrants to TEAM, becoming a primary sponsor investor in the recapitalization that strengthens the balance sheet. According to the company announcement covered in a March 2026 Quiver Quant release, the private placement closed for $75 million before expenses. (Quiver Quant news, March 10, 2026: https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Team%2C+Inc.+Closes+%2475+Million+Private+Placement+with+Stellex+Capital+to+Strengthen+Balance+Sheet+and+Reduce+Debt)

Corre Partners Management, LLC

Corre was the provider of TEAM’s Second Lien Term Loan; the company planned to repay approximately $42 million of that facility with proceeds from the private placement, materially reducing TEAM’s second-lien funded exposure. (Quiver Quant news, March 10, 2026: https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Team%2C+Inc.+Closes+%2475+Million+Private+Placement+with+Stellex+Capital+to+Strengthen+Balance+Sheet+and+Reduce+Debt)

Eclipse Business Capital

Eclipse provided the ABL facility under which TEAM planned to repay $25 million of loans using proceeds from the transaction, lowering near-term revolver/working-capital secured exposure. (Quiver Quant news, March 10, 2026: https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Team%2C+Inc.+Closes+%2475+Million+Private+Placement+with+Stellex+Capital+to+Strengthen+Balance+Sheet+and+Reduce+Debt)

HPS Investment Partners, LLC

HPS was the provider of TEAM’s First Lien Term Loan Facility; that facility was amended as part of the transaction to reduce the applicable margin by 25 basis points, giving TEAM modestly lower cost and additional flexibility while it executes its operational initiatives. (Quiver Quant news, March 10, 2026: https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Team%2C+Inc.+Closes+%2475+Million+Private+Placement+with+Stellex+Capital+to+Strengthen+Balance+Sheet+and+Reduce+Debt)

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Kirkland & Ellis served as legal counsel to TEAM in connection with the transaction, reflecting standard external legal support for a structured financing and recapitalization. (Quiver Quant news, March 10, 2026: https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Team%2C+Inc.+Closes+%2475+Million+Private+Placement+with+Stellex+Capital+to+Strengthen+Balance+Sheet+and+Reduce+Debt)

Houlihan Lokey (HLI)

Houlihan Lokey acted as financial advisor to TEAM on the transaction, which indicates an institutional process to price and place the preferred securities and warrants with a private sponsor. (Quiver Quant news, March 10, 2026: https://www.quiverquant.com/news/Team%2C+Inc.+Closes+%2475+Million+Private+Placement+with+Stellex+Capital+to+Strengthen+Balance+Sheet+and+Reduce+Debt)

Operational constraints and what they signal about supplier posture

A company-level signal in the public constraints reveals TEAM engages third‑party security experts for cyber security assessments, penetration testing and program enhancements. This is a direct operational disclosure—TEAM relies on external specialists for cyber risk validation rather than internal-only capability, which communicates three things about its supplier posture:

  • Contracting posture: TEAM is willing to buy expertise on an as-needed basis rather than maintain large internal cyber teams, signaling a mix of fixed labor and variable contracting consistent with services businesses managing cost flexibility.
  • Concentration and criticality: cyber security providers are mission-critical for operational resilience and compliance; reliance on external specialists concentrates functional risk into a small set of professional service relationships.
  • Maturity: engaging external security experts and running penetration tests is a sign of operational maturity in risk management, but it also creates vendor dependency and procurement risk if those service relationships are disrupted.

These constraints are company-level indicators of how TEAM sources specialized services and manage operational risk across suppliers.

For a deeper map of how these supplier relationships affect counterparty exposure, explore our coverage at https://nullexposure.com/.

Investment implications and risk posture

The recapitalization materially rearranges TEAM’s liability stack: secured lenders take principal paydowns while a private sponsor obtains preferred economics and warrants. For investors and operators evaluating exposure:

  • Balance-sheet benefit: The $75M proceeds reduce near-term secured debt and lower cash burn risk tied to covenant pressure.
  • Sponsor concentration risk: Stellex’s preferred equity infusion grants an influential stakeholder the ability to shape strategic outcomes—investors should track governance terms and conversion/warrant mechanics in subsequent filings.
  • Advisory sophistication: Use of Houlihan Lokey and Kirkland & Ellis signals a structured, creditor-consensual approach rather than ad hoc restructurings.
  • Valuation context: TEAM’s trailing revenue ($896M) and modest market capitalization ($60M) imply public equity remains highly discounted relative to operating scale; that mismatch explains sponsor appetite for preferred stakes. Public metrics in the period reflect constrained profitability and a modest EV/EBITDA multiple (~12.6) that sponsors can rationalize in a turnaround scenario.

Risk checklist: counterparty concentration (sponsor control), legal/structuring rights (preferred/warrant terms), operational vendor dependency (cybersecurity and other third‑party service providers), and cashflow sensitivity to industrial demand cycles.

Final view and next steps for counterparties

The March 2026 recapitalization is a decisive tactical move: it reduces secured debt service and installs sponsor capital to support execution of margin and growth initiatives. For investors and counterparties, the core question is governance and control—how Stellex and existing lenders will shape future capital plans and whether operational initiatives restore margin and EBITDA growth at a pace that justifies sponsor upside.

To evaluate counterparty exposure or to map supplier risk across TEAM’s capital and service relationships, review our supplier intelligence hub at https://nullexposure.com/. If you need bespoke briefings or deeper counterparty diligence on TISI suppliers, contact our research team via the homepage at https://nullexposure.com/ for tailored coverage.