Brookfield, Berenberg Battle Over $1.5 Billion Solar Developer
1h ago|4 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
brookfield-asset-managementsolar-energy
Fazen Markets Editorial Desk
Collective editorial team · methodology
Trades XAUUSD 24/5 on autopilot. Verified Myfxbook performance. Free forever.
Risk warning: CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. The majority of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. Vortex HFT is informational software — not investment advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. and German investment bank Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG are locked in a high-stakes legal and financial battle for control of GoldenPeaks Capital Ltd. The energy developer is facing potential collapse after borrowing approximately $1.5 billion to build solar power projects across Europe. Reporting by Bloomberg on 26 June 2026 detailed allegations that cash within the company had "evaporated," prompting a scramble between its two largest creditors over the firm's future. The conflict emerges as the global renewable energy sector contends with rising financing costs and supply chain pressures.
This dispute is a significant stress test for the private infrastructure debt market, which has channeled hundreds of billions into green energy projects over the past decade. The last comparable event was the 2021 restructuring of Abengoa SA, a Spanish renewable developer whose €9 billion insolvency process required complex negotiations among over 100 creditors. The current macro backdrop features elevated interest rates, with the ECB's deposit facility rate at 3.75%, pressuring highly leveraged project finance models.
GoldenPeaks' ambitious expansion was triggered by the European Union's REPowerEU plan, which aimed to accelerate energy independence following geopolitical tensions. The company secured aggressive debt financing from a syndicate led by Berenberg to acquire and develop solar sites. The catalyst for the current crisis appears to be a combination of construction delays, cost overruns, and potential mismanagement, which led to a rapid depletion of corporate cash reserves. This created an immediate liquidity shortfall, forcing creditors to choose between a rescue or a fire sale.
Berenberg, as the senior lender, has reportedly pushed for a pre-packaged administration to seize control and potentially sell assets. Brookfield, holding a significant but subordinate debt position, is contesting this move, arguing for an operational turnaround that could preserve more value. The standoff highlights the inherent tensions in capital structures where multiple creditor classes have conflicting recovery strategies.
The financial scale of GoldenPeaks' expansion is substantial. The company's total debt burden stands at approximately $1.5 billion, a figure that includes both senior and mezzanine facilities. For context, the iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) has seen its net asset value decline 22% year-to-date, underperforming the Stoxx Europe 600 Index's gain of 5% over the same period. This underperformance reflects broad sector headwinds.
GoldenPeaks' project portfolio spans several European countries, with a reported pipeline exceeding 2 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity. A single GW of solar capacity typically requires over $1 billion in capital expenditure and can power roughly 750,000 homes. The company's rapid build-out coincided with a 40% increase in European solar module prices between 2024 and 2025, squeezing project economics.
Key financial metrics for the dispute include the senior debt tranche's size, estimated at over $1 billion, held primarily by Berenberg and other institutional lenders. Brookfield's exposure, while smaller, is significant enough to give it a blocking position in certain restructuring votes. The timeline shows a sharp reversal: the company secured its major financing facility in early 2025, yet faced insolvency proceedings by mid-2026.
| Metric | Pre-Crisis (Early 2025) | Current Status (Mid-2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Project Pipeline | >2 GW under development | Development stalled, assets frozen |
| Corporate Liquidity | ~$200 million (estimated) | Cash "evaporated," per reports |
| Debt Service Coverage | Projected >1.3x | Likely below 1.0x, triggering default |
The immediate second-order effect is a repricing of risk for other highly leveraged renewable developers. Publicly traded peers like Orsted (ORSTED.CO), Encavis AG (ECV.GR), and Neoen SA (NEOEN.PA) may face heightened investor scrutiny over their balance sheets and financing strategies. Credit default swap spreads for the broader European utilities sector could widen by 5-10 basis points as the market digests the news.
Specialized infrastructure debt funds, such as those managed by Blackstone (BX) and Partners Group (PGHN.SW), could see inflows as investors seek managers with stronger operational oversight. Conversely, pure-play mezzanine lenders focused on renewables may encounter tighter funding conditions. The conflict underscores the importance of strong asset-level due diligence, a factor that may benefit large, integrated firms like Brookfield (BAM) and Macquarie Group (MQG.AX) that combine capital with development expertise.
A key limitation to this analysis is the opacity of private credit markets. The full details of GoldenPeaks' capital structure and the specific allegations of cash disappearance are not public. The outcome may hinge on forensic accounting and legal interpretations of loan covenants. Current positioning suggests distressed debt hedge funds are actively analyzing the situation for potential opportunities, while long-only infrastructure investors are reducing exposure to smaller, single-strategy developers.
The primary catalyst is the ruling from the UK courts, where the main holding entity is incorporated. A hearing is scheduled for the week of 14 July 2026. The judge's decision to approve either Berenberg's administration request or Brookfield's alternative plan will set the immediate course. A second catalyst is the publication of an independent auditor's report on GoldenPeaks' finances, expected by the end of July.
Key levels to watch include the potential recovery rate for senior lenders. In a forced liquidation, analysts estimate recoveries could fall to 60-70 cents on the dollar, whereas a managed sale or turnaround could push recoveries above 85 cents. The yield on European high-yield corporate bonds, particularly in the energy sector, will be a barometer of contagion risk; a move above 8.5% would signal significant stress.
Conditional on a disorderly collapse, watch for sell-offs in the bonds of peer companies with similar use profiles. If Brookfield secures control and engineers a successful turnaround, it could bolster confidence in the ability of large asset managers to salvage value from complex green energy projects, potentially tightening credit spreads for the sector later in 2026.
Retail investors exposed through ETFs like ICLN or TAN should understand this is a credit event, not a technology failure. Solar energy demand remains strong. The impact is on highly leveraged project finance. ETFs with holdings in large, utility-scale operators with strong balance sheets will be less affected than those weighted toward smaller, development-heavy firms. Portfolio managers may increase due diligence on debt levels, leading to a rotation within the fund holdings.
Vortex HFT is our free MT4/MT5 Expert Advisor. Verified Myfxbook performance. No subscription. No fees. Trades 24/5.
Trade oil, gas & energy markets
Start TradingSponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.