Here’s a problem we see all the time in transport and logistics: a business wants to buy an asset from its sister company. On paper, it makes perfect sense. One company is winding down, the other needs the equipment.

In reality? Most lenders won’t touch it.

Related-party deals trigger red flags. Lenders worry about pricing, valuation, the real substance of the deal.

Add another layer. no property security, plus the need for cash to rebuild the truck’s engine, and suddenly you’re looking at a truck finance scenario that nearly every lender will decline outright.

This was the situation Company B faced. The deal was legitimate. The opportunity was real. But the financing felt impossible.

Here’s what we did.

01 – Client Objective

Company B had a working relationship with Company A for years. When Company A decided to wind down, they wanted to help their sister company acquire the truck at a fair price.

It made business sense.

But the client also needed the right truck finance structure to make the purchase possible without draining working capital.

02 – The Problem

Company B needed the truck operational and they needed additional cash to rebuild the engine. If they couldn’t find a way to finance both the purchase and the rebuild, the deal falls apart.

The transaction was complicated by the related-party nature of the deal, something most lenders are unwilling to finance. To add another layer of complexity, the client does not own property and also required additional funds to rebuild the truck’s engine.

Most brokers would have stopped here and said “try another lender.”

03 – The Strategy

We didn’t structure this as a related-party purchase. We structured it as a lender-acceptable transaction.

Here’s the thinking:

The real issue wasn’t the relationship between the companies. It was how to present the deal to a lender in a way that made sense to them.

We worked through the mechanics: How do we prove valuation? How do we show the truck is genuine security? How do we demonstrate that the cash-out (engine rebuild) is an investment in the asset, not a withdrawal?

Once we framed it correctly, we could find a lender who understood the structure.

The cash-out component was the key unlock. Most lenders see cash-out as risk. We showed it as mitigation.

A rebuilt engine means:

• The asset is fully operational

• Future reliability is improved

• Repayment capacity is stronger

We secured a lender willing to finance 100% of the deal with no deposit required.

This additional funding was approved to cover the engine rebuild, ensuring the asset was operational and future proofed.

04 – The Outcome

100% approved. No deposit. Cash-out approved. Within the same facility.

The deal worked because the structure worked.

• 100% equipment finance approved on a related-party transaction with cash-out for the engine rebuild.
• No upfront deposit meant Company B preserved their working capital. They acquired the truck from Company A, funded the rebuild and the asset went into service without delay.
• Company A completed its wind-down cleanly. Company B retained critical transport capacity without financial strain.
• Client retained a critical asset and continued operations seamlessly.

The Conclusion

We see this pattern often with transport and logistics operators: related-party deals, no property and a need for additional cash.

Most lenders see three problems. We saw one problem with three parts and once you solve the structure, the rest follows.

The real barrier isn’t approval. It’s presentation.

If you’re facing a similar situation whether it’s a related-party transaction, no security or funding beyond just the purchase price, let’s talk. We’ve built a playbook for deals that look impossible on the surface.

Contact Xpress Finance | Request A Consultation

FAQs

Q1. Can lenders finance related-party asset purchases?

Yes, but it requires careful structuring. Lenders need to see independent valuation, clear commercial terms and genuine security. The poor structure is the main barrier.

Q2. Why do most lenders decline related-party deals?

They worry about independent valuation and true commercial substance. By structuring correctly, you remove those concerns and open up options.

Q3. What if the related company is winding down? Does that matter for approval?

Not if you structure it correctly.

What lenders want is clarity, independent valuation and genuine commercial reasoning. A planned wind-down is legitimate.