This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
To be explicitly clear, I am recommending the use of the following ranked capital sources when paying for an acquisition: cash (from the balance sheet), debt (at a reasonable level), and equity. Similarly, not all corporate debt instruments are created equal and each comes with pros and cons.
The growth of private credit can be traced back to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2009. In particular, new guidelines from the FDIC and Federal Reserve (among other governmental agencies) made it more difficult for banks to underwrite financings that resulted in debt-to-EBITDA ratios in excess of 6.0x.
The decisions from the court on those preliminary matters, as well as the arguments raised by legal counsel, offer some valuable lessons for sellers considering sale transactions that require debt financing, and may motivate sellers to re-evaluate certain provisions and remedies that have become customary in those transactions.
Interestingly, while M&A lawyers often get fairly animated in negotiating whether to include the word “prospects” in the MAE definition, they do not similarly struggle with inclusion of the “could reasonably be expected to have” language, which should be viewed by a court as having the same effect. 29 2008) , and.
How many of us know people who lost their homes in the 2008 mortgage crisis? We have spent the last few posts looking at debt and it can be useful to a corporate borrower; as well as negative impacts debt can pose to the capital structure. There are many different kinds of debt providers: banks, bondholders, hedge funds, etc.
We have seen this exclusion receive increased attention in ongoing negotiations, but expect it to become commonplace consistent with the prevailing theory underlying MAE definitions that exogenous factors generally should not count toward a material adverse effect (except to the extent they disproportionately affect the relevant company).
During the 2008 financial crisis, it was reported that the number of proxy fights increased by 14% year over year and the number of unfriendly transactions nearly doubled (unfriendly transactions representing 23% of public deals announced in 2008, as compared to 12.4% M&A Negotiations and Deal Terms. of deals in 2007).
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 38,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content