Download - 2011 purchase agreement study
2011 PURCHASE AGREEMENT STUDY Houlihan Lokey's Mergers & Acquisitions Group
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 1 10/21/11 10:14 AM
The 2011 Purchase Agreement Study was prepared by Matt Spencer, Vice President (310.788.5366) and
Sanjuro Kietlinski, Associate (310.789-5745) of Houlihan Lokey’s Corporate Finance business.
If you have questions or comments, please contact them directly or a member of
Houlihan Lokey’s M&A Group at 310.553.8871.
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 2 10/21/11 10:14 AM
The 2011 Purchase Agreement Study (the Study) summarizes selected terms of middle-market change-of-control transactions
in which Houlihan Lokey served as the financial advisor to either the buyer or the seller.(1) The Study is based on both public
and private transactions that vary by industry and size. The Study analyzes the terms of the indemnification provisions with
respect to the representations (reps), warranties and covenants contained in their respective purchase agreements. These
terms are negotiated by attorneys and investment bankers. There is no consensus on what constitutes “fair and normal” or
“market,” as terms vary based on the specific facts and circumstances of a transaction. However, as illustrated by the data
in the Study, certain patterns emerge.
The Study also presents the mean, median, maximum and minimum values of the corresponding terms of each subject
transaction. The magnitude of the numerical values is measured as a percentage of purchase price. Although it is difficult
to capture all of the nuances of the broader market, the Study is intended to provide valuable benchmarks within the middle
market to buyers and sellers, and their shareholders, boards, management, attorneys and other advisors. Since the Study is
limited to middle-market transactions with purchase prices ranging from approximately $10 million to more than $1 billion,
the indemnification terms may exhibit greater variation than those of larger transactions.
Houlihan Lokey has prepared the Study on an annual basis since 2002. Consistent with previous years’ studies, the Study
illustrates data for 2010 relative to prior years.
(1) The Study includes transactions closed in 2002 – 2010; many of the transactions were private, so there is limited publicly disclosed information about them.
1
2011 PURCHASE AGREEMENT STUDY
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 3 10/21/11 10:14 AM
DEAL STATISTICS
• Houlihan Lokey has analyzed a large universe of transactions that closed between 2002 and 2010.
• The data on the following pages is presented on an annual basis to understand patterns that might exist over time. In certain cases the data is presented for all years in the aggregate.
• The subject transactions provide a mix of strategic and financial buyers, as well as a mix of stock and asset sales.
• In every year of the Study, the majority of the target companies have been sold to strategic buyers.
•Strategic buyers acquired 61% of the target companies in all of the subject transactions between 2002 and 2010, while financial buyers acquired 39%.
•Of the financial buyer transactions, a total of 87% were platform acquisitions and 13% were add-on acquisitions.
2
Year Strategic Financial Platform Add-On
2002 67% 33% 88% 13%
2003 68% 32% 63% 38%
2004 55% 45% 75% 25%
2005 61% 39% 100% 0%
2006 73% 27% 63% 38%
2007 57% 43% 86% 14%
2008 62% 38% 93% 7%
2009 67% 33% 100% 0% 2010 52% 48% 94% 6%
All Years 61% 39% 87% 13% 0.612529002 0.387470998 0.872340426 0.127659574
Buyer Mix Financial Buyer Mix (2)
B U YE R S T R U CT U R E
(2) Financial buyer percentages are based only on companies classified as either "platform" or "add-on" acquisitions and do not include companies that were classified as neither.
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 4 10/21/11 10:14 AM
• The vast majority of all of the subject transactions between 2002 and 2010 were structured as all-cash transactions and purchases of stock.
• Stock was purchased in 83% of the subject transactions.
• The buyer paid all cash in 90% of the subject transactisions.(3)
3
DEAL STATISTICS
Stock Cash & Stock (3)
Year For Stock For Assets Subtotal For Stock For Stock
2002 71% 17% 88% 4% 8%
2003 64% 24% 88% 4% 8%
2004 71% 24% 95% 3% 3%
2005 82% 16% 98% 0% 2%
2006 69% 18% 87% 2% 11%
2007 79% 17% 96% 1% 2%
2008 75% 18% 93% 0% 7%
2009 75% 13% 88% 0% 13%
2010 65% 7% 72% 2% 26%
All Years 74% 17% 90% 1% 8%0.612529002 0.387470998 0.872340426 0.127659574
T R A N S A CT IO N S T R U CT U R E
Cash (3)
(3) In 2010, Houlihan Lokey changed the way it accounted for earn-outs. Prior to 2010, an earn-out did not affect the transaction structure. In the 2010 figures, cash transactions that included an earn-out were classified as "hybrid" transactions.
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 5 10/21/11 10:14 AM
4
DEAL STATISTICS
Financial Buyer – Platform vs. Add-On (5)
B U YE R S T R U C T U R E (4)
Strategic vs. Financial
Cash vs. Stock and / or Cash
T R A N S A C T IO N S T R U C T U R E (4)
Stock vs. Assets
Strategic61%
Financial39%
(4) Data presented in this section includes all subject transactions that closed in 2002 – 2010.
Platform87%
Add-On13%
(5) Financial buyer percentages are based only on companies classified as either "platform" or "add-on" acquisitions and do not include companies that were classified as neither.
Stock83%
Assets17%
Cash90%
Stock10%
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 6 10/21/11 10:14 AM
CONTINGENT PAYMENT
• Of all subject transactions, 18% contained earn-outs.
• The percentage of transactions contained earn-outs remained at 21% from 2009 to 2010.
• The median earn-out as a percentage of purchase price was 9% in 2009 and 2010.
• Of all subject transactions, 20% had rollovers.
• The percentage of transactions with rollovers increased to 25% in 2010.
• The median rollover as a percentage of purchase price fell sharply from 15% in 2009 to 4% in 2010.
• Of all subject transactions, 5% had seller notes.
• The percentage of transactions that had seller notes decreased between 2009 and 2010.
• The median seller note, as a percentage of purchase price, decreased from 16% in 2009 to 9% in 2010.
5
OVERVIEW
E A R N -O U T S R O L L O VE R S S E L L E R N O T E SPercentage Included in Subject Transactions
2008 16% 18% 6%
2009 21% 18% 6%
2010 21% 25% 2%
All 18% 20% 5%
Median Percentage of Purchase Price
2008 11% 12% 12%
2009 9% 15% 16%
2010 9% 4% 9%
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 7 10/21/11 10:14 AM
6
CONTINGENT PAYMENT OVERVIEW
Rollovers
P E R C E N T A G E IN C L U D E D IN S U B J E C T T R A N S A C T IO N S
Earn-Outs Seller Notes
RolloversEarn-Outs
16%
21% 21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2008 2009 2010
11% 9% 9%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
2008 2009 2010
12%
15%
4% 0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
2008 2009 2010
18% 18%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2008 2009 2010
Seller Notes
6% 6%
2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
2008 2009 2010
M E D IA N P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
12%
16%
9%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
2008 2009 2010
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 8 10/21/11 10:14 AM
• Despite an uncertain economic environment, market multiples increased in 2010.
• Mean and median EBITDA multiples each increased in 2010, with mean EBITDA multiples returning to 2007 levels.
• The mean EBITDA multiple increased from 7.4x in 2009 to 8.7x in 2010.
• The median EBITDA multiple increased from 6.8x in 2009 to 7.4x in 2010.
• Overall, EBITDA multiples increased in 2010 after decreasing for the previous three years, with 2010 multiples returning to historical means and medians (relative to all subject transactions between 2002 and 2010).
7
VALUATIONS
Year Mean Median Mean Median2002 6.7x 6.8x 1.0x 0.8x2003 6.8x 6.8x 1.0x 0.8x2004 7.7x 7.2x 1.0x 1.1x2005 7.8x 7.7x 1.5x 1.0x2006 9.9x 9.8x 2.2x 1.6x2007 8.8x 8.9x 1.4x 1.1x2008 8.2x 7.2x 1.5x 1.2x2009 7.4x 6.8x 1.2x 1.1x2010 8.7x 7.4x 1.3x 1.0x
All Years 8.2x 7.6x 1.4x 1.2x
E N T E R PR IS E VA L U E / E B IT D A E N T E R PR IS E VA L U E / R E VE N U E
OVERVIEW
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 9 10/21/11 10:14 AM
8
• Historically, larger deals have traded at higher EV/EBITDA multiples than smaller deals. In all but two of the time periods shown below, deals greater than $100 million traded at higher multiples than those less than $100 million.
VALUATIONS
Year Mean Median Mean Median2002 6.7x 6.8x 7.0x 6.9x2003 6.9x 6.8x 6.3x 6.7x2004 7.4x 7.2x 8.6x 7.5x2005 7.3x 6.7x 8.8x 8.7x2006 9.3x 9.8x 10.6x 9.9x2007 8.6x 8.5x 9.1x 9.4x2008 7.8x 6.9x 9.1x 7.9x2009 7.8x 5.9x 6.8x 7.2x2010 6.7x 6.9x 12.1x 9.3x
All Years 7.7x 7.2x 9.3x 8.6x
Less than $100 M Greater than $100 ME N T E R PR IS E VA L U E / E B IT D A
Median = 7.2x Median = 8.6x
6.7x 6.9x 7.4x 7.3x
9.3x8.6x
7.8x 7.8x6.7x7.0x
6.3x
8.6x 8.8x
10.6x
9.1x 9.1x
6.8x
12.1x
0.0x
2.0x
4.0x
6.0x
8.0x
10.0x
12.0x
14.0x
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Less than $100 M Greater than $100 M
OVERVIEW
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 10 10/21/11 10:14 AM
9
• Historically, larger deals have traded at higher EV/Revenue multiples than smaller deals. In all but three of the time periods shown below, deals greater than $100 million traded at higher multiples than those less than $100 million.
VALUATIONS
Year Mean Median Mean Median2002 1.1x 0.9x 0.4x 0.5x2003 1.0x 0.8x 1.0x 0.8x2004 1.0x 1.1x 1.3x 1.3x2005 1.2x 0.9x 1.9x 1.2x2006 2.1x 1.5x 2.3x 1.7x2007 1.2x 1.0x 1.7x 1.4x2008 1.3x 1.1x 1.8x 1.5x2009 1.3x 1.1x 1.3x 1.5x2010 0.8x 0.7x 2.1x 2.0x
All Years 1.2x 1.1x 1.8x 1.4x
Less than $100 M Greater than $100 ME N T E R PR IS E VA L U E / R E VE N U E
Median = 1.4xMedian = 1.1x
1.1x1.0x 1.0x
1.2x
2.1x
1.2x1.3x 1.3x
0.8x
0.4x
1.0x1.3x
1.9x
2.3x
1.7x 1.8x
1.3x
2.1x
0.0x
0.5x
1.0x
1.5x
2.0x
2.5x
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Less than $100 M Greater than $100 M
OVERVIEW
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 11 10/21/11 10:14 AM
10
• Basket: Of the transactions in which the reps and warranties survived the closing, the vast majority had a basket. Deductible baskets accounted for 77% of the baskets and dollar-one baskets accounted for the other 23% of the baskets.
• Cap: Of the transactions in which the reps and warranties survived the closing, 74% had a cap.
• Escrow: Of the transactions in which the reps and warranties survived the closing, 66% had an escrow.
INDEMNIFICATION – ALL YEARS TRANSACTION TERMS
(6) Data presented in this section includes all subject transactions that closed in 2002 – 2010.
Percentage of Transactions with Caps
IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N S T R U C T U R E S
Percentage of Transactions with Baskets Percentage of Transactions with Escrows
With Basket74%
Without Basket26%
With Cap74%
Without Cap26%
With Escrow66%
Without Escrow34%
O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E (6)
Mean Median Max MinAll Baskets 0.8% 0.7% 8.2% 0.1% Deductible 0.8% 0.7% 8.2% 0.1% Dollar-One 0.7% 0.6% 2.3% 0.1% Cap 14.8% 10.0% 100.0% 0.5% Survival (months) 19 18 96 9 Escrow 8.0% 7.4% 34.2% 0.0% Escrow (months) 19 18 96 1
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 12 10/21/11 10:14 AM
11
INDEMNIFICATION – BASKET TRANSACTION TERMS
Deductible vs. Dollar One
B A S K E T D E VE L O P M E N T S
Baskets as a Percentage of Purchase Price
All Years
D IS T R IB U T IO N O F B A S K E T S
2010
Median = 0.75% Median = 0.67%
71% 70% 73% 75%
61%
80%86%
73%81%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Deductible Dollar One
Deductible81%
Dollar One19%
Deductible77%
Dollar One23%
0.7% 0.7%
0.8%
0.7%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8% 0.8% 0.8%0.7% 0.7%
0.8%0.8%
0.6%
0.7%
0.6%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mean Median
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 13 10/21/11 10:14 AM
12
INDEMNIFICATION – CAP TRANSACTION TERMS
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Caps as a % of Purchase Price
Mean 35.9% 19.1% 12.1% 9.7% 10.9% 16.9% 14.1% 9.9% 12.3%Median 22.7% 11.7% 10.0% 8.1% 9.8% 10.0% 10.0% 9.6% 9.6%
Survival Period (Months)Mean 21 21 22 17 20 18 20 19 17Median 18 18 18 15 16 18 18 18 18
CA P S T A T IS T ICS
Survival Period (Months)
C A P D E VE L O P M E N T S
Median = 12.3% Median = 10.0% Median = 20 Median = 18
Cap as a Percentage of Purchase Price
36%
19%
12%10% 11%
17%14%
10%12%
23%
12%10%
8% 10%10% 10%
10% 10%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mean Median
21 21 22
17
20 18
20 19
17 18 18 18
15 16
18 18 18 18
0
5
10
15
20
25
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mean Median
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 14 10/21/11 10:14 AM
13
INDEMNIFICATION – ESCROW TRANSACTION TERMS
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Escrow as a % of Purchase Price
Mean 10.6% 8.6% 6.9% 6.1% 7.8% 9.1% 8.5% 7.0% 7.5%Median 9.3% 7.6% 5.7% 5.5% 7.8% 8.4% 7.9% 7.1% 7.3%
Escrow Period (Months)Mean 23 20 18 16 20 17 18 19 20Median 24 18 18 15 18 18 18 18 18
E S CR O W S T A T IS T ICS
Escrow Period (Months)
E S C R O W D E VE L O P M E N T S
Median = 7.8% Median = 7.6% Median = 19 Median = 18
Escrow Value as a Percentage of Purchase Price
11%
9%
7%6%
8%9%
9%
7%7%
9%
8%
6% 5%
8%8% 8% 7% 7%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mean Median
23
20 18
16
20 17
18 19 20
24
18 18
15
18 18 18 18 18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mean Median
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 15 10/21/11 10:14 AM
14
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS
• Special indemnification provisions for environmental reps and warranties were present in 18% of the subject transactions. Examples of provisions include exclusion of environmental claims from the cap, increasing the cap for environmental claims, changing the basket size, and lengthening the survival period.
• Only 13% of the transactions had larger environmental caps than the general indemnification cap.
• Of the deals with special baskets for environmental indemnification, 62% were deductible baskets (vs. 77% of the general indemnification deductible baskets).
• The median environmental indemnification survival period was 36 months (vs. an 18-month median general indemnification survival period).
(7) Data presented in this section includes all subject transactions that closed in 2002-2010.
TRANSACTION TERMS
O VE R A L L E N VIR O N M E N T A L IN D E M N IFICA T IO N A S A PE R CE N T A G E O F PU R CH A S E PR ICE (7)
Mean Median Max Min
All Baskets 1.0% 0.6% 20.0% 0.0%
Cap 20.8% 11.7% 100.0% 0.1%
Survival (months) 43 36 102 6
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 16 10/21/11 10:14 AM
15
INDEMNIFICATION – BY YEARAPPENDIX
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.8% 0.6% 2.7% 0.3%
Deductible Baskets (81%) 0.8% 0.6% 2.7% 0.3%
Dollar-One Baskets (19%) 0.6% 0.6% 1.0% 0.3%
Cap 12.3% 9.6% 73.6% 2.7%
Survival Period (months) 17 18 25 12
Escrow 7.5% 7.3% 20.0% 0.0% Escrow Period (months) 20 18 36 12
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% 0.3%
Deductible Baskets (73%) 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 0.3%
Dollar-One Baskets (27%) 0.9% 0.9% 1.6% 0.4%
Cap 9.9% 9.6% 24.8% 3.0%
Survival Period (months) 19 18 60 11
Escrow 7.0% 7.1% 12.7% 2.0% Escrow Period (months) 19 18 60 1
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.8% 0.6% 8.2% 0.1%
Deductible Baskets (86%) 0.9% 0.6% 8.2% 0.1%
Dollar-One Baskets (14%) 0.8% 0.7% 2.3% 0.2%
Cap 14.1% 10.0% 100.0% 0.6%
Survival Period (months) 20 18 96 9
Escrow 8.5% 7.9% 26.7% 0.5% Escrow Period (months) 18 18 96 3
2 0 1 0 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
2 0 0 9 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
2 0 0 8 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 17 10/21/11 10:14 AM
16
INDEMNIFICATION – BY YEARAPPENDIX
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% 0.1%
Deductible Baskets (80%) 0.8% 0.8% 1.5% 0.1%
Dollar-One Baskets (20%) 0.6% 0.6% 1.3% 0.2%
Cap 16.9% 10.0% 100.0% 1.1%
Survival Period (months) 18 18 48 12
Escrow 9.1% 8.4% 26.2% 1.3% Escrow Period (months) 17 18 48 3
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.6% 0.6% 1.8% 0.1%
Deductible Baskets (61%) 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 0.1%
Dollar-One Baskets (39%) 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2%
Cap 10.9% 9.8% 26.1% 3.9%
Survival Period (months) 20 16 96 9
Escrow 7.8% 7.8% 15.6% 1.2% Escrow Period (months) 20 18 48 2
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.7% 0.8% 1.6% 0.1%
Deductible Baskets (75%) 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% 0.2%
Dollar-One Baskets (25%) 0.6% 0.5% 1.6% 0.1%
Cap 9.7% 8.1% 41.0% 0.5%
Survival Period (months) 17 15 36 9
Escrow 6.1% 5.5% 16.0% 1.3% Escrow Period (months) 16 15 24 1
2 0 0 5 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
2 0 0 7 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
2 0 0 6 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 18 10/21/11 10:14 AM
17
INDEMNIFICATION – BY YEARAPPENDIX
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% 0.2%
Deductible Baskets (73%) 0.8% 0.8% 1.6% 0.2%
Dollar-One Baskets (27%) 0.8% 0.9% 1.3% 0.3%
Cap 12.1% 10.0% 36.5% 0.5%
Survival Period (months) 22 18 84 12
Escrow 6.9% 5.7% 15.2% 2.3% Escrow Period (months) 18 18 48 6
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 0.2%
Deductible Baskets (70%) 0.7% 0.6% 1.4% 0.3%
Dollar-One Baskets (30%) 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 0.2%
Cap 19.1% 11.7% 100.0% 1.0%
Survival Period (months) 21 18 36 12
Escrow 8.6% 7.6% 25.0% 1.0% Escrow Period (months) 20 18 36 12
Mean Median Maximum Minimum
All Baskets 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% 0.1%
Deductible Baskets (71%) 0.8% 0.8% 1.4% 0.4%
Dollar-One Baskets (29%) 0.6% 0.6% 1.5% 0.1%
Cap 35.9% 22.7% 100.0% 4.2%
Survival Period (months) 21 18 36 12
Escrow 10.6% 9.3% 34.2% 2.1% Escrow Period (months) 23 24 48 12
2 0 0 4 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
2 0 0 3 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
2 0 0 2 O VE R A L L IN D E M N IFIC A T IO N A S A P E R C E N T A G E O F P U R C H A S E P R IC E
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 19 10/21/11 10:14 AM
18
TRANSACTION TERMS AND STRUCTURE
Purchase Price
The total consideration paid to the target company and/or its shareholders by the buyer upon consummation of the transaction. The purchase price amount
includes cash, debt assumed, seller notes and escrowed amounts, and excludes noncompete payments, earn-out payments, royalty payments, revenue
sharing payments and other specified adjustments.
Transaction Type
The method in which the target and the buyer exchange value. The target sells either assets or stock, and the buyer provides consideration primarily in the
form of either cash or stock.
Seller Note
Loan issued by the selling shareholder(s) to the buyer, to finance a portion of the purchase price.
Earn-Outs
Conditional supplementary payments incorporated in the purchase agreement. Because earn-out payments are contingent on the future performance of the
acquired company, they are not included in the purchase price.
Rollover
Indicates an amount of equity retained by the selling shareholder(s) and is measured as a percentage of total equity of the new company and the dollar
value of equity retained.
Financial Buyer
A buyer, such as a private equity firm, that is structured as an investment vehicle rather than a corporate entity.
Platform Acquisition: A financial buyer acquiring a company in a new line of business.
Add-On Acquisition: A financial buyer acquiring a company to merge with a company the buyer owns.
Strategic Buyer
A corporate entity that operates in the same or similar industry as the target company and generally expects to receive strategic benefits from the
acquisition, such as the realization of synergies or improvement in market position.
DEFINITIONS
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 20 10/21/11 10:14 AM
19
KEY INDEMNIFICATION TERMS
Basket
The dollar amount set forth as the minimum loss that must be suffered by the buyer before the buyer can recover damages under the indemnification provisions.
Deductible Basket: Seller is only responsible for damages exceeding the basket amount (e.g., under a deductible basket of $100, if a claim of $150 is
made then the seller must pay $50).
Dollar-One Basket: Seller is responsible for all damages once damages reach the threshold basket amount (e.g., under a dollar-one basket of $100,
if a claim of $150 is made then the seller must pay $150).
Cap
The maximum amount of damages the buyer can recover from the seller under the indemnification provisions.
Survival Period
The length of time (in months) after the closing date during which the representations and warranties must be true and the seller is responsible for indemnifying
the buyer (e.g., claims by the buyer must be made on or before that date).
Escrow
Purchase consideration consisting of money, securities, or other property or instruments withheld from the seller and deposited into an account at closing to
provide protection to the buyer for the future payment of indemnification claims.
Escrow Period
The length of time (in months) after the closing date that the escrow is held before being released to the seller.
DEFINITIONS
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 21 10/21/11 10:14 AM
2010 M&A Advisory Rankings 2010 Global Distressed Debt & Bankruptcy Restructuring RankingsU.S. Transactions Under $1 Billion
R ank A dvisor# o f
D ea ls
1 H ou lihan L okey 1 1 7
2 Goldman Sachs & Co. 99
3 Lazard 82
4 Bank of America Merrill Lynch 77
5 JP Morgan 73
Source: Thomson Reuters.
R ank A dvisor# o f
D ea ls
1 H ou lihan L okey 7 4
2 Lazard 58
3 Rothschild 50
4 Moelis & Co. 28
5 Blackstone Group LP 25
Source: Thomson Reuters, January 2011.
M ergers and A cquisi tions
C apita l M arkets
n Sellside & Buyside Transactionsn Leveraged Transactionsn Minority Equity Transactions
n Private Debt and Equity Placementsn PIPEs and Registered Directsn Liability Managementn Equity Capital Marketsn High-Yield Capital Markets
n Chapter 11 Planningn Restructuring Debt and Equityn Debtor-in-Possession (“DIP”) Financingn Exchange Offersn Plans of Reorganizationn Distressed Mergers and Acquisitions
Corporate Finance Financial Restructuring
M&A Fairness Advisory RankingsAnnounced or Completed Deals – 2001 to 2010
R ank A dvisor# o f
D ea ls
1 H ou lihan L okey 6 4 2
2 JP Morgan 516
3 Bank of America Merrill Lynch 368
4 Morgan Stanley 323
5 UBS 304
Source: Thomson Reuters.
n Fairness Opinionsn Solvency Opinionsn Valuation Opinionsn Transaction Advisory Servicesn Tax & Financial Reporting Valuationn Portfolio Valuation & Advisory Servicesn Derivatives Valuation & Advisory Servicesn Dispute Resolution & Financial Expert Opinions
Financial Advisory
Investment Banking Services
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 22 10/21/11 10:14 AM
Houl
ihan
Loke
y is a
trad
e nam
e for
Hou
lihan
Loke
y, In
c. an
d its
subs
idia
ries a
nd a
ffilia
tes w
hich
inclu
de: H
oulih
an Lo
key F
inan
cial A
dviso
rs, In
c., a
Cal
iforn
ia co
rpor
ation
, a re
gist
ered
inve
stm
ent a
dviso
r, whi
ch p
rovid
es in
vest
men
t adv
isory,
fairn
ess o
pini
on, s
olven
cy op
inion
, va
luat
ion op
inion
, res
truct
urin
g ad
visor
y and
por
tfolio
man
agem
ent s
ervic
es; H
oulih
an Lo
key C
apita
l, In
c., a
Cal
iforn
ia co
rpor
ation
, a re
gist
ered
bro
ker-d
ealer
and
SIP
C m
embe
r firm
, whi
ch p
rovid
es in
vest
men
t ban
king,
priv
ate p
lace
men
t, m
erge
r, ac
quisi
tion
and
dive
stitu
re
serv
ices;
and
Houl
ihan
Loke
y (Eu
rope
) Lim
ited,
a co
mpa
ny in
corp
orat
ed in
Eng
land
whi
ch is
aut
horiz
ed a
nd re
gula
ted
by th
e U.K
. Fin
ancia
l Ser
vices
Aut
horit
y and
Hou
lihan
Loke
y (Ch
ina)
Lim
ited,
a co
mpa
ny in
corp
orat
ed in
Hon
g Ko
ng S
AR w
hich
is li
cens
ed in
Hon
g Ko
ng b
y th
e Sec
uriti
es a
nd Fu
ture
s Com
miss
ion, w
hich
pro
vide i
nves
tmen
t ban
king,
rest
ruct
urin
g ad
visor
y, m
erge
r, ac
quisi
tion
and
dive
stitu
re se
rvice
s, va
luat
ion op
inion
and
priv
ate p
lace
men
t ser
vices
and
whi
ch m
ay d
irect
this
com
mun
icatio
n wi
thin
the E
urop
ean
Econ
omic
Area
an
d Ho
ng K
ong,
resp
ectiv
ely, t
o int
ende
d re
cipien
ts in
cludi
ng p
rofe
ssion
al in
vest
ors,
high
-net
-wor
th co
mpa
nies
or ot
her i
nstit
ution
al in
vest
ors.
0611
MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS
CAPITAL MARKETS
FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING
FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES
HL.com
Houlihan Lokey is an international investment bank with expertise in mergers and acquisitions, capital markets,
financial restructuring, and valuation. The firm is ranked globally as the No. 1 restructuring advisor, the No. 1
M&A fairness opinion advisor over the past 10 years, and the No. 1 M&A advisor for U.S. transactions under
$1 billion, according to Thomson Reuters. Houlihan Lokey has 14 offices and more than 800 employees in the United
States, Europe and Asia. The firm serves more than 1,000 clients each year, ranging from closely held companies to
Global 500 corporations. For more information, visit www.HL.com.
Purchase Agreement Study 2011_R1_JCedit2.indd 24 10/21/11 10:14 AM