|
|
|
|
|
by nearbuy
2430 days ago
|
|
In the example, the common shareholders didn't make a profit because the company didn't make a profit. Ignoring the bridge loan for a moment, after all their expenses, the company just managed to make back what was put in. The hypothetical bridge loan in this case did earn a profit, but it was a high risk loan. The company was going to be insolvent in 60 days and they hadn't yet found a buyer. The lenders got a multiplier because they risked losing their $10 million loan. This bridge loan certainly could have been unfair, depending on whether the riskiness was worth the multiplier (for instance, if the company took a loan with 100x multiplier, it would clearly be abusive). If that were the case, the minority shareholders could sue and would win. |
|