Anyone think there's further downside? From the Washington Post: "The $8 billion buyout of audio-equipment maker Harman International Industries collapsed yesterday, the first major private-equity deal to unravel since the current credit turmoil began and a sobering sign for other big takeovers in the works. Harman, of the District, said its would-be buyers, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Goldman Sachs, accused it of breaching a clause in the contract, allowing them to walk away after paying a $225 million termination fee. **** Harman denied the accusation, but it did not describe the nature of the alleged breach.*****" (My favorite sentence) Very mysterious. Not only that, but I sincerely doubt that either GS or KKR would allege a MAC where there was none in an effort to get a better price. Any and all thoughts (well almost all) welcome. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR2007092102351.html?hpid=topnews
"Very mysterious. Not only that, but I sincerely doubt that either GS or KKR would allege a MAC where there was none in an effort to get a better price. " why not? because they dress in nice suits? or as lucky luciano the gangster said upon the visiting floor of the exchange:"i joined the wrong mob." it is all part of negotiation.
No, because it's a scumbag bush league maneuver to allege a MAC if there is none, and would result in a "material adverse change" not just to their reputations but also to their negotiating power in future dealings.
if anyone really believes that Goldman cancelled the deal because Harmos were'nt truthful or lived up to some sort of expectation as the article says,then i have a bridge to sell you. they were having a hard time with the financing. there will be more blow ups as well.
Does this morning's guidance clarify things for you in any way? Do you see a material adverse change or not?