Anyone Else Miss the Incredible HAR Short?

[hbiawos]

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

 

[zdreg]

"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.

 

[hbiawos]

Quote from zdreg:

why not? because they dress in nice suits?

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.

 

[Warrior4g]

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.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from hbiawos:

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.

the courts will determine if a MAC occurred if that's what the parties want.

 

[hbiawos]

Quote from enforcer99:

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?