Please enable JavaScript to view this website.

Private Equity Firms Accused of Misleading Buyer

Japanese beer and beverage maker Asahi Group has filed a lawsuit in Australia against two private equity firms who sold Asahi a liquor company for $1.3 billion USD. The suit claims that Australian-based Pacific Equity Partners and Hong Kong-based Unitas Capital—the previous owners of New Zealand’s Independent Liquor—presented inflated earnings figures during the sales process.[1] As a result of this “misleading and deceptive conduct,” Asahi feels that it grossly overpaid for the premixed cocktail distributor and that it deserves compensation.[2]

At the heart of Asahi’s complaint is the allegation that Independent Liquor’s earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) figures were embellished.[3] EBITDA is often used to value a company for purposes of buying it, and has been called the “single most important financial contributor to buyout performance.”[4] The complaint alleges that Independent used creative accounting techniques such as ‘channel stuffing’—“a practice where a supplier forward sells stock on extended terms to retailers in order to account for significant ‘one off’ sales in a particular period”—to wrongfully include income and exclude expenses.[5] Asahi claims that these practices inflated Independent’s EBITDA by $NZ42 million,[6] and made it appear as if Independent was growing at the time of the sale when normalized calculations show that it was actually declining.[7] These inconsistencies likely had a significant impact on the negotiated purchase price, as Asahi claims it “conducted due diligence thoroughly and in good faith and relied on [the EBITDA figures] provided.”[8]

Although this dispute will be resolved in an Australian court, it is factually similar to a case arising out of Delaware a few years ago. In ABRY Partners v. Providence Equity,[9] the buyer, ABRY Partners, accused the private equity seller, Providence Equity Partners, of knowingly presenting a portfolio company’s misstated financials in connection with a sale.[10] The purchase agreement contained provisions designed to insulate Providence from liability for representations made by its portfolio company.[11] Specifically, the warranty that ABRY claimed was breached was “by its plain terms . . . [a warranty] made only by the [ portfolio company ] and not by [Providence].”[12] The agreement also contained a $20 million indemnification cap.[13] The Delaware Court of Chancery ultimately found that the indemnification cap would be honored if Providence did not lie.[14] However, it found that ABRY could collect damages in excess of the cap if it could prove that Providence knew its portfolio company made false representations or if Providence itself made such representations.[15]

If the Australian court takes a similar approach, the purchase agreement will be crucial in determining the level of culpability Asahi must prove and the amount of damages that they can recover. ABRY suggests that a properly drafted agreement can insulate PE firms from fraud committed by their portfolio companies in connection with the sale as long as the firm was not aware of it. If such a term were contained in this agreement, it would force Asahi to prove that these companies knew Independent was manipulating the EBITDA figures. While this is a seemingly heavy burden, the Asahi complaint suggests that they would be able to prove knowledge through email correspondence they have obtained.

Regardless of the outcome, this case evidences the importance of (1) conducting thorough due diligence; (2) understanding ways in which EBITDA can be manipulated; and (3) thinking carefully about future liability when drafting purchase agreements.

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Neil Gough, Asahi Sues 2 Private Equity Firms Over $1.3 Billion Deal, N.Y. Times (Feb. 14, 2013, 5:13 AM), http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/asahi-sues-2-private-equity-firms-over-1-3-billion-deal/.

[2] Id.

[3] Asahi Alleges ‘Channel Stuffing’ At Beer Firm, The New Zealand Herald (Feb. 18, 2013, 11:45 AM), http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10866101.

[4] Nicolaus Loos, Value Creation in Leveraged Buyouts 229 (2006).

[5] Adele Ferguson, Japanese Brewer Up in Arms Over Purchase Price, Newcastle Herald (Feb. 26, 2013, 5:00 AM), http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1326151/japanese-brewer-up-in-arms-over-purchase-price/?cs=9.

[6] See id.

[7] Asahi Alleges ‘Channel Stuffing’ At Beer Firm, supra note 3.

[8] Gough, supra note 1.

[9] ABRY Partners V, L.P. v. F & W Acquisition LLC, 891 A.2d 1032 (Del. Ch. 2006).

[10] See Ruling in ABRY Partners v. Providence Equity Case Has Lessons for Buyers and Sellers, Goodwin Proctor LLP (Mar. 14, 2006), http://www.goodwinprocter.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Newsletters/Private%20Equity%20Update/2006/Ruling_in_ABRY_Partners_v_Providence_Equity_Case_Has_Lessons_for_Buyers_and_Sellers.pdf.

[11] See id.

[12] ABRY Partners, 891 A.2d at 1042.

[13] See Ruling in ABRY Partners v. Providence Equity Case Has Lessons for Buyers and Sellers, supra note 10.

[14] See id.

[15] See id.

The following two tabs change content below.