<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/04/25/contingent-consideration-in-bridging-valuation-gaps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 15:05:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.10</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Contingent Consideration in Bridging Valuation Gaps</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/04/25/contingent-consideration-in-bridging-valuation-gaps/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=contingent-consideration-in-bridging-valuation-gaps</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/04/25/contingent-consideration-in-bridging-valuation-gaps/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:32:06 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Banking & Financial Institutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contingent value right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Firm valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restructurings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=27807?d=20150113145904EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recovering, but still uncertain, economy and real estate markets have led to diverging opinions and concerns over the future value of a target’s assets which might otherwise prevent agreement on transaction pricing. As discussed in prior memos, contingent consideration structures have for years been used to bridge differences between buyers and sellers in uncertain [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Edward D. Herlihy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.wlrk.com/EDHerlihy" target="_blank">Edward Herlihy</a> is a partner and co-chairman of the Executive Committee at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &amp; Katz. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton firm memorandum from Mr. Herlihy, <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/deshapiro" target="_blank">David E. Shapiro</a>, <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/mguest" target="_blank">Matthew M. Guest</a>, <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/dmadlerstein" target="_blank">David M. Adlerstein</a>, and <a href="http://www.wlrk.com/jelevine" target="_blank">Jenna E. Levine</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>The recovering, but still uncertain, economy and real estate markets have led to diverging opinions and concerns over the future value of a target’s assets which might otherwise prevent agreement on transaction pricing. As discussed in prior memos, contingent consideration structures have for years been used to bridge differences between buyers and sellers in uncertain times. With the burgeoning trend of increased M&amp;A activity involving smaller banks, it is important to remember that these structures, while requiring careful thought, can be useful in both small and large deals alike to creatively address pricing challenges.</p>
<p>Capital Bank Financial Corp.’s recently announced agreement to acquire Southern Community Financial Corporation is the third transaction in the last 18 months in which that acquiror has utilized a contingent value right, or CVR, as a portion of the consideration. The CVR provides the opportunity for additional value to Southern Community shareholders if the portfolio performance exceeds a designated benchmark, while allowing Capital Bank to limit its exposure if performance should deteriorate. It has a value determined by the performance of Southern Community’s legacy loan and foreclosed asset portfolio at the end of a five-year period. Payments under the CVR may range from zero to $1.30 per share in addition to the primary merger consideration of $2.875 per share. Any payments would only be made at the end of the five-year measurement period. The CVR was structured so as not to require registration with the SEC, avoiding not only the cost of registration but also the ongoing reporting requirements. Consequently, the CVR is not transferable, does not grant any voting or dividend rights, bears no stated rate of interest, and will not be certificated.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/04/25/contingent-consideration-in-bridging-valuation-gaps/#more-27807" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Contingent Consideration in Bridging Valuation Gaps">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/04/25/contingent-consideration-in-bridging-valuation-gaps/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
