Halvard Precision: Dual-Class Control and a Debt-Funded Acquisition
Halvard Precision AB is a listed Swedish manufacturer with €1.1bn revenue. The founding family controls 34% of the equity but 58% of the votes through dual-class shares and has nominated five of nine directors. Management proposes acquiring a German competitor for €180m - 5.2x the target's €34.6m EBITDA - funded 75% with new debt plus €8m of fees. Halvard's existing net debt is €152m against €54.4m EBITDA (2.8x). Including €5m of expected dis-synergies, pro forma net debt would be €295m and EBITDA €84m, against a covenant ceiling of 3.75x. The family supports the deal. Three directors want a fairness opinion; an activist holding 9% demands a €60m buyback instead and has called for a shareholder vote. The chair wants the board to decide at its next meeting, six weeks before the EGM, and argues that a fairness opinion is unnecessary because the price was negotiated at arm's length.
1. What is the central governance problem here, and what process should the board follow before the EGM?
Read the worked answer
The central problem is a controlling-minority conflict, not the purchase price. The family can carry the vote with 58% of the votes while bearing only 34% of the economic cost, so shareholder approval is not a substitute for independent board judgement. The chair's "arm's length" argument is weak because management, appointed under family control, negotiated the price.
Process:
- Constitute an independent committee of the three non-family, non-executive directors, with its own advisers and authority to say no.
- Obtain a fairness opinion. The cost is small against €180m and the opinion is the board's main protection at the EGM.
- Disclose the family's pro forma voting and economic position, the €5m dis-synergy assumption, and a sensitivity table at 3.5x–4.0x leverage.
- Table the buyback alternative alongside the acquisition so the board compares uses of capital rather than treating the activist as a nuisance.
- Minuting dissent and the committee's reasoning matters if the deal is later challenged.
This is not necessarily a related-party transaction in law, but 9% plus proxy advisers can still make the EGM expensive. The independent committee should decide whether €180m earns more than the buyback at the current share price.
2. Assess the financing plan against the covenant and recommend conditions the board should impose.
Read the worked answer
Pro forma net debt of €295m against €84m EBITDA is 3.51x, against a 3.75x covenant. Headroom is only 0.24x, or about €20m of EBITDA - roughly a 7% miss breaches. The weakest input is the €5m dis-synergy estimate; every additional €1m of dis-synergy adds about 0.04x. A 10% fall in combined EBITDA takes leverage to 3.9x and puts the acquired and existing businesses in default together.
Conditions I would impose:
- Cut debt funding from 75% to 65% and fill the gap with equity or an asset sale, targeting pro forma leverage below 3.2x.
- Negotiate a four-quarter covenant holiday or an equity-cure right before signing, not after.
- Hold back €25m in escrow against retention of the top 20 customer accounts, since the dis-synergy risk sits there.
- Suspend dividends and buybacks until leverage falls below 3.0x.
- Require a monthly 13-week cash and covenant forecast during integration.
If the family will not accept lower leverage, the deal should not proceed in this form. The buyback alternative preserves balance-sheet capacity, which is itself a strategic asset at 3.5x.
3. How should the board treat the activist's €60m buyback proposal?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as a capital-allocation question. A €60m buyback funded with debt would add about 0.71x, taking pro forma leverage to roughly 4.2x - a clear breach. So the buyback is only feasible if the acquisition is abandoned or funded largely with equity; the two proposals cannot both proceed on the current balance sheet.
Compare returns. The acquisition is priced at 5.2x, an EBITDA yield of about 19% before dis-synergies and integration costs; after €5m of dis-synergies the yield on €180m falls to roughly 16%. A buyback's return depends on the share price and on whether the market is undervaluing Halvard, which the activist clearly believes. The board should ask management for both calculations on the same basis.
There is a governance wrinkle: because the family holds dual-class shares, a buyback at a depressed price would increase both their economic and voting stake. The independent committee should therefore consider an equal-access tender offer rather than an on-market buyback, and should disclose the family's participation. My recommendation: do not combine the two; if the acquisition proceeds, no buyback until leverage is below 3.0x, and ask for a three-year deleveraging plan to 2.5x.