Troubled Company: H L H & Z

Let Knowledge and Experience Navigate
H O U L I H A N L O K E Y H O WA R D & Z U K I N
presents
B U Y I N G A N D S E L L I N G T H E
TROUBLED COMPANY
INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES
W W W. D I S T R E S S E D M A N D A . C O M
Dear Reader,
Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin is pleased to publish the Revised Second Edition of
Buying and Selling the Troubled Company. Since the initial publication of Buying and
Selling in 1995, the size, number and complexity of distressed company M&A
transactions have continued to grow at a rapid pace. Given the increased interest in
these transactions, we have prepared these materials to address questions that often arise
in a distressed company sale situation, including:
• When is the sale of a company an effective response to its financial distress?
• How does distressed company valuation differ from a similar process

for a healthy company?
• How is the distressed company sale process best implemented?
• What issues can arise in effectuating a distressed sale transaction?
• What are the goals of the distressed company and its board of directors, secured
and unsecured lenders, trade creditors, shareholders and prospective buyers?
• When is a bankruptcy filing properly employed to effectuate a distressed

company transaction?
• What strategies can the interested parties utilize to best achieve their
respective goals in a complex, time-sensitive situation?
These materials address the foregoing by observing the trials and tribulations
of "RuffCo," a fictional manufacturer of golf equipment.
Founded in 1978, RuffCo, Inc. (“RuffCo” or the “Company”) enjoyed consistent growth
and profitability by selling a well-designed and popular line of fairway woods. At the end
of 1995 (almost 20 years after it was founded), RuffCo acquired “Peter Putter” and,
encouraged by the stock market's excitement for golf club manufacturers and RuffCo's
consolidation strategy, the Company went public. Unfortunately, a series of mishaps —
including ill-timed product introductions, cost overruns and decreased demand —
caused a “spiral of distress” that eroded the Company's liquidity and its bank's
confidence in the Company.
i
Early in 1999, facing a significant over-advance on its revolving credit facility and
“unrealistic” management expectations, the bank called a pivotal meeting that causes
both the Company and the bank to explore their respective strategic options. The
decision process results in the divestiture of the Peter Putter subsidiary and, ultimately,
the sale of the remainder of the Company.
The materials have been structured to provide the reader with an overview of the
distressed company M&A process from start to finish. While much of the text is
devoted to illustrating the evolution of RuffCo’s fate, we have endeavored to craft
several substantive stand-alone sections that provide a quick reference resource for
shareholders, purchasers, management, lawyers, lenders and others who have neither
the time nor the inclination to review the entire case study. These general sections
include:
• Company’s Options and Strategy

• Bank’s Options and Strategy
• Retention of an Investment Banker
• Adjusting and Forecasting Financial Information
• Distressed Company Valuation
• The Troubled Company Sale Process and Strategies to Maximize Value
The hypothetical sales process outlined herein is not intended to represent the only
possible outcome for a company like RuffCo. As parties to distressed situations are
well aware, the personal incentives and personalities of the participants will often have
a substantial impact on a restructuring or sales process. A variety of other factors may
make the simplified, general guidance provided by this fictional situation wholly
inapplicable to a seemingly similar deal. The ideas and strategies discussed herein do
not represent the institutional views of Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin and, given the
difficult circumstances which may arise in distressed situations, may not be utilized for
any purpose in connection with any litigated matter. We hope you enjoy these
materials and the ideas expressed herein, and we welcome your questions, comments
and perspectives.
While we believe that the materials present detailed, easy-to-understand explanations

and illustrations, the materials assume a basic knowledge of bankruptcy, finance and
M&A transactions. The original case study was created and written by Andrew Miller,
P. Eric Siegert and Jeffrey Werbalowsky. This second edition was revised and rewritten
ii
by Andrew Miller, with the assistance of Scott Kolbrenner and Eric Winthrop. The
authors would like to thank Alan Fragen for his valuable contribution in creating the
story line and financial models and Milos Brajovic for his co-authorship of the
valuation section.
We also appreciate the valuable artistic and design assistance of Liz Oakes, who
helped make our vision a reality. Should you have any questions regarding this
presentation or if you would like to explore specific issues related to distressed M&A,
or financial restructuring in general, please contact the authors or call one of our
offices listed below.
Sincerely,
Andrew B. Miller
National Director
Distressed Company M&A
LOS ANGELES
310.553.8871
Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin
NEW YORK
Los Angeles, California 212.497.4100
CHICAGO
312.456.4700
SAN FRANCISCO
415.974.5888
MINNEAPOLIS
612.338.2910
WASHINGTON, D.C.
703.847.5225
DALLAS
214.220.8470
ATLANTA
404.495.7000
LONDON
44.020.7839.3355
© 1995, 1999, 2001, 2002 by Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, Inc. All rights reserved.
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter to the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
The Spiral of Distress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
The Bank Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Company’s Options and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Bank’s Options and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
The Negotiated Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Sale of the Company — Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Distressed Company Valuation and Application to RuffCo Golf . . . .25
The Troubled Company Sale Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Sale of RuffCo Golf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
v
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
Overview
RuffCo, Inc. (“RuffCo” or the “Company”), a Delaware corporation based in Los Angeles, Calif.,
designs, manufactures and sells golf clubs. RuffCo was founded in 1978 by Charles Ruff, a local
golf professional and renowned trick-shot artist with two children, Charles Junior (known simply
as “Son”) and Daughter. Charles Senior (“Father”), who claims an 8 handicap, is now 62 years
old and oversees nearly all aspects of daily operations. Son, a recent business school graduate with
a 2 handicap, heads the Company’s sales and marketing function. The corporation is family-
owned: 75% by Father and 12.5% each by Son and Daughter (who, preferring tennis to golf, plays
no active management role in the Company). An old family friend, Frank Numbers, is the
Company’s CFO and Controller, but owns no equity in RuffCo. The Board consists of Father
(Chairman), Son, Daughter, Numbers and one outside director, John Moneybags. Moneybags,
who sports a 7 handicap, is a former senior official at the bank where RuffCo has its asset-based
debt facilities (the “Bank”).
RuffCo distributes its products, principally fairway woods, through a network of more than 25
distributors across the U.S. and Japan. RuffCo buys raw materials (e.g., titanium and other
metals) and component parts (e.g., shafts and grips) from select high-quality vendors. The
Company’s distributors sell RuffCo’s products to both on- and off-course golf shops and select
sporting goods retailers.
Business Description and Historical Results

RuffCo prides itself on its bootstrap beginnings: Father was teaching golf at a local public course
and spent his free hours designing a clubhead with a shallower, harder face and lower center of
gravity. This combination produced a fairway wood that allowed the weekend golfer to hit longer,
more consistent shots out of the rough. The design also produced higher, straighter shots from
the fairway. After conferring with local engineers and patenting the essential design aspects,
Father made several dozen test samples of his new club, called the “Ruffhouser,” and started
selling the clubs door-to-door at local golf clubs out of the trunk of his car. From these
beginnings, the Company’s reputation and sales grew, not from heavy advertising or professional
sponsorship, but by word-of-mouth among professionals and players at the local clubs Father had
visited and revisited many times.
Despite its $200-plus price tag, the Ruffhouser line of fairway woods was well-positioned by the
Company and its advertisers as “the working man’s clubs for the guy in the rough.” The line enjoyed
huge popularity at public courses, pro shops and regional specialty stores. Ruffhouser, however, faced
problems in larger retail golf outlets because the stores were reluctant to give the relative niche
product (fairway woods) much shelf space in favor of companies that provided full sets of clubs.
BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 1

Then in the early 1990s the
RUFFCO HISTORICAL FINANCIAL RESULTS
popularity of golf surged, ($ in Millions)
and Father sought to
1993A 1994A 1995E
capitalize on the trend.
Revenue $74.3 $104.0 $130.0
Father expanded his scope Growth 50.0% 40.0% 25.0%
from Southern California Cost of goods sold 43.3 61.0 77.0
across the country by Gross profit 31.0 43.0 53.0
Gross Margin 41.7% 41.3% 40.8%
entering into exclusive
distributorship agreements SG&A 22.6 31.0 39.2
EBIT 8.4 12.0 13.8
with golf club distributors Interest expense 1.0 3.8 5.0
that sold clubs to on- and Pretax income 7.4 8.2 8.8
off-course pro shops. Like Taxes 40% 3.0 3.2 3.6
Net income $4.4 $5.0 $5.2
many other club manu-
EBIT $8.4 $12.0 $13.8
facturers, the Company Manufacturing depreciation 2.8 4.4 6.2
experienced strong annual EBITDA $11.2 $16.4 $20.0
% Margin 15.1% 15.8% 15.4%
growth in sales and
profitability. By 1995, the
Company had grown from
its humble beginnings to an expected $130 million in annual sales.
Manufacturing RuffCo Summary Historical Balance Sheet

Prior to 1993, the Company ($ in Millions)
engaged in limited manu-
1993 A 1994 A 1995 E
facturing, relying heavily on Assets:
contract manufacturers. In Accounts receivable $6.2 $10.0 $14.2
1993, however, Father Inventory 6.6 11.2 16.4
Total net fixed assets 21.2 48.8 49.2
decided to bring all Total assets $34.0 $70.0 $79.8
manufacturing in-house
and planned to move to a Liabilities:
Total current liabilities 4.2 6.4 9.0
new, custom-designed Bank debt
headquarters/manufact- Revolver 2.8 9.8 19.2
uring facility that was Term - 10.0 8.8
Equipment 1 19.2 16.4 13.8
completed at year-end. Equipment 2 - 16.0 13.8
Father owns the land and Total bank debt 22.0 52.2 55.6
building and leases it to Total liabilities 26.2 58.6 64.6
Shareholders equity 7.8 11.4 15.2
RuffCo, which owns Total liabilities and
all the manufacturing s/holders equity $34.0 $70.0 $79.8
equipment, financed by an
equipment loan from its traditional asset-based lender, the Bank. In 1994, RuffCo purchased the
lot adjacent to Father’s and constructed a state-of-the-art packing and distribution warehouse that
was integrated with the manufacturing operation. Such expenditures were financed with
additional loans provided by the Bank. The Company’s balance sheet, reflecting its new debt
facilities, is illustrated above.
2 H O U L I H A N L O K E Y H O WA R D & Z U K I N
THE DINNER
In the summer of 1995, Thomas Slick III, an investment banker, took Son out for drinks and a steak
dinner to pitch him the idea of an “important transaction” for RuffCo. Slick refused to divulge the
specifics of his plan until he met with Father, but outlined for Son the financial ramifications of his
proposal.
Slick began by providing a back-of-the-envelope valuation of RuffCo and of Son’s stake in the
Company. Assuming RuffCo would meet its budget of $20 million of earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) for the full year of 1995, Slick applied a comparable
company-based multiple of 7.0 times (approximately 80% of the median of the comparable public
company multiples), arriving at an Enterprise Value of $140 million (the market multiples valuation
technique is described in more detail later). Slick subtracted the Company’s expected year-end
interest-bearing debt of $55.6 million to arrive at an equity valuation of $84.4 million. As the owner
of 12.5% of RuffCo, Son’s share of the Company in 1995 was worth approximately $10.6 million.
Assuming a 15% annual EBITDA growth rate, Slick suggested that in two years Son’s stake could be
expected to grow to almost $14 million. “Not bad,” said Son.
“Not bad at all,” replied Slick. However, he reminded Son that his minority stake in the privately held
company was extremely illiquid. Slick explained that the best way to achieve liquidity was to establish
a public market for the shares of the Company through an initial public offering (“IPO”) of RuffCo
shares. In order to maximize the value that investors place on an IPO, Slick counseled, RuffCo would
need a plan to show both immediate and long-term growth possibilities. Since Son admitted that
RuffCo’s internal growth was waning, Slick suggested that the Company use the proceeds of an IPO
to grow through acquisition.
At this point, Slick told Son that he could present RuffCo with an opportunity to purchase a
compatible golf club manufacturer that, combined with RuffCo, would produce pro forma 1995 sales
of $166 million and EBITDA of $27.2 million. Although Slick assured Son that the target company
had a new product that would enable its operating cash flow (EBITDA) to grow more than 25%
annually over the next few years, Slick said that even if (as a conservative estimate) the combined
Company’s EBITDA grew at RuffCo’s projected 15% per year over the next two years, it would produce
EBITDA of $36 million in 1997. (Slick focused on 1997 because in 1996 the target’s significant
marketing costs associated with its new product would depress the target company’s true profitability.)
Given its greater size and liquid publicly traded shares, Slick explained that the combined company
could fetch a multiple of approximately 8.0 times its EBITDA for an Enterprise Value of “at least” $288
million in 1997, a mere two years away. Then, Slick subtracted interest-bearing debt of $88.6 million
(which he assumed to remain constant with the combined Company’s post-combination and post-
IPO debt level) from the Enterprise Value to arrive at a 1997 equity value of $199.4 million. Although
an IPO offering 30% of the Company to the public would decrease Son’s stake to 8.75% of the
Company, Son’s now-liquid share of the Company at the end of 1997 would be worth over $17.4
million, which represents a 26% improvement over the RuffCo stand-alone scenario. “Now that’s a
good deal,” said Slick.

“And that’s not all,” Slick continued. Taking the Company’s combined 1995 pro forma numbers
rather than projections for 1997, Slick estimated that he could take the Company public in a matter
of months at an 8.0 times EBITDA multiple for a pre-IPO Enterprise Value of $217.6 million.
Subtracting the pre-IPO, post-acquisition debt of $125.4 million estimated after obtaining bridge
financing to acquire the target, the Company would have equity value of $92.2 million and a post-
IPO equity value of $131.7 million, assuming a sale of 30% of the equity. If Father sold
approximately 10% of the Company in a secondary offering, he could gross (pretax) about $13.2
million and retire. “That,” whispered Slick, “would leave you to run the Company.” Son excused
himself from the table. When he returned, he told Slick that Father would host Slick at his office
at 10:00 a.m. the next morning.
THE INVESTMENT BANKER PRESENTATION

At Father’s office the next day, Slick outlined his vision to Father and provided the Ruffs with the
name of the company he advised RuffCo to purchase: Peter Putter, Inc. Its sole product, the Peter
Putter, a high-end putter with a milled face, attracted a loyal following of golfers willing to spend
the money necessary for a high-quality putter. In addition, Peter Putter’s East Coast presence and
distributor network would complement RuffCo’s West Coast dominance. Peter Putter also was
making inroads into many of the “big box” retail stores. A combination would open that
important sales outlet to RuffCo’s products. Additionally, Slick was confident that the two
companies would have significant synergies and cost savings on the order of $2 million each year.
Best of all, RuffCo would be buying the company just before the money really started to roll in; the
company was conducting final R&D on its latest-model putter, the Peter Putter II, which would be
ready for market in early 1997. (This effort would require $12 million to fund additional
marketing and product
development expenses.) Peter RUFFCO GOLF PRO FORMA P&L CALCULATION
($ in Millions)
II, as the new putter was called,
RUFFCO PETER PRO FORMA
featured a hard insert that PUTTER 1995
would produce crisper rolls on Revenue $130.0 $36.0 $166.0
the greens and, Slick explained, Cost of goods sold 77.0 20.0 97.0
was expected to be a blockbuster Gross profit 53.0 16.0 69.0
of “Bertha-esque” proportions. Gross Margin 40.8% 44.4% 41.6%
SG&A 39.2 10.8 50.0

Slick took the liberty of EBIT 13.8 5.2 19.0
Interest expense 5.0 2.0 7.0
presenting the pro forma Pretax income 8.8 3.2 12.0
1995 profit and loss Taxes 3.6 1.3 4.9
statement for the combined Net income $5.2 $1.9 $7.1
entity. (See chart, right.) EBIT $13.8 $5.2 $19.0
The Ruffs were intrigued Manufacturing depreciation 6.2 2.0 8.2
and hired Slick to get the EBITDA $20.0 $ 7.2 $27.2
deal done. % Margin 15.4% 20.0% 16.4%
ACQUISITION, IPO AND REFINANCING
Impressed by the profit-making possibilities for the Peter II and hopeful that the distribution
synergies would benefit RuffCo’s existing product, RuffCo purchased Peter Putter at a multiple of
approximately 9.0 times its 1995 EBITDA of $7.2 million. The Ruffs accomplished the purchase
by obtaining “bridge” financing from the Bank, which was to be immediately repaid from equity
raised in an IPO. To clarify to the market its broader focus and new product line, the Company
would change its name to “RuffCo Golf.”
Acquisition
The Company acquired the equity of Peter
PURCHASE PRICE OF PETER PUTTER
Putter for $40.4 million plus $5 million of ($ in Millions)
fees and expenses by borrowing $45.4 LTM EBITDA $7.2
million from the Bank. At the time of the Acquisition Multiple 9.0 x
acquisition, Peter Putter had $24.4 million Purchase Price 64.8
of debt, which included (i) a revolver with a Debt Assumed 24.4
Equity Purchase Price 40.4
balance of $11.6 million (overdrawn, with Fees and Expenses 5.0
the Bank’s permission to fund Peter Putter Total Uses of Funds $45.4
R&D) and (ii) $12.8 million of term and
equipment debt.
IPO
At the time of the IPO, the “pre-money” Enterprise IPO PROCEEDS
Value of the combined Company was $217.6 ($ in Millions)
million, a multiple of 8.0 times its pro forma 1995 Pro Forma EBITDA $27.2
EBITDA of $27.2 million. The Company then sold Capitalization Multiple 8.0x
30% of its fully diluted shares to the public (OTC: Pre-Money Enterprise Value $217.6
Existing Post-Acquisition Debt 125.4
RUFF) in an IPO for a total of $39.5 million, Pre-Money Equity Value $92.2
resulting in a “post-money” equity value of % of primary shares sold 30%
$131.7 million. In addition to paying professional Post-Money Equity Value $131.7
fees and expenses, the Company used the proceeds IPO Proceeds $39.5(1)
of the IPO to pay down $14.4 million of its revolver (1)
Before fees and expenses
and $22.4 million of its term debt, leaving the
Company with bank debt of $88.6 million at the close of the transactions.

The following sets forth RuffCo Golf’s pro forma Balance Sheet for the acquisition of Peter
Putter and the IPO.
RUFFCO GOLF PRO FORMA 1995 BALANCE SHEET

(With Acquisition and IPO Adjustments)
($ in Millions)
RUFFCO P.PUTTER PURCHASE ADJUST. IPO ADJUST. PRO FORMA

12/31/1995 12/31/1995 DEBIT CREDIT DEBIT CREDIT 12/31/1995
Assets:
Accounts Receivable $14.2 $4.0 $18.2
Inventory 16.4 4.8 21.2
Net fixed assets 49.2 15.2 64.4
Intangible assets - 10.0 37.6 2.7 50.3
Total assets $79.8 $34.0 $154.1
Liabilities:
Total current liabilities 9.0 1.8 $10.8
Bank debt
Revolver 19.2 11.6 14.4 16.4
Term 8.8 4.6 45.4 22.4 36.4
Equipment Loans 27.6 8.2 35.8
Total bank debt 55.6 24.4 88.6
Total liabilities 64.6 26.2 99.4
Shareholders equity 15.2 7.8 7.8 39.5 54.7
Total liabilities &
s/holders equity $79.8 $34.0 $154.1
In conjunction with the IPO, Father sold secondary shares representing 10% of the pro forma equity
of the Company and kept the proceeds. The chart below illustrates RuffCo Golf’s ownership pre-
and post-IPO (including Father’s secondary sale of stock).
RUFFCO GOLF OWNERSHIP As it agreed at the time of the Peter Putter

acquisition, RuffCo Golf used a portion of the IPO
Pre-IPO Post-IPO
Father 75.00% 42.50% proceeds to pay down its revolver. After the
Son 12.50% 8.75% acquisition and the IPO, RuffCo Golf had a total of
Daughter 12.50% 8.75% $10 million of availability.
Public 0.00% 40.00%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
THE SPIRAL OF DISTRESS
Shortly after the IPO, RuffCo Golf’s fortunes, along with those of much of the golf industry, began
to slide. The series of missteps and misfortunes that befell RuffCo Golf are summarized below.
In January 1996, RuffCo Golf completed its acquisition and IPO. Largely because of the stress of
the acquisition and the IPO roadshow process, Father quietly announced his intention to relinquish
daily operating responsibility and serve only as chairman. (True to Slick’s prediction, the $13.2
million in pretax proceeds from his secondary offering eased Father’s decision.) Son, now five years
out of business school and executive vice president of sales and marketing, was given the title of
president and chief executive officer. The Company began the search for a new head of sales and
marketing.
The imminent innovations to the Peter Putter line represented an important part of the rationale
for paying a relatively high multiple for the acquisition of Peter Putter (9.0x EBITDA). Peter Putter
had designed and tested the ceramic insert for its new line of putters, the Peter II, at its test greens
in Sarasota, Fla. The super-hard insert was reported to produce a crisp roll that improved players’
putting on average greens. (The Company was also experimenting with both (i) a super-soft line
of putters, the SofPut, to be released within a year of the Peter II, and (ii) RuffCo Golf’s first swing
at the lucrative driver market, with its driver, the “House.”)
Excited over the product and seeking to prove his mettle to analysts and competitors as the new
CEO, Son (without the input of the R&D scientists working on the line) started leaking news of the
Peter II, which would still not be ready for the market for another six months. Unfortunately, Son’s
actions (i) caused the Company’s head scientist working on the Peter II to “stress out” and
passionately reiterate his inability to commit to Son’s timeframe, (ii) alerted the Company’s
competitors to the new product, enabling them to downplay the Company’s advances while coming
up with their own plans for competitive putters, and (iii) cannibalized the Company’s original
Peter Putter, as customers decided to wait for the innovation rather than spend money on the old
line.
After incurring additional R&D expenditures (diverting precious funds from the development of the
House and the SofPut), the Peter II was completed. Ruffco Golf formally announced the
breakthrough at an event during the U.S. Open in Minneapolis, which was experiencing some
unseasonably cold weather. It was at this unveiling that Son decided to take a few putts to
demonstrate the Peter II’s handling. Then catastrophe struck: With the first bold stroke, the putter’s
face splintered, exposing the inner core. While the tests had gone well enough down in Florida, the
scientists, rushing to complete their work, never completed any tests in temperatures colder than 55
degrees. Later tests showed that temperatures below 45 degrees shrank the super-hard insert,
leaving the putter vulnerable to splintering on impact.

Although the Company fixed the problem that caused the splintering, the line (known in some
circles as the “Edsel” of putters) never completely recovered from the public relations gaffe.
Image was not the only problem. Peter Putter’s primary customer, high-end golfers, complained
about the new putter’s lack of feel (“like putting with a sledgehammer”). In the face of lackluster
sales, Son overcompensated by increasing the advertising budget. The Company’s inventory swelled
with unsold and returned Peter IIs. Despite an attempt to stimulate demand by lowering prices, the
Peter II generated very modest sales for the Company.
Industry-wide difficulties compounded the Company’s problems. Despite the promise of the golf
business stemming from Tiger Woods’ decision to turn professional and his early success
culminating in his Masters win in 1997, his emergence failed to ignite the golf industry
in the way many had predicted.
The Company’s problems with the Peter II reverberated throughout RuffCo Golf. Senior
management was distracted by its almost exclusive focus on the Peter II. By fixing the Peter II and
then trying to advertise its way out of its difficulties with the putter, the Company diverted money
and attention away from its core Ruffhouser fairway woods business as well as the development of
its new House drivers and the SofPut. At the end of 1997, the Company finally discontinued the Peter
II and wrote off $12 million for the research and development attributable to the Peter II.
RuffCo Golf’s deterio- RUFFCO GOLF HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT

rating financial results for ($ in Millions)
1996 through 1998 are
summarized on the right. 1996 1997 1998
Revenue $182.2 $179.1 $164.4
Growth 9.8% -1.7% -8.2%
From 1996 through 1998,
the Company was forced Cost of Goods Sold 109.0 112.8 107.8
to take several ex- Gross profit 73.2 66.3 56.6
traordinary write-downs. SG&A 63.0 68.6 62.4
EBIT 10.2 (2.3) (5.8)
Throughout this period, a Interest expense 8.2 8.6 8.0
general slowdown in the Write-downs 2.0 15.0 2.0
golf industry caused many Taxes 1.0 (9.4) (5.4)
of the Company’s Net income $(1.0) $(16.5) $(10.4)
customers (retail chains EBITDA $22.8 $10.9 $7.6
and distributors) to % Margin 12.5% 6.1% 4.6%
encounter difficulties Debt service (includes interest and principal) $20.2 $20.6 $19.8
paying the Company on Capital expenditures $5.6 $3.6 $4.6
time. The Company’s
EBITDA/Debt service 1.13 0.53 0.38
receivables collection (EBITDA-Capital expenditures)/Interest 2.10 0.85 0.38
difficulties with customers
(including one of RuffCo Golf’s largest distributors that declared Chapter 11 in 1997 and many of
its Japanese distributors who were suffering through the Asian financial crisis) caused the Company
to write off $2 million in accounts receivable in 1996, $1 million in 1997 and $2 million in 1998.
In addition, as a result of the returns of Peter II, the Company wrote off $2 million in finished goods
inventory in 1997.
GOLF INDUSTRY
COMP STOCK PRICE PERFORMANCE
During this timeframe, the golf GOLF INDUSTRY VS. S&P 500
industry in general experienced TWO-YEAR WEEKLY PERFORMANCE
significant problems as Lynx, 200
Snake Eyes and Nevada Bob’s
each entered bankruptcy. The 150
graph to the right illustrates the
stock market performance of 100
various golf equipment
50
manufacturers (Adams, Aldila,
Callaway, Coastcast and S2 Golf) 0
= S & P 500 = Golf Industry
for the two-year period ending
Golf Industry composite is composed of ELY, ADGO, PAR, ALDA & GOLF. ADGO included since
December 31, 1998. public offering on 7/10/1998.
OPERATING AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES

Dropping from its high of approximately $20 per share to about $0.375 at the end of 1998, the
Company’s stock price closely
RUFFCO GOLF, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
reflected the troubles facing THREE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
RuffCo Golf. The Company’s ($ in Millions)
write-downs and deteriorating 1996 1997 1998
financial performance, due to the Assets:
cost overruns and low demand Accounts Receivable $24.8 $27.0 $16.4
for the Peter II, and the expenses Inventory 28.6 32.2 25.6
involved in redesigning and Total current assets 53.4 59.2 42.0
marketing the clubs and general Net fixed assets 61.0 55.2 49.8
management distraction eroded Intangible assets 49.0 33.2 29.4
the Company’s liquidity, and by Total assets $163.4 $147.6 $121.2
the end of 1998, caused the
Company to become over- Liabilities:
Total current liabilities 16.8 24.8 29.4
advanced on its Bank revolver. Bank debt
Faced with such news and an Revolver 32.2 36.8 28.2
impending “going concern” Term 31.2 26.0 20.8
opinion from the Company’s Equipment Loans 29.2 22.6 15.8
auditors, Moneybags resigned Total bank debt 92.6 85.4 64.8
Total liabilities 109.4 110.2 94.2
from his position on the Board. Shareholders equity 54.0 37.4 27.0
Total liabilities and
By December 31, 1998, while the s/holders equity $163.4 $147.6 $121.2
Bank had been paid down to

$64.8 million, the Company’s shareholders equity account had been eroded to $27 million, as
illustrated in the Consolidated Balance Sheet on the previous page.
All the Company’s business constituencies now were very concerned. Vendors had bent over
backward to be supportive, and Accounts Payable had been stretched to the breaking point. By the
end of 1998, payments on Accounts Payable averaged approximately 125 days! At this point, the
vendors, well aware of the Company’s operating and financial problems, refused to extend RuffCo
Golf further credit, sending product only on a COD or CIA basis. Customers, such as retailers and
golf shops, became concerned and requested that RuffCo Golf confirm that it would be in a position
to honor its warranty commitments and ship product on a timely basis going forward. The
competition seized on RuffCo Golf’s weak position, offering RuffCo Golf’s best retailers great deals
in order to win their business. Moreover, RuffCo Golf’s outside counsel had contacted the Company
to alert it to the fact that a local law firm specializing in shareholder class-action suits called him
following a Forbes article, “RuffCo Golf Stock ‘Out of Bounds’ for Frustrated Shareholders.”
In early 1999, Son, like many entrepreneurs, continued to remain firm in his belief that RuffCo
Golf’s future was bright and that with additional money to finish the designs, the launch of the
House and SofPut lines would catapult the Company back to success. Thus, he was eager to meet
with the Bank to discuss his request for additional financing. It just so happened, the Bank was
eager to meet with Son as well to discuss the over-advance on RuffCo Golf’s revolving credit facility.
The Bank stated that, effective immediately, a

new team (the “Workout Group”) would be REVOLVER AVAILABILITY
handling the RuffCo Golf credit. The Bank ($ in Millions)
called a meeting with Father and Son to (i) FYE 1998
discuss the over-advance, (ii) obtain a current Accounts Receivable 16.4
net worth statement from Father, who had % Ineligible 5.0%
Advance rate 85.0%
personally guaranteed the bank debt (a Net availability $13.2
holdover from the Company’s days as a Raw materials 5.6
private company) and (iii) demand that the % Ineligible 0.0%
Company refinance its debt immediately. The Advance rate 70.0%
Net availability $3.9
Company had always enjoyed an excellent
Finished goods 17.0
working relationship with the Bank, which % Ineligible 5.0%
had an account manager who was an avid Advance rate 60.0%
golfer, and was surprised by the tough tone of Net availability $9.7
the new team of non-golfers. Inventory - Net availability $13.6
Sublimit 20.0
Inventory availability 13.6
At the suggestion of its general counsel,
RuffCo Golf retained outside counsel Total borrowing base 26.8
Indicated Revolver Balance 28.2
experienced in “situations of distress” to
advise it in connection with reviewing its Indicated Availability $(1.4)
strategic alternatives.
THE BANK MEETING
At the meeting, the Ruffs met members of the Bank’s Workout Group for the first time. Son made a
presentation to the Bank, showing near-term cash shortfalls in the millions before the Company’s
House and SofPut lines were introduced in approximately six months. Thereafter his projections
illustrated the Company would immediately generate positive cash flow in a “Hockey Stick”
fashion.
The Bank listened to Son’s presentation and questioned many of his underlying assumptions.
While the meeting was cordial, it was clear that the Bank was “concerned” about the credit and
“skeptical” that the Company could effectuate a dramatic “turnaround” in a relatively short period
of time.
Then, Son also mentioned (almost off-handedly) that, as a result of continued club returns and
excess unsold inventory, the Company would be forced to take additional write-offs.
The Bank immediately explored the inventory write-off issue and, together with the Company,
calculated that the Company was now $3.0 million over-advanced on its revolving credit facility (as
compared to the $1.4 million over-advance before the write-offs). To make matters worse, near-
term cash shortages were expected to occur due to inventory returns, and marketing and legal
expenses, items that would not create current assets to improve the Company’s revolver availability,
further exacerbating the over-advanced position, resulting in an even bigger over-advance. The
Bank also focused on Father’s financial position, which indicated a $19.8 million net worth.
Questioned by the Bank about the value of the Company’s assets and business, the Company
disclosed that a foreign company had recently offered to purchase certain assets of the cash-
bleeding Peter Putter business for $4.0 million in cash, plus assumption of the equipment loans
($3.6 million) and certain accounts payable and accrued expenses (collectively, $5.2 million).
Although on a stand-alone basis Peter Putter had deficit cash flow in 1997 and looked like it might
break even in 1998, Son, recalling the $64.8 million price tag RuffCo paid at the end of 1995, as
well as the millions in R&D expenditures since then, summarily rebuffed the offer as “grossly
inadequate.”
After further discussion, the Company and the Bank agreed to adjourn to decide upon their
respective strategies.

COMPANY’S OPTIONS AND STRATEGY
The Company meets with its new bankruptcy counsel who explains that, given its current
circumstances, the Company has four options.
REFINANCING
The Company can attempt to refinance. Indeed, over the years, RuffCo Golf received calls
from several asset-based lenders and recently considered the feasibility of obtaining fresh senior
secured capital to pay off the Bank, which has become increasingly inflexible and uncooperative.
Counsel also advises Father that any additional equity investment from him would substantially
ease the Company’s burden.
Advantage: Refinancing — especially with a major equity commitment from an outside

investor or Father — would help promote economic stability and could help revive the
confidence of the customers and vendors. The Company would enjoy a fresh start with a new
lender.
Discussion: Unfortunately, in a turnaround situation of this magnitude, it is difficult to

develop a coherent business strategy sufficient to attract new investors, who usually see more
risks than upside, especially with the specter of shareholder litigation looming. Without any
prior history with the Company, new lenders are unlikely to have a substantially different
perspective on the financial viability of the Company than existing lenders. Moreover, because
of the liquidity constraints of the Company, any new equity or debt financing would have to
be raised quickly.
SELL THE COMPANY

The Company can pursue an immediate sale, which would “stop the bleeding” by minimizing the
risk of continued value erosion or a “free fall” into bankruptcy proceedings.
Advantage: An immediate sale could provide existing shareholders the best opportunity to
realize the value, if any, remaining in the Company. Moreover, a sale could ease tensions with
both secured (Bank) and unsecured (trade vendors, landlords) creditors, who will gain
confidence that a resolution is forthcoming and that the going concern will be preserved.
Discussion: At this point, the Company may only be able to command a bargain price
because of the difficulty of convincing buyers of the turnaround potential of a troubled
company. Moreover, competitors may become aware of, and attempt to exploit, a sale process
for their own ends (talking to creditors, advertising to customers, etc.). Finally, for the Ruffs,
after paying off the creditors, a sale would likely eliminate any remaining option value inherent
in an equity investment. Thus, the Ruffs would forfeit the potential for a blockbuster
performance from the House or the SofPut, and could also be left with little to show for their
years of work at the Company.
CONSENSUAL FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING
In lieu of either a refinancing or a sale, the Company can attempt to restructure its financial
obligations. The restructuring would have to provide additional working capital to the Company
(through an equity infusion, a reduction of senior debt and/or a significant reduction in near-term
debt service) and would have to fairly allocate the risks and benefits of the restructuring strategy.
Advantage: If there is a high degree of trust among the constituencies and basic agreement
on the turnaround plan, quickly resolving the Company’s financial difficulties without
relying on third parties can be the best alternative. If handled properly, this approach can
minimize the amount of time that the Company operates under financial duress.
Discussion: A successful financial restructuring requires the active cooperation of a number

of constituencies, each acting in its own best interest, but each understanding that it benefits
by reasonably accommodating others. Most often, senior secured lenders are reluctant to
increase their exposure by financing a restructuring, especially when
an immediate sale or refinancing may provide a quick exit from the credit. For their part,
owners of businesses are unrealistic as to what is achievable in these circumstances. Such
owners often entertain the unreasonable expectation that senior secured lenders will take
“equity” risk for a “debt” return just so the owners can preserve their interests. Discussions
often break down at the first step as there is no agreement as to the risks and benefits of a
turnaround plan.
From the Company’s perspective, the Bank is becoming hostile and its trade creditors
unsupportive. In these circumstances, it is common to evaluate consensual restructuring
alternatives by comparing them to what would or could occur on a non-consensual basis
within a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. (This is known as negotiating in the “shadow”
of the Bankruptcy Code.) To prompt greater cooperation from the Bank, the Company is
likely to “explore” (in reality, threaten the Bank with) one or more of the following actions:
Priming Lien: The Company can threaten to raise new money senior to the Bank. Under
Section 364(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, if the Debtor can prove that it is unable to
otherwise obtain credit and that there is “adequate protection” of the claim of the current
lienholder, the Court can approve the granting of a senior or equal lien (a “priming lien”)on
property subject to a lien. “Adequate protection” is a concept addressed in Section 361 of the
Bankruptcy Code. While Section 361 does not define adequate protection, it specifies three
non-exclusive methods of providing adequate protection: (i) periodic cash payments, (ii) an
additional lien on property and (iii) other relief which results in the secured party’s realizing
the “indubitable equivalent” of the value of its interest in the collateral.
Use of Cash Collateral: A similar strategy involves the use of cash collateral whereby a Court,
sometimes over the objections of the secured creditor, authorizes the Debtor to use the
proceeds arising from the sale of its pre-petition inventory, collection of accounts receivable

or other working capital in the ordinary course of business. Cash collateral (defined in
Section 363(a)) must be collateral (such as cash, securities or other cash equivalents) in
which the estate and an entity other than the estate has an interest and includes the proceeds,
rents or profits of such property. As discussed above, the Court must determine that the secured
creditor is “adequately protected.”
Cram-Down: The Company can threaten to confirm a plan of reorganization over the
objection of the Bank. Under Section 1129(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, a Court will confirm
a plan of reorganization notwithstanding the fact that a class of claims or interests (e.g., the
Bank) has not approved the plan if such a plan is “fair and equitable,” a determination
explicitly set forth in Section 1129(b)(2). Specifically, 1129(b)(2)(A) provides that a plan can
be fair and equitable with respect to secured claims if the plan provides (i) that the secured
creditor retain its liens and receives deferred cash payments totaling at least the allowed
amount of its claim, (ii) that the secured creditor’s liens attach to the proceeds of any out-of-
the-ordinary course sale of its collateral or (iii) the realization by such creditors of an amount
equal to the indubitable equivalent of such claims. A risk to the Bank is that a Court would
approve a payment plan the Bank believes would defer its cash payments over an unreasonably
lengthy timeframe and at an insufficient rate of interest.
Lender Liability and Equitable Subordination: The Company can threaten the Bank with
litigation that might result in liability or lower priority. Under a lender liability claim, the
Debtor could assert that the Bank, as lender, acted in bad faith and was responsible for the
Debtor’s problems. Under an equitable subordination strategy, the Debtor (or perhaps the
unsecured creditors) would attempt to convince the Court that, perhaps because of the Bank’s
actions, its loans should be subordinated to other debt of the Company.
Under-Collateralization: The Company can assert that the Bank is undersecured and should be
treated, at least in part, as a mere unsecured creditor. The Bankruptcy Code provides that if the
assets securing the debt of a creditor’s secured claim are insufficient to cover such claim, the
claim may be bifurcated into secured and unsecured tranches, thereby lowering a portion of
such creditor’s priority. Moreover, only a fully secured creditor, not an undersecured creditor
(even by a dollar), is entitled to post-petition interest, which is a material issue in a lengthy
bankruptcy. In the case of RuffCo Golf, the Bank may be subject to this attack because (i) the
Company may properly assert that the realizable value of the Bank’s collateral (principally the
working capital and manufacturing assets) is less than the outstanding Bank debt and (ii) the
Bank does not have a lien on certain intangibles.
Business/Collateral Deterioration: Under Chapter 11, the Company could use the automatic
stay to simply continue its business, using the Bank’s collateral (i.e., inventory and accounts
receivable). If the Company does not raise the capital it needs to re-energize the business,
the value of both the business and the collateral securing the Bank’s claim may diminish
with time.
However, bankruptcy creates time delays and high administrative costs for the Debtor. In the
RuffCo Golf situation, the above threats are a substantial stretch on these facts and may
prompt a hostile response from the Bank and other creditors. Moreover, such tactics could
scare off other potential sources of capital who witness RuffCo Golf’s hardline approach.
FILE CHAPTER 11
The Company can file for Chapter 11.
Advantage: A carefully planned Chapter 11 filing can be a superior means of preserving value
by providing the Company with an opportunity to restructure all its obligations
and pursue its turnaround with protection from creditors. A Chapter 11 filing would likely
force concessions from both secured and unsecured creditors through various bankruptcy
techniques, such as those outlined above. Moreover, a financially distressed and illiquid
company may find that its best source of additional financing (i.e., debtor-in-possession
financing) can only be obtained in Chapter 11.
Discussion: A bankruptcy filing may cause significant business disruptions with customers,
employees and vendors, and will also result in high administrative costs and professional fees.
Most important, because of the doctrine of absolute priority in the Bankruptcy Code, whereby
creditors must be paid prior to other interest-holders, bankruptcy filings result, more often
than not, in equity holders being essentially wiped out.
FIDUCIARY DUTIES
In a Chapter 11, the Ruffs likely will receive very little or nothing on account of their shareholdings.
As majority equity holders, the Ruffs effectively hold a call option tied to the Company’s
performance because their downside is limited (ignoring, for purposes of this discussion, Father’s
guarantee), and they enjoy the upside should the Company succeed. This call option creates a
conflict between the shareholder/management incentive to “shoot for the pin” and the potentially
more economically appropriate goal of “playing to the middle of the green,” minimizing business
volatility, stabilizing the Company and preserving the most value by “laying up.”
To deal with this inherent conflict, case law has generally established that if a company is in the
“zone of insolvency,” the Board’s duty to enhance shareholder value migrates to a general
obligation to maximize value for all interest-holders; for clearly insolvent companies, however,
fiduciary duty is owed to the creditors.
COMPANY NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

After being lectured on their fiduciary duties and weighing the opinions outlined by their counsel, Father
and Son decide to explore their refinancing options and request the Bank to continue financing in the
interim. During the refinancing process, Father will evaluate his personal situation and determine whether
to invest additional capital in the Company. Such a strategy could be riskier for the Company itself as it
continues to deteriorate while the Ruffs look for additional capital to maintain their option value.

BANK’S OPTIONS AND STRATEGY
The Bank explores four options in seeking to protect its principal and interest.
FINANCE TURNAROUND
In consideration of an equity infusion and/or a grant of additional security interests in Father’s non-
RuffCo Golf assets, the Bank could extend new credit to the Company to finance a turnaround.
Advantage: In either event, such investment would enable the parties to avoid (at least
temporarily) the costs and risks associated with a Chapter 11 filing. Moreover, an equity infusion
would provide a cushion of capital subordinate to the Bank’s interest and would provide the
Company with the working capital it requires to prove the viability of the Company on a long-term
basis, and may allow the Bank to exit its investment in RuffCo Golf if it so desires.
Discussion: Such additional capital, however, could be too-little-too-late, as it could be

consumed by near-term cash-flow deficits, rather than addressing long-term solutions.
Therefore, this “solution” could instead result in a worse outcome for the Bank and interest-
holders than if the Company were sold prior to spending more money.
Note on public companies: For a public company, new equity financing would likely require
a fairness opinion, particularly if the new investment came from an insider. A fairness opinion
is a statement provided by an independent financial advisor that the proposed consideration in
a merger, acquisition, divestiture, securities issuance or other transaction is fair, from a
financial point of view, to a company and its shareholders.
To minimize fairness issues, a company could pursue a rights offering, which permits all
shareholders to participate pro rata in an equity investment. Unfortunately, a rights offering
can be time-consuming and expensive, and the results are uncertain. Thus, in order to
guarantee that the required capital will be raised, a company could enter into an agreement
with a party (often a well-capitalized insider such as Father) to “backstop” or underwrite the
offering. A backstopped rights offering maintains fairness and assures the needed capital is
raised, but, in turn, requires extra consideration for the “backstop” investor.
CONDITIONAL FINANCING
Recognizing that a “turnaround,” while possible, is unlikely in light of the serious operational
challenges, the Bank could take a much more active approach to managing its investment in the
Company. While still pushing for new equity and/or additional collateral, the Bank could agree to
provide some additional financing so long as RuffCo Golf agrees to (i) take steps to stop the deficit
cash flow, (ii) monetize certain of the Bank’s collateral (i.e., sell Peter Putter and/or other assets)
and (iii) seek alternative financing.
Advantage: This strategy could provide a consensual basis for the Company to pursue its core
business plan (on a limited basis) while allowing the Bank to keep a tight leash around the
costs and expenses incurred by the Company. This arrangement also could create cash for a
prompt principal pay-down for the Bank.
Discussion: This course of action, although ostensibly more conservative, could simply tie the
hands of management and actually be counterproductive by limiting its ability to make a
comeback. In other words, even this more conservative strategy on the Bank’s part could result
in a reduction in value that more drastic measures might otherwise preserve.
DEMAND IMMEDIATE SALE

In exchange for advancing the minimal amount of funds necessary to cover critical expenses, the
Bank could require the Company to hire an investment banker to begin a full-scale sales effort.
Advantage: This could be the most time-efficient strategy for the Bank as it would provide
a fast payout (sales of this nature can proceed to consummation in as little as 90 days), thereby
avoiding a long, contentious Chapter 11. This strategy would also allow the Bank to monetize
its collateral before the value erodes further.
Discussion: Unfortunately for the Bank, the Company will argue that a sale at this low point
— before the House and/or the SofPut products enable the Company to come back — is the
worst possible strategy and one the Board cannot support. Moreover, such a proposal from the
Bank again highlights the conflicting economic agendas of the creditors (both secured and
unsecured) and the equity holders. While the creditors would be happy with a sales price at or
above their exposure, shareholders would want to retain their stakes to maintain the economic
value of their “call option.”
FORECLOSURE
Foreclosing on the collateral securing its loans to the Company would eliminate the Bank’s risk of
throwing good money after bad. Of course, if it believed that the Company was acting in bad faith,
this move would enable the Bank to strike quickly. Any attempted foreclosure, however, would
inevitably provoke a Chapter 11 filing by the Company.
Advantage: Chapter 11 will have several benefits for the Bank, including a heightened ability
to monitor RuffCo Golf’s (i) operations, (ii) out-of-the-ordinary transactions, (iii) insider
transactions and (iv) strategic decisions. Depending on the circumstances, a Court could rule
for the Bank on such issues as limitation/prohibition of the use of cash collateral, relief from
automatic stay, termination of exclusivity for proposing a plan of reorganization or, very
unlikely under these facts, the appointment of a trustee. Moreover, under any scenario after a
foreclosure proceeding is threatened or actually begun, the Bank has significant negotiating
leverage because of Father’s personal guarantee of the Company’s debts (action on which
generally would not be “stayed” by the Company’s Chapter 11 case).

Discussion: In addition to closing off a number of potentially more profitable scenarios (i.e.,
sale or refinancing), a move to foreclose on its collateral could subject the Bank to the risks
listed in the “Company’s Options and Strategy” section above, including priming risks, cram-
down risks, use of cash collateral, business/collateral deterioration, risk of being under-secured,
and administrative costs and delays.
BANK NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

After careful consideration, the Bank decides to advance new funds to the Company on a limited
basis in order to finance operations. This action will be predicated upon (i) a Bank-approved
budget for the Company, (ii) the maximum additional collateral or infusion that can be coaxed
from Father and (iii) the Company’s agreement to pursue a prompt sale or refinancing. The
Bank’s ultimate objective is to encourage a sale process, thereby minimizing the Bank’s additional
exposure in the long run to the greatest extent possible.
THE NEGOTIATED ACTION PLAN
The Bank and the Company negotiate professionally, but assertively, and ultimately agree to the
following plan.
Additional Funding: Funding to a tighter budget than Son’s original “Hockey Stick” forecast, the
Bank will make additional funds available to the Company, up to a maximum of $2 million, using
a lockbox arrangement whereby all receipts are controlled by the Bank.
Sale of Subsidiary: Although Father supports Son’s assessments regarding the inadequacy of the sale
price, the Bank insists that the Ruffs sell the Peter Putter business. While the Ruffs continue to
believe in the SofPut, they have more confidence and pride in their original company, and they
agree to sell Peter Putter. If the Company is able to close the offer for the Peter Putter business, the
parties agree that the Company will use the cash to pay down its revolver, and that the Bank will
agree to the buyer’s assumption of certain equipment debt.
Crisis Management Team: Although Son resists, the Ruffs agree that if the situation worsens (i.e.,
the Company fails to meet the budget) they will hire a crisis manager (several of whom are
recommended by the Bank) to assist the management team during its turnaround, and they agree
to begin interviewing immediately. Crisis managers can provide financial and operating expertise
in managing distressed company situations and maximizing cash flow.
Alternative Financing/Potential Sale: During the negotiations, Father has decided that he will not
invest any more capital. The Ruffs agree that they will seek to arrange sufficient new financing to
repay the Bank within 45 days, and that if they are unable to do so, RuffCo Golf will pursue a sale
transaction but only, according to Father, “if the shareholders can retain some value.”
SALE OF SUBSIDIARY
The Bank and the Company hold several more discussions regarding the sale of Peter Putter.
Initially, such discussions center on whether or not to hire an investment banker to conduct the sale
of Peter Putter in order to negotiate optimal terms. While the Ruffs continue to maintain that a
higher price could be found, they are reminded that Peter Putter has bled substantial cash since
1996 and that the Company’s prospects are badly damaged. They agree with the Bank that speed and
the risk of losing the buyer outweigh the desire to pursue alternative buyers through a more
inclusive process. Without consulting an investment banker, the Company sells Peter Putter
through a straightforward asset purchase format.
As promised, the Company uses the proceeds to pay down debt owed to the Bank and certain trade
creditors. The sale of Peter Putter necessitates certain adjustments to the Company’s balance sheet.
Along with the write-offs discussed earlier, the balance sheet on the following page illustrates the
Company’s financial position after the sale of Peter Putter.

Even after the sale of
RUFFCO GOLF BALANCE SHEET AFTER PETER PUTTER SALE,
Peter Putter, it remains ADJUSTMENTS & WRITE-OFFS
clear that without an ($ in Millions)
influx of fresh capital, Pro
Sale Adjustments Forma
the Company still suffers 12/31/98 Debit Credit 12/31/98
from substantial liq- Assets:
Total assets $115.2(1) $52.5 $62.7
uidity problems, and the
Bank, although it has Liabilities:
offered to provide Debtor- Total current liabilities 29.4 5.2 24.2
In-Possession Financing Bank Debt
(“DIP Financing”), is Revolver 25.8 4.0 21.8
still unwilling to finance Term 20.8 20.8
the Company’s turn- Equipment Loans 15.8 3.6 12.2
Total Bank debt 62.4 54.8
around. Thus, as agreed,
Total liabilities 91.8 79.0
the Company seeks a new
Shareholders equity 23.4 (39.7) (16.3)
lender to take out the Total liabilities and s/holders equity $115.2 $62.7
Bank. (1)
Post write-offs
REFINANCING EFFORTS
The Company contacts 10 asset-based lenders. Such lenders, many of whom had previously called
the CFO repeatedly expressing their strong interest in financing the Company, now decline to make
proposals in light of the Company’s continued difficulties. Of the 10 lenders, eight decline interest
and the other two offer DIP Financing proposals for a Chapter 11 in lieu of refinancing proposals.
The Company’s counsel explains to the Ruffs that DIP Financing involves borrowing money
(generally on a senior secured basis) in Chapter 11 with Court approval. DIP loans are considered
to be relatively safe by such lenders. As the Company still hopes to find a non-Chapter 11 solution,
it decides at this point to pursue other means of refinancing.
The Company speaks informally with an investment banker regarding RuffCo Golf’s ability to
access either mezzanine or high-yield subordinated debt or equity capital to finance its turnaround.
The investment banker informs the Company that, while companies with weaker credit ratings
often issue high-yield debt, such debt is generally unavailable to smaller companies like RuffCo
Golf or to finance turnarounds of RuffCo Golf’s magnitude and relatively small size.
After testing the waters with several prominent mezzanine investors, the investment banker advises
the Company that the mezzanine market also is unreceptive to RuffCo Golf’s current level of
distress and attendant bankruptcy risk. Although they may believe in the House, these investors are
unwilling to take on the risk without a proven turnaround strategy.
The investment banker also revisits the potential for raising new equity. However, a quick back-of-
the-envelope valuation of the firm reveals that an equity infusion of adequate size would require
ownership of substantially all the Company’s equity, constituting in effect a sale of the Company.
The investment banker indicates that a rights offering could provide the necessary capital, but only
if Father would backstop the offering. Unfortunately for the Company, Father has already indicated
that he is unwilling to do so.
In light of such factors, the investment banker instead advises the Company to pursue an
immediate sale transaction, which he believes will preserve the greater potential value (if any)
for existing equity as it would save both time and money. Reluctantly, but with the hope that some
existing equity value remains, the Company agrees to begin the sale process.

SALE OF THE COMPANY-GETTING STARTED
RETENTION OF INVESTMENT BANKER

Although it had been informally advised, the Company has yet to hire an investment banking firm.
The Company’s bankruptcy counsel suggests that the sooner an investment banker is retained, the
better. Indeed, once the decision to sell a distressed company is made, an expedited sale process
minimizes the risks of an operational meltdown (leading to liquidation) or a reduced sale price due
to continued value erosion. Moreover, the investment banker will need to quickly assess the operations
of the business and work with the Company to develop a detailed presentation of non-public financial
information for distribution to potential investors. Where appropriate, the presentation may include
(i) pro forma restatements of historical earnings and cash flow (to reflect, for example, the sale of
Peter Putter and other write-offs and adjustments) and (ii) viable financial projections reflecting a
credible turnaround or value realization “story.” Key factors in evaluating an investment banker to
broker a distressed company include:
Expertise in understanding distressed company situations, evidenced by an

understanding of the financial, operational and legal issues involved in articulating
distressed company value and effectuating transactions, both in- and out-of-court.
Long-standing relationships with potential strategic and/or financial buyers, crisis managers,
law firms and others integral to a successful resolution of a distressed
company sale transaction.
Senior-level bankers committed to a deal with proven execution capabilities and with whom
management feels comfortable and confident.
The Company must consider the investment banker’s fees in terms of magnitude and incentive
structure. Fee structures vary widely, but generally provide for both non-refundable retainers (and/or
monthly fees) and a success fee based upon a percentage of the total selling price, often subject to a
stated minimum and increased percentages, based on increased value. The smaller, more difficult
transactions generate a higher transaction fee percentage.
Bankruptcy counsel advises the Company that, when hiring an investment banker in these
circumstances, the Engagement Letter will likely provide for (i) the possibility of a bankruptcy filing
and the procedures to be taken by the Company with respect to the investment banker’s employment
in such event, and (ii) some mechanism to assure payment of the investment banker’s fee in the event
that creditors are not paid in full.
In the RuffCo Golf situation, the Company naturally decides to hire Houlihan Lokey Howard &
Zukin (“Houlihan Lokey”) (it is, after all, our case study), an investment banking firm with
unsurpassed financial restructuring and distressed company M&A expertise.
ADJUSTING AND PROJECTING FINANCIAL INFORMATION
For RuffCo Golf, Houlihan Lokey’s first job is to work closely with management to understand the
Company’s past performance and future prospects as well as to develop appropriate financial
information for the sale process. Often, a company’s historic financial statements fail to portray
the true cash-flow generating capabilities of the enterprise. In such cases, an investment banker
will generally look for opportunities to “recast” or “normalize” financial statements in order to
paint a more “accurate” portrait of the company’s profitability. This is particularly true in private
companies, where the line between business and personal expenses is often blurred.
Recast Financials
Typical adjustments used to recast an Income Statement include:
Cost of Goods Sold Adjustment: When a company encounters financial difficulties, its Cost of
Goods Sold may increase for several reasons, including (i) lack of discounts from vendors
because volume purchasing has decreased and credit risk has increased, (ii) higher costs
associated with rushed projects because of poor planning or liquidity problems and (iii) increased
reliance on local, over more cost-efficient international, vendors that recognize lines of credit.
Nonrecurring Professional Fees: In a turnaround scenario, a company hires financial

advisors, lawyers, turnaround managers and other advisors. These expenses should be
subtracted from a company’s financial statement to reflect a lower cost of doing business
during normal times. Moreover, a company may have nonrecurring lawsuits unrelated to the
restructuring process, for which it has incurred substantial professional fees.
Nonrecurring Costs: A company may have incurred nonrecurring costs, which should
be added back to the income statement to obtain a more realistic indication of earnings.
RuffCo Golf, for example, incurred substantial marketing costs because the Peter II’s failures
spread across the entire Company’s product lines. Houlihan Lokey has added these
extraordinary costs back to RuffCo Golf’s income statement.
Adjustment for Above-Market Lease Expense: A company burdened by an above-market lease

may have the opportunity to renegotiate onerous terms in the distressed sale context.
In such cases, the income statement may be recast to illustrate the impact of such lease costs.
Conversely, one may wish to add marginal cost to reflect any soon-to-expire below-market
leases to reflect the true costs of doing business in that area.
Excess Salaries Over Market: In order to avoid double taxation and pull money out of the
business, owners of a privately held company may pay high salaries to family members. When
preparing normalized financial statements, one might adjust these salaries down to market
levels indicative of the actual costs of management going forward.

Note: In the sale of a public company, the financial statements will often have to be de-consolidated
to provide insightful information on individual businesses (often divisions or subsidiaries)
and product lines. On the other hand, being subject to public scrutiny and
owing a fiduciary duty to public shareholders, publicly traded companies may not require some of the
adjustments common in private companies (e.g., excess salaries, “non-business” expenses, etc.).
Based on the input of RECAST HISTORICAL INCOME STATEMENT PRO FORMA

Houlihan Lokey and in order FOR PETER PUTTER SALES AND ADJUSTMENTS
to illustrate more ($ in Millions)
normalized performance, 1995 1996 1997 1998
Revenue $130.0 $139.8 $144.0 $136.8
RuffCo Golf adjusts EBIT 13.8 10.2 5.2 (1.2)
certain extraordinary or EBITDA $19.8 $17.0 $12.4 $6.2
nonrecurring costs that have % Margin 15.2% 12.2% 8.6% 4.5%
depressed earnings for the Adjustments
past few years and recasts Cost of Goods Sold 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
RuffCo Golf’s income Nonrecurring Professional Fees 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
Extraordinary Marketing/PR Costs 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
statement, pro forma for the Lease cost adjustments (1) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Peter Putter sale (see table, Excess Salaries (1) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
right). Adjusted EBIT 15.8 13.2 12.2 6.8
Adjusted EBITDA 21.8 20.0 19.4 14.2
Projections % Margin 16.8% 14.3% 13.5% 10.4%
(1)
Houlihan Lokey also The high lease cost charged by Father and the high salaries paid to Father, Son
and Daughter are holdovers from the Company’s days as a privately held entity.
facilitates the development
of the Company’s business plan, persuading management to tone down the excessive
“Hockey Stick” nature of Son’s business plan, illustrating a more plausible turnaround
story; less of a revolution and more of an evolution. The table below illustrates the
Company’s projected income statement for the next three years.
As indicated, the Company PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT

($ in Millions)
expects to turn around its
1998A 1999E 2000E 2001E
fortunes over the next several Revenue $136.8 $150.5 $158.0 $162.7
years. In particular, the Growth -5.0% 10.0% 5.0% 3.0%
Company’s business plan
Cost of Goods Sold 88.9 96.3 99.5 100.0
depends on stabilizing and
increasing revenue while Gross profit 47.9 54.2 58.5 62.7
containing its costs and Gross Margin 35.0% 36.0% 37.0% 38.5%
expenses. The Company SG&A 49.1 46.4 46.8 48.2
believes that the costs
involved with the failed Peter EBIT (1.2) 7.8 11.7 14.5
Manufacturing depreciation 7.4 7.8 8.3 7.3
Putter lines are behind it and EBITDA(1) $6.2 $15.6 $20.0 $21.8
that the future looks bright % Margin 4.5% 10.4% 12.7% 13.4%
once again. (1)
Recall 1998 recast of $14.2 million.
DISTRESSED COMPANY VALUATION AND APPLICATION TO RUFFCO GOLF
Often, the investment banker will prepare an informal valuation analysis to indicate possible
outcomes from the M&A process and establish reasonable expectations for interested parties. The
valuation of distressed companies requires a combination of subjective and analytical
modifications to traditional valuation methodologies. In many cases, for example, a company may
have deficit EBITDA during the trailing 12-month period, making a simple capitalization of
operating cash flow untenable.
While a complete dissertation in distressed company valuation is beyond the scope of this case
study, the following text covers the highlights of the subject.
MARKET APPROACH
An analysis of comparable publicly traded companies may provide a benchmark for valuing
a firm. Specifically, one can determine a public company’s enterprise value by adding the
company’s market value of equity to the value of its net interest-bearing debt (i.e., less cash). Then,
such enterprise value can be divided by a number of relevant measures of financial performance
(e.g., revenues, EBITDA, EBIT, etc.) to derive valuation multiples. The derived valuation multiples
can then be applied to representative levels of financial performance for a subject company to
determine value. The key is to select appropriate multiples and representative indications of
financial performance. In the selection of appropriate market multiples, one must evaluate the
multiples of comparable public companies and M&A transactions, with consideration of the specific
risk characteristics of the subject company. Often, because of factors indicative of the malaise of the
subject company, multiples from the low end of the range will be selected.
In the determination of representative levels of revenues, earnings and cash flow, historical levels
must often be adjusted to reflect previous mismanagement and any turnaround associated with
relief from the company’s financial problems. As briefly discussed above, such adjustments may
include add-backs for restructuring costs, extraordinary salary/bonuses (private companies),
margin adjustments and SG&A savings. Moreover, in many distressed companies, management (or
a buyer) projects a transition (or a turnaround) period before the company stabilizes and reaches
appropriate representative levels. In such situations, the appropriate representative levels
of financial performance may reflect performance in a future period. Future period representative
levels should be discounted back to present at a rate appropriate for the uncertainty of the
turnaround. In situations with deficit operating cash flows, useful representative levels of financial
performance may also include revenues or averages of past years’ earnings, to the extent realistic.

Working Capital Adjustments
Market-based approaches typically assume a “normalized” level of working capital, as the
multiples themselves are generally derived from healthy public companies with adequate working
capital. In distressed companies, however, working capital positions are often substantially altered
because of liquidity problems. Such illiquidity can result in one or more of the following distortions
to working capital accounts:
Questionable receivables (potentially stemming from poor service,

delivery and/or product quality)
Bloated or overvalued inventories, or insufficient inventories
Stretched or reduced payables
In analyzing a distressed company, careful consideration must be given to the cash-flow impacts of
such irregularities, as the return to a normal working capital position can either generate or
consume cash, which, in turn, affects value. For example, a return to a normal days payable
can mean paying off past-due balances (a significant cash use). Likewise, insufficient usable
inventories or inadequate collectable accounts receivable could also use cash as the company
rebuilds inventory and sales. On the other hand, return of the credit can provide cash.
In the case of an asset sale (like those pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code), the buyer
may choose to not assume typical operating liabilities such as trade accounts payable. Under Section
363, for example, a debtor, with Court approval, may sell assets free and clear of all liens, claims and
encumbrances (which attach only to the proceeds of such sales). In such cases, the debtor’s estate,
and not the buyer as in the case of a sale of the common stock of the seller, will have the burden of
satisfying creditor demands. Through the asset purchase structure, the buyer effectively has created
excess working capital (current assets less current liabilities). The buyer then will benefit from the
resumption of trade credit to finance future purchases as the deleveraged company poses a better
credit risk. This post-sale transition will turn excess working capital to cash, which may be reinvested
in the business, used to reduce debt or (covenants permitting) be withdrawn from the business. In an
asset acquisition, the additional value of impairing such current liabilities (less the disruption caused
by vendor dissatisfaction) is represented by the present value of the net cash generated by a
resumption of trade credit and should be added to the multiples-based valuation.
Deferred Capital Expenditures

In addition to potential working capital adjustments, market-based valuations may need to be
adjusted for deferred capital expenditures. In certain situations, as a company becomes distressed,
near-term liquidity constraints result in under-investment in necessary capital expenditures which
contribute to long-term value. In others, it is the deferral of capital expenditures that causes the
distress. Either way, a market approach valuation needs to be adjusted for deferred capital
expenditures that are necessary to normalize the business in the long run.
In RuffCo Golf’s case, the Company did not defer its capital expenditures, and the market valuation
approach does not need to be adjusted for deferred capital expenditures.
RuffCo Golf Valuation — Market Approach
The following sets forth the valuation of RuffCo Golf using the Market Approach.
Houlihan Lokey has recast historical results to obtain normalized levels of financial performance.
The rationale behind recasting historical results, and RuffCo Golf’s adjusted historical
performance, is set forth in the prior section: By recasting cost of goods sold, nonrecurring
professional fees, extraordinary marketing and public relations costs, and excess salaries (all of
which can be corrected immediately post-acquisition), RuffCo Golf’s 1997 and 1998 EBITDA
figures were normalized to $19.4 million and $14.2 million, respectively.
Looking forward, Houlihan Lokey

REPRESENTATIVE LEVEL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE determines that the representative
($ in Millions)
Representative Level
levels of financial performance are
Recast 1998 EBITDA $ 14.2 achieved in the year 2000, which is
Forecast FY 2000 EBITDA $ 20.0 the year when the Company’s
Discount Rate Range operating performance stabilizes.
20.0% - 16.0%
Present Value FY 2000 EBITDA $ 13.9 $ 14.9 The Company’s $20 million EBITDA
forecast is discounted back to present
value at discount rates that are determined by using the industry weighted average cost of capital
(“WACC”) adjusted for Company-specific risks (please refer to the Discounted Cash-Flow Approach
for more detail).
COMPARABLE PUBLIC COMPANIES
Both historic and forecasted approaches indicate a
EV/
representative level of EBITDA in the $14 million range. As of 02/99 EBITDA
Appropriate market multiples can be applied to these
Callaway Golf Co. 6.2 x
indications of representative EBITDA to derive a range of Adams Golf, Inc. 3.0 x
value. The table on the right illustrates the EBITDA Coastcast Corp. 1.5 x
Aldila, Inc. 3.6 x
multiples for several golf club manufacturers as of Teardrop Golf Co. -47.0x (1)
February 1999. Royal Precision, Inc. 14.1x (1)
S2 Golf, Inc. 7.6 x
In RuffCo Golf’s case, the analysis of comparable public Low High
1.5 x
7.6 x
companies reveals the public’s unsympathetic perception
Median 3.6 x
of the industry’s declining prospects and results in selected Mean 4.4 x
EBITDA multiple ranges of 3.5 to 5.0. While one might (1)
Excluded from range due to financial distress.
argue that this multiple range is atypically broad,
Houlihan Lokey believes it is appropriate given the low multiples exhibited by the industry and the
poor performance of the comparable companies. While this range might appear low relative to
typical multiple range standards, it is supported by the “comps” because of the industry’s recent
doldrums. Based on the foregoing analysis of representative levels of financial performance and
selected multiples, Houlihan Lokey determines that RuffCo Golf’s preliminary market-based
valuation falls within a range of $49.2 million to $72.8 million before working capital and other
adjustments.

PRELIMINARY MARKET MULTIPLES VALUATION ANALYSIS
($ in Millions)
Representative Selected Multiple Range Indicated Valuation

Levels /Discount Rate Low High
Recast 1998 EBITDA $14.2 3.5 - 5.0 $49.7 - $71.0
Forecast FY 2000 EBITDA $20.0 3.5 - 5.0 $48.7 - $74.5
20.0% - 16.0%
Preliminary Valuation Range $49.2 - $72.8
An analysis of RuffCo Golf’s

WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS TO VALUE
working capital accounts reveals ($ in Millions)
that, while the post write-down Normal Current Adjustment
accounts receivable and inventory Accounts Receivable n/a n/a n/a (1)
levels are appropriate for RuffCo Inventory n/a n/a n/a (1)
Golf’s business in light of industry Accounts Payable 6.6 16.2 (9.6)
standards, the accounts payable Accrued Expenses 4.6 7.8 (3.2)
(1)
and accrued expense accounts are Accounts Receivable and Inventory levels are consistent with industry
standards. Accounts Receivable are collected in 50 days and the
badly out of whack, resulting in Company’s inventory levels are consistent with turns of 8 times.
valuation deductions.
On the other hand, if the ASSET PURCHASE ADJUSTMENTS TO VALUE

buyer were to acquire the ($ in Millions)
assets of RuffCo Golf Normalized A/P $6.6 (1)
without any current Month
Resumption Schedule of 1 2 3 4 5 6
liabilities, the resulting Incremental A/P 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
“excess” working capital
NPV @ 16% $6.30
position would generate
cash inflows as the buyer Based on 1999 forecast purchases and industry standard 45 days payable.
(1)
reestablishes trade credit. As such, the table above illustrates the appropriate adjustment to RuffCo
Golf’s value from reestablishing trade where liabilities are not assumed.
As illustrated in the chart to MARKET APPROACH VALUATION

the right, the adjusted ($ in Millions)
Current
valuation range shows that Liabilities Assets
Assumed Only
RuffCo Golf’s Market Average Enterprise Value Conclusion $61.0 $61.0
Approach mean valuation Working Capital Adjustments
conclusion of $61.0 million - Accounts Receivable(1) n/a n/a
is reduced to $48.2 million - Inventory(1) n/a n/a
- Accounts Payable (9.6) 6.3
where current liabilities are - Accrued Expenses (3.2) -
assumed and increased to Deferred Capital Expenditures(2) n/a n/a
$67.3 million for an asset- Adjusted Market Valuation $48.2 $67.3
only acquisition. (1)
Accounts Receivable and Inventory were normalized during 1998.
(2)
Deferred Capital Expenditures are not applicable to RuffCo Golf.
DISCOUNTED CASH-FLOW APPROACH
Using a firm’s projected debt-free cash flow, a Discounted Cash-Flow Approach discounts the
projected cash flows from future years back to the present day to determine net present value.
To develop such cash flows for a distressed company, a financial advisor will:
Develop financial projections embodying the projected turnaround, including the impact
of interim operating losses. Such forecasts will be projected over a sufficient time horizon
to reflect a “stabilized” business with long-term sustainable growth prospects.
Analyze cash flows on a debt-free basis to avoid distortions created by leverage in the
capital structure. Debt-free cash flow is calculated by adding depreciation and amortization
to pretax operating income, and then subtracting capital expenditures, changes in
working capital and the appropriate deleveraged tax expense.
Determine a terminal value for the company by using a terminal multiple or terminal growth
model approach.
Determine an appropriate discount rate based on the WACC by using a combination of

industry standards and company-specific issues, and applying appropriate return premiums
to industry norms to reflect risks inherent in a turnaround scenario.
Caution must be used when using the Discounted Cash-Flow Approach because (i) it relies on
projections that are frequently subjective and (ii) the terminal value generally will contribute a
majority of the final valuation. The impact of terminal value on the final valuation is especially
relevant in distressed situations where the first few years represent the turnaround period during
which the company initially achieves negative (or depressed) cash flow. Typically, Houlihan Lokey
will perform a sensitivity analysis in order to gauge the effects of achieving or missing projections
(such an analysis is beyond the scope of this case study).

RuffCo Golf Valuation — Discounted Cash-Flow
As illustrated in the following chart, applying the Discounted Cash-Flow Approach to
management’s projections yields a valuation of $53.6 million, where current liabilities are
assumed, and $72.7 million for an asset-only transaction.
Discounted Cash-Flow Approach Valuation

($ in Millions)
Projections For Year Ended December 31,

1999 E 2000 E 2001 E 2002 E 2003 E
EBITDA $15.6 $20.0 $21.8 $22.4 $23.0
Changes in W/C(1) (23.8) (1.2) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8)

Capital Expenditures (4.0) (4.4) (4.6) (4.6) (4.6)
Taxes @ 40% (3.0) (4.6) (5.8) (6.4) (7.4)
Debt-free cash flows $(15.2) $9.8 $10.8 $10.6 $10.2
WACC Analysis
Low High
Industry WACC 13.0% 15.0%
Adjusted RuffCo Golf WACC(2) 16.0% 20.0%
Valuation
Terminal EBITDA Multiple (3)
3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
16.0% $50.1 $55.6 $61.1 $66.6
Discount Rate
17.0% $47.9 $53.2 $58.4 $63.7

18.0% $45.8 $50.9 $55.9 $60.9
19.0% $43.8 $48.7 $53.5 $58.3
20.0% $42.0 $46.6 $51.2 $55.8
Selected
Valuation
Preliminary Valuation Range (Current
Liabilities Assumed) $48.7 - $58.4 $53.6
Adjustments for an asset-only transaction(4)

• Accounts Payable 15.9 15.9
• Accrued Expenses 3.2 3.2
Adjusted Valuation Range (Assets Only) $67.8 - $77.5 $72.7

(1)
Assumes current liabilities are assumed and are paid down to normalize working capital position, which uses
substantial cash in the first year.
(2)
After restructuring premiums for financial and operating distress, among others.
(3)
Simple terminal value scenario. Others use Gordon Growth Method to illustrate the impact of growth and discount
rates on Terminal Value.
(4)
See “Market Approach” section for calculation. Accounts payable are adjusted to reflect normalized levels
and the net present value of reestablished trade debt.
INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC BENCHMARKS
In certain industries, rules of thumb may also provide a reasonable indication of value based on a
multiple of a specific benchmark. Industry benchmarks include:
Nursing Homes: Number of Beds

Natural Resource Related: Quantity of Reserves (or other physical measurement)
Commodity Processor (e.g., steel, pulp, livestock): Production Capacity
Telecommunications: Assets and/or Subscriber Base
While this approach is inapplicable to RuffCo Golf’s industry, it is included herein for completeness.
Industry-specific benchmarks are particularly valuable in consolidating industries where acquirers
can leverage their infrastructure by accruing revenue drivers (e.g., buying beds or subscribers).
LIQUIDATION VALUE
In a worst-case, meltdown scenario, a company is worth more dead than alive. In all cases, a
distressed company must evaluate its value in liquidation since this exercise establishes the
baseline against which all offers must be evaluated at a minimum. Indeed, Section 1129(a)(7) of
the Bankruptcy Code establishes that a Court may confirm a plan if a holder in an impaired class
receives no less than what it would receive under Chapter 7 (liquidation). Thus, without creditor
consent, a sale transaction cannot be consummated unless the value exceeds liquidation.
RuffCo Golf Valuation-Liquidation

Liquidation analysis of RuffCo Golf shows the following value:
LIQUIDATION APPROACH VALUATION

($ in Millions)
Assumed
Liquidation Amount Recovery Value
Accounts Receivable $10.9 80.0% $8.7

Inventory
- Raw Materials 4.8 60.0% 2.9
- Finished Goods 6.0 40.0% 2.4
PP&E
- Land & Buildings 12.4 80.0% 10.0(1)
- Equipment 25.8 15.0% 3.8(1)
Leases ? - ?
Intellectual Property ? - ?
Total Before Expenses $59.9 46.4% $27.8

(1)
Appraised value.

RUFFCO GOLF VALUATION
To summarize, Houlihan Lokey’s preliminary valuation of RuffCo Golf yields the following values:
On an asset-only basis (likely using a Section 363 asset sale),
the value of RuffCo Golf is determined to be approximately $70 million.
On a current liabilities assumed basis, the value of RuffCo Golf is determined to be
approximately $51 million.
Houlihan Lokey explains to the Ruffs Valuation Methodologies

($ in Millions)
that such numbers do not contemplate Unsecured
the potential premium pricing Liabilities
$80
associated with an acquisition by a
strategic buyer. In such case, RuffCo Bank
$60 Debt
Golf will attempt to negotiate for a
portion of the competitive synergies
resulting from such a combination. $40
Liquidation
Houlihan Lokey explains that Value
although there is a reasonable chance $20
of obtaining a superior price, even
under the most optimistic scenarios,
$0
since the Bank is owed $54.8 million DCF Market Multiple
and unsecured creditors are owed
$24.2 million, equity holders will Asset-only transaction
Working capital liabilities assumed by buyer
likely be left with little or nothing after
the debt holders are paid.
Moreover, Houlihan Lokey explains that the Bank may not support any sale transaction that leaves
it impaired, while providing value to unsecured creditors.
NOTE ON REAL ESTATE LEASES AND RETAIL BUSINESSES

For a number of reasons, many distressed retail transactions are consummated in Chapter 11
proceedings. One such reason is the debtor’s power under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code to
assume and assign or reject executory leases and contracts.
While the ability to assign a lease to another party is not exclusive to Chapter 11, Bankruptcy Code
Section 365(f) allows a debtor to assume and assign its leases to financially qualified parties, even
over the objection of the lessor, as long as adequate assurance of future performance is provided by
the assignee (and certain other requirements are met, depending on the nature of the lease).
In Chapter 11 or not, the value of a real estate-intensive business may be maximized through the
sale of the leasehold interests. Retailers and restaurants in particular, benefit from this power, as a
sale can be structured to permit a strategic acquirer to buy locations and eliminate substantial
duplicative corporate overhead. Often, such value is indicated by a multiple of the four-wall (or
individual store level) cash flow without the burden of corporate overhead. Since four-wall cash
flow exceeds operating cash flow after corporate overhead, a prospective buyer should be willing to
pay for a portion of the synergy.
Under Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, when leases are rejected, any resulting rejection
claims become general unsecured claims of the estate (and subject to the limitations therein). As
such, a prospective buyer is able to acquire selected assets (e.g., favorable leases and contracts)
without having to assume burdensome leases and contracts, which are a detriment to value.
Because a buyer can leave the estate with burdensome leases and contracts that would otherwise be
a detriment to value, a prospective buyer can pay a higher price for the selected desired assets.
However, given that the pool of unsecured claims will increase if leases/contracts are rejected, any
increased consideration will have to be evaluated in light of the increase in unsecured claims and
the potential dilution of unsecured creditor recoveries.

THE TROUBLED COMPANY SALE PROCESS
As part of the discussion with the Ruffs about their preliminary, confidential valuation of the Company,
Houlihan Lokey details the sale process for the management of RuffCo Golf and explains RuffCo Golf’s
integral role.
PREPARATION
Houlihan Lokey will work with the Company on several fronts to agree on a sale process and
strategy and prepare the Company for market.
The Story: Houlihan Lokey will work with the Company to determine the appropriate “story” to
discuss with potential buyers. The story will articulate the causes for the Company’s difficulties and
illustrate the opportunity for a buyer. Generally, the story will be tailored to each buyer.
Buyers Universe: Following its initial due diligence, Houlihan Lokey will identify the universe of
potential buyers, making sure to incorporate the views of management, which will know many of
the potential strategic buyers. In addition to strategic buyers, Houlihan Lokey will determine
whether the situation is appropriate for a financial buyer.
Strategic Buyers, typically competitors or companies in similar businesses, may look
to purchase the Company for its product lines or assets, and seek to exploit the synergies (e.g.,
eliminating duplicative costs) associated with an acquisition.
Financial Buyers, also known as private equity investors, typically purchase a company
as a stand-alone going concern. As such, the Company must have a viable stand-alone
business plan that indicates a strong equity return. Financial players are particularly
interested in growth scenarios and may find a company more attractive if it is a “platform
vehicle” upon which it can layer additional acquisitions in the industry. A financial buyer
may also seek to acquire a company as an add-on to one of its existing portfolio companies,
effectively acting as a strategic buyer.
The scope, or breadth, of the sale process also is important. The Company and Houlihan Lokey
must assess the advantages and disadvantages of limiting the bidder universe to a strategic short
list or going to market broadly. In assessing the foregoing, Houlihan Lokey will evaluate whether
there are relatively few, easily identified potential purchasers (typically strategic players) or a broad,
but difficult to identify, group of prospective buyers (often financial buyers) with the appropriate
appetite for the deal.
In certain situations, one potential purchaser might be far ahead of the field and may want to
immediately perform due diligence to work toward delivering a letter of intent under an expedited
timeframe. In such a case, the Company and Houlihan Lokey would weigh the benefits of
encouraging a fast offer (timeliness) versus creating the appearance that one party has a lock on
the deal, thereby discouraging other (and potentially higher) offers.
Timing: In distressed transactions, timing is generally critical, and Houlihan Lokey will need to get
to market as soon as possible. That said, the Company and Houlihan Lokey will want to avoid the
(often inevitable) appearance of desperation. On the other hand, the failure to consummate a timely
transaction could be terminal for a financially distressed going concern. As part of its due diligence,
Houlihan Lokey will work with the Company, and often with its lender, to assess the remaining
liquidity (i.e., the time by which a transaction absolutely must be consummated). Then working
back from a “drop-dead date,” Houlihan Lokey can establish process parameters including:
Whether sufficient time remains to prepare a full-blown Offering Memorandum, or whether

Houlihan Lokey and the Company should rely on a “Teaser” (or summary) Memorandum
together with supplemental materials and on-site visits.
Whether time permits the process to unfold prior to establishing a bid date, or the need to
establish an early bid deadline to permit a closing in time (and perhaps to provide the
evidence of value necessary to persuade the lender to continue financing through to closing).
Whether time permits a two-step bidding process whereby bidders are encouraged to submit
initial indications of interest before “qualifying” to visit the Company and perform on-site
due diligence with management, whose time is being consumed by daily emergencies.
While Houlihan Lokey can rush a distressed company to market and close a sale transaction in as
few as 30 to 45 days, value will generally be enhanced through an aggressive but less frenetic sale
process, provided, of course, there is adequate liquidity.
Initial Due Diligence and Data Room: Based on its own initial due diligence request list submitted
to the Company at the commencement of their engagement, Houlihan Lokey will begin to compile
a carefully indexed data room with all relevant information that a buyer might require for its due
diligence on the Company. A data room may include detailed documentation regarding financial
information, products and markets, legal matters, real property, personal property, insurance
coverage, human resources, MIS operation, inter-company agreements and public relations,
among others.
Teaser Memorandum: Houlihan Lokey will prepare a “Teaser” Memorandum to be sent to the
potential investor universe, summarizing the investment opportunity. While the teaser offers an
optimistic, sales-oriented spin on the Company’s financial distress, it should provide a realistic
discussion of the Company’s problems to avoid misperceptions and wasting all parties’ time.
Confidential Memorandum: Time permitting, Houlihan Lokey will also prepare an Offering
Memorandum setting forth a detailed overview and analysis of the Company’s historical operations
and financial performance, business plan and projections, and investment considerations.

In contrast to a healthy company’s Offering Memorandum, a distressed company’s Offering
Memorandum will often seek to de-emphasize the Company’s liabilities unless equity has a
legitimate claim to value in excess of the debt. In truly distressed transactions, Houlihan
Lokey will seek to encourage potential buyers to value the going concern and assets, and not
be intimidated by the level of liabilities, which often exceed any reasonable estimate of
enterprise value.
The Offering Memorandum likely will feature a detailed presentation of the assets of the
Company, which could, although this is not preferable, be sold piecemeal to interested
investors (probably strategic buyers) to maximize value. Such assets could include
intellectual property (patents, trade names, copyrights), leases (which, as discussed above, are
subject to special provisions under the Bankruptcy Code), current assets (including accounts
receivable and inventory), and property, plant and equipment.
Although some buyers may be interested only in certain assets, the Offering Memorandum
distributed to all potential purchasers will clearly set forth a detailed Business Plan including
a (hopefully) persuasive description of the story articulating the going-concern value. Even
if it fails to attract financial buyers, the Offering Memorandum will seek to keep the strategic
vultures “honest” in their value assessments.
Public Relations Strategy: In certain circumstances, the Company will want to disclose publicly its
retention of Houlihan Lokey to “explore strategic alternatives.” While the potential adverse
publicity surrounding such a release (e.g., impact on customer base and vendor relationships)
should always be evaluated, such disclosure could trigger the interest of a potential purchaser that
has failed to make the Buyers List.
Before Houlihan Lokey can broadly market a transaction for a company with public debt and/or
equity, such company should consult with counsel to determine whether it is required to disclose
Houlihan Lokey’s involvement to the public and/or through filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
CONTACT AND DISCUSSION

Houlihan Lokey will control the process and provide a focused contact point for potential
purchasers. Such control allows the Company to maintain a consistent story for potential bidders
and leverages the time of management.
Confidentiality: Houlihan Lokey will require all parties expressing a further interest to execute
a confidentiality agreement in order to limit the universe of interested parties to those with real
interest and protect the confidentiality of non-public and other more sensitive information. The
Company will, of course, be extremely sensitive to providing competitors, customers and
suppliers with candid information illustrating the Company’s problems. Indeed, where certain
parties are simply trying to gain an informational advantage they intend to use to the
Company’s detriment, confidential disclosures could harm the Company’s going-concern value.
Houlihan Lokey will work with the Company to attempt to strike a practical balance between
the need to share sensitive information with prospective purchasers and the desire to prevent
unprincipled constituents from obtaining the Company’s secrets. Recognizing the need to
move quickly, however, Houlihan Lokey must avoid letting the process get bogged down in
fights between the lawyers.
Process and Bid Dates: Depending on (i) current liquidity, (ii) the attractiveness of the
Company and (iii) management’s available time and resources, Houlihan Lokey and the
Company will evaluate whether to require initial indications of interest prior to permitting
on-site visits with management. In many distressed situations, however, the Company’s lack
of liquidity will dictate getting as many parties in to visit management as quickly as
practicable. In such cases, the goal may be to identify as quickly as possible a real buyer
offering a reasonable price, who is prepared to consummate a transaction immediately
without material contingencies.
In practice, Houlihan Lokey will generally need to establish a bid date to encourage interested
parties to submit their offers, as few parties desire to move pre-emptively for fear of becoming
a “stalking horse” - a buyer whose early offer is shopped to other potential buyers to provide
a valuation baseline and drum up interest.
Follow-Up, Follow-Up, Follow-Up: Houlihan Lokey will maintain contact with all potential
purchasers (and follow leads to new parties) in order to develop their interest and encourage
their investigation and investment.
Buyer Education on Structure and Process: When acquiring distressed companies, buyers
(especially strategic buyers) often are entering unfamiliar territory. In order to assuage their
concerns and familiarize them with the process, Houlihan Lokey must often educate the
buyers on the more esoteric aspects of distressed company valuation where applicable and, if
necessary, assist interested parties with the preparation and structure of an acceptable offer. At
the appropriate time, Houlihan Lokey may suggest the retention of knowledgeable
professionals (e.g., bankruptcy counsel) to help the buyers.
Lender Communication: Throughout the process, Houlihan Lokey and the Company will
maintain clear lines of communication with the lenders. The lenders’ participation may
enable the Company to maintain continuous liquidity during the process (both in- and out-
of-court) and may ultimately be essential to closing the deal.
Financial Screening: Throughout the process, Houlihan Lokey will screen potential investors
for financial bona fides to avoid wasting management’s time. This will likely be an expedited
process because of the extent of Houlihan Lokey’s relationships with many of the most active
(likely) buyers. The following characteristics are typical of a credible buyer:

– Ability to provide cash (i.e., demonstrated sources of financing) or other
acceptable consideration
– Experience in buying companies (healthy or distressed)
– References or prior working relationships
– Experience in industry
– Ability to close quickly
– Extensive and focused due diligence
– Early utilization of sophisticated counsel
Management Presentation: Houlihan Lokey will prepare a Management Presentation and stage
a run-through with the Company before buyers begin their visits. Potential purchasers’ styles will
vary from focusing almost exclusively on the information contained in the data room to
spending more time asking hard questions of management.
Note on Management Retention and Involvement: This is a difficult time for management
personnel, many of whom are wondering if they will have a job at the end of the process. At or prior to
this point, the Company will want to consider retention bonuses for key employees to keep the business
running during the sale process. Houlihan Lokey will provide the Board with input regarding
standards for retention plans. Moreover, conflicts can potentially arise if, as sometimes happens, one
potential buyer seeks to “tie up” key employees as a pre-emptive strike at obtaining the Company.
Houlihan Lokey will work with the Company to maintain a level playing field.
BID PROCEDURES
Where appropriate, Houlihan Lokey will establish Bid Procedures to be followed by all interested
parties. In addition to deadlines, such procedures should require purchasers to provide the following
information:
– Description of the purchaser, as well as its industry and transaction experience
– Sources of funding, with contact names to verify availability and adequacy
– Material conditions, representations and warranties
– Transaction structure - stock or assets; liabilities to be assumed
– Consideration offered (cash, securities, etc.), including any hold-backs or earn-outs
(which provide for future payments to the Seller based on the passage of time
and/or performance of the business)
– Deposit size and timing
In articulating the Bid Procedures, Houlihan Lokey DISTRESSED M&A SALE FORMATS
will clearly express a preference for proposals with Conventional stock/asset purchase
few (if any) material contingencies, which can be Friendly foreclosure
satisfied quickly. Moreover, while cash is the Assignment for the benefit of creditors
preferred consideration in distressed situations, Section 363 sale
Houlihan Lokey will articulate a willingness (but Chapter 11 plan of reorganization acquisition
generally not a desire) to consider and evaluate Chapter 7 Trustee liquidation sale
proposals containing non-cash consideration. In the
event a buyer chooses to offer common stock or debt securities as part of its proposal, Houlihan Lokey
will value such consideration to permit comparison of all offers.
NEGOTIATION AND CLOSING
After receiving initial proposals, Houlihan Lokey will evaluate the bids, clarify any ambiguities and
seek (where appropriate) to improve and firm up bids, while maintaining flexibility with respect to
the offers put on the table. Houlihan Lokey also will work with the final bidders to determine the
sales format that will maximize recoveries to the seller’s stockholders.
Houlihan Lokey will work with buyers to establish acceptable sales process procedures which the
buyers will clearly articulate are material business terms for them. Specifically, properly advised
buyers will typically insist on bidding protections in the form of no-shop clauses, overbid procedures
and break-up fees. These provisions are briefly described below.
SALE PROVISIONS
TERMS COMMON USAGE BRIEF DESCRIPTION
No-Shop Out-of-Court Company agrees not to continue shopping the
Company to other parties.
Overbid Procedure In-Court Court-approved auction procedure requiring overbidders

to exceed existing bid by a set amount.
Break-Up Fee In-Court or Out-of-Court Negotiated fee to be paid to buyer in the event another
party buys the Company for a higher level of
consideration. Must be court-approved in Chapter 11.
Unless proscribed by a no-shop provision, Houlihan Lokey will continue to work with other bidders until the
last possible moment in order to keep them informed of the process and to possibly revive them as a backstop
if the winning bidder does not close. Once a final bidder and format is selected, time is of the essence.
Houlihan Lokey typically will negotiate a material (between 5% and 20%) nonrefundable deposit.
Houlihan Lokey will work with the Company’s legal advisors who are drafting the Purchase
Agreement to balance the risk of moving too fast (resulting in sloppy drafting, missed issues)
versus the risk of losing the deal or having it retraded by an increasingly worried buyer.
On one hand, the Company’s interim liquidity problems may reduce its negotiating leverage
with the Buyer. On the other, the Buyer will be interested in getting control of the Company to start
fixing problems and reversing the financial deterioration as soon as possible.
Lengthy delays will invariably create issues regarding interim management, purchase price
adjustments for items such as inventory and receivables (which are constantly changing), and
defining a material adverse change (“MAC”) clause (which allows the buyer to avoid its commitment
to purchase the Company should circumstances change materially). In general, Houlihan Lokey
advises its clients against MAC clauses in a distressed M&A transaction since the Company’s precarious
financial position makes some business deterioration likely in any event, and the Company will need
to prevent the Buyer from wiggling out of the transaction, which might precipitate a collapse of the
business.

SALE OF RUFFCO GOLF
After contacting approximately 60 parties by phone and fax (teaser and confidentiality agreements
are sent), 15 bidders signed confidentiality agreements and received detailed information packets.
Eight bidders visited the Company to meet with management and perform due diligence. On the
bid date, six bidders submitted indications of interest, two of which were dismissed outright as
inadequate or non-credible, leaving four final bidders. Of the final four bidders, two were financial
buyers and two were strategic buyers. The proposals are illustrated in the following table.
INITIAL EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST
Contingencies to Closing
Nominal Current Relative
Purchase Liabilities Financial Due Closing
Buyer Price Assumed Strength Diligence Financing Timing Format
Financial
Midas $50 MM None Highest Some DD No 5 wks. 363 Asset sale,
Partners required Chapter 11
required
Elusive $52 MM None Uncertain Substantial Yes “Will work Unclear

Ventures DD required around the
clock to
close soon”
Strategic
Augusta, $30 MM $24 MM Medium Limited DD No 3 to 6 wks. Flexible, but
Inc. required wants to both
buy assets and
assume trade
Cypress $34 MM $24 MM High Will complete Yes 3 to 6 wks. Needs to discuss
Corp. in “3 business with advisors,
days” but is clear about
desire to avoid
Chapter 11
As expected for a company with this level of financial distress, all the parties expressed an interest in
an asset sale transaction. Because of their relationships with the suppliers in the industry, the
strategic investors are interested in assuming trade debt. Midas Partners, as a financial investor, seeks
Son’s expertise, and Augusta, a competitor, requires a non-compete from both Father and Son.
Keeping in mind the Company’s financial deterioration and creditor pressure, Houlihan Lokey
immediately seeks to sort out the different bids to determine the value of each proposal and its
likelihood of closing. Since a distressed company often lacks the privilege of turning away low
bidders (unless they fall below liquidation value), a primary source of negotiating leverage in a
distressed situation is the presence of multiple bidders.
Based on numerous telephone conferences, in-person meetings, confidential discussions and

negotiations, final bids and assessments are delineated in the table on the next page. Since some of
the proposals include non-cash consideration, Houlihan Lokey values the non-cash consideration in
order to compare the proposals.
FINAL BIDS
Nominal Purchase Price Contingencies to Closing
HLHZ
Valuation Treatment Due Lawyer
Buyer Cash Other Liabilities of Bid Deposit of Lease Diligence Financing Other Format Hired
Financial
Midas $52MM None No $52 MM $3MM Assume through Final DD No MAC clause; 363 Asset sale, Yes
Partners bankruptcy sale required Chapter 11
required
Elusive $8MM $20 MM liquidation No $39 MM(1) None Willing to Final DD required Yes None Asset purchase No
Ventures preference of public buy facility from out-of-court
preferred stock and Father by issuing
$32 MM 5-year 12% municipal bonds
interest-only note
from principal
Strategic
Augusta, $32MM $4 MM holdback Yes $30 MM(2) $2 MM Deal subject “One more week” No Renegotiated In- or out- Yes,
BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY

Inc. for purchase to secured (with lawyer to renegotiating of DD required lease; 3-year of-court asset if deal
price adjustment creditor and OK) long-term lease non-compete purchase, wants accepted
$24 MM to to assume trade
unsecured
Cypress $60MM Won’t assume No $60 MM $1.5 MM Will not assume None “3 days after None Asset purchase Yes, but
Corp. trade debt lease but requires deal is done, out-of-court still insists
1-year lease at we’ll have the on out-of-
current rates bank wire the court deal
money”
(1)
Preferred stock trades at $12.50 per share (Liquidation preference: $25 per share), note discounted at 25% capitalization rate to reflect risk.
(2)
HLHZ nicks value for holdback.
41
BUYER SELECTION AND NEGOTIATING STRATEGY
Houlihan Lokey meets with Father, Son and the Bank to discuss the Company’s options. The Bank
does not support any deal that does not pay it off in full. In particular, the Bank is concerned about
the Augusta proposal, which assumes trade debt but does not repay the Bank in full. After the
meeting, the Company (with the Bank’s blessing) decides to offer Cypress the deal on the following
conditions:
Price: $64 million cash at closing for the assets only. Price will be subject to adjustment
through working capital formula applied at closing.
Lease: Assumed for two-year period at slightly reduced rate, during which time “good faith”
negotiations will be held to buy or lease the facility from Father on a long-term basis.
Contingency: Financing contingency to be eliminated within three days (prior to

documentation efforts).
Deposit: $4 million in cash, which shall be nonrefundable unless the Company fails to deliver
(or the Court in Chapter 11 does not approve) the deal.
Chapter 11: All parties agree to attempt to effectuate an out-of-court deal. However, if
impediments arise, the deal will be consummated through a Chapter 11 Section 363 asset
sale. Of course, Houlihan Lokey and Counsel will continue to educate the buyer on typical
concerns regarding out-of-court asset sale deals by an insolvent company (including the need
to obtain creditor consent and potential future fraudulent conveyance arguments by
disgruntled interested parties).
Employment of Son: Two-year employment contract for Son with appropriate title, benefits,
salary and bonus opportunities.
If Cypress declines, Houlihan Lokey and the Company are prepared to turn to the other parties
(Midas and/or Augusta) and negotiate with them. However, Cypress accepts the deal and obtains its
financing commitment the next day. With its financing in place, Cypress’ lawyers begin to
document the transaction, and now demand the following protections:
No-Shop Clause: The Company must agree not to use Cypress’ bid to entice other potential
bidders.
Break-Up Fee: $6 million, to be paid in the event that Cypress stands ready to close and the
Company consummates a transaction with another party, either in- or out-of-court.
Overbid Protection: In the event that the parties agree that the sale must be made in Chapter
11 pursuant to Section 363, which is subject to public auction and overbidding, Cypress
demands that a $10 million initial overbid be required of other bidders.
THE DOCUMENTED DEAL
The parties then negotiate the following final terms:
Break-Up Fee: $1.6 million (inclusive of all expenses).
Chapter 11 Terms: In the event that the sale is consummated in Chapter 11 pursuant to
Section 363, the parties agree to obtain immediate Court approval of bidding procedures to
be allowed by other prospective purchasers.
Overbid Protection: $3 million initial overbid, $200,000 minimum incremental bids

thereafter.
Deposit: $4 million for competing bidders, which shall become nonrefundable if the bid is
accepted and shall be provided 24 hours prior to hearing.
Form of Contract: Asset purchase agreement with limited representations and warranties.
No-Shop Clause: To the extent permitted under law (i.e., subject to Chapter 11 issues), RuffCo
Golf agrees not to continue actively shopping the Company.
Other items discussed and resolved include:

– Taxes
– Environmental issues
– Product liability issues
– Hart/Scott/Rodino filings
– Retiree pension/benefit issues
– Director/management indemnification issues
– Contract/warranty obligations/lease assumption
– Current asset/liability closing adjustments with cash on hand retained by RuffCo Golf
As Father is growing more concerned over his personal guarantees (which could put at risk his non-
RuffCo Golf assets) than with a recovery on his equity, RuffCo Golf decides to move forward
aggressively with the sale. The Company continues to bleed cash and wants to close a transaction
as soon as possible.

UNSECURED CREDITOR ISSUES
Until now, the Company has negotiated chiefly with the Bank because of its status as the only
secured creditor and its control over the Company’s liquidity. At this point, however, it is clear the
unsecured creditors are facing significant impairment and the ability to consummate the
transaction outside of Chapter 11 will require their involvement. Moreover, several large unsecured
creditors have formed an informal committee to explore the options for getting paid. At the
Company’s expense, the committee hires counsel and its own financial advisor.
The Company calls a meeting with its creditors in an attempt to craft an out-of-court composition,
or informal plan, which the Company facilitates by hiring a professional trade creditor group. In the
written follow-up before the meeting, the Company proposes that the trade creditors agree to a
lawsuit moratorium and to continue providing new product on a COD or CIA basis.
At the meeting, the Company makes a SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS FROM SALE OF ASSETS
($ in Millions)
presentation to the creditors explaining the Accepted Bid
financial condition of the Company and an Sources
overview of the proposed sale, including the Cash Consideration $ 64.0
Total $ 64.0
Sources and Uses statement set forth at right. Uses
Pay down Bank debt $ 54.8
Given that unsecured claims (including Pay down DIP 2.0
accrued expenses) total approximately $24.2 Professional/administrative fees 3.0
million and the amount available for Unsecured creditors 4.2
Total $ 64.0
unsecured creditors is equal to $4.2 million,
the Company’s plan provides a projected recovery of about 17.4 cents on the dollar. (This analysis
assumes a possible $2 million DIP that the Bank has promised to the Company.) Although the
creditors are unhappy, many have known that the Company has been in trouble for a long time
and are, frankly, pleased to receive anything. Several are pleased that the Company will continue
as a going concern and that they will be in a position to do business with Cypress as the new owner.
Others, however, are outraged. One such creditor threatens to sue everyone, including the
Company’s lawyer and financial advisor, and states that “Father should be hung upside down and
shaken until my money falls out of his pockets.”
Two of the creditors contact the Company. One, a small but critical creditor, sends RuffCo Golf a
demand letter for immediate payment. The second, an important vendor, files a suit against the
Company for payment of past due amounts. The Bank is unwilling to advance any additional
funds outside of Chapter 11.
CHAPTER 11 FILING AND AUCTION
At this point, given the aggressive actions of several creditors and the decreasing likelihood of
obtaining creditor consents and finalizing the sale out-of-court, the parties agree to file for
Chapter 11 to consummate the sale. The sale document is finalized during a 16-hour “all-
hands” drafting session.
A bankruptcy petition is prepared and filed, with an auction and final sale scheduled in 35 and
37 days respectively, and, as required by the agreement, a motion on shortened notice to approve
break-up fee/bidding procedures scheduled in five days. The Bank confirms that it will advance
an additional $2 million to the Company under a DIP loan.
At the hearing on the motion to approve the break-up fee and bidding procedures, both the
creditors’ committee lawyer and the U.S. Trustee pose limited objections. The lawyer for Elusive
Ventures files a detailed objection, claiming it wants to ensure a “level playing field.” Midas’
lawyer, who also is present, remains silent. The Court denies all objections and approves the
break-up fee and bidding procedures.
At this point, with the break-up fee and bidding procedures in place to protect Cypress, Houlihan
Lokey and RuffCo Golf are obligated to continue their efforts to increase the price of the
transaction by going back to interested parties. Midas and Augusta continue discussions with the
Company regarding the bidding process, while others are informed of the deal and the pending
auction. On the bid submission date (48 hours before the auction date), Midas and Augusta
(acting jointly) submit the required $4 million deposit and their $67 million bid.
At the auction, Elusive Ventures announces that it is prepared to pay $84 million using a
complex financing scheme, secured by Mexican and Costa Rican securities, as well as non-cash
consideration in the form of common stock in a non-public Internet start-up and requests a 48-
hour adjournment to arrange for the $4 million deposit. Although several major public
shareholders announce their support for an adjournment and the Elusive Ventures deal, the
Company and Houlihan Lokey (in consultation with the Bank and creditors committee) reject
Elusive Ventures’ request, saying that it had plenty of notice to come up with the deposit on time.
Houlihan Lokey proceeds to conduct an auction at the Company’s lawyers’ offices, beginning
with Midas/Augusta’s $67 million bid; Cypress counters at $67.2 million (specifying that it is
credit bidding its break-up fee) and, after several rounds of bidding, Midas/Augusta bids $73
million. After a short recess, Cypress concedes victory to Midas/Augusta. (Although Elusive
Ventures’ lawyer threatens to sue all the parties involved and object at the sale hearing, the firm
eventually agrees to back off.) The parties appear before the Court two days later at the final sale
hearing with a fully executed purchase agreement. The Court enters the proposed order
approving the sale. The closing for the transaction is scheduled for 12 days after the sale order
is entered, and funds are transferred on that date. The Bank is paid on closing.

SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS FROM SALE OF ASSETS
($ in Millions)
Auction-Winning Bid
Sources
Cash Consideration $ 73.0
Total $ 73.0
Uses
Pay down Bank debt $ 54.8
Pay down DIP 2.0
Professional fees 3.0
Break-up fee 1.6
Unsecured creditors 11.6
Total $ 73.0
The chart above details the transaction sources and uses for the funds generated by a sale of assets
under the auction-winning bid. The chart below illustrates the auction’s value-maximizing impact
on the unsecured creditors’ payout.
AUCTION’S EFFECT ON UNSECURED CREDITORS’ RECOVERY

($ in Millions)
Amount Recovery
Amount owed $24.2 n/a
Amount recovered
Initial bid $4.2 17.4%
Auction-winning bid $11.6 47.9%
Thereafter, the Company promptly (90 days) proposes and confirms a plan of reorganization
whereby, after Cypress receives its break-up fee and expenses, unsecured creditors receive 47.9 cents
on the dollar.
H oulihan Lokey Howard & Zukin, an
international investment bank established in 1970,
provides a wide range of services, including mergers
and acquisitions, financing, corporate alliances,
financial opinions and advisory services, financial
restructuring, andmerchant banking. Houlihan
Lokey has ranked among the top 20 M&A advisors in the U.S. for the past
10 years, and its financial restructuring practice is the largest in the world.
The firm has over 500 employees in nine offices in the United States and
United Kingdom. It annually serves more than 1,000 clients ranging from
closely held companies to Global 500 corporations. For more
information, visit Houlihan Lokey's Website at www.hlhz.com.
Financial Restructuring • Mergers & Acquisitions
Financing • Corporate Alliances • Financial Opinions
Board Advisory Services • Merchant Banking
INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES
W W W. D I S T R E S S E D M A N D A . C O M
U.S. 800.788.5300 • U.K. 44.020.7839.3355

LO S A N G E L E S • N E W YO R K • C H I C A G O • S A N F R A N C I S C O
M I N N E A P O L I S • W A S H I N G T O N , D . C . • D A L L A S • AT L A N TA • L O N D O N

Troubled Company: H L H & Z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Troubled Company: H L H & Z

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Troubled Company: H L H & Z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Let Knowledge and Experience Navigate

• When is the sale of a company an effective response to its financial distress?

• How does distressed company valuation differ from a similar process

• How is the distressed company sale process best implemented?

• What issues can arise in effectuating a distressed sale transaction?

• When is a bankruptcy filing properly employed to effectuate a distressed

• Company’s Options and Strategy

While we believe that the materials present detailed, easy-to-understand explanations

Letter to the Reader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

Business Description and Historical Results

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 1

Manufacturing RuffCo Summary Historical Balance Sheet

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 3

THE INVESTMENT BANKER PRESENTATION

SG&A 39.2 10.8 50.0

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 5

RUFFCO GOLF PRO FORMA 1995 BALANCE SHEET

RUFFCO P.PUTTER PURCHASE ADJUST. IPO ADJUST. PRO FORMA

RUFFCO GOLF OWNERSHIP As it agreed at the time of the Peter Putter

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 7

RuffCo Golf’s deterio- RUFFCO GOLF HISTORICAL CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT

OPERATING AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 9

The Bank stated that, effective immediately, a

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 11

Advantage: Refinancing — especially with a major equity commitment from an outside

Discussion: Unfortunately, in a turnaround situation of this magnitude, it is difficult to

SELL THE COMPANY

Discussion: A successful financial restructuring requires the active cooperation of a number

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 13

COMPANY NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 15

Discussion: Such additional capital, however, could be too-little-too-late, as it could be

DEMAND IMMEDIATE SALE

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 17

BANK NEGOTIATION STRATEGY

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 19

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 21

RETENTION OF INVESTMENT BANKER

Expertise in understanding distressed company situations, evidenced by an

Nonrecurring Professional Fees: In a turnaround scenario, a company hires financial

Adjustment for Above-Market Lease Expense: A company burdened by an above-market lease

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 23

Based on the input of RECAST HISTORICAL INCOME STATEMENT PRO FORMA

As indicated, the Company PROJECTED INCOME STATEMENT

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 25

Questionable receivables (potentially stemming from poor service,

Deferred Capital Expenditures

Looking forward, Houlihan Lokey

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 27

Representative Selected Multiple Range Indicated Valuation

An analysis of RuffCo Golf’s

On the other hand, if the ASSET PURCHASE ADJUSTMENTS TO VALUE

As illustrated in the chart to MARKET APPROACH VALUATION

Determine an appropriate discount rate based on the WACC by using a combination of

BUYING & SELLING THE TROUBLED COMPANY • A CASE STUDY 29

Discounted Cash-Flow Approach Valuation

Projections For Year Ended December 31,

Changes in W/C(1) (23.8) (1.2) (0.6) (0.8) (0.8)