Closing a 20% Valuation Gap With an Earn-Out and a VTB Loan

The situation

Piotr had spent more than a decade as a real estate agent before he and his wife Zofia, who managed the back office of their growing brokerage, decided to expand into property management. Rather than build a management arm from nothing, they went looking for an established business to buy, and found one in Kitchener: a property management company built over twenty years by its owner, Jasleen, who managed rental portfolios for a mix of small landlords and a few larger building owners and was ready to retire.

The business managed several hundred rental units across the region and generated steady management fee income. On paper it looked like a strong fit for Piotr and Zofia's holding company — the buyer in this deal — which already had relationships with landlords and tenants through the brokerage side. They came to us once the parties had signed a letter of intent and needed a lawyer to carry the deal from due diligence through to a signed share purchase agreement.

The valuation gap

The trouble started once the buyers' accountants finished reviewing the target company's financials. Jasleen's asking price was built on a multiple of the business's trailing annual earnings, treating all of that income as equally durable. Piotr and Zofia's advisors valued the business meaningfully lower, for one specific reason: a large share of the managed unit count sat in just two large apartment buildings, both owned by the same family, both under management contracts that either side could end on notice. If either contract lapsed, a significant slice of revenue would disappear overnight with no cost to the building owner.

That risk didn't show up in Jasleen's numbers, because through her ownership the relationships had always renewed. But a buyer paying a lump sum up front has no way to get that money back if a contract doesn't survive the transition to new ownership. Once the buyers' advisors priced in that concentration risk, their valuation came in at roughly $16,000,000 against Jasleen's ask of roughly $20,000,000 — a gap of about $4,000,000, or close to 20% of the asking price.

Gaps this size are common when a business has one or two contracts driving a disproportionate share of its earnings. The seller has lived with the relationship for years and trusts it will continue; the buyer has to price the possibility that it won't. Left alone, that disagreement kills deals. The fix isn't usually to argue harder about the multiple — it's to change who bears the risk if the worst happens.

What we did

1. Quantified the risk instead of arguing about it. We worked with the buyers' accountants to isolate exactly how much of the purchase price the two large building contracts justified, so the negotiation could focus on a specific, defensible number rather than a general feeling that the price was too high.
2. Proposed a split structure to bridge the gap. Rather than one side simply conceding, we recommended paying the undisputed portion of the value — about $16,000,000 — in cash at closing, and structuring the remaining roughly $4,000,000 so that Jasleen would only receive it if the business performed as she expected it would.
3. Built an earn-out tied to the actual risk. We drafted an earn-out — a portion of the price paid after closing, contingent on the business hitting agreed targets — of up to $2,500,000, payable over two years and tied specifically to the retention of the two large building contracts and overall managed-unit count. If the concentrated contracts renewed and revenue held, Jasleen would receive the full amount; if they didn't, the earn-out would scale down by formula rather than being an all-or-nothing bet.
4. Added a vendor take-back loan to close the remainder. For the final roughly $1,500,000, Jasleen agreed to finance the buyers directly through a vendor take-back loan — a promissory note from the seller to the buyer, repaid over time with interest. We had it secured against the shares being purchased and backed by personal guarantees from Piotr and Zofia, giving Jasleen real recourse if payments stopped, while letting the buyers avoid raising that amount from a lender against an asset whose value was still partly unproven.
5. Defined the earn-out metrics precisely. The single biggest source of earn-out disputes is vague language about what counts as success. We wrote the retention targets, the measurement period, and the reduction formula into the share purchase agreement in specific terms, along with Jasleen's right to receive regular reporting so she could verify the numbers herself rather than relying on the buyers' word.
6. Negotiated closing protections on both sides. The agreement included a working capital adjustment to true up the price for cash and receivables on hand at closing, a non-competition and non-solicitation covenant from Jasleen for a defined period, and a holdback of part of the cash payment against any undisclosed liabilities that surfaced after closing.

The outcome

The deal closed on those terms. For close to eight months, the business performed largely as expected. Then one of the two large building contracts ended — not because of anything the buyers did, but because the building itself was sold, and its new owner chose to bring property management in-house rather than continue with an outside firm. It was exactly the risk the earn-out had been built to address, and it arrived sooner than anyone had hoped.

Under the earn-out formula, losing that contract reduced the amount Jasleen was entitled to by a substantial share of the $2,500,000 at stake, calculated against the loss of managed units rather than negotiated after the fact. That protected the buyers from paying full price for revenue that no longer existed. But it did not make them whole. The $16,000,000 they had already paid at closing had assumed a business with both large contracts in place, and the business they were left running was smaller than that. The earn-out contained the damage; it did not eliminate it.

That distinction matters, and it's the honest way to describe how this ended. Piotr and Zofia avoided the worst outcome — paying the full $20,000,000 asking price for a business that, within a year, generated meaningfully less revenue than projected. Because the price had been structured so that a real portion of it depended on performance rather than fixed at closing, the loss they absorbed was limited to the cash already paid, not compounded by additional payments for value that never materialized. The vendor take-back loan continued on its agreed schedule, secured and unaffected by the earn-out shortfall, so at least that part of the deal proceeded exactly as documented.

The hard lesson was not about the legal drafting, which held up as intended. It was about diligence: even a well-quantified concentration risk can materialize faster than a two-year earn-out period anticipates, and no contract structure turns a real business loss into no loss at all. What the structure did was make sure that when the risk hit, it hit the party who had agreed to share it — instead of falling entirely on the buyers, or triggering a dispute over what the parties had actually agreed to.

What you can learn from this