Why Banks Still Say No


In the intricate landscape of financial markets, the decline in loans to small and mid-sized businesses has become a pressing concern.

Traditionally, banks have played a pivotal role in fueling the growth of these enterprises, serving as a lifeline for entrepreneurs and contributing to economic development.

However, recent trends suggest a departure from this norm, with banks seemingly making fewer loans to small and mid-sized businesses.

There are multifaceted reasons behind this phenomenon and its implications for both businesses and the broader economy.



One of the primary drivers behind the decline in small and mid-sized business loans is the evolving regulatory environment. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, regulators worldwide implemented stringent measures to fortify the banking sector and prevent a recurrence of such catastrophic events.

While these regulations aimed to enhance financial stability, they inadvertently increased the compliance burden on banks.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in the United States, for instance, ushered in a new era of regulatory oversight.

The increased scrutiny and compliance requirements have made banks more risk-averse, prompting them to adopt conservative lending practices. Consequently, small and mid-sized businesses, which often lack the robust financial profiles of their larger counterparts, find it more challenging to secure loans.



Post-crisis regulations also introduced stricter capital adequacy requirements, compelling banks to maintain higher levels of capital to absorb potential losses.

While this measure enhances the resilience of financial institutions, it simultaneously restricts their ability to extend credit, particularly to businesses perceived as riskier.

Small and mid-sized enterprises, by virtue of their size and inherent volatility, are often classified as riskier borrowers.

As a result, banks may hesitate to allocate a significant portion of their capital to these businesses, preferring instead to focus on less risky ventures that promise higher returns.

The global economic landscape has witnessed significant turbulence in recent years.

Factors such as trade tensions, geopolitical instability, and the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic have created an environment of uncertainty.

In times of economic instability, banks tend to adopt a cautious approach to lending as they seek to mitigate potential risks to their portfolios.

The reluctance to extend credit to small and mid-sized businesses can be attributed to the perceived vulnerability of these enterprises during economic downturns.

Banks, in an effort to shield themselves from potential defaults, may tighten lending standards and reduce exposure to sectors deemed more susceptible to economic shocks.



Rapid technological advancements and changing consumer preferences have reshaped various industries, creating winners and losers.

Traditional sectors, which often comprise small and mid-sized businesses, may face challenges adapting to these changes.

Banks, cognizant of the evolving landscape, may be hesitant to lend to businesses in sectors perceived as declining or struggling to innovate.

This dynamic is particularly evident in the retail sector, where the rise of e-commerce has disrupted traditional brick-and-mortar businesses.

Banks may be wary of financing enterprises in industries undergoing such transformative changes, contributing to the decline in loans to small and mid-sized businesses.



Traditional banks, in their quest to adapt to the digital era, face challenges associated with legacy systems and complex infrastructures.

The process of digital transformation is resource-intensive and time-consuming, deterring some banks from fully embracing technological advancements.

As a result, these banks may struggle to provide the seamless, user-friendly lending experiences that small and mid-sized businesses seek.

FinTech competitors, unencumbered by legacy issues, can offer a more attractive value proposition, further diverting businesses away from traditional banking channels.



In an era of instant gratification, businesses expect speedy and convenient access to financial services.

Traditional lending processes, often characterized by lengthy approval times and extensive paperwork, no longer align with the expectations of modern entrepreneurs.

FinTech lenders, leveraging automation and data analytics, can offer faster and more streamlined lending experiences.

Businesses, particularly small and mid-sized enterprises with urgent capital needs, may gravitate towards these alternative lenders that provide quick and hassle-free access to funds.

Small and mid-sized businesses often require tailored financial solutions that accommodate their unique needs and challenges. Traditional banks, constrained by standardized lending models and risk assessment frameworks, may struggle to deliver the level of customization that businesses seek.



FinTech lenders, with their data-driven approaches, can analyze a broader set of variables to assess creditworthiness, enabling them to offer more personalized and flexible financing options.

This adaptability resonates with businesses looking for financial partners that understand and cater to their specific circumstances.

The decline in loans to small and mid-sized businesses translates to limited growth opportunities for these enterprises.

Access to capital is crucial for businesses to invest in expansion, innovation, and talent acquisition.

Without adequate financing, businesses may find it challenging to capitalize on growth prospects, potentially stagnating their development.

The decline in loans to small and mid-sized businesses is a multifaceted issue influenced by regulatory, economic, technological, and customer-driven factors.

As we navigate the complex web of challenges, it is essential for stakeholders – including regulators, banks, FinTech firms, and businesses themselves – to collaborate in seeking viable solutions.

Revitalization Partners specializes in improving the operational and financial results of companies and providing hands-on expertise in virtually every circumstance, with a focus on small and mid-market organizations. Whether your requirement is Interim Management, a Business Assessment, Revitalization and Reengineering, a State Receivership or Bankruptcy Support, we focus on giving you the best resolution in the fastest time with the highest possible return.

The Difference Between Receivership and Bankruptcy


Recently, Revitalization Partners was approached by a potential client who wanted assistance in closing down their business.

They, being more of an artist than a businessperson, had turned over the management of the business to individuals recommended by “friends” who had made very questionable decisions and had the owner take out a myriad of credit cards and two loans, all personally guaranteed.

While the LLC was very limited in assets versus its liabilities, the owner had just sold his residence, receiving a substantial amount of cash, so he was eager to avoid personal Bankruptcy.

After spending time explaining the differences between receivership and bankruptcy and the corporate and personal issues, we decided that he needed an attorney to sort out the various issues before we could be of help.




In the intricate web of financial jargon and legal intricacies, corporate and personal bankruptcy and receivership stand as crucial mechanisms for businesses and often owners facing financial distress.

Both processes offer relief to distressed companies, but they function differently, especially in the context of Washington State.

This article dissects the disparities between corporate bankruptcy and receivership in Washington State, providing insight into the implications for businesses navigating the treacherous waters of financial turmoil.



Corporate bankruptcy is a legal process wherein a business entity seeks protection from its creditors to restructure its debts and assets.

In Washington State, federal bankruptcy proceedings generally fall under two main chapters: Chapter 7 and Chapter 11.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy –  involves the liquidation of a company’s assets to pay off creditors. A federal court-appointed trustee oversees the process, ensuring equitable distribution among creditors. Once the assets are sold, the business ceases operations, and the remaining debts are discharged, providing a fresh start for the company’s stakeholders.

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy – allows a business to continue its operations while formulating a plan to restructure its debts. The company develops a reorganization plan, subject to court approval, which outlines how it will repay creditors over time. This chapter is particularly common among large corporations seeking to restructure and emerge stronger. It is important to note that fewer than 20% of mid-sized and smaller corporations that enter into Chapter 11, actually succeed in completing the process. Subchapter 5 of Chapter 11 is a newer process designed for smaller companies with streamlined procedures that offer a greater opportunity for success at lower costs.



Receivership, on the other hand, is a state-court-based legal remedy where a neutral third party, known as a receiver, is appointed by the court to manage a financially distressed company.

Unlike bankruptcy, which operates under federal law, receivership in Washington State is primarily governed by state statutes.

A receiver can be appointed either by a court order, often through an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, or a contractual agreement among the parties involved.

The receiver takes control of the company’s assets, operations, and finances, with the primary objective of preserving the company’s value and maximizing the recovery for creditors.



Receivership serves various purposes, including asset preservation, business operations optimization, and debt repayment.

Unlike bankruptcy, receivership allows for a more tailored approach, as the receiver can focus on specific aspects of the business that require immediate attention, such as inventory management, cost reduction, or customer retention strategies. While some receiverships end in a liquidation or sale of the basic assets, due to the condition of the company in receivership.

In bankruptcy, the debtor typically retains control over the business under Chapter 11, subject to court oversight. In receivership, the receiver assumes control, making crucial decisions related to the company’s operations and assets.

This key difference often influences the choice between the two options, depending on the level of control the stakeholders are willing to relinquish and the financial capability to fund the proposed plan.



Active Involvement: Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings involve active participation by creditors in the formulation and approval of the reorganization plan.

Limited Involvement: In a Receivership, the receiver acts as a neutral party, making decisions in the best interest of all parties involved. Creditors may have limited involvement in receivership, allowing for a more streamlined decision-making process.

Bankruptcy proceedings, especially Chapter 11, can be time-consuming and costly due to the extensive legal processes and requirements.

Receivership, being a state-court-driven process, can often be implemented more swiftly and at a lower cost, making it an attractive option for companies seeking a quicker resolution to their financial challenges.




In summary, while both corporate bankruptcy and receivership offer avenues for financially distressed businesses to navigate their crises, the choice between the two depends on various factors, including the level of control desired, creditor involvement, and the urgency of the situation.

Understanding the nuances of corporate bankruptcy and receivership in Washington State empowers businesses and stakeholders to make informed decisions, ultimately paving the way for a smoother transition towards financial stability and future success.

Given the economic climate today; where banks are approving fewer loans and funds from the federal government are more difficult to obtain, if you begin to see the handwriting on the wall, don’t hesitate to ask for help.

Revitalization Partners specializes in improving the operational and financial results of companies and providing hands-on expertise in virtually every circumstance, with a focus on small and mid-market organizations. Whether your requirement is Interim Management, a Business Assessment, Revitalization and Reengineering, a State Receivership, or Bankruptcy Support, we focus on giving you the best resolution in the fastest time with the highest possible return.

Rapidly Rising Rents are Threatening Independent Businesses


In cities as diverse as Portland, Seattle, Spokane, and even Austin, TX., retail rents and those for manufacturing and warehouse space have increased by double-digit percentages over the last year alone.

As the cost of space rises, neighborhoods that have long provided the kind of varied environment in which entrepreneurs thrive are becoming increasingly inhospitable to them.

Independent businesses that serve the everyday needs of their communities are being forced out and replaced by national chains that can negotiate better rents or can afford to subsidize a high-visibility location.



The cost of commercial space is spiking upward around the country, driven both by run-away real estate speculation and the growing popularity of urbanism.  As a new generation discovers the appeal of walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods, demand for small commercial spaces in those neighborhoods is far outpacing supply, and rents are rising to match.

Locally owned enterprises, which thrive in these areas, are increasingly threatened with displacement from the neighborhoods that they’ve made vibrant, and getting replaced by national chains that can negotiate better rents or afford to subsidize a high-visibility location.

As high rents shutter longtime businesses, they also create an ever-higher barrier to entry for new entrepreneurs, stunting opportunity and leading to a scarcity of start-ups in cities once known for their business dynamism.

In one Seattle neighborhood, near the residence of a Revitalization Partners Principal, a number of restaurants and a gym, often frequented by his family, are closing due to rent increases which are proving to be non-negotiable with landlords.



When once-thriving blocks become taken over by generic national brands, local business owners lose.  But so do cities and the people who live in them.

The businesses on the front lines of rising rents are the grocers and hardware stores, the neighborhood-serving businesses selling everyday goods with little padding on their margins.

When these businesses get displaced, residents lose the ability to walk to the store for their shopping, to bump into neighbors, and to chat with the business owners, who often attend to a variety of community needs that go well beyond making sales.

“We’ve been priced out of a ZIP code that we’ve been in for the past 18 years,” wrote a local retailer in Austin in the comments of a survey of independent businesses. “I don’t mean rents slowly creeping up; I mean we would be paying more than double.”

This business owner isn’t an outlier. In a survey, 59 percent of retailers reported being worried about the increasing cost of rent, and one in four described it as a top challenge.



Behind these rising rents are a complex constellation of causes that span new urbanism and global capital. On the demand side, cities are booming, and there’s an increased demand for the small-scale, walkable storefronts in which independent businesses thrive.

National chains, too, are entering the hunt for space in cities, drawn by rising populations and having saturated the suburbs, seeking new markets.

On the supply side, as older buildings—which were generally designed to have small-scale, ground-level retail space—are getting razed for new development, those new projects often don’t replace them, instead containing commercial space that’s larger-format and designed for a national chain.

For the real estate developers behind these projects, securing a single large ground-floor tenant makes a project easier. A name-brand tenant is a faster ticket to financing for a project, especially within a banking system that’s increasingly national and international in scope.

“The way that projects are financed, they go to a safe way of doing development and they have large tenant spaces that make the banks happy that are lending to them,” says Ken Takahashi, in the Seattle Office of Economic Development.

This bias toward large spaces in new construction further skews the built environment in favor of bigger companies and compounds the issue of rising rents.

“In a lot of places, the spaces are not the right size for smaller businesses that really only need a fraction of what’s available, and they can’t afford to pay rent on a much larger space,” Takahashi says.



Another challenge is that real estate developers and the brokers they hire are often themselves national in scale. They lack knowledge of the local businesses in the market, but already have ongoing relationships with many national brands.

Similar incentives, driven by how buildings are financed, also lead property owners to favor chains. While there is a perception that national chains pay higher rents, that’s not necessarily true.

In some cases, it’s local businesses that have to pay higher rents in order to prove themselves, while national chains are given a discount for their perceived stability and creditworthiness.

“A formula retail tenant may not be paying more per square foot, but it adds some creditworthiness to the balance sheet for the landlord, and it makes your bank happy,” says Rodney Fong, president of Fong Real Estate Company in San Francisco and a member of the San Francisco Planning Commission.

Banks and other lenders often provide lower interest rates or better terms if a building owner has signed a national brand. When property owners and investors can get better terms by leasing to a business like a Target, Fong explains, “Target will win every day.”



Structural incentives and geographic biases like these are further distorting the commercial real estate market for locally owned businesses, making it difficult for them to compete on their own merits.

At the same time, property values are soaring, for reasons that include financial speculation and, in the present climate, real estate is becoming an increasingly popular place for global investors to park their capital.

Combined, these factors are creating rent increases that local businesses can’t absorb. Many of them are forced through the expense and challenge of relocating their business or closing altogether.

In one survey of businesses along Magazine Street in New Orleans, 76 percent of local business owners reported fearing that soaring rents would force them off of the street.

A report from the city of Boston found that among the city’s primary gaps in its small business ecosystem, “Some gaps, such as a lack of available, affordable real estate, are pervasive and affect most small businesses in the city.”

Revitalization Partners specializes in improving the operational and financial results of companies and providing hands-on expertise in virtually every circumstance, with a focus on small and mid-market organizations. Whether your requirement is Interim Management, a Business Assessment, Revitalization and Reengineering, a State Receivership or Bankruptcy Support, we focus on giving you the best resolution in the fastest time with the highest possible return.

Where Art Meets Science – Selling Assets in a Court-Appointed Receivership


Over the past 20 years, Revitalization Partners has served as court-appointed receivers for a number of companies in the Pacific Northwest.

In fact, our experience includes serving as receivers for thirty-four companies in a wide array of industries, ranging from manufacturing, importing, and technology, to cannabis.

While we have worked in many industries, we have had substantial success in selling the assets of a company as a going concern value. This result brings additional value to the receivership estate when compared to an outright liquidation of the assets in an auction.

The important issue that we address in every receivership is determining the fair market value of the company’s assets when selling them as a going concern.



Determining the fair market value of assets for a company that is operating as a going concern requires a substantial effort to ensure that we are maximizing the value of assets on behalf of the company’s creditors.

In fact, under the Washington State Receivership Act, the receiver is required to obtain approval from the court after sufficient notice to all interested parties to enable them to comment on the proposed sale of assets.

This process requires that we are able to justify the value of the proposed sale and present our case that it represents the best and highest value for the assets in an arm’s length process.



This effort begins with determining the liquidation value of the physical assets.

We typically bring in a firm that has experience in valuing physical assets, and which also has the capability to conduct an auction, should that be required.

This type of firm, in our experience, provides the most realistic valuation of the physical assets, to use as a baseline for establishing the minimum value for a going concern asset sale.

The going concern valuation, in addition to the value of the physical assets, also includes estimates for intangible assets, tradenames, customer lists, websites, and the value of the sustainable revenue in a going concern environment.



A significant element in establishing the best and highest price is to establish sales and bidding procedures that are to be used to attract possible bidders.

The bidding procedures could include minimum acceptable bid price, bidding increments, and overbid procedures, depending on the nature of the business and the number of bidders anticipated.

The bidding procedures also include qualifications for potential bidders and a bidding deadline for any bids to be submitted.

It’s important to communicate to potential bidders that the assets are sold free and clear of all liens, that there are no contingencies allowed, and that the winning bidder must make a cash downpayment and remit the balance in cash at closing.

Selling the assets free and clear of all liens is a substantial benefit to potential buyers, as they are not responsible for any liabilities previously incurred by the company and have unencumbered use of the assets after the sale is consummated.



Identifying individuals or companies that might be interested in bidding on the assets is also an important part of the process.

We have found that there are many different sources for potential bidders, including vendors, key members of the management team, competitors, or former or current owners of the business.

We also place ads in trade magazines, typically in the businesses for sale section, that usually generate significant interest as well.

Typically, we receive a number of offers for the assets being sold, and as part of the process, we vet potential buyers to ensure they have the ability to fund the purchase at closing.

They also conduct due diligence during this period as well, as one of the important elements of the sale is that they purchase the assets on a where is, as is condition.

In other words, there is no recourse to the receiver or the company after closing. We also use this process to negotiate an increase in the purchase price, if possible, when there are multiple buyers.



This process has typically resulted in a sales price that is substantially better than the liquidation value that was obtained early in the process.

A great example of this was when we recently sold the assets of a company where in court pleadings, we stated, “Given the facts and circumstances of this case, the purchase price is clearly more than 50% of the fair market value of the tangible and intangible assets being sold”.

The court subsequently approved the sale based on the facts that we submitted to the court.

As a result of this sale, RP was able to pay off 100% of the secured debt and in fact, will be able to return a portion of the proceeds to the members of the LLC.

While the process of maximizing the value of the assets is an art form and a science, it’s important for the receiver to have experience in operating companies to obtain the best value for the benefit of creditors.

That coupled with our experience in marketing and selling assets in an operating company, substantially improves the prospect of success.

Revitalization Partners specializes in improving the operational and financial results of companies and providing hands-on expertise in virtually every circumstance, with a focus on small and mid-market organizations. Whether your requirement is Interim Management, a Business Assessment, Revitalization and Reengineering, a State Receivership or Bankruptcy Support, we focus on giving you the best resolution in the fastest time with the highest possible return.

Why Successful Leaders Often Fail Before Succeeding


As Revitalization Partners celebrates twenty years of helping hundreds of companies and their CEOs overcome significant business challenges, we thought it would be appropriate to reflect on our experience helping businesses in distress.

More often than not, failing businesses are in this situation as a result of CEOs who do not have the experience to execute a sustainable business strategy, who repeatedly make critical errors in judgment, or who are incompetent and should not have been put in the position to begin with.

The consequences of these mistakes not only have a significant negative impact on the CEO’s career but also impact its employees, customers, and its vendors. While in some cases the business fails, in many other situations, the CEO is fired and replaced by someone with more experience who can right the ship and return it to profitability.

The key question most of these CEOs ask us is,
“What could I have done differently?”



In many instances, when a CEO fails, they are looked upon as weak, incompetent, or just way out of their league. While it’s common to point out the negative aspects of why a CEO has failed, from a broader perspective, it’s important to view a failure as a learning experience that has the potential to provide a path to success.

Individuals should not necessarily view their failure as a character trait.

They could experience failure once, or many times, however, those experiences do not make one a complete failure, in fact they should be viewed as only a temporary setback.

The key variable is what does one learn from failing? In fact, one of the key lessons is that great successes can come from great failures.

When a CEO fails in their effort to successfully lead and operate a company, regardless of the size, they typically spend time self-reflecting and attempting to understand how they could have done things differently to produce a better outcome.

This time for reflection can also be useful to reevaluate their strengths and weaknesses and to work on gaining experience in areas that need improvement.



There are many examples of successful individuals who have failed miserably before achieving tremendous success. For example, Walt Disney failed early in his business career when his former newspaper editor told him that he lacked imagination and had no good ideals.

Undeterred, Walt went on to create an international business and became a cultural icon with a business that bears his name. Disney’s take on failure was:

“I think it’s important to have a good hard failure when you’re young … because it makes you kind of aware of what can happen to you.  Because of it, I’ve never had any fear in my whole life when we’ve been near collapse and all of that. I’ve never been afraid.”  – Walt Disney



JK Rowling, the famous author and successful entrepreneur, was on welfare and a single mother when a lot of publishers rejected her Harry Potter novel.

She is now one of the richest women in the world, and reflects on her early failures, “It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all – in which case, you fail by default.”

Handling professional failure takes effort, acceptance and action. Learning from one’s mistakes and failures requires a change in mindset and attitude.



Some of the key takeaways of viewing failure differently and turning failure into future success involve a number of shifts in thinking.

For example, thinking of failure as a tool.

Viewing failure as an opportunity to innovate rather than a deterrent to success can help one accept and use failure to their advantage.

One should also view failing differently than failure.

Failing is the act of trying something you learn that doesn’t work and you can try again, with a different approach and achieve success.

Failure on the other hand is giving up and not continuing to try.

Another important change is to redefine what success means. Knowing what you want to achieve and how one measures success can help determine one’s outlook on what defines failure and how to move past it.

Revitalization Partners specializes in improving the operational and financial results of companies and providing hands-on expertise in virtually every circumstance, with a focus on small and mid-market organizations. Whether your requirement is Interim Management, a Business Assessment, Revitalization and Re-engineering, a State Receivership or Bankruptcy Support, we focus on giving you the best resolution in the fastest time with the highest possible return.

Is The Timing Right to Sell Your Business?


It’s no secret that the landscape for selling a business has not been particularly favorable for business owners.

Particularly in an environment where interest rates have substantially increased and where banks have moved to tighten lending requirements.

This situation, along with the prospect of a recession in the not-too-distant future, has created headwinds for owners of small to medium-sized businesses who are planning for retirement and wanting to monetize what is most likely their largest asset, by selling their business.



In fact, an accelerating number of business owners in the baby-boomer generation are interested in exploring alternatives to sell their businesses.

Recently, a 2023 BizBuySell’s quarterly Insight report presented a survey of business owners and business brokers.

The survey revealed that 31% of baby boomer respondents indicated that now may be the right time to retire as businesses recover from a challenging 2020.

Furthermore, 45% of business owners say they are, in fact, selling their business to retire.



While the current environment may present certain challenges to business owners who are planning to sell their business, there are also advantages as well. Capstone Partners, for example, recently released their Q1 2023 Capital Market Update that summarized first-quarter middle market merger and acquisition activity.

They indicated that middle market deal volume declined 14% Q1 2023 year over year, although the decline in middle market deals was much improved over the broader M&A market volume that declined over 25%.

Capstone’s update revealed that buyers demonstrated increased selectivity demonstrating a higher interest in quality companies with strong margin profiles, and the buyers were willing to command M&A interest at premium valuations.

Capstone’s report indicated that the average middle market EBITDA multiple amounted to 9.1x in Q1/23, which represented a significant increase from Q4/22’s multiple of 7.2x.



While sellers oftentimes focus on multiple valuations or their own perception of what their business is worth, it’s important to understand the reality of the value of the business and work diligently to improve its worth ahead of putting it on the market.

Revitalization Partners has had substantial experience in helping business owners sell their businesses and we advise them it’s important to develop a plan to improve value in advance of a sale.

Developing a plan at least a year in advance to improve the EBITDA of the business is incredibly important. EBITDA improvement takes time to implement and is seldom accomplished without a plan.

Remember, for every $100,000 that EBITDA can be sustainably improved, the value of a business improves by $500,000, assuming a 5X multiple.

Improving the performance of the business in advance of a sale can have a significant impact on improving the value a business owner receives and can be an advantage in negotiating with the potential buyer.



Business owners can set a target for EBITDA improvement and work with the management team to execute strategies to accomplish their goals.

EBITDA improvement can come in many different ways, including gross margin improvement, targeted marketing campaigns that are focused on increasing revenue, and strategically reducing or renegotiating expense reductions that will improve the bottom line.

Business owners can also improve their overall return and cash received when they sell their business by negotiating favorable terms.



For example, after a total purchase price and valuation is negotiated, providing a seller note that is secured by the assets of the company can increase the overall return to the seller.

In today’s high-interest environment, the interest on a seller’s note will most likely be higher than putting cash in the bank, thus, the seller would increase their return for the overall sale.

It’s important to work with an attorney to make sure a seller’s note contains provisions that protect the seller’s interest.

Including a seller’s note as part of the transaction can also have income tax advantages if structured properly.

It’s important to obtain advice from a tax advisor to consider options for minimizing income taxes.

Even though the current business climate may be somewhat challenging, it should not discourage a business owner, particularly a retiring business owner, from considering selling their business.



Furthermore, the seller might also negotiate a consulting contract with the buyer to assist with the transition and to ensure the buyer has the benefit of the seller’s experience as they move forward.

Putting together a plan and process to prepare for selling the business, which includes improving EBITDA, documenting steps required to prepare for a sale, and selecting competent legal and business advisers, is key to preparing for the best possible outcome.

And don’t be afraid to ask for help in the beginning of the process, it improves the odds of success.

Revitalization Partners specializes in improving the operational and financial results of companies and providing hands-on expertise in virtually every circumstance, with a focus on small and mid-market organizations. Whether your requirement is Interim Management, a Business Assessment, Revitalization and Reengineering, a State Receivership or Bankruptcy Support, we focus on giving you the best resolution in the fastest time with the highest possible return.