This post is nonsense, your position and knowledge has been foolish and uninformed, whilst your endless insults define you. You are what you are, for all to see.
I see where you are coming from, John, but it is not where I am suggesting some time can be saved. For instance, let's say Allam had decided he was going to sell his business and he wished for a swift closure of a deal (sic). Let us presume that as a highly experienced businessman he broadly knew what questions would come at him in any prospective buyers Due Diligence. Lets make this a tad simpler than it often is, but lets assume he would expect questions on two general fronts: Accounts and Assets (they will eventually merge, we know that.). He will make sure his accountants are prepared to issue the answers to questions on P&L, etc. But he also knows that he has properties and that those properties house quite a bit of equipment (assets) and he knows it is usual for an audit of those assets to be required. To audit those assets would mean a team from each seperate buyer tying up his staff for some considerable period, this multiplied by the number of prospective buyers. Anyone who has experienced this would know that if the company has not kept robust records (many do not) this can be very detrimental to day-to-day business. Or he could appoint a fully accredited, independent auditor (for arguments sake, Price Waterhouse Cooper - they might tackle this type of thing, it's a random guess) and offer that to each buyer as the basis for their assements. I think most clued up businesses would accept that, simply questioning any elements they are unclear about. It is this that can make any subsequent Due Diligence shorter in duration, if the independent audit was triggered by the first enquiry and not pre-prepared (as they have a time limitation). I have never come across two buyers sharing accountants and/or solicitors and I believe there would be a conflict of interest in doing so.
You said it in a sarcastic manner and your comment was poorly judged at best. If being precious is pointing out you talk ****e at times then so be it.
I hear what you say, I guess at the end of the day it depends on how in-depth the buy requires the due diligence to be. I seem to remember the Allam's can't have done their due diligence very carefully. If I remember correctly they found out after they took over the SMC that Barlett had taken out a mortgage on the lease which they ended up having to pay off.
A weak attempt at humour suggesting Allam might want a quick sale when all we see is it is always next week...
Bartlett didn't take a mortgage on the lease as he wasn't allowed to by the terms of the lease. He took out a loan secured on all the other assets of the SMC. In practice it meant Bartlett was restricted in the amount he could borrow.
Your memory is the same as mine, John; Due Diligence was not a strong point of their purchase. Edit: Was it tax that was overlooked?
