Validating WC/LOC math on un-subordinated seller note + AR exclusion (commercial trades acquisition)

 profile

April 26, 2026

by a searcher from University of Central Florida in Caldwell, ID, USA

Self-funded searcher in the Pacific Northwest. Under LOI for a small commercial trades acquisition, all seller-financed (no SBA). Just got a counter back that has me concerned about post-close working capital, and I want to validate my read before sending my response. Counter terms (relevant pieces): Purchase price ~$1.3M ~$375-425K down via ROBS ~$925K seller note, 10-year amortization, 7.5%, with a "buyer's discretion" balloon between year 4 and year 7 Seller note secured by an un-subordinated UCC-1 on all acquired assets AND on "other Company assets acquired until the note is paid in full" (i.e., reaches future post-close acquisitions) Accounts receivable EXCLUDED from the deal (~$461K stripped) All cash and cash equivalents EXCLUDED (except customer deposits) Buyer takes inventory, equipment, vehicles, customer contracts, vendor relationships, goodwill, etc. Original plan was to roll a working capital line into an SBA 7(a) acquisition loan. Pivoted to all-seller-financed structure when the seller indicated installment sale (IRC 453) treatment was important to him. So I'm now structuring WC/LOC separately. Two questions: Am I right that this counter as written makes a post-close WC/LOC effectively impossible? My read: no senior lender will give me a revolver against AR/inventory if the seller note has a first-position UCC-1 on those same assets. Combined with AR being stripped from the deal, day-one liquidity is essentially zero. Lenders I've talked to so far have confirmed the priority concern. Anyone seen this work some other way? For those who've done seller-financed acquisitions with a WC/LOC overlay, what structures have actually worked? Specifically: Subordination agreement with the seller (seller note moves behind a senior WC facility on AR/inventory specifically)? Carve-out language that limits seller's UCC to hard assets only (equipment, goodwill, etc.) leaving AR/inventory available as collateral for a revolver? AR included in the deal so the buyer has a borrowing base? A combination? In my counter I'm proposing: UCC-1 on acquired assets only (removing the future-asset reach), seller note subordinated to a senior WC facility secured by AR/inventory, subordination agreement negotiated and finalized before close. For context on the WC need: This is a project-based business with###-###-#### day collection cycles, regular union payroll (every two weeks, non-negotiable timing), and material/sub costs that can spike with WIP. Without AR or a revolver, the math doesn't work in month two. Trying to figure out if my position is reasonable or if I'm missing a structure that experienced searchers use here. Any input appreciated.
1
3
135
Replies
3
commentor profile
Reply by a professional
from University of Michigan in Detroit, MI, USA
HI ^redacted‌, your position is reasonable. You can't close without sufficient working capital in place. The seller's proposed structure likely rules out a LOC. Moreover, even if you can secure a LOC, it might not fix the liquidity issue entirely. If the seller wants the deal to go through (and wants to see the note repaid), he may have to compromise on AR.
commentor profile
Reply by a professional
from Concordia University in New York, NY, USA
Hi Jason, My take is your read is correct. Unsubordinated blanket UCC-1 plus AR exclusion makes a revolver impossible. You close with zero liquidity into a business that needs it in week one. Your counter is the right structure. A few things worth sharpening: • UCC carve-out: Enumerate assets explicitly (equipment, vehicles, goodwill, contracts). “Acquired assets only” will get expanded in redlines. • Subordination: Get your WC lender’s template before finalizing terms with the seller. • AR must come into the deal. Subordination fixes priority, not day-one liquidity. No borrowing base means you start in a cash hole regardless. • Future asset reach: Push hard on this. It complicates every future financing or sale. Not a tax advisor, but my general understanding is that subordinating the note does not change how the seller gets taxed. If his counsel is linking those two things it might be worth a second opinion before it becomes a blocker. Your position is solid. Good luck with the counter.
commentor profile
+1 more reply.
Join the discussion