Deals Worth Knowing About

A physician group came to us with a rare opportunity: four oncology practice locations up for acquisition through a bankruptcy sale. The seller was a multi-site practice in financial distress. The buyer knew how to run the practices. What they didn't have was a financing structure for a four-location bankruptcy acquisition that needed 100% leverage.

The buyer needed 100% of the acquisition price covered. Not 80%. Not 90%. All of it — plus enough working capital to carry operations through the transition period.

Bankruptcy acquisitions come with uncertainty by design. The asset pool is impaired, the seller isn't negotiating from strength, and lenders read that as risk. Most banks won't touch goodwill-heavy medical practice acquisitions under normal conditions — add bankruptcy to the equation and most lenders simply close the file.

The deal also crossed state lines: two locations in the Pacific Northwest, two in Nevada. Multi-state medical practice financing requires lenders who understand healthcare regulatory environments, licensing transfer timelines, and payer contracts — that's a short list.

And the buyer needed the capital stack done right the first time. There was no room for a failed round of lender conversations followed by a restart.

We underwrote the deal before approaching any lender: DSCR on the combined practice revenue, goodwill valuation methodology, payer mix analysis, and a realistic timeline for licensing transfers in both states. By the time we went to market, we weren't pitching a complicated deal — we were presenting a clean, documented credit package to the lenders most likely to say yes.

The result: 100% of a $13M acquisition financed, plus $2 million in working capital to cover operations while the new ownership got its footing.

Four-location oncology acquisition closed. The buyer had the liquidity they needed to operate from day one without drawing down personal reserves. The deal became the largest single transaction in our firm's history.

A gas station operator with multiple Quickstop locations needed access to working capital across his portfolio. The ask wasn't a purchase or a refinance — it was liquidity. Lines of credit against three separate properties, all structured to close simultaneously.

He'd been referred to us by a colleague. First conversation. No existing relationship.

Three separate credit facilities closing on the same day means three separate underwriting packages, three lender relationships coordinated in parallel, and three sets of closing logistics. A single delay on any one deal can unwind the others.

Gas station properties also carry environmental risk that generic commercial lenders treat as automatic disqualifiers. Phase I assessments, UST documentation, and remediation history all get scrutinized. Lenders who don't understand the asset class over-discount the risk. Lenders who do understand it move faster and price it correctly.

All three properties were solid performers, but each carried different underwriting considerations — different locations, different sizes and pump counts, and one was tenant-operated rather than owner-run, which changes how a lender reads the income stream. We matched each to a lender whose criteria fit the specific property, ran all three underwriting packages in parallel, and coordinated closings so no single deal held up the others.

All three lines of credit closed the same day. The operator had access to working capital across his entire portfolio. That first deal became a long-term client relationship — he's been one of our most active repeat clients since 2019.

A self-storage investor had built a portfolio of properties over several years — each financed individually, each carrying its own terms, rate environment, and covenant obligations. The portfolio was performing. But the equity was locked up across five separate loan structures with no clean way to access it.

She wanted to consolidate, pull cash out, and use the proceeds to acquire more storage units. One loan. One payment. Capital freed up to grow.

Portfolio loans sound straightforward until you run the math. Each individual property has to support the combined debt service. Properties with strong cash flow carry weaker ones — and lenders underwrite the portfolio as a whole, not as a sum of its parts. If one asset drags DSCR below threshold, the structure falls apart.

Adding cash-out on top of a consolidation tightens the math further. The structure had to work for the lender and still leave enough proceeds to actually move on an acquisition.

We mapped every property's NOI, occupancy, and existing debt into a single portfolio model. Two of the five assets were carrying the portfolio — strong cash flow, high occupancy. Two were marginal. One was in between. The structure had to lean on the strongest assets without letting the weaker ones drag DSCR below the lender's floor.

We found a lender with real appetite for self-storage (most don't touch it) and structured a single portfolio loan that consolidated all five into one facility — one payment, one covenant package, one renewal cycle — with cash-out proceeds available to deploy toward her next acquisition.

Five loans consolidated into one portfolio facility at a lower blended rate. The investor had clean covenant obligations, one lender relationship, and cash in hand to acquire more storage units.

A developer came to us through a referral with two construction projects ready to go simultaneously: a duplex and a six-unit single-family residential development, both in Snohomish County. He needed construction financing for both — and wanted to close them at the same time.

Construction loans have more moving parts than permanent financing — draw schedules, inspections, interest reserves, and conversion terms all have to be locked before a shovel hits dirt. Two projects closing simultaneously means all of that, times two, coordinated across the same lender timeline.

Snohomish permitting was running long at the time, and the lender needed confidence that both projects could break ground before winter. We had to underwrite realistic timelines — not the developer's optimistic ones.

We underwrote both projects separately, then packaged them as a single relationship pitch: one developer, two funded projects, future pipeline. Construction lenders who see repeat business move faster and price tighter. That framing turned two standalone asks into one compelling deal.

Both projects were fully underwritten with realistic draw schedules and project timelines before we went to market.

Both construction loans closed the same day. The developer had funding in place to break ground on both projects immediately. He broke ground on both within the same construction season.