What Impact is the US/Israeli War in the Middle East Likely to Have on M&A in the UK’s Mid-Market

Since the pandemic in 2019, the UK has experienced a steady pattern of new uncertainties. In March 2026, the escalation of conflict involving the United States and Israel in the Middle East has only caused more uncertainty in global markets, with immediate consequences for dealmaking activity. In the UK’s mid-market, where transactions are particularly sensitive to shifts in confidence and financing conditions, the impact is already being felt. The sudden shift in geopolitical risk is prompting investors to pause, reassess valuations and approach new opportunities with greater caution. Although this doesn’t necessarily signal a collapse in M&A activity, it is likely tosignify the beginning of a more controlled and selective environment where fewer deals are pursued, timelines are likely to be extended by more cautious due diligence, and pricing is likely to become more tightly contested. 

In the immediate aftermath of geopolitical shock, confidence is always the first factor to be impacted. Buyers hesitate, lenders reassess and vendors grow wary of accepting prices that mightbe deemed discounted a few weeks later. This dynamic is particularly acute in the UK’s mid-market where transactions, which typically range from £10 million to £250 million, are highly exposed to fluctuations in sentiment and financing conditions. These deals are often underpinned by leverage, relationship-driven lending, as well as management projections that depend heavily on stable macroeconomic assumptions. Naturally, when these assumptions are thrown into doubt, M&A momentum slows. 

However, the impact of the conflict in the Middle East doesn’t just impact sentiment. Because it continues to threaten critical energy routes, it has had an almost immediate effect on inflation expectations. Rising energy prices impact end-to-end supply chains, which pushes central banks towards tighter monetary policy, or delaying long hoped-for rate cuts. For UK dealmakers, this means a more expensive and less competitive pool of debt financing. The consequences are that leverage multiples compress, debt service burdens increase and the price thatbuyers are willing to pay declines.

Any mid-deal move to adjust pricing inevitably creates a wider gap between buyer and seller expectations and may also create a rift in the relationship. Vendors, particularly those who delay exits in anticipation of stronger valuations, may be reluctant to accept lower offers even if they understand the geopolitical risk. Equally, buyers must not only account for higher financing costs but also earnings uncertainty and the possibility of further macroeconomic deterioration. The result is an increasing reliance on creative deal structures, where earn-outs, deferred payments and contingent consideration become tools to bridge disagreement and hedge risk. This means that while deal activity in the UK’s mid-market won’t disappear completely, if the current situation prevails or deteriorates, deals will likely become more complex, more negotiated and more conditional.

Saying this, the impact of the US/Israeli war isn’t uniform across all sectors. For example, energy and infrastructure assets gain renewed strategic importance as supply security becomes more important in the corporate and political agenda. Defenceand cybersecurity businesses, bolstered by increased government spending and heightened threat awareness, attract strong investor interest. Similarly, logistics and supply chain assets are now viewed as important for resilience, whereas they used to be valued primarily for efficiency. 

In comparison, sectors tied closely to consumer confidence will begin to encounter issues the longer the war goes on. At the time of writing Brent crude oil is priced at almost USD 103 per barrel, which is only likely to increase unless there is a short term resolution of hostilities, as approximately a third of the world’s oil is produced in the Middle East. Consequently, retail, leisure and discretionary services will almost certainly face weakening demand as households face higher living costs and economic uncertainty. Without the ability to gauge the scale of the problem, acquirers and investors will understandably assume the worst. Industrials with significant energy exposure will see margins come under pressure which will complicate valuation discussions. Even parts of the technology sector, particularly those reliant on long-term growth assumptions rather than near-term profitability, will find themselves repriced in a higher-rate environment. This comes on the back of a general raised level of anxiety about the disruptive impact of AI which is creating a general neurosis about the long term sustainability of many businesses. 

Cross-border dynamics shouldn’t be overlooked, as they add another layer of complexity. Global capital flows, which are always sensitive to geopolitical risk, may temporarily retrench. US-based investors, who have recently shown greater appetite for UK and European mid-market assets, may look inward, while broader risk repricing affects emerging and frontier exposures. However, the UK may benefit from this environment in certain respects. If sterling weakens under inflationary pressure, UK assets may become more attractive to foreign buyers with stronger currencies. This means that inbound investment may not decline so much as become more selective, value-driven, focussed on larger, more resilient businesses and opportunistic. 

If we look at all of these factors together, they suggest a two-phase evolution of the UK’s mid-market M&A environment. The first phase is defined by hesitation with deal volumes dipping, tighter financing and participants reevaluating expectations. The second phase is defined by adaptation. As pricing resents and uncertainty becomes the new standard, deal activity will continue with a more selective and strategically focused form. The underlying challenges for large businesses to deliver organic growth and the compelling need for private equity to deploy capital are likely to lead ultimately to creativity in M&A rather than an absence of deals. 

As the war continues, private equity is already emerging as both a stabilising and opportunistic force. Although initial caution will be inevitable, mid-market investors are often quicker than their larger counterparts to adapt to dislocation. With significant capital reserves still available, many funds begin to see opportunity where others see risk. Lower valuations, reduced competition and an increase in unique situations creates the perfect landscape for disciplined buyers. Strategies will likely evolve accordingly, so we may see platform acquisitions paired with bolt-on deals and distressed opportunities may be evaluated more seriously. 

However, with holding periods extending and exit routes becoming less certain, the challenge of exiting investments will become one of the more subtle constraints on the market. Public equity volatility limits Initial Prospect Offering (IPO) prospects, while strategic buyers, who will face the same macroeconomic pressures, become more selective. As a result, secondary buyouts and continuation vehicles gain prominence which allows investors to return capital while retaining exposure to and upside in potential assets.

In real time, the impact of the US/Israeli war is already filtering visibly into the UK’s mid-market deal environment. Not just through abstract forecasts, but through tangible disruptions to transactions, financing and corporate confidence. Public market signals, often a leading indicator for private M&A, have deteriorated sharply, with the FTSE 250 and (Alternative Investment Market) AIM markets falling to multi-million lows and losing over 10% of their value since the conflict began. This reflects a rapid reevaluation and repricing of risk across the group from which mid-market targets are drawn. This volatility is already translating into deal friction, notably the collapse of a high-profile buyout process for Spire Healthcare. This example underscores how quickly financing conditions and bidder confidence can disappear when debt costs spike and uncertainty rises.

At the same time, lenders have withdrawn hundreds of financing products and repriced risk aggressively, with over 700 UK mortgage deals pulled and borrowing costs surging in a matter of weeks. This is a clear signal of tightening credit conditions that directly impacts leveraged mid-market transactions. Consumer-facing businesses, such as Kingfisher, are already warning of weaker demand and heightened volatility, which is affecting earnings visibility and valuation confidence in active sale processes. Even at a macro level, advisory firms note that factors cautiously improving the UK’s M&A environment at the start of 2026, have come to a sudden pause, with dealmakers shifting towards a more selective market as geopolitical risk premiums rise.

What Impact is the US/Israeli War in the Middle East Likely to Have on M&A in the UK’s Mid-Market

Since the pandemic in 2019, the UK has experienced a steady pattern of new uncertainties. In March 2026, the escalation of conflict involving the United States and Israel in the Middle East has only caused more uncertainty in global markets, with immediate consequences for dealmaking activity. In the UK’s mid-market, where transactions are particularly sensitive to shifts in confidence and financing conditions, the impact is already being felt. The sudden shift in geopolitical risk is prompting investors to pause, reassess valuations and approach new opportunities with greater caution. Although this doesn’t necessarily signal a collapse in M&A activity, it is likely tosignify the beginning of a more controlled and selective environment where fewer deals are pursued, timelines are likely to be extended by more cautious due diligence, and pricing is likely to become more tightly contested. 

In the immediate aftermath of geopolitical shock, confidence is always the first factor to be impacted. Buyers hesitate, lenders reassess and vendors grow wary of accepting prices that mightbe deemed discounted a few weeks later. This dynamic is particularly acute in the UK’s mid-market where transactions, which typically range from £10 million to £250 million, are highly exposed to fluctuations in sentiment and financing conditions. These deals are often underpinned by leverage, relationship-driven lending, as well as management projections that depend heavily on stable macroeconomic assumptions. Naturally, when these assumptions are thrown into doubt, M&A momentum slows. 

However, the impact of the conflict in the Middle East doesn’t just impact sentiment. Because it continues to threaten critical energy routes, it has had an almost immediate effect on inflation expectations. Rising energy prices impact end-to-end supply chains, which pushes central banks towards tighter monetary policy, or delaying long hoped-for rate cuts. For UK dealmakers, this means a more expensive and less competitive pool of debt financing. The consequences are that leverage multiples compress, debt service burdens increase and the price thatbuyers are willing to pay declines.

Any mid-deal move to adjust pricing inevitably creates a wider gap between buyer and seller expectations and may also create a rift in the relationship. Vendors, particularly those who delay exits in anticipation of stronger valuations, may be reluctant to accept lower offers even if they understand the geopolitical risk. Equally, buyers must not only account for higher financing costs but also earnings uncertainty and the possibility of further macroeconomic deterioration. The result is an increasing reliance on creative deal structures, where earn-outs, deferred payments and contingent consideration become tools to bridge disagreement and hedge risk. This means that while deal activity in the UK’s mid-market won’t disappear completely, if the current situation prevails or deteriorates, deals will likely become more complex, more negotiated and more conditional.

Saying this, the impact of the US/Israeli war isn’t uniform across all sectors. For example, energy and infrastructure assets gain renewed strategic importance as supply security becomes more important in the corporate and political agenda. Defenceand cybersecurity businesses, bolstered by increased government spending and heightened threat awareness, attract strong investor interest. Similarly, logistics and supply chain assets are now viewed as important for resilience, whereas they used to be valued primarily for efficiency. 

In comparison, sectors tied closely to consumer confidence will begin to encounter issues the longer the war goes on. At the time of writing Brent crude oil is priced at almost USD 103 per barrel, which is only likely to increase unless there is a short term resolution of hostilities, as approximately a third of the world’s oil is produced in the Middle East. Consequently, retail, leisure and discretionary services will almost certainly face weakening demand as households face higher living costs and economic uncertainty. Without the ability to gauge the scale of the problem, acquirers and investors will understandably assume the worst. Industrials with significant energy exposure will see margins come under pressure which will complicate valuation discussions. Even parts of the technology sector, particularly those reliant on long-term growth assumptions rather than near-term profitability, will find themselves repriced in a higher-rate environment. This comes on the back of a general raised level of anxiety about the disruptive impact of AI which is creating a general neurosis about the long term sustainability of many businesses. 

Cross-border dynamics shouldn’t be overlooked, as they add another layer of complexity. Global capital flows, which are always sensitive to geopolitical risk, may temporarily retrench. US-based investors, who have recently shown greater appetite for UK and European mid-market assets, may look inward, while broader risk repricing affects emerging and frontier exposures. However, the UK may benefit from this environment in certain respects. If sterling weakens under inflationary pressure, UK assets may become more attractive to foreign buyers with stronger currencies. This means that inbound investment may not decline so much as become more selective, value-driven, focussed on larger, more resilient businesses and opportunistic. 

If we look at all of these factors together, they suggest a two-phase evolution of the UK’s mid-market M&A environment. The first phase is defined by hesitation with deal volumes dipping, tighter financing and participants reevaluating expectations. The second phase is defined by adaptation. As pricing resents and uncertainty becomes the new standard, deal activity will continue with a more selective and strategically focused form. The underlying challenges for large businesses to deliver organic growth and the compelling need for private equity to deploy capital are likely to lead ultimately to creativity in M&A rather than an absence of deals. 

As the war continues, private equity is already emerging as both a stabilising and opportunistic force. Although initial caution will be inevitable, mid-market investors are often quicker than their larger counterparts to adapt to dislocation. With significant capital reserves still available, many funds begin to see opportunity where others see risk. Lower valuations, reduced competition and an increase in unique situations creates the perfect landscape for disciplined buyers. Strategies will likely evolve accordingly, so we may see platform acquisitions paired with bolt-on deals and distressed opportunities may be evaluated more seriously. 

However, with holding periods extending and exit routes becoming less certain, the challenge of exiting investments will become one of the more subtle constraints on the market. Public equity volatility limits Initial Prospect Offering (IPO) prospects, while strategic buyers, who will face the same macroeconomic pressures, become more selective. As a result, secondary buyouts and continuation vehicles gain prominence which allows investors to return capital while retaining exposure to and upside in potential assets.

In real time, the impact of the US/Israeli war is already filtering visibly into the UK’s mid-market deal environment. Not just through abstract forecasts, but through tangible disruptions to transactions, financing and corporate confidence. Public market signals, often a leading indicator for private M&A, have deteriorated sharply, with the FTSE 250 and (Alternative Investment Market) AIM markets falling to multi-million lows and losing over 10% of their value since the conflict began. This reflects a rapid reevaluation and repricing of risk across the group from which mid-market targets are drawn. This volatility is already translating into deal friction, notably the collapse of a high-profile buyout process for Spire Healthcare. This example underscores how quickly financing conditions and bidder confidence can disappear when debt costs spike and uncertainty rises.

At the same time, lenders have withdrawn hundreds of financing products and repriced risk aggressively, with over 700 UK mortgage deals pulled and borrowing costs surging in a matter of weeks. This is a clear signal of tightening credit conditions that directly impacts leveraged mid-market transactions. Consumer-facing businesses, such as Kingfisher, are already warning of weaker demand and heightened volatility, which is affecting earnings visibility and valuation confidence in active sale processes. Even at a macro level, advisory firms note that factors cautiously improving the UK’s M&A environment at the start of 2026, have come to a sudden pause, with dealmakers shifting towards a more selective market as geopolitical risk premiums rise.

The Capital Stack Puzzle: Optimising Your Next Round with Blended Finance

For high-growth, founder-led businesses, a financing round isn’t just how much you raise – it’s how you structure it. Here is how using mezzanine debt, preference shares, and project finance alongside traditional equity and senior debt can help you bridge gaps, reduce dilution, and fund growth on your terms.

The Optimisation Problem

You’ve built a revenue-generating business. You’re profitable, or you have a strong asset base. When you look at your next phase, be it for major fleet capex, a strategic acquisition, providing some shareholder liquidity or managing your working capital due to “growing pains”– you already know the traditional toolkit.

Equity from founders, angels, or venture capital investors provides the risk capital and strategic support. Senior debt from a bank or alternative lender provides the low-cost, secured foundation. For most founders, these are the bedrock of any funding round.

We are increasingly seeing the value-conscious founders ask a different question. It’s not “Equity or Debt?”, but rather “As part of arranging my equity and debt, how do I fill the gaps between them without giving away more than I need to?”

This article explores how to use mezzanine debt, preference shares, and asset-level project finance to complement – not replace – your core equity and senior debt. The aim is to maximise total firepower while minimising dilution and maintaining control.

The Strategic Middle Layer

Think of your funding as a “capital stack.” At the base is your equity (the most expensive, but the most flexible). Above that sits senior, secured bank debt (the cheapest, but the most restrictive).

Between them, there is a strategic layer. This middle layer, which made up a significant portion of the £21.2 billion UK leveraged loan market in 2025. It’s not a replacement for your bank facility; it’s a complement that allows you to do more with that facility.

Two instruments are particularly effective in this complementary role:

  • Mezzanine Debt

Often structured as a loan with cash interest and amortising or bullet repayments, depending on use of funds. Cost of funds are generally 10-14% and facilities rank subordinate (i.e. sits behind) to the senior bank (meaning the bank gets paid first), while often being unsecured, but ahead of your equity.

It fills the gap when the bank’s loan-to-value ratio or EBITDA multiple will not cover the full funding amount. However, there can be a form of small “equity participation”, such as warrants, where they share part of the future upside.

  • Preference Facility

A hybrid instrument where an investor provides capital in exchange for fixed interest or dividend, which can be paid in cash or “paid in kind” (i.e. capitalised to the principal). Rank subordinated to senior and mezzanine debt. Cost of funds can be 10-12%, however as the Preference provider is taking closer to “equity-like” risk, they will generally seek some equity-like upside in their final return through an equity kicker, warrants or similar.

As a result, the effective cost of funds will be greater, but still less than further equity dilution. If you are a UK company raising funds through the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), it’s important to know that only ordinary shares and not Preference shares, can be issued, in order to be qualifying for the tax break.

Building on a Senior Debt Foundation: Asset-Level Project Finance

For founder-managed businesses with strong tangible asset backing and contracted cashflows – energy infrastructure, long-term service concessions, property or leasing fleets – project finance can increase capacity without loading the operating company with all the risk. The UK market is mature here – SPV-style ring-fencing is standard in larger projects, however we regularly see lenders seeking to support projects, backed by the security of cashflows.

This is why an SPV structure can be attractive for founder-managed businesses with “project-like” economics: the lender underwrites the asset or project, and the operating group protects its core trading capacity. For a founder, this means your existing senior lending bank remains your cornerstone. The alternative layer simply allows you to do more within that relationship.

Applying this to the real world

For a founder-led firm considering equity and debt for funding, there are a number of scenarios where adding a complementary layer of funding unlocks more value:

  • Capex Heavy Deployment (e.g. Leasing Fleets or Equipment)

The challenge for a company is to fund as much of the upfront investment as possible, while retaining working capital flexibility. Consider an asset financing facility, combined with existing cash and a senior revolving facility for working capital, with some mezzanine or equity to fund the gap.

  • Funding Acquisitions

The challenge is to fund a large proportion of consideration with senior debt, but this will not necessarily cover all consideration or lend against earnings uplift from expected synergies. In lieu of further debt, new equity and/or vendor loan, a preference facility could provide additional funding while tempering equity dilution.

  • Shareholder Liquidity (The “Secondary”)

It can be a challenge even for a profitable and cash generative company to buy out an early shareholder. To navigate any capital constraints, a company can issue a Preference share, with the proceeds used to buy out the departing shareholder, leaving bank facilities undrawn and no further dilution from new equity.

  • Working Capital Mismatches

For a Company is suffering from “growing pains” (i.e. growing faster than existing cash and revolving credit facilities allow), the Company can pursue an asset-based option (Asset-based lending (ABL) facility) or cashflow based option (financing of future receivables). Utilising tangible assets or forward-selling a portion of receivables from a quality customer provides additional headroom, without further equity dilution.

Why structuring all funding concurrently matters

A blended funding round is more likely to work if the pieces fit together. A process run in parallel matters helps align key overlapping issues:

  • Security and priority: who is secured on what, and the “payment waterfall” of who gets paid first;
  • Covenants and headroom: how much flexibility you retain as a Company if growth is slower than planned;
  • Intercreditor terms: what needs consent for acquisitions, disposals, dividends or refinancing; and
  • Tax and regulatory constraints: EIS qualification, stamp duty, interest deductibility, among others.

How HMT LLP Can Help

As an independent corporate finance adviser, HMT LLP sits on your side of the table. We are not a lender, and we don’t sell products. Our role is to help Founder-led businesses like yours design and execute the optimal capital stack.

Our firm has over 33 years of advisory experience across M&A, Fundraising Advisory and Due Diligence, advising on over 675 deals, including 34 in the last 12 months. We work closely with Founders to help them achieve their growth ambitions.

We run competitive funding processes, where investors and lenders need to put their best foot forward, so that you achieve the best outcome.

Our goal is to ensure that when you raise your next round, you do so with a structure that funds your growth ambitions today while preserving your value for tomorrow.

The Capital Stack Puzzle: Optimising Your Next Round with Blended Finance

For high-growth, founder-led businesses, a financing round isn’t just how much you raise – it’s how you structure it. Here is how using mezzanine debt, preference shares, and project finance alongside traditional equity and senior debt can help you bridge gaps, reduce dilution, and fund growth on your terms.

The Optimisation Problem

You’ve built a revenue-generating business. You’re profitable, or you have a strong asset base. When you look at your next phase, be it for major fleet capex, a strategic acquisition, providing some shareholder liquidity or managing your working capital due to “growing pains”– you already know the traditional toolkit.

Equity from founders, angels, or venture capital investors provides the risk capital and strategic support. Senior debt from a bank or alternative lender provides the low-cost, secured foundation. For most founders, these are the bedrock of any funding round.

We are increasingly seeing the value-conscious founders ask a different question. It’s not “Equity or Debt?”, but rather “As part of arranging my equity and debt, how do I fill the gaps between them without giving away more than I need to?”

This article explores how to use mezzanine debt, preference shares, and asset-level project finance to complement – not replace – your core equity and senior debt. The aim is to maximise total firepower while minimising dilution and maintaining control.

The Strategic Middle Layer

Think of your funding as a “capital stack.” At the base is your equity (the most expensive, but the most flexible). Above that sits senior, secured bank debt (the cheapest, but the most restrictive).

Between them, there is a strategic layer. This middle layer, which made up a significant portion of the £21.2 billion UK leveraged loan market in 2025. It’s not a replacement for your bank facility; it’s a complement that allows you to do more with that facility.

Two instruments are particularly effective in this complementary role:

  • Mezzanine Debt

Often structured as a loan with cash interest and amortising or bullet repayments, depending on use of funds. Cost of funds are generally 10-14% and facilities rank subordinate (i.e. sits behind) to the senior bank (meaning the bank gets paid first), while often being unsecured, but ahead of your equity.

It fills the gap when the bank’s loan-to-value ratio or EBITDA multiple will not cover the full funding amount. However, there can be a form of small “equity participation”, such as warrants, where they share part of the future upside.

  • Preference Facility

A hybrid instrument where an investor provides capital in exchange for fixed interest or dividend, which can be paid in cash or “paid in kind” (i.e. capitalised to the principal). Rank subordinated to senior and mezzanine debt. Cost of funds can be 10-12%, however as the Preference provider is taking closer to “equity-like” risk, they will generally seek some equity-like upside in their final return through an equity kicker, warrants or similar.

As a result, the effective cost of funds will be greater, but still less than further equity dilution. If you are a UK company raising funds through the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), it’s important to know that only ordinary shares and not Preference shares, can be issued, in order to be qualifying for the tax break.

Building on a Senior Debt Foundation: Asset-Level Project Finance

For founder-managed businesses with strong tangible asset backing and contracted cashflows – energy infrastructure, long-term service concessions, property or leasing fleets – project finance can increase capacity without loading the operating company with all the risk. The UK market is mature here – SPV-style ring-fencing is standard in larger projects, however we regularly see lenders seeking to support projects, backed by the security of cashflows.

This is why an SPV structure can be attractive for founder-managed businesses with “project-like” economics: the lender underwrites the asset or project, and the operating group protects its core trading capacity. For a founder, this means your existing senior lending bank remains your cornerstone. The alternative layer simply allows you to do more within that relationship.

Applying this to the real world

For a founder-led firm considering equity and debt for funding, there are a number of scenarios where adding a complementary layer of funding unlocks more value:

  • Capex Heavy Deployment (e.g. Leasing Fleets or Equipment)

The challenge for a company is to fund as much of the upfront investment as possible, while retaining working capital flexibility. Consider an asset financing facility, combined with existing cash and a senior revolving facility for working capital, with some mezzanine or equity to fund the gap.

  • Funding Acquisitions

The challenge is to fund a large proportion of consideration with senior debt, but this will not necessarily cover all consideration or lend against earnings uplift from expected synergies. In lieu of further debt, new equity and/or vendor loan, a preference facility could provide additional funding while tempering equity dilution.

  • Shareholder Liquidity (The “Secondary”)

It can be a challenge even for a profitable and cash generative company to buy out an early shareholder. To navigate any capital constraints, a company can issue a Preference share, with the proceeds used to buy out the departing shareholder, leaving bank facilities undrawn and no further dilution from new equity.

  • Working Capital Mismatches

For a Company is suffering from “growing pains” (i.e. growing faster than existing cash and revolving credit facilities allow), the Company can pursue an asset-based option (Asset-based lending (ABL) facility) or cashflow based option (financing of future receivables). Utilising tangible assets or forward-selling a portion of receivables from a quality customer provides additional headroom, without further equity dilution.

Why structuring all funding concurrently matters

A blended funding round is more likely to work if the pieces fit together. A process run in parallel matters helps align key overlapping issues:

  • Security and priority: who is secured on what, and the “payment waterfall” of who gets paid first;
  • Covenants and headroom: how much flexibility you retain as a Company if growth is slower than planned;
  • Intercreditor terms: what needs consent for acquisitions, disposals, dividends or refinancing; and
  • Tax and regulatory constraints: EIS qualification, stamp duty, interest deductibility, among others.

How HMT LLP Can Help

As an independent corporate finance adviser, HMT LLP sits on your side of the table. We are not a lender, and we don’t sell products. Our role is to help Founder-led businesses like yours design and execute the optimal capital stack.

Our firm has over 33 years of advisory experience across M&A, Fundraising Advisory and Due Diligence, advising on over 675 deals, including 34 in the last 12 months. We work closely with Founders to help them achieve their growth ambitions.

We run competitive funding processes, where investors and lenders need to put their best foot forward, so that you achieve the best outcome.

Our goal is to ensure that when you raise your next round, you do so with a structure that funds your growth ambitions today while preserving your value for tomorrow.