As we know - private equity typically focuses on fixing broken business and selling them for a profit. Also known for causing havoc and worsening a business for example, Toys 'R' Us had $1.86b of debt pre-Bain et al. Post buy-out, they were loaded up with $5b of debt and eventually collapsed. I like this synopsis from the Atlantic:
'Private-equity takeover is akin to a family’s buying a house: A firm contributes what is essentially a down payment using its own funds and then finances the rest with debt. But in the case of a buyout, the firm doesn’t have to pay back the mortgage; instead, the company it bought assumes the debt. Private-equity firms enjoy the misperception that they swoop in and save struggling companies from the verge of ruin. They’ve long held the promise of benefiting these companies through close monitoring—and debt, the theory goes, should impose discipline on managers. That’s the model followed by a few specialty firms, but it is far more common for private-equity firms to seek moderately successful targets where they see an opportunity to increase profit margins. After a few years of slimming costs and boosting revenues, the goal is to off-load the company, by either helping it go public or selling it'.
I wonder if Bain will do a sale/lease-back exercise of the owned 73's (once the market returns)...