Your forgiveness trigger is measuring the wrong number
Contingent & forgivable seller notes are underused as downside protection, but the trigger design is where most of them fail.
Common version ties forgiveness to revenue. If Rev drops below a threshold, part of the note goes away. Clean, easy to measure, easy for both sides to agree on.
Here's the problem. It's usually not the risk. Margin is.
A biz can hold revenue perfectly flat while the owner's departure costs you the pricing discipline, vendor relationships, or labor efficiency that made the earnings work. You hit every revenue trigger and still bought something that doesn't perform.
Tying it to GM or SDE is harder to negotiate. Sellers resist, and advisors resist harder, because it puts post close operating performance partly in the buyer's hands. That objection is fair and worth engaging on rather than steamrolling. Measurement periods, defined add-back treatment, and a cap on the contingent portion all help.
Curious how others here have handled the trigger question, and whether anyone has landed on language that sellers actually accept.