The Chipotle CEO is ending his time at the Mexican grill chain and plans to start as top boss at Starbucks on September 9.

Niccol, 50, replaces Laxman Narasimhan, marking what observers deem a new beginning for the renowned coffee franchise.

Under Narasimhan, Starbucks faced a litany of challenges related to unionization efforts and stunted sales growth across the globe, particularly in China.

By swapping in Niccol, the Starbucks board hopes for a successful turnaround not unlike what he accomplished at Chipotle. From 2018, Niccol helped revitalize the brand after it had been plagued by food safety scandals, resulting in severe damage to its reputation and declining sales.

He also spearheaded a new digital ordering strategy that kept each restaurant busy during the Covid-19 pandemic. With Niccol at the helm, Chipotle stock reportedly enjoyed 800% returns.

Now, Starbucks investors have a reason to be excited. For years, the company struggled to find a leader to fill founder Howard Schultz’s shoes. The mere mention that Niccol was joining the C-suite spiked the coffee company’s market cap up by $27 billion (by contrast, Chipotle’s shares plummeted 25%).

Climate-conscious customers, however, have a different take, questioning Niccol’s highly publicized commute from his home in Southern California to Starbucks headquarters in Seattle. Company brass agreed to fly him over 1,000 miles each way several times a week on a private jet. On the remaining days, Niccol can work from his home in Newport Beach, and is not required to relocate. When the arrangement was announced last month, a flurry of critics complained on social media that Niccol’s commute clashes with Starbucks’ sustainability spiel. Others poked fun at the notion of using more reusable cups and paper straws just to offset the carbon emissions generated by Niccol’s sky-high commute. Recall that Starbucks subordinates were instructed to return to the office at least three times a week back in 2023—no matter how far away they lived.

Ghana is the world’s second-largest producer of the commodity key to the manufacture of chocolates; its Cocoa Board says the decision to wean the economy off a 32-year-old syndicated external borrowing arrangement will “create more value” for farmers. The decision was part of a broader strategy to diversify sources of funding for cocoa production in the West African country, which yielded 1.045 million metric tons in 2021.

Under the new arrangement, Ghana is seeking up to $500 million in funding from domestic investors, including traders and local banks, to bankroll the cocoa sector.

But the change poses problems for the Cedi, explains Leeuwner Esterhuysen, economist with Oxford Economics Africa, since Ghana imports fertilizers for the cocoa sector. It will now have to convert the local currency raised from domestic lenders to foreign exchange in order to buy these inputs.

“This means that there will be an initial outflow of forex to purchase inputs and an eventual inflow of forex when the cocoa is sold,” Esterhuysen says. “My main concerns regarding this are that it adds increased pressure on already relatively low foreign exchange reserves and adds to weakness in the Cedi due to a lesser scope to try and stabilize the local currency.”

“The switch to local banks had been positioned as a cost-saving measure,” notes Bright Simons, vice president at Imani Africa, a policy and education think-tank, although he believes the Cocoa Board took the step only after realizing that “it was not on track to close a deal with international banks before the cocoa harvesting season opens” next month.

“The banks insisted on extended due diligence since they had a serious fear of a potential default down the road,” he says, “given that the Cocoa Board has been failing to deliver on pledged cargos to trading counterparts. Pricing for the facility had to be set to accommodate the full risks, and as late as mid-August, the board had failed to align with the banks on pricing.” According to the Cocoa Board, it acknowledged that it still had “committed contracts that need to be fulfilled through the syndicated process,” despite the shift to domestic funders.

In the US, the world’s largest economy, more corporations went under in the first half of 2024 than in any comparable period since 2010. In total, 346 companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, according to Standard & Poor’s Global Market Intelligence.

Small and midsize businesses, especially those in the consumer discretionary sector, were the most impacted. Customers, now more careful about their spending, have cut back on restaurants, clothing, and car purchases.

Thus, many eyes have been on BurgerFi International as an example. BurgerFi is a popular Floridian burger and pizza chain, which in April defaulted on senior debt owed to TREW Capital Management. This past summer, three board directors resigned and the remaining directors hired Jeremy Rosenthal, a bankruptcy specialist, as chief restructuring officer.

Will he pull BurgerFi back from the brink, or not? The company anticipates an $18.4 million loss for the quarter ended July 1. Last month, TREW tossed BurgerFi a lifeline in the form of a $2.5 million protective advance on the understanding that the chain would find a way to make good on its obligations.

European companies haven’t fared much better than their US counterparts.

Germany, the biggest economy in the European Union, is suffering; corporate insolvencies during the first quarter rose 26.5% compared with the same period in 2023, according to Destatis, the federal statistical office. France is also stumbling. The CNAJMJ, representing legal authorities, reports that the number of companies bankrupted grew 18% during the first half compared with the first six months of 2023. Neither has Japan been spared. Taikoku Databank lists 74 bankruptcies among century-old companies in the first six months of this year, the largest number for comparable periods going back to 2000. As in the US and France, experts chalk up the rise in Japanese insolvencies to tepid consumer demand, rising costs, and higher interest rates that make it difficult for businesses to borrow.

The move reportedly came the day after a board meeting at which Schneider was asked to step down.

“[This] is another sign that this is not a planned transition,” Bruno Monteyne, managing director and senior analyst with research firm Bernstein, told Reuters. “It is clearly not his choice either, or he probably would have managed a smoother transition.”

During his eight-year tenure, Schneider pivoted the company toward high-growth products such as coffee, pet care, and nutritional health products, while exiting slower-growth sectors. He also committed to halving the company’s carbon emissions by 2030 and reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Weak sales growth has dogged the company, however. In its half-year results released in July, Nestlé noted a real internal growth rate of 2.2% for the second quarter and just 0.1% for the entire first half on underlying trading operating profit of 7.8 billion Swiss francs (approximately $9.2 billion). As a result, the company downshifted its organic sales growth outlook for the year from 4% to 3%.

The board decided that changes needed to be made and turned internally for new leadership.

Freixe had served as executive vice president and CEO Zone Latin America since 2022, when Nestlé adopted an updated geographic zone structure; prior to that, he was CEO of Zone Americas for eight years. He has been a member of the executive board since 2008. “I have known Laurent for a long time and highly regard him as a talented leader with strategic acumen, extensive in-market experience and expertise, as well as a deep understanding of markets and consumers,” says Paul Bulcke, Nestlé chair and Schneider’s immediate predecessor. “He has demonstrated his ability to deliver results in challenging market conditions. Laurent’s curiosity fuels his passion for innovation and positive change. Laurent is the perfect fit for Nestlé at this time.”

Century-old global mining-and-metals conglomerate Anglo American plc has been on a roller coaster since the end of May, when it dramatically cut off merger talks with rival BHP and instead announced a sweeping restructure of its portfolio.

Many analysts greeted the plan with skepticism. UBS downgraded London-based Anglo American from Buy to Neutral, citing the restructuring scenario and the hurdles to getting it done by the end of 2025, as management has pledged to do, and the German private bank Berenberg affirmed a Sell rating. In the two months following the announcements, Anglo’s stock price fell 18%.

The auguries worsened at the end of June, when a fire caused the shutdown of Anglo’s Grosvenor coal mine in Australia. New York-based investment bank Jefferies attributed 30% of the value of Anglo’s steelmaking coal business to the Grosvenor mine; its coal operations are one of the assets the company plans to sell as part of the restructuring. Production is not expected to resume until next year.

“Anglo’s main problem this reporting period will be with the coal operations and how it will sell a burning coal mine,” quipped Ian Woodley, portfolio manager at Old Mutual.

Three weeks later, Anglo released its latest results, and the bad news seemed to pile up further. The company took a $1.6 billion impairment based on its decision to slow the development of Woodsmith, its promising venture into organic fertilizer production in the UK. The decision, which was intended to help Anglo focus on its restructuring, swung the company from a net profit of $1.26 billion in the first half of 2023 to a $672 million loss in the first half of this year. 

“Anglo’s valuation upside no longer looks compelling on a standalone basis,” JP Morgan’s equity research team concluded, suggesting it may still be a takeover target.

The restructuring itself is a complicated affair. Aside from selling off its coal operations and executing various cost-control measures, Anglo aims to demerge Anglo American Platinum (Amplats), put its nickel mining operations on mothballs for possible divestment, and divest or demerge its fabled DeBeers diamond unit, which will move Anglo out of the diamond business for the first time in almost 100 years. The end-product, chair Duncan Wandblad forecasts, will be a leaner, more linear company, laser-focused on copper and iron ore production, which are expected to benefit from the shift to green energy, and last year accounted for 70%-plus of Anglo’s EBIDTA. 

Should the plan succeed, Anglo will be “a higher quality company,” says Morningstar equity analyst Jon Mills, “as it will be less leveraged to changes in commodity prices, led by its high-quality, low-cost, long-life copper mines, including 60%-owned Quellaveco in Peru and 44%-owned Collahausi in Chile.”

Despite the difficulties, such as regulatory approvals needed in South Africa and Botswana, Amplats having to renegotiate supplier contracts and funding lines, and De Beers struggling with a downturn in the diamond market, some analysts think Anglo can pull it off.

“The plan is viable,” says Dawid Heyl, portfolio manager at Ninety-One, a large Anglo shareholder, “and while the execution risk is real, they’ve given themselves a good amount of time to get it done.” Anglo’s stock price is still trading well above the levels it reached before BHP’s bid emerged in April, he notes, “so the market is giving them the benefit of the doubt.”

Anglo reported a modest first step in its restructuring in late July, when it finalized an agreement to sell two royalties to Taurus Funds Management for $195 million: an iron ore royalty owned by De Beers related to an Australian iron project, and a gold and copper royalty related to a project in northern Chile.

“The main risks,” says Mills, “are that it takes longer than intended, and that Anglo accepts bids for its assets that are lower than they should be as it tries to meet its target completion date while minimizing the risk of BHP returning or other suitors emerging.”

But Radoslaw Beker, director at Fitch Ratings, argues that the prices Anglo expects to reap from the assorted divestments and demergers are not overly optimistic: “If the market environment remains stable through the next year, we don’t see problems in getting their numbers. Based on the company’s announcement, and the justification for it, we think it’s achievable.”

Should it succeed, Anglo’s huge restructuring will cap a long-term trend in the mining-and-metals industry away from the diversified model that has been the company’s hallmark for more than a century.

“A diversified model was an advantage at one point,” Heyl notes, “but today, you don’t get rewarded for that, which is why Anglo has been trading at a deeper discount than other miners.”

Wanblad’s vision for the company “shows a real focus on metals, longer term,” says Beker, “and this is the trend that miners want to go in.”

If GIX gets the green light from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, it plans to kick off trading in 2025. And it’s a global initiative, too. Labovitz tells Global Finance that while a security must be listed on another US exchange to list with GIX, he’s already chatting up counterparts abroad.

“Conversations with exchanges and broker-dealers in Europe and Africa” about potentially bringing equity-linked products, i.e., American Depositary Receipts and exchange-traded funds, from those regions to the US markets via GIX are taking place, he explained. “We’re still in the early stages of those discussions.”

As GIX waits for regulatory approval, Labovitz is mapping out a future where saving the planet is thought of as a savvy corporate finance strategy. The following interview is edited for length and clarity:

Global Finance: Who’s expressing interest in GIX and why?

Daniel Labovitz: We have spoken with hundreds of public companies. From our conversations, it’s clear that they understand the logic and importance of sustainability to their business and their shareholders. Company leaders know that significant portions of their investor base, employees, and customers care deeply about it and are looking for evidence that companies are not just greenwashing. If a company is perceived to be greenwashing, it puts them at a disadvantage when competing for the best talent and consumers—especially younger cohorts, who, more and more, are considering a company’s values as part of their employment and purchasing decisions. Ultimately, company leaders know they will lose access to sustainability-minded investors willing to trade short-term gains for long-term sustainable value growth.

GF: What were some of the questions that get brought up?

GF: Is there data to support that?

Labovitz: There is growing evidence that focusing on sustainability leads to the company’s stock outperforming the broader market. For example, a 2022 McKinsey study found that “green leaders” in the chemicals market doubled their total shareholder return compared to “green laggards.” A 2023 study in Britain found that a board sustainability committee positively impacted market value, while a separate study found that corporate environmental commitments can play a buffering role during disruptive market events. In other words, markets agree that sustainability investments and sustainability-focused corporate governance can improve returns and lower volatility. You’d be hard-pressed to find a CFO or CEO who said “no, thank you” to either.

CEOs and CFOs also like our trading model. It will help companies generally by incentivizing market makers to post liquidity on the exchange. Once the exchange is approved for trading, we plan to seek SEC approval for a market maker support program specifically for GIX-listed companies. That program would reward companies for making up-front investments in green transition by incentivizing market makers to add liquidity in listed stocks.

GF: How does GIX hold companies accountable?

Labovitz: Investors develop skepticism toward company promises, particularly in sustainability, due to the frequent abandonment of ambitious environmental commitments. This lack of accountability often occurs once the public attention wanes. GIX, however, is uniquely positioned to bridge this “trust gap.” We mandate our listed companies to establish a robust governance infrastructure, ensuring that their promises are not just words but deeply embedded in the company’s DNA.

GF: Has something similar been done before?

Labovitz: Incentivizing good corporate governance has been a core function of stock exchanges in the US for more than 100 years. In the early 20th century, there were little standardized accounting or financial controls inside companies, and investors were not entitled to the right to receive disclosures from the company. This allowed a lot of fraud to thrive. To combat this, the NYSE told companies that if they wanted their stock to be traded on the exchange, the company would have to abide by specific corporate governance standards, implement standardized accounting, and commit to regular disclosures to investors. As a result, an NYSE listing became the gold standard for public companies, so much so that when the SEC was formed, it incorporated many of the NYSE’s governance standards into the federal securities laws and rules that we still live with 90 years later.

Sustainability reporting is in a place where financial reporting was in the early 20th century. There is a lack of standardization, insufficient mandatory disclosures to investors, and a lot of greenwashing, whether unintentional or otherwise. To date, the NYSE and Nasdaq have not adopted corporate governance standards for sustainability, so GIX is stepping up to address that gap.

GF: How do investors benefit from GIX?

Labovitz: Regarding value for investors, it’s important to note that even when it was the gold standard for listings, the NYSE never guaranteed that a company would be profitable and did not anoint winners and losers. To the extent it guaranteed anything, it was that investors would get quality, timely, reliable information from which they, the investors, could make informed investment decisions. The same applies to GIX and sustainability: our role is not to anoint companies as “green” or “not green.” GIX’s listing standards ensure companies give investors quality, timely, and reliable information about sustainability initiatives and performance so they can make informed investment decisions. Efficient markets need transparent information; GIX ensures investors get it. After that, it’s up to the market—not the exchange—to allocate capital where it will be most productively used.

GF: What are your next steps?

Labovitz: Our first goal is to launch the exchange and build experience and credibility running a dual listing market. It’s not a small task—several exchanges have tried to launch a primary listing business right out of the gate and not succeeded, so we wanted to learn from those examples.

The timeline for our launch depends on securing SEC approval of GIX’s Form 1 application for registration as a national securities exchange. After approval, we will need approximately five to six months to complete all the pre-launch work that can’t be done until then. That puts us on track to launch trading in the first half 2025.

Once we launch, we’ll be better positioned to evaluate what’s next, including listing green derivative products: ETFs, ETNs, index products, and ADRs, and creating markets for innovative green equity products. Whichever way we go, we promise to keep you posted.

Toward the end of July, several companies looking to go public told vastly different stories than the one billionaire Bill Ackman weaved on social media.

The hedge fund manager grabbed headlines on Wednesday, July 31, when he decided to no longer plan an initial public offering (IPO) for his firm, Pershing Square USA.

In a prepared statement on X.com, Ackman posted: “While we have received enormous investor interest in PSUS, one principal question has remained: Would investors be better served waiting to invest in the aftermarket than in the IPO? This question has inspired us to reevaluate PSUS’s structure to make the IPO investment decision a straightforward one. We will report back once we are ready to launch a revised transaction.”

The withdrawal comes shortly after the fund announced plans to raise $2 billion—significantly lower than the previously touted $25 billion.

When valuations shift so drastically, it’s usually due to “a major event” or “a failed deal, or even a market correction,” Carl Niedbala, co-founder of risk management firm Founder Shield, said.

“It’s tough to pinpoint the perfect valuation,” he added, skeptical that it was indicative of a trend. 

Indeed, Ackman’s decision to scale back IPO plans seemed evident when reports suggested that Seth Klarman, a fellow billionaire investor, appeared to be committed to investing in Pershing Square USA but ultimately rescinded.

Calls to Pershing Square were not returned.

Meanwhile, other companies enjoyed better luck.

Lineage Inc., for example, raised over $5 billion and began trading 12% above its offer price as of July 30, making it the largest IPO of 2024.

In an email to Global Finance, EY’s Global IPO Leader George Chan noted that Lineage’s success underscored a “particularly active” July.

Chan also singles out the $564 million listing of KKR-backed OneStream Inc., which priced above its initial filing range and is currently trading 40% above its offer price.

Then there’s health services provider Concentra Group Holdings, which raised about $529 million.

“Valuations are more tempered compared to the highs of 2020 and 2021,” Chan says. “This indicates a balanced approach with sustainable pricing levels.”

Thus far, he adds, it’s been a good year for IPOs, even if activity didn’t surpass 2023.

According to EY, global IPO volume fell 12% for the first six months compared to last year. IPO proceeds were also down—by 16%—year over year.

The data appears to be far from the comeback dealmakers expected when they spoke to Global Finance late last year.

“The global IPO market experienced a mild downturn due to weak IPO activity in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, particularly in Greater China,” he says.

“Historically, APAC has significantly contributed to global IPO activity. Therefore, the decline in IPO numbers is more indicative of APAC’s underperformance rather than the below-average performance of other regions,” Chan adds.

However, he points to two other regions that witnessed a significant increase in IPO activity during the first half of 2024: the Americas and Europe, the Middle East, India and Africa (EMEIA).

EMEIA saw a 45% increase in IPOs and an 84% rise in proceeds, while the Americas experienced a 14% increase in IPOs and a 75% increase in proceeds.

“In stark contrast, APAC witnessed a 42% decline in the number of IPOs and a 73% drop in proceeds,” Chan says.  

Ryan Coombs, a partner in O’Melveny’s Capital Markets Practice, agreed that July was “a positive start to the second half of the year.”

“I don’t think the global IPO statistics reflect the health of the US IPO market,” he adds. “Year-over-year, the trends suggest there will be more US IPOs in 2024 than in 2023.”

Coombs says the US election and interest rate changes may impact the second half of the year. But he expects the same energy in the US IPO market in the first half of 2024 to carry through to the second half of 2024.

“I think the US IPO pipeline will continue to reflect the market’s preference for businesses with quality financials and demonstrated growth opportunities,” he said.

Numerous Indian companies and multinational subsidiaries in India are heading for IPOs in the next few months, as funding capital projects amid India’s infrastructure boom takes precedence over other corporate finance activities.

Vodafone Idea (Vi), India’s third-largest telecom services operator (213 million subscribers), has just completed mega rounds of capital raises so far in 2024, with the final piece, equipment-vendor financing, concluding on July 18. The company has major obligations on capex, debt service, 5G spectrum purchases, dues to equipment vendors, among others, and has designed a capital-raising plan using multiple corporate finance levers in 2024, including asset sales, follow-on public offers, preferential equity sales to a company promoter, and equity allotment to equipment vendors, all of which have been completed for now.

No company’s struggles epitomize the impact of cutthroat competition in the Indian telecom market more than Vi’s. As its larger Indian rivals, Reliance Jio (484 million subscribers) and Bharti Airtel (382 million subscribers), have already completed 5G rollouts across the country, Vi is not even out of the gate yet. Vi will commence its 5G rollout in the next few months, expecting to spend $3 billion to $4 billion. While Hyundai India’s IPO later this year is on track to set a record, it is Vodafone Idea (Vi) that will have ended up raising the largest amount of money, INR 360 billion ($4.3 billion), in corporate India in 2024.

Unlike its larger and well-capitalized rivals, Vi has never turned a profit, largely due to hyper-competitive pricing of telecom services, making its recently demonstrated capital-raising prowess remarkable. According to a June 2024 presentation by Vodafone, Indians consume 20 gigabytes of data per month, which is the highest in the world but pay the lowest data costs in the world, at an average of $2.10 per user per month. This price per gigabyte is certainly cheap compared to Brazil at $5.70 and China at $6.60 per user, but astonishingly low when compared to the US consumer’s monthly cost of $45.60 per user.

According to Vi, tariffs in India have risen by just 4% in 11 years and suggest that a hike is long overdue. This combination of expected revenue increase from higher tariffs, the launching of 5G services, and supportive government policies (reduced spectrum costs, longer amortization of dues, and conversion of debt owed to the government to equity) have likely buoyed the confidence of investors and led to several successful issuances of new equity.

On July 18, Vi confirmed that it issued the first tranche of common stock to its equipment suppliers, Nokia Solutions and Networks India (NSNI) and Ericsson India, as part of its equipment-vendor financing plan. NSNI was issued 256.7 million shares and 158.4 million shares to Ericsson, raising a combined $80 million. This tranche is part of a larger issue of 1.03 billion shares to NSNI and 633 million shares to Ericsson; the combined value of this complete issue is $300 million. Following the completion of the full allotment over time, NSNI will hold a 1.5% stake and Ericsson will hold a 0.9% stake in Vi. This allotment of shares follows the $250 million worth of equity sold to the Aditya Birla Group, one of the promoters of the company; Vodafone Plc is the other promoter; both holding a combined 37.3% stake. The largest shareholder is the government of India, holding a 23% equity stake. The Indian government became a majority shareholder after Vodafone Idea opted to accept a government plan to convert the interest it owed on its debt to the government into equity instead of paying the interest in cash. Vi has a total of $26 billion in outstanding debt, almost all of it owed to the Indian government for spectrum purchases.

Vi’s initial issue of common stock to NSNI and Ericsson India and earlier to one of its two promoter groups, Aditya Birla and Vodafone Plc, while dramatic, has come after two still larger capital raises this year. In April, Vi first raised $2.2 billion in a follow-on public offer (FPO), which is a subsequent offer of shares to the investing public by a listed company, and then in mid-June sold 487 million shares representing an 18% stake in Indus Towers, one of the world’s largest telecom tower operators also listed in India, raising $1.8 billion. The block sale of Indus Towers stock will be used to reduce its outstanding debt by that amount. Following this equity sale, Vi now holds just a 3.1% stake in a company that it once held a 21.5% stake in, along with Bharti Airtel, India’s dominant telecom provider, which now owns 49% of Indus Towers.

The list of such exchanges is growing, and the trend is global. For example, the Eastern Caribbean Securities Exchange (ECSE) is the Caribbean’s major regional stock exchange, designed to attract companies with regional interconnectivity and regional investors. Companies such as Grenada Electricity Services from Grenada and the Bank of Nevis from St. Kitts and Nevis found their listing home there.

Recent discussions about a new stock exchange in the US state of Texas, which would compete against the triumvirate of US exchange operators—the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and CBOE—have amplified the trend.

The Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE), to be based in Dallas, will be initially funded with a $120 million investment. In recent years, anti–New York sentiment around issues such as compliance requirements and environmental, social and governance rules has triggered a backlash among many businesses. This, among other factors, has led to the current Texan proposal.

Major liquidity providers, such as BlackRock and Citadel Securities and many Texas-based Fortune 500 companies, are backing the proposed all-electronic bourse.

The TXSE founders applied for US Securities and Exchange’s approval, which is currently pending. The new exchange would give companies a reduction in the high listing requirements often associated with the established exchange operators. Texas is perceived as a business-friendly, low-tax state with limited regulatory requirements, and the entrepreneurs behind this venture hope to bring this type of thinking to the stock exchange space while reducing red tape. Texas’ specialization in the energy sector, meanwhile, would provide energy companies with another avenue for corporate finance solutions.

The traditional partnership structure has reached its limits: It is capital-constrained. Much of the profits go back to partners each year, and the company has retirement obligations for former partners. At the same time, accounting firms must heavily invest in artificial intelligence tools to deepen their consulting business and grow profits.

Sensing opportunities for consolidation, private equity (PE) firms have purchased shares in five of the top 26 US accounting firms in recent years. Tower Brook Capital invested in advisory and accounting expert EisnerAmper. New Mountain Capital took an interest in Citrin Cooperman, and Parthenon Capital got involved with Cherry Bekaert.

In February 2024, Baker Tilly US signed a $1 billion deal with Hellman & Friedman and Valeas Capital Partners. Shortly thereafter, the American branch of Grant Thornton, the world’s seventh-largest accounting firm, announced an investment by New Mountain Capital. These financial alliances have proven beneficial, as seen in the case of Citrin Cooperman, which has completed 17 acquisitions since New Mountain Capital’s capital injection, to become a $600 million powerhouse.   PE firms’ appetite for accounting firms is not limited to the US. It has a global reach, as seen in the UK, where Hg and PAI Partners are now shareholders in Azets, one of the top 10 UK accounting firms. Azets, in turn, has acquired 90 local providers. Waterland Private Equity took stakes in two other UK accounting firms, Moore Kingston Smith and Cooper Parry