Lamb, D J and Merna, T (2004) Reappraisal of public private partnerships: An overview of refinancing, restructuring and termination. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 9(3), pp. 155-162. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Public Private Projects (PPP) typically have long operation periods. During the projects lifecycle risk occur altering the risk profile of the project challenging the original terms of the lending or concession agreements. In circumstances where the original terms may be either inefficient or breached PPPs are reappraised. This paper provides a definition of three reappraisal strategies; refinancing, restructuring and termination, which are adopted by the public and private participant to address events impacting the cash flow of a PPP. The definition of each strategy proposed is used to identify a series of techniques that are available for the reappraisal of a PPP providing an appreciation of how the project may improve its financial robustness beyond that originally forecasted. Finally a theoretical overview of refinancing, restructuring and termination of PPP is proposed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | public private partnership, refinancing, restructuring, termination, default, reappraisal |
| Index terms: | default, strategy, cash flow, public private partnership, lifecycle, agreements |
| Subjects: | contract formation, project delivery, management, financial management, dispute resolution, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Business Strategy, Legal Issues, Procurement, Cost Management, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here