As a general rule, as noted above, the terms of the incremental and incremental debt and equivalent ratio have an important precision of submissions and guarantees, including the absence of default or default, and, in some sectors of the market, either pro forma compliance with the existing financial agreement (if any), or the execution of a specific leverage test that was verified at the time of the arrival of the debt. Limited terms and conditions allow a borrower to choose the signature date (also known as the “validity date”) of the acquisition contract (“audit date for acquisition contracts”) as the reference date for compliance with the required conditions. If the borrower made such a choice, the combined conditions of access to incremental loans and the completion of an authorized acquisition (possibly including the accuracy of insurance and guarantees; no default or leverage test event) would be tested at the time of the execution of the acquisition contract, only a payment or post-bankruptcy event would be performed in the event of a default check after the transaction was completed, and the borrower would have the option of including the financial ratios of the target entity (i.e. EBITDA) at the time of the audit. Although the average market has largely incorporated the limited conditions for protecting acquisitions, some lenders in transactions with lower SMEs continue to insist that the corresponding acquisition be completed within a specified period of time from the date of execution of the sales contract (normally no more than 180 days), or risk removing the restricted acquisition conditions. Therefore, if the acquisition is not completed within the agreed time frame, the restricted conditionality will be removed and the borrower would have to meet all the conditions at the time of the incremental loan. This article summarizes the issues that companies and creditors should consider in determining the possible forms of financing available under existing loan and/or maturity credit formulas. Creditors who provide such cash facilities may demand a priority position with respect to commitments to existing creditors, particularly for troubled companies, and this article examines some of the creative opportunities to achieve such a priority in the critical search for liquidity. The choice between consolidated EBITDA or consolidated balance sheet total is not advantageous to either the lender or the borrower. While EBITDA is better to measure the performance of companies that are not wealthy but are more focused on cash flow, the drawbacks are that it can be volatile and, depending on the sector, very cyclical. On the other hand, the consolidated balance sheet total is more appropriate for asset-rich companies.