Talk:newco

RFV discussion
Rfv-sense: A placeholder name for a company, used in textbooks.
 * The single citation would be consistent with the first definition - and is not from a textbook. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The definition in Wikipedia is perfect. Let's use it. The rfv'd def is humbug. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I recall from my law school courses, the rfv'd sense is also accurate:
 * 1982, Arthur M. Borden, Going Private, page 3-4:
 * A merger can be implemented between the issuer ("Oldco") and a new corporation ("Newco") owned by the proponents, as a result of which Oldco shares not owned by the proponents are converted to cash and Newco shares remain outstanding.
 * 2003, William T. Allen, Reinier H. Kraakman, Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization, page 439:
 * In this structure, the acquirer (A) forms a wholly owned subsidiary (call it NewCo). A will transfer the merger consideration to NewCo in exchange for all of NewCo ' s stock. Then Target will merge into NewCo (or NewCo will merge into Target).
 * 2008, Edward D. Hess, Charles D. Goetz, So, You Want to Start a Business?: 8 Steps to Take Before Making the Leap, page 62:
 * For this example, we're going to assume that a new company (we will call it NewCo) is going to build brick homes in the $250,000 price range.
 * Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @BD2412, I see little real difference between the RFVed sense and the first sense. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The citations show not that the term is used for any corporation, but for a newly created one, which brings it very close indeed to sense 1. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way. Fido is a common name for a dog, but it is not the common name for "a dog"; i.e., if you were walking down the street and you saw a dog, you wouldn't say, "look, there's a Fido". Newco may well be relatively common as a name given to a newly formed company created to acquire the assets of another company as part of a merger, or for similar business purposes. However, there is no law, nor really even much of a custom, for the naming of companies formed for such purposes. The creators of a company can call it whatever they please. Newco is merely the common placeholder name for such companies, sometimes in real life, sometimes in hypotheticals, just as Fido is a common placeholder name for a hypothetical dog, and Blackacre is the standard law school placeholder name for a landed estate. bd2412 T 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the two senses are distinct enough to merit keeping separate. Thanks for citing the second sense, btw. - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The cites look to be for a distinguishable sense. I don't see why would limit it to "textbooks" as it is used in the "real" world of M&A (and news coverage thereof) to refer to a corporate entity that has not been created yet, or does not yet have its final name, or the name of which is immaterial. It needs the labels finance and law. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I grant that "textbooks" is too specific, but clearly the term is generally used as a placeholder name in hypotheticals discussing a newly formed company. bd2412 T 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is by no means assured that a Newco is always literally a newly formed entity, as opposed to, say, a clean shell. That is a matter of implementation in many cases. In any event, we are rapidly closing in on good cited definitions, better than those few now at . DCDuring TALK 03:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that our definitions are outstripping our competitors. As for this word, I agree that it does not necessarily reference a newly formed entity, but there are many hits like those above where the term is explicitly used to describe a newly formed company. bd2412 T 21:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Passed. Citations moved to entry. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: May 2012–August 2017
This explains it: more Wonderfoolery. How did I not guess? In any case, this is a jolly mess he's left for us. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, this is what is for. If there were no citation to go with it, I'd delete it happily, but since there is, let's keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to find any uses of the term outside this one particular dispute (the Scottish football club Rangers is in financial trouble, and its owners want to wind it up and then start a new company - the newco - which would continue the Rangers name), but there is a Wikipedia page about this word, and the fact that no newspaper articles about the dispute define newco makes me think that it must have been used before. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, cited, and I've added a second sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NewCo, Newco, and newco all occur in business discussions, especially in the discussion of corporate restructurings (mergers, etc). The capitalized forms are proper nouns whose specific reference is defined in the context of a specific proposed business restructuring transaction. I don't think that anything significant can be associated with the capitalized forms, but we can inflate our entry count by having them. It should be possible to cite the common noun by searching for "a newco" and "newcos". I don't really think two senses are necessary. DCDuring TALK 11:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added citations for newco in the headword's capitalization. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The citation given for the second sense does not seem to support the definition. To me, it seems to discuss "newco" in the sense of the first definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks great now, and the original user was blocked, so we're unlikely to hear from them again. --WF on Holiday (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)