Heartland Food Ingredients: A Co-Investment LBO and Memo Case Study
Heartland Food Ingredients combines a full LBO with a written memo, framed as a co-investment opportunity. Co-invest cases are distinctive: you are not the control sponsor, so your analysis is about whether to participate in someone else's deal at their price. That reframing catches a lot of candidates off guard.
This page walks through what the case contains, what it is actually testing, how to allocate your time, and the mistakes that most often sink candidates on it. For the broader context on how these exercises work, start with our guide to what a private equity case study looks like.
The Business
Heartland is a specialty dairy-ingredients manufacturer selling into food processors. The defining feature is commodity input exposure — raw milk pricing flows through the P&L, and how much of it the business can pass through to customers is the central analytical question.
The prompt provides both a management case and a base case, and expects your model to toggle between them. That toggle is not decoration; the memo has to explain which case you underwrite to and why.
What This Case Tests
Base vs. management case, switchable from a single cell. Building this cleanly (not by duplicating tabs) is an architecture test.
When milk prices move, what happens to margin? Modeling the pass-through lag is the core insight of the case.
Management options that vest partly on service and partly on returns. Two different vesting mechanics in one waterfall.
Not just what multiple you exit at — when. A year-3 vs. year-5 vs. year-7 exit produces materially different IRR/MOIC trade-offs, and the memo has to address the trade.
You are not setting the price. The question is whether the sponsor's deal is one you want a piece of — a subtly different judgment than "would I do this deal?"
How to Approach It
A single case switch driving both scenarios. Retrofitting a toggle into a finished model is painful; build it into the architecture from the start.
Do not bury it in a margin assumption. Show the input cost, show the pass-through, show the lag.
Baseline returns first. Then layer the split-vesting options on top.
IRR and MOIC at multiple exit years. These move in opposite directions — an early exit flatters IRR and suppresses MOIC. The memo should say which you optimize for and why.
Your recommendation is about participating, not controlling. Say what you would want to see from the sponsor before committing.
Common Mistakes on This Case
Two copies of the model means two places for errors to hide, and it signals weak architecture.
It is the deal. If your memo mentions milk prices once, you missed the case.
On exit timing, these conflict. Acknowledging the trade-off is the mature answer.
Different lens, different recommendation.
Get the Case Packet
Get the Heartland Food Ingredients case packet
The full Heartland Food Ingredients packet — business overview, end markets, historical financials, and the complete set of transaction and operating assumptions — is available inside the PEPath app, along with a framework for what a strong answer looks like, the common mistakes, and discussion questions to self-assess against.
Related Guides
The candidates who clear cases like this one are rarely the smartest people in the room. They are the ones who have built enough models that the mechanics are automatic, which frees their attention for the judgment the interviewer is actually testing.
Practice All 7 PE Case Studies
PEPath includes 7 recruiting case studies with full packets, frameworks, and discussion questions — plus 300+ interview questions, 140+ flashcards, and 10 paper LBO prompts with solutions.
Download PEPath Free