Aulder After Brooks: How Much Porto Value Can Actually Reach Canzon
The main article already argued that Aulder stopped being an open-ended option and became a monetization problem. This follow-up shows that Aulder Porto ended 2025 with EUR 12.828 million of assets against EUR 11.967 million of current liabilities, so any cash that could move up to Canzon has to pass through banks, investor loans, and existing obligations first.
After Brooks, Aulder is no longer an option. It is a waterfall
The main article already made the core point: the bottleneck at Canzon sits at the public-company layer, not inside the headlines around development projects. This follow-up isolates the question that opened after the tax ruling: if Brooks closes, how much of the value in Porto can actually travel upstream.
The answer already starts with structure, not with dream gross profit. At year-end 2025, Aulder Porto does not look like a cash box waiting to be distributed. It looks like a layered liability stack where bank debt, investor loans, accrued obligations, and only then equity determine what remains.
That is why the right way to read Aulder after Brooks is not “there are four projects, therefore there is value.” The right question is who gets paid first, what remains after the financing stack, and which part of that remainder Canzon can actually touch.
Start with Aulder Porto itself: the equity layer is thin
At the end of 2025 Aulder Porto reported EUR 12.828 million of assets. Of that, EUR 8.238 million was inventory, EUR 2.666 million was investment in associates, and only EUR 492 thousand was cash and cash equivalents. Against that, all liabilities were current and totaled EUR 11.967 million: EUR 3.696 million of bank loans, EUR 5.72 million of investor loans, and EUR 2.422 million of payables and accrued liabilities.
That leaves only EUR 861 thousand of equity. It is not zero, but it is also not a structure that allows anyone to talk about Porto value as if it already sat at the shareholder layer.
This is the key chart in the whole continuation. Even if one assumes a monetization event around book values, more than EUR 11.9 million of obligations sit ahead of equity.
The quality of earnings is also not clean enough to shortcut the discussion. In 2025 Aulder Porto reported profit after tax of EUR 107 thousand, but cash flow from operating activity was negative EUR 988 thousand. The gap came mainly from a EUR 2.408 million increase in inventory and a EUR 1.102 million increase in payables and accrued liabilities. In other words, the accounting profit still has not become cash.
The bank layer matters more than it may look at first glance. The bank loans are three-year balloon loans, due in 2026, with a 5.7% annual interest rate. There are no financial covenants and Canzon did not provide guarantees. That is good for ring-fencing the public company. It is much less helpful for anyone trying to pull cash out quickly, because a sale still has to satisfy that senior layer first.
At Canzon, most of the Aulder exposure is debt, not equity
Canzon’s own books are just as important as Aulder Porto’s books. At year-end 2025 Canzon carried a total investment in Aulder Porto of NIS 3.462 million. But the split is what matters: NIS 2.922 million is a loan to the associate, while only NIS 540 thousand is Canzon’s equity component in the associate.
That means that at the public-company layer Aulder looks first like a creditor position and only then like an open-ended equity stake. This is the central reason the Porto monetization story changes after Brooks.
The rights structure points in the same direction. After the September 2024 sale, Canzon held 20% of the general-partner rights and 11.2% of the limited-partner rights in Aulder Porto. So even if there is upside in Porto, it does not travel through a single channel. There is a loan layer, a limited-partner layer, and a separate general-partner economics layer.
The original investment agreement also explains why. Twenty percent of each investor’s amount goes into equity and 80% goes in as a shareholder loan carrying 7% annual interest. After full repayment of the investment and shareholder loans, residual surplus is split 80% to shareholders and 20% to Aulder Management, unless IRR exceeds 15%, in which case the split changes to 60% for all shareholders and 40% for Aulder Management. So even after the bank and investor stack, the internal distribution mechanism is not linear.
This leads to the key insight. Porto can send money back to Canzon through two very different paths. The first, and nearer one, is repayment of Canzon’s shareholder loan. The second is the thinner residual equity and profit-share layer. That is the difference between value that may come back earlier and value that still depends on realized project profitability.
The tax ruling compresses time, but it does not shorten the waterfall
On March 24, 2026, Canzon received a tax ruling under which, after the change in structure in the Brooks transaction, it declared that it would sell all of its holdings in Aulder Porto in a taxable transaction, including full repayment of obligations existing before the structure change, no later than 12 consecutive months from the date of that structure change.
The wording matters. The 12-month clock did not start on March 24, 2026. It starts only from the structure change itself, meaning if and when Brooks actually closes. That is a material distinction, because by the end of March 2026 the deal had still not closed. It had only been pushed out.
Under the latest amendment dated March 25, 2026, the deadline for delivering the Brooks documents was moved to March 29, 2026, and the deadline for satisfying the initial conditions needed to call the shareholder meeting was moved to March 31, 2026. So at the reporting point there was no running forced-sale clock yet, but there was already a framework that would start such a clock once the structure changes.
This is where the tax ruling has to be connected back to Aulder’s revenue recognition. Aulder recognizes revenue only upon occupancy because the buyer can cancel until then and forfeit only the deposit already paid. So pre-sales and construction progress do not create upstream cash by themselves. Even if three projects are meant to complete around May 2026, the cash that can travel up still depends on delivery, revenue recognition, and the broader monetization of the whole value stack.
That is exactly what the ruling changes. Before it, Aulder could still be read as a longer-dated option alongside Brooks. After it, if Brooks closes, Aulder becomes an asset that has to be monetized within a defined window, but through the same old repayment order.
So how much can really reach Canzon
The most conservative reading is also the most useful one. Do not start from project-level upside. Start from what is already sitting in the filings.
| Layer | What the filings show | What has to happen before it reaches Canzon |
|---|---|---|
| Canzon shareholder loan | NIS 2.922 million | Aulder needs enough sale or monetization proceeds to satisfy its wider liability stack, including bank debt and investor loans |
| Canzon equity component | NIS 540 thousand | All of Aulder’s liabilities must be cleared before a residual equity layer remains |
| General-partner rights | 20% of GP rights | Actual realized profit is needed, not just book value, and then the GP distribution mechanics apply |
| Limited-partner rights | 11.2% of LP rights | Real surplus must remain after repayment of investment and shareholder loans |
This leads to the critical conclusion. Under a book-value reading, what sits closest to Canzon is the shareholder loan. What is much thinner is the equity layer. Anyone who looks at the four Porto projects and assumes the whole value belongs economically to Canzon is skipping several repayment layers on the way up.
Aulder’s own payables also show why this is not only a banks-versus-investors story. Inside the EUR 2.422 million of payables and accrued liabilities sit EUR 742 thousand of customer advances, EUR 1.126 million of interest payable, and EUR 529 thousand due to related parties. So even the non-bank liabilities take a real share of any potential monetization proceeds.
That is why the answer to “how much can really reach Canzon” is not one clean number. It is a priority order:
- First bank debt and Aulder’s current obligations.
- Then the investor-loan stack, the same layer through which Canzon records its own shareholder-loan claim against the associate.
- Only after that the limited-partner equity layer.
- And only if sufficient residual profitability remains, the general-partner and fee economics.
From Canzon’s perspective, that means Aulder can absolutely matter if Brooks closes, but it looks much more like a monetization-backed bridge source than like a free cash pile. For a company that finished 2025 with only NIS 46 thousand of cash, that distinction matters a lot.
Bottom line: Porto can help, but only through a narrow, staged path
The main article was right to frame Aulder as a monetization problem. This follow-up only sharpens why. At the top there are four projects, three of them moving closer to delivery, and a structure that may create value. At the bottom, at Canzon’s own layer, the position is mostly a NIS 2.922 million shareholder loan and only a NIS 540 thousand equity component. In between sits Aulder with EUR 11.967 million of current liabilities.
So if Brooks closes, Aulder will not be judged by whether it has decent projects. It will be judged by whether that structure can be sold or monetized in a way that returns Canzon’s shareholder loan first and then maybe leaves something meaningful for equity.
That is also why the ruling does not solve the story. It only changes its shape. It does not turn Porto into cash. It turns Porto into an asset that must become cash inside a defined window, through a waterfall that already looks fairly crowded.
Disclosure: Deep TASE analyses are general informational, research, and commentary content only. They do not constitute investment advice, investment marketing, a recommendation, or an offer to buy, sell, or hold any security, and are not tailored to any reader's personal circumstances.
The author, site owner, or related parties may hold, buy, sell, or otherwise trade securities or financial instruments related to the companies discussed, before or after publication, without prior notice and without any obligation to update the analysis. Publication of an analysis should not be read as a statement that any position does or does not exist.
The analysis may contain errors, omissions, or information that changes after publication. Readers should review official filings and primary sources before making decisions.