Contract Drafting

Subscribe to Contract Drafting via RSS

Companies based in the People’s Republic of China have committed to over $100 billion of overseas acquisitions since January 1, 2016, including a number of high profile targets in the United States and Europe.[1] The ties of these buyers to governmental entities in the PRC, coupled with the unpredictability of the PRC government, and the challenges that a non-PRC counterparty faces when seeking to enforce contractual obligations and non-PRC judgments in PRC courts has led practitioners to implement an array of innovative provisions in M&A Agreements.
Continue Reading How M&A Agreements Handle the Risks and Challenges of PRC Acquirors

Updating our recent posting concerning the enforcement of disclaimers of extra-contractual liabilities under Delaware law, in FdG Logistics LLC v. A&R Logistics Holdings, Inc. (Del. Ch. Feb. 23, 2016) the Delaware Court of Chancery held, in the context of a motion to dismiss, that any such disclaimer must be unambiguously expressed as a statement by the aggrieved party in order to be effective.

FdG Logistics arose out of the purchase of a trucking company by a private equity firm through a merger transaction.  The purchaser alleged that the target company “engaged in an extensive series of illegal and improper activities that were concealed from it during pre-merger due diligence” and asserted, among other things, that the selling securityholders had committed common law fraud based on alleged misrepresentations in extra-contractual materials, including a confidential information memorandum and a management presentation.
Continue Reading Another Update on Disclaimers of Extra-Contractual Liability in Delaware

Acquisition agreements in private M&A transactions frequently contain language that purports to limit the purchaser’s recourse against the seller for extra-contractual misrepresentations, even if fraudulent, in order to allocate among the parties the risk of potential post-closing losses.  Such limitations on liability are generally enforceable under Delaware law when they have been specifically negotiated between sophisticated parties,[1] and are commonly implemented through a combination of a so-called “entire agreement” integration clause and an “exclusive representation” provision.  Delaware case law had previously suggested that such provisions might need to contain specific language to serve as an effective disclaimer, but the Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled, in the context of a motion to dismiss, in Prairie Capital III, LP v. Double E Holding Corp. (Del. Ch. Nov. 25, 2015), that no “magic words” are required so long as the parties’ intention is unambiguous.
Continue Reading Disclaimers of Extra-Contractual Liability in Delaware Following Prairie Capital III, LP v. Double E Holding Corp.

In a landmark decision in Cavendish Square Holding BV vs Talal El Makdessi, the UK Supreme Court recently overturned a Court of Appeal decision (discussed here), and substantially re-formulated the English law principles relating to contractual penalty clauses. Upholding the validity of provisions in a purchase agreement that forfeited deferred consideration upon breach of non-competition covenants by the seller, the Supreme Court held that the true test as to whether a clause was penal (and therefore unenforceable) was whether it imposed a secondary obligation on the contract breaker “out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party” in enforcing the obligation breached.
Continue Reading UK Supreme Court Substantially Re-Formulates Contractual “Penalty” Principles

A recent opinion [1] from the Delaware Superior Court addresses the not uncommon situation of a buyer of a business seeking to pursue remedies against the seller that are not specified in the purchase agreement based on allegations of fraudulent conduct by the seller or its representatives.  Specifically, the buyer acquired the shares of a company that had a liability (an obligation to make an “earn-out” payment to the former owners of a previously acquired company) that became payable after completion of the acquisition.  The buyer sued the seller alleging that the seller (and not the acquired company) should be responsible for satisfying the earn-out liability when it became due.
Continue Reading Yet Another Reminder that “Boilerplate” Matters

I. The German M&A Market – a Seller’s Market

Germany has long been an attractive market for both strategic and financial investors. This is due to a number of reasons. The German economy is traditionally shaped by highly regarded blue chips with strong brand recognition and “quality perception” as well as successful small and medium-sized companies (Mittelstand), many of them global market leaders in industrial niche markets. Germany is also considered as – and continues to prove itself to be – a stable and solid hub in a European market environment that, due to the never-ending Euro crisis, the Crimea/Ukraine crisis and other crises, has not ceased to be turbulent and volatile. More recently, the USD/EUR exchange rate has added to Germany’s attractiveness for inbound M&A transactions.
Continue Reading Current Trends in German M&A

There has historically been very little reasoned consideration by the UK Courts of MAC conditions in English law SPAs.   In contrast, there have however been a number of cases in the US Courts (particularly in Delaware) which have considered MAC conditions.   The Delaware Courts have interpreted MAC conditions narrowly and in a seller friendly manner – the Delaware Court of Chancery in the important IBP v Tyson Foods decision for instance said that MAC conditions were “best read as a backstop protecting the acquirer from the occurrence of unknown events that substantially threaten the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally significant manner”.  The Delaware Courts have also been reluctant to allow a buyer to trigger a MAC condition on the basis that the target had underperformed vis a vis forecasts provided prior to execution. [1]
Continue Reading Can a Pre-Completion Downward Revision to the Target’s Forecasted Performance Constitute a MAC in an English Law SPA?

In a well-reasoned memorandum opinion, the Delaware Chancery Court in Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. MidOcean Bushnell Holdings, L.P.[1] provided to M&A practitioners a stark reminder to take extra care in crafting purchase price adjustment provisions, particularly in respect of their interplay with contractual indemnification clauses.
Continue Reading Revisiting a Trap for the Unwary in Purchase Price Adjustments