Tag archives: sandbagging

Key findings: 2018 SRS Acquiom Buy-Side Representations and Warranties Insurance (RWI) Deal Terms Study

SRS Acquiom recently published its first Buy-Side Representations and Warranties Insurance (RWI) Deal Terms Study. The study analyzed the terms of 588 private-target acquisitions that closed between 2015 and 2017, the majority of which are not required to be publicly disclosed. As Canadian M&A deals continue to use RWI at an increasing pace, insights from firms such as SRS Acquiom offer valuable perspective on popular terms in RWI covered deals. Some of the study’s key findings are outlined below.

Financial terms

  • Escrow. One of the most pronounced effects of RWI coverage is the reduction in the amount of
Continue Reading

Part 3: Sandbagging in M&A – sandbagging around the world

In the past two weeks we have provided an overview of sandbagging in M&A transactions and discussed strategies that can be used when negotiating this clause. We also provided a brief overview of the consequences of remaining silent with respect to sandbagging. This week we will discuss how sandbagging clauses are used in several jurisdictions around the world.

We conducted a review of several M&A deal studies which collectively covered transactions in Australia[1], the United States[2], Canada[3] and in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK (the European Continue Reading

Part 2: Sandbagging in M&A – is silence truly golden?

Last week we provided an overview of sandbagging in M&A transactions and outlined how buyers can mitigate their risk when an anti-sandbagging clause is included in the purchase and sale agreement. In a majority of deals, however, buyers and sellers exclude a sandbagging clause altogether, likely because they are not able to find a mutually agreeable middle ground. This week we will discuss the implications of remaining silent.

Judicial consideration of sandbagging

Unlike express sandbagging provisions, which courts in both Canada and the United States will generally enforce, there is no clear answer in Canadian case law if sandbagging is, … Continue Reading

Part 1: Sandbagging in M&A – negotiating strategies

What is “sandbagging”?

The concept of sandbagging is simple: one party has a strength, an advantage, or is in a position of power, which is concealed or downplayed in order to take advantage of the other party later. In the context of M&A deals, this is when the buyer learns the seller has breached a term in the agreement prior to closing, but does not raise the issue until after closing when it seeks indemnification from the seller for the breach.

In the course of negotiating M&A deals, it is in the buyer’s best interest to include a pro-sandbagging provision … Continue Reading

2016: the year of sandbagging

One of the highlights from the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 2016 Canadian Private Target M&A Deal Points Study in which our firm was a key participant (the 2016 Study), was the increased inclusion of sandbagging provisions in deals. The 2016 Study saw the inclusion of sandbagging provisions in 46% of deals (up from 29% in the ABA’s 2014 Canadian Private Target M&A Deal Points Study (the 2014 Study)).

As explained in a previous post, sandbagging provisions deal with a circumstance in which a buyer asserts a post-closing indemnification claim in relation to the seller’s breach … Continue Reading

Protecting buyers in M&A transactions: trends in the use of indemnification provisions

Allocating liability between buyers and sellers for the business and operating risks of a target company in M&A transactions is key to assessing what might be an appropriate purchase price for the transaction. As a result, the indemnification provisions in a purchase agreement are heavily negotiated with buyers seeking to limit their post-closing damages and sellers seeking to limit their liability for uncertain risks.

Recent trends in the use of indemnities are revealed in the 2016 SRS Acquiom M&A Deal Terms Study (the SRS Acquiom Study) which analyzed 735 private-target acquisitions that closed in 2012 through 2015.

Separate indemnities

Continue Reading
LexBlog