Mergers & Acquisitions

Subscribe to Mergers & Acquisitions

Acquisition agreements in M&A transactions frequently include provision for payment to be made at closing based on estimates of certain financial metrics that are later subject to a purchase price adjustment based on a final determination (referred to as a “true-up”) within a few months following closing. These metrics may include a target’s cash, debt, unpaid transaction expenses and working capital (excluding cash), and sometimes others. The definitions that correspond to these items, and what particular items are included or excluded from each, are often the product of significant negotiation, as the final purchase price can move materially up or down based on their final determination. The process of finally determining the adjustment amount following the closing can also reveal differences in the buyer’s and seller’s interpretation of accounting principles applicable to the purchase price adjustment calculation, or how those principles apply to the target’s financial statements. These differences can become a source of post-closing conflict between buyer and seller, at a time when the parties are working through transitional issues, and when the sellers may have ongoing involvement in the business. Parties will want to resolve these disputes quickly and in a cost-effective manner. To accomplish these objectives, often the purchase agreement will require that the parties submit unresolved issues to an independent accountant for final resolution. A key consideration in such referral will be the role that the accountant will play in resolving the dispute. Will the accountant act as an arbitrator or as an expert? This is an important distinction that deserves careful consideration by both sides. By engaging an accountant to act as an expert and not an arbitrator, the parties limit the scope of the accountant’s review and avoid the formalities of an arbitration.…

Continue Reading Expert or Arbitrator? Resolving Purchase Price Adjustment Disputes

In Anderson v. Magellan Health, Inc., No. 2021-0202, — A.3d —-, 2023 WL 4364524 (Del. Ch. July 6, 2023) (McCormick, C.), the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed the circumstances under which the Court will award a shareholder plaintiff attorneys’ fees in disclosure-based deal litigation. In particular, Anderson analyzed the history of disclosure-based deal litigation in Delaware and the Court’s evolving standard for awarding fees where shareholder action has caused a company to issue additional pre-merger disclosures “mooting” pending deal litigation. Prior to the decision in Anderson, the state of the law was unsettled. The first line of cases would award fees as long as the shareholder plaintiff secured additional disclosures that were “helpful” such that they provided “some benefit” to shareholders. The second line of cases, however, adopted a stricter standard requiring that the supplemental disclosures be “plainly material.” In an effort to combat the so-called “deal tax” associated with disclosure-based merger litigation, Anderson comes out in favor of the stricter standard. Going forward, the Court will only award disclosure-based mootness fees when the complaining shareholder obtains additional disclosures that are “plainly material” to the shareholders. Companies, boards and advisors engaging in M&A transactions should pay attention to this decision as it will weigh on the proper strategy for approaching a shareholder challenge to an M&A transaction. …

Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Clarifies Heightened Standard for Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees in Disclosure-Based Deal Litigation

The term “Acqui-hire” is commonly used to describe an M&A transaction where the buyer is predominantly interested in acquiring key employees of the target and not specifically the underlying business and/or assets. This type of transaction is particularly common in the technology and software industries, where key talent can often be more valuable than the underlying product or service, although it has become more prevalent in other industries as well. For the target employees and founders, such an acquisition may represent a “soft landing” in the event that they find that their organization won’t scale in the way that was previously imagined or if their funding sources have dried up.…

Continue Reading What You Need to Know about Acqui-Hires

The past few years have seen dramatic shifts for mergers and acquisitions involving automotive dealerships. It has been estimated that approximately 3% of dealerships undergo a change of ownership in an average year. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, deal flow in this sector nearly came to a complete halt due to the nationwide lockdown and a lack of demand. By early 2021, the industry had effectively made a full recovery in spite of supply chain and inventory challenges and M&A activity in this space rebounded accordingly, with a record 383 transactions completed in 2021, and an estimated 374 transactions completed in 2022. Despite larger U.S. economy macroeconomic headwinds and leveling consumer demand, buy/sell activity in the auto dealer sector is expected to remain robust in 2023 and beyond as several prominent acquirors continue to deploy their capital and more sellers coming to market due to a variety of reasons, including estate planning and general uncertainties about the larger economy.…

Continue Reading The Art of the Dealership: A Legal Road Map for Buying and Selling Automotive Dealerships

Buying a small business government contractor may not be as simple as a standard acquisition. This is particularly true if the small business wants to continue to qualify for federal small business set-aside and sole-source awards during negotiations. The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) treats stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge (including agreements in principle), as having a “present effect” on the power to control a concern. So if a letter of intent is sufficiently firm to be considered an agreement in principle, the SBA’s regulations require such agreements be given “present effect” on the power to control a concern – deeming the two entities are immediately affiliated. In other words, the small business likely is no longer small (and, if it is a specialty small business concern, like woman-owned or service-disabled veteran-owned, it is likely ineligible for those programs as well) before the deal even is done. On the other hand, agreements to open or continue negotiations towards the “possibility of a merger or a sale of stock at some later date” are not considered agreements in principle, and are not given present effect. In practice what this means is that a letter of intent must be carefully drafted to ensure that it does not trigger the present effect rule before the parties are ready or willing to be considered affiliated.…

Continue Reading Buying or Selling a Small Business Government Contractor? Draft the Letter of Intent Carefully to Avoid Immediate Affiliation

Kandace Watson, Corporate M&A Partner, Sheppard Mullin, and Michael-Bryant Hicks, a seasoned EVP, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary recently discussed mergers and acquisitions perspectives from the Boardroom and C-Suite. From the Board and Executive Management viewpoint, there are only a few key important wins.…

Continue Reading Mergers & Acquisitions Insights: Perspectives from the Boardroom and C-Suite

The Department of Justice recently filed a complaint to prevent Booz Allen Hamilton’s $440 million acquisition of “agile and innovative” competitor EverWatch, Inc.[1] Among the notable aspects of the complaint is its definition of the relevant market as a single NSA contract and its assertion that the merger agreement itself constituted a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.…

Continue Reading DOJ Sues to Block Merger Between Booz Allen Hamilton and EverWatch Based on Antitrust Concerns Relating to Single-Contract Market

Since President Biden’s July 2021 direction to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility,” the FTC has ratcheted up its scrutiny of and investigations into non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants. Now, the FTC has expanded beyond post-employment restrictive covenants to tackle “sale of business” non-competes. Most recently, the FTC voted in favor of a deal-changing proposed order against ARKO Corp. related to its 2021 acquisition of sixty fuel outlets from Corrigan Oil Company.…

Continue Reading Buyer (and Seller) Beware: The FTC Is Coming for Your M&A Non-Competes

In Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., 2021 WL 2311455 (Del. Ch. June 7, 2021), the Delaware Court of Chancery (Slights, V.C.) provided key guidance on mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) earnout disputes regarding contractual earnout language, the applicability of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, extra-contractual discussions and promises and post-closing behavior of the acquirer.  This opinion serves as a reminder to M&A transaction parties on important drafting concepts in earnouts, as well as how to conduct themselves during the negotiations and earnout period.
Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Decision Provides Guidance on M&A Earnouts

In two recent decisions, City of Miami General Employees’ & Sanitation Employees’ Retirement Trust v. Comstock, C.A. No. 9980-CB, 2016 Del. Ch. LEXIS 133 (Del. Ch. Aug. 24, 2016) (Bouchard, C.) (“Comstock”), and Larkin v. Shah, C.A. No. 10918-VCS, 2016 Del. Ch. LEXIS 134 (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2016) (Slights, V.C.), the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed the salutary effect of stockholder approval on the standard of review to be applied when evaluating damages claims in post-closing merger litigation.  The Delaware Supreme Court first recognized this effect in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, 125 A.3d 304, 309 (Del. 2015), holding that “[w]hen a transaction not subject to the entire fairness standard is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced vote of the disinterested stockholders, the business judgment rule applies.”  But, since Corwin, the precise meaning of the phrase “not subject to the entire fairness standard” — and thus the scope of Corwin’s holding — had not been addressed.  Comstock and Larkin do so, with Larkin extending Corwin’s holding the furthest.  Larkin declares that fully informed, uncoerced stockholder approval changes the standard of review in post-closing litigation to the more deferential business judgment rule in all instances save one:  when the presence of a controlling stockholder triggers entire fairness review, in which case the entire fairness standard remains applicable.
Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Addresses the “Cleansing Effect” of Stockholder Approval In Post-Closing M&A Damages Actions

Volume VIII – Foreign Buyers Do Make a Difference

Not every potential buyer is a U.S. corporation controlled by U.S. interests.  It is important, both for the buyer and the seller, to understand the implications of foreign ownership, control, or influence (“FOCI”) on the feasibility of a sale to foreign interests and the processes that apply to such sales.  As the title of this posting makes clear, foreign buyers do, in fact, make a difference.…

Continue Reading What You Need to Know About Mergers and Acquisitions Involving Government Contractors and Their Suppliers