Guest post by Danielle E. Golino of McDermott Will & Emery
In today’s highly competitive healthcare environment, investors may find themselves in an auction process where they must conduct due diligence pre-exclusivity. With limited time and mounting pressure, it can be difficult to know what issues to prioritize. Here are some practical tips for focusing your due diligence efforts strategically in a pre-exclusivity setting:
Guest post by John M. Reiss and Gregory Pryor of White & Case LLP
Many of the factors that have underpinned recent M&A activity remain in place, but concerns are mounting.
Positive drivers of M&A, including the strength of the US economy, the availability of financing and the strategic imperative to consolidate or transform for many corporates have underpinned transactions.
Guest post by Michal Berkner, Josh Kaufman, James Foster from Cooley M&A blog
Exiting an investment is an inherently uncertain process. Even for a thriving business with a viable equity story, committed stakeholders and the right advisers, the final deal terms and valuation are typically guided by factors beyond a company’s control. These include prevailing market sentiment, current appetite for acquisitions in a particular sector and the political and economic environment, all of which can change well within a given transaction timetable. In the face of a global economic slowdown, ongoing trade wars, Brexit, heightened market volatility and other sources of uncertainty, it is becoming increasingly important to consider how deals can be run to maximize transaction certainty and achieve optimal valuation.
Guest post by Philip D. Amoa, Associate – McCarter & English, LLP
Original Title: Delaware Law Updates: Sellers Alleged Breach of Stock Purchase Agreement Did Not Excuse Buyer in M&A Transaction from Its Own Performance; Right of Set-Off Did Not Apply to Unliquidated Claims
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “unliquidated” is defined as “not calculated or established as a specific amount.” The Post Holdings case (Post Holdings, Inc., and Michael Foods of Delaware, Inc., v. NPE Seller Rep LLC, C.A. No. 2017-0772 AGB [Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2018]) shed light on how a party’s right of set-off was construed to have limited applicability. The case also showed how a party may be excused from its obligations under a contract.
Guest post by Daniel E. Wolf, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
In the private M&A context, “sandbagging” refers to a buyer, who despite having knowledge of a breach of representation or warranty by a seller at some time before closing, proceeds with the closing and then seeks indemnification from the seller for the breach of representation or warranty of which it had prior knowledge.
Post from Insight & Analysis: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
In a 246-page post-trial decision issued this week, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that a buyer could terminate a $4.75 billion public company acquisition because of material adverse effects that had occurred at the seller following signing.1 The decision is the first Delaware case to reach such an outcome and provides critical guidance for such situations going forward.