COURT HOLDS PRODUCT LINE BUYER NOT LIABLE FOR PRE-CLOSING TALC SALES CLAIMS

Share

In a battle between two Pharma giants, a Delaware state court held that the seller retained liability for potentially billions of dollars for pre-closing sales of talc products.

M&A Stories

April 24, 2023

Introduction

A buyer of a business can select what liabilities of the business to assume in an asset acquisition.

The deal

In 2014 the buyer purchased the assets of the seller’s consumer care business for $14.2 billion.  The deal included the seller’s talc powder product lines. The seller agreed in the asset purchase agreement to be responsible for liabilities connected with pre-closing sale of its talc powder products.

The lawsuit   

After the closing the seller argued that it was not responsible for defense costs and liability for talc powder claims after the 7th anniversary of the closing. It sued the buyer to enforce its position and cited a provision in the purchase agreement which said that buyer’s right to seek indemnification from the seller for seller’s breach of its representations and warranties expired on the 7th anniversary of the closing.

The court said that this seven year survival provision had nothing to do with seller’s promise to retain responsibility for the talc powder claims. The seven year survival provision applied solely to claims by the buyer for indemnification for breach by seller of its representations and warranties.  The seller’s promise to retain the talc powder liabilities was not a representation or warranty.

The court dismissed the seller’s lawsuit.

See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Bayer AG, C.A. No. 2021-0838-NAC, Court of Chancery of Delaware (Submitted: December 19, 2022. Decided: April 3, 2023.)

Comment

 The seller said it will appeal. Good luck because the seller argument is unconvincing.

There is nothing that the buyer could have done to prevent this lawsuit. Hopefully, there was a provision in the asset purchase agreement that will permit the buyer to recover its legal fees and costs from the seller as the prevailing party, because it was the prevailing party in the lawsuit.

By John McCauley: I write about recent legal problems of buyers and sellers of small businesses.

Email:             jmccauley@mk-law.com

Profile:            http://www.martindale.com/John-B-McCauley/176725-lawyer.htm

Telephone:      714 273-6291

Podcasts https://www.buzzsprout.com/2142689/12339043

Check out my books: Buying Assets of a Small Business: Problems Taken From Recent Legal Battles and Selling Assets of a Small Business: Problems Taken From Recent Legal Battles

 Legal Disclaimer

The blogs on this website are provided as a resource for general information for the public. The information on these web pages is not intended to serve as legal advice or as a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of any particular legal matter. The information on these web pages is subject to change at any time and may be incomplete and/or may contain errors. You should not rely on these pages without first consulting a qualified attorney.

Posted in Problem with products Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

Recent Comments

Categories