Dive into the intricate world of M&A transactions with our latest blog post on an important Delaware court decision. Uncover the legal nuances surrounding buyer-seller relationships, data room disclosures, and the impact of contractual agreements. Gain valuable insights into the Chyronhego Corporation v. Wight case, emphasizing the importance of due diligence, contractual clauses, and the potential for higher damages in cases of fraudulent misrepresentations. Stay informed and navigate the complexities of M&A deals with our expert analysis and industry-specific coverage.
M&A Stories
August 7, 2018
In a recent legal development with significant implications for M&A transactions, a court has ruled that a buyer cannot sue the seller for fraudulent misrepresentations found in the target’s data room. This case, Chyronhego Corporation v. Wight, decided on July 31, 2018, sheds light on the importance of contractual agreements in M&A deals.
The involved parties were a global leader in live television broadcast graphics (the buyer) and a company specializing in creating graphics and media for educational institutions and sports teams (the target). The buyer, attracted by the target’s cutting-edge products and stable customer base, initiated the acquisition process, conducting due diligence from March through June 2016.
The due diligence process involved the creation of a data room, where both the seller and the target uploaded crucial documents, including customer details, contracts, and financial projections. A stock purchase agreement was executed on July 1, 2016, and the acquisition closed on the same day.
Post-acquisition, the target’s performance fell short of expectations, yielding only $500,000 in profits by the end of 2016 compared to the anticipated $2-3 million. In response, the buyer filed a lawsuit on July 27, 2017, alleging fraudulent misrepresentations in the data room material and the quality of earnings report provided by the seller.
The buyer contended that the seller manipulated sales data to inflate the target’s value, referencing pre-closing emails instructing the target’s finance personnel to adjust invoices. The buyer also claimed that the seller failed to disclose crucial information about material customers, such as the Atlanta Braves and Florida State University, resulting in inaccurate projections.
However, the court sided with the seller, emphasizing an anti-reliance clause in the stock purchase agreement. This clause stipulates that the buyer cannot rely on any representations, covenants, or agreements made by the seller unless explicitly stated in the stock purchase agreement, even in cases of fraud.
It’s noteworthy that the court allowed the buyer to pursue claims related to fraudulent representations and warranties explicitly stated in the stock purchase agreement. This decision highlights the potential for higher damages in cases of fraudulent contractual misrepresentations, as such claims may not be subject to indemnification caps applicable to breach of contract damages.
This ruling underscores the importance of careful scrutiny of contractual clauses and the need for buyers to ensure that representations and warranties are explicitly detailed in the stock purchase agreement to seek legal recourse for fraudulent misrepresentations.
Case Reference:
Chyronhego Corporation v. Wight, C.A. No. 2017-0548-SG, Court of Chancery of Delaware, (Decided: July 31, 2018).
By John McCauley: I help people start, grow, buy and sell their businesses.
Email: jmccauley@mk-law.com
Profile: http://www.martindale.com/John-B-McCauley/176725-lawyer.htm
Telephone: 714 273-6291
Check out my book: Buying Assets of a Small Business: Problems Taken From Recent Legal Battles
Recent Comments