M&A Seller’s $17M Earnout Dispute: Lessons from a Healthcare Tech Acquisition

Share

Explore the intricacies of a healthcare tech acquisition with a $17 million earnout dispute. Gain insights into the importance of due diligence, clear terms, and transparency in M&A transactions. Learn from the legal actions, key findings, and implications for both buyers and sellers. Case reference: Rheault v. Halma Holdings Inc.

M&A Stories

December 3, 2023

Introduction:

Selling your company with a substantial earnout can be a gamble. This case underscores the need for meticulous due diligence and clear terms when entering into such agreements.

Background:

In 2021, a healthcare tech company, offering a range of solutions, underwent a stock acquisition. The buyer, a global consortium of life-saving tech firms, valued the target at $30 million, with a potential $17 million earnout based on specific sales benchmarks within two years.

Controversy:

Issues emerged during the earnout period. The buyer failed to disclose prior obligations from a competing acquisition, impacting the target’s post-sale performance. Allegations include a breach of contract regarding sales representatives and delayed product launches.

Legal Actions:

The seller filed a lawsuit, citing fraud for non-disclosure and breach of contract for failing to promote post-sale products. The buyer countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing no duty to disclose and insufficient allegations.

Key Findings:

The court found the fraud allegations valid, emphasizing the buyer’s duty to disclose conflicting agreements. The absence of an anti-reliance clause allowed the seller’s fraud claim to proceed. The breach of contract claim stood, supported by specific instances of unfulfilled promises.

Implications:

Transparency is crucial for buyers proposing earnout provisions. Sellers should be wary of anti-reliance clauses, enhancing their ability to address buyer commitments based on fraud during negotiations.

Case Reference:

Rheault v. Halma Holdings Inc., Civil Action No. 23-700-WCB United States District Court, D. Delaware (November 7, 2023).

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 problems with earnouts Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recent Comments

Categories