Indemnification

searcher profile

November 08, 2022

by a searcher from The University of Chicago - Booth School of Business in Chicago, IL, USA

I'm in the process of negotiating an LOI on a business, and have run into an ask from the seller that I'm not sure how to take. I'd mentioned in the LOI that the definitive purchase agreement would contain indemnification provisions up to the full purchase price. The sellers want to limit indemnity to the seller note only (10% of the purchase price). To me, this seems to be problematic considering the information asymmetry in any deal, but I'm not sure whether my take is reasonable. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

0
7
145
Replies
7
commentor profile
Reply by a searcher
in Barcelona, Spain
Dear searcher, I have experience in M&A and to be honest I have never seen such a big amount of indemnification (maybe this defers on the country). But basically how I see it is the following:

On the one hand in the SPA you will have the reps & warrants. This should limit the completition of the deal to the terms specified in there. Hence, if something covered in the R&W does not happen, you could rever the deal and "return" the company to the owner.

On the other hand you can normally set an escrow account that would cover any potential liabilities identified in the due diligence. For example, any tax liabilities under investigation. This amount normally is released when the liability is due. Hence, in my opinion you should justify the amount of indemnity and set a due date for each liability / indemnity.

Hence, indemnity amounting to a 10% of the EV sounds reasonable to me, as long as you do not identify potential liabilities over a 10% of the EV. (Assuming that the EqV is more or less equal to the EV, if the latter is much higher, make sure that a 10% makes sense to you).

Let me know if I can help you further.
Best luck
commentor profile
Reply by a professional
from University of Miami in New York, NY, USA
You could also limit indemnification to 10% where a nondisclosure or breach of covenant is non-material. Should the breach or nondisclosure be material, or cause (directly or indirectly) a material adverse change or condition, then the coverage would increase to 100%. On the 100%, you could suggest that the provision would be covered if they purchased insurance to cover the indemnification. That however, could have a non-coverage provision if the seller "knowingly" fails to disclose or breaches a covenant. Let me know if you have any questions: redacted or###-###-####
commentor profile
+5 more replies.
Join the discussion