The Law Offices of Jeff Peterson
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Mergers and Acquisitions
    • Securities Law
    • Corporate Transactional Law
  • Industries
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • FAQs
  • Contact
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
M&A AGREEMENTS

SANDBAGGING CLAUSES IN M&A AGREEMENTS

November 10, 2021/in Mergers & Acquisitions, News /by Jeff Peterson

Agreement For The Sale Of A Business

In an agreement for the sale of a business, there will be a number of representations and warranties by the seller across the spectrum of the company’s business, including its ownership of assets, its financial condition, its compliance with a variety of laws (among others, employment and environmental laws), and the existence of any adverse material events. If an issue arises post-closing that violates the representations and warranties, then the indemnity provisions in the agreement will dictate that the seller must compensate the buyer for any resulting loss, including payment of attorneys’ fees, settlements, judgments, etc.

What Is A Sandbagging Clause?

A sandbagging clause refers to a provision in an M&A agreement that addresses whether a buyer’s pre-closing knowledge about the cause of a subsequent loss will have on the buyer’s indemnity claim. The colloquial term “sandbagging” refers to whether or not the buyer can know about the facts giving rise to the loss and still claim indemnity, or “sandbag” the seller by moving ahead with knowledge of a material issue.

There are two types of sandbagging clauses, a pro-sandbagging clause that allows the buyer to have knowledge of the facts giving rise to the loss and still receive indemnification, or an anti-sandbagging clause, which prohibits buyer from receiving indemnity if it knew of the facts giving rise to the loss.

Although it may seem counter-intuitive to allow for pro-sandbagging clauses where a buyer can recover despite closing with knowledge of the problem, there are good reasons for such a clause to be included. One is that prohibiting buyer from recovering would provide a disincentive to conduct thorough due diligence, as the buyer would not want to discover facts that could later bar indemnification. Anti-sandbagging clauses will also give rise to disputes regarding buyer’s knowledge before closing. Perhaps the buyer’s best argument, however, is that listing the problematic matter in the disclosure schedule is the best way to address any post-closing issues, as the parties can negotiate appropriate provisions ahead of time if necessary, e.g., buyer can either accept the disclosure and bear the risk going forward, or require that seller provide express indemnity for the matter so listed.

A seller’s rebuttal on this issue is that a pro-sandbagging clause would allow the buyer to discover an issue in due diligence and not inform the seller, which could provide a disincentive to the buyer to raise the issue ahead of time and address with the seller in the agreement.

M&A Agreements & Pro-Sandbagging Clauses

In terms of market prevalence, pro-sandbagging clauses are far more common in M&A agreements, generally due to the fact that buyers hold the keys (i.e., money) to the deal and are generally not inclined to restrict their rights on important issues like indemnification. Although recent statistics show that it is quite common for M&A agreements not to address sandbagging at all, that should not be taken as an indicator that the concept is often ignored. Many state laws themselves provide an answer as to whether a buyer can “sandbag” the seller if the agreement does not address the issue, and buyers will generally choose a state law that is pro-sandbagging.

Although a seller will generally be faced with an agreement that will allow for sandbagging, either by express clause or application of state law, being armed with that knowledge will help the seller focus more intently on its due diligence process, and negotiate appropriate provisions for any items that do arise. And those sellers in a strong negotiating position can look at an anti-sandbagging clause as a good “get” in negotiating the transaction.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share by Mail
https://lawofficesjtp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/iStock-966826522-scaled.jpg 1557 2560 Jeff Peterson https://lawofficesjtp.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/JTPlogo-01.png Jeff Peterson2021-11-10 15:22:052022-02-10 10:43:43SANDBAGGING CLAUSES IN M&A AGREEMENTS
JTP Brandmark

Categories

  • Corporate Transactional Law
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • News
  • Personal
  • Securities Law

M&A Articles

  • Charging Bull sculpture in New York CityM&A trends for 2022December 22, 2021 - 2:47 pm
  • M&A AGREEMENTSSANDBAGGING CLAUSES IN M&A AGREEMENTSNovember 10, 2021 - 3:22 pm
  • Law services in Chicago and San Diego - A lawyer's hand, pen and overlayDEFINING A SELLER’S KNOWLEDGE IN AN M&A AGREEMENTOctober 24, 2020 - 5:19 am

Corporate Transactional Law Articles

  • DEI for legal teamsDEI for legal teamsJanuary 11, 2022 - 12:21 pm
  • Closing a business in CAHow to Close a Business in CaliforniaNovember 22, 2021 - 2:36 pm
  • Law Offices of Jeff Peterson at workAN OVERVIEW OF SEC REVISIONS TO FORM ADV AND RECORD-KEEPING RULENovember 9, 2021 - 1:43 pm

Securities Law Articles

  • Chinese companies are delisting off the N.Y.S.E.Chinese Companies Delisting off the NYSEJanuary 4, 2022 - 2:54 pm
  • Words insider trading written on a book.SEC CHARGES CHINESE NATIONAL CITIZENS WITH INSIDER TRADING, OBTAINS ORDER FREEZING $29 MILLION IN U.S. ACCOUNTSFebruary 13, 2017 - 12:11 pm
  • Texas Attorney General Ken PaxtonSEC REFILES FRAUD COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS AGOctober 24, 2016 - 8:45 am

LINKS

Privacy Policy
Disclaimer
FAQs

SAN DIEGO

12526 High Bluff Dr.,
Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130

Phone: 858.792.3666
Fax: 858.792.3667

CHICAGO

444 West Lake Street, 17th Fl.,
Chicago, IL 60606

Phone: 312.583.7488
Fax: 312.548.7480

CONNECT

USERWAY

Small UserWay Logo

Disclaimer: The information on this website is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained on this site should be construed as legal advice from The Law Offices of Jeffrey T. Petersen or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this content should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this website without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.

© The Law Offices of Jeffrey T. Petersen 2022

site design by digitalstoryteller.io

© The Law Offices of Jeffrey T. Petersen 2022

site design by digitalstoryteller.io

AN OVERVIEW OF SEC REVISIONS TO FORM ADV AND RECORD-KEEPING RULE Law Offices of Jeff Peterson at work Closing a business in CA How to Close a Business in California Scroll to top