In the M&A context, the term “sandbagging” refers to one party asserting a claim based on a representation made in connection with the transaction despite knowing or having had reason to know pre-closing that the...more
Chancery Court Provides Additional Guidance on Disclosure Requirements for Corwin Analysis - One of the most significant decisions of the Delaware Chancery Court in the last 15 years was the court’s ruling in Corwin v....more
Delaware Clarifies “Pro-Sandbagging” Stance by Mark Tarallo and Mary Moran In almost every M&A transaction, the parties spend some time discussing (if not heavily negotiating) the right of the buyer to bring claims against...more
While M&A practitioners have long taken the view that Delaware is a “pro-sandbagging” state, a recent case in the Delaware Court of Chancery has added concrete authority to that position. In Arwood v. AW Site Services (March...more
A great deal has been written about the M&A wars, including our prior alerts regarding the issues that arise when a buyer attempts to terminate a deal as a result of a seller material adverse effect (MAE) or the inability of...more
On October 1, in Akorn v. Fresenius Kabi, the Delaware Court of Chancery for the first time found that a material adverse effect — or MAE — had occurred in a merger transaction, which, combined with other breaches of the...more
Agenda - Letters of Intent - Best Efforts - Indemnification - Sandbagging - Non-Reliance - Fiduciary Duties - Letters of Intent: • Buyer may seek letter of intent that is generally not binding on either party...more