Deal lawyers—shirkers and grand-standers, the lot of you

12 Feb 18 1800

M&A has been characterized as a bloodsport. In a strategic transaction, the stakes are high for all concerned: careers, reputations, and business and financial fortunes and are on the line. In addition to the high stakes, the one-off relationship between a typical seller and buyer in an M&A transaction may particularly lend itself to disputes. Opportunities and incentives to resolve disputes or even to be reasonable in deference to the greater relationship are often absent in M&A, with the calculus changing (and the incentives to cooperate often declining) after each successive step of a transaction, from signature through closing to the end of the survival period for indemnification rights.


Consistent with the foregoing, it has been estimated that as many as one third of all private M&A transactions give rise to a dispute between the parties. And based on one survey sample, as many as two thirds of all claims in M&A disputes exceed $10 million.

Forrest G. Alogna & William Savitt, The Versatile M&A Lawyer: Bridging the Gap Between Courtroom and Boardroom, The Business Lawyer (Summer 2017).

[W]hen you’re under pressure to get a deal done, no one is anxious to raise the additional issue of how to resolve a potential lawsuit—especially when it relates to something that hasn’t yet occurred and that everyone is hard at work to prevent from happening. Second, there’s a dose of the timeworn "not my problem” syndrome at work here—the deal lawyer figuring that any dispute cropping up later on will be turned over to the litigator, so it’s the other person’s worry.

But that’s just where deal lawyers go wrong—it is their problem, and they shouldn’t duck it.

James C. Freund, Calling All Deal Lawyers—Try Your Hand at Resolving Disputes, The Business Lawyer (Nov. 2006).

Less expert [lawyers: "agents"] may produce less complex or extensive [risk allocation provisions: "RAPs"] than would be ideal, again because of a lack of knowledge or exposure to different ways in which RAPs might be useful. However, less expert agents may also produce inefficiently (overly) complex or extensive RAPs, for the same "grand-standing" reasons that lead them to use RAPs when they are inefficient. More expert agents, by contrast, may better be able to advise clients on how to assign a value to RAPs, and to the disputes that complex or extensive RAPs may generate, which may make simpler or less extensive RAPs more efficient. Alternatively, more expert agents may use simpler or less extensive RAPs out of shirking, because (as above) the opportunity costs of developing or negotiating RAPs are greater than for other agents.

John C. Coates IV, Allocating Risk Through Contract: Evidence from M&A and Policy Implications (May 17, 2012).
 
Query Thread Page

On this page you can:
 
  • subscribe to this query
    By subscribing, you will receive email (as frequently as you specify) of new activity in this query.
  • vote up or vote down queries and replies
    Voting is a generalized proxy for your assessment of the worth, quality, articulation, etc of a query or reply. Voting up a reply or query increases the reply/query author's mojo by one. After you vote, you have five minutes to undo it.
  • reply to the query or add a comment to the query or any reply
    A reply is a serious substantive response, worthy of addition to the knowledge being recorded for all of us here. Comments, simply, are for responses that are not replies (questions, clarifications, caveats, etc). You must scroll all the way down to add a reply; might as well read all of the replies on the way down. If you would like to include with your reply new legal text for others to edit, feel free to add a clause. Adding a reply gives you one mojo.
  • edit a clause (quick-reply)
    If you want to quickly add a reply that is an edit of another member's legal text, click the edit clause link on the clause you wish to edit, and you will be taken to the bottom of the page, with the text of the clause ready for your edits.
  • select best reply (if you are the author of the query)
    If you authored this query, be sure to select the reply that you believe is the best (and consider explaining why you selected this reply as best in a comment to that reply). You receive one mojo for doing so. The author of the reply you select as best will receive four mojo or the bounty award you posted for this query. You can change your mind as many times as you want. If you de-select a best reply, the reply author loses two mojo or the bounty mojo awarded, and you lose one mojo.
  • edit/update or delete query (if you are the query author)
    If you authored this query, you may edit it at any time, and delete it before a reply has been posted to it. Clauses may be edited only if no other member has redlined that clause. You may also add a bounty award or increase already-posted bounty, at any time (even after a reply has been posted).
  • flag (ie complain about) a query, reply or comment
    Use as sparingly as appropriate given the circumstances.
  • quiver and favorite
    You may add/remove this query to/from your favorites, and add/remove clauses in this query to/from your quiver. If you are a guild moderator, you can similarly add/remove this query to/from guild favorites, and add/remove clauses here to/from your guild quiver.

A friendly reminder: be excellent to each other and remember the human.

FAQs | How do I ...?
What are subscriptions?
Redline allows you to subscribe to queries (so that you can be alerted to new replies and comments that are posted to those queries), members (so that you can know of new queries posted by that member) and guilds (so that you can track new queries posted with tags of guilds you follow). With subscriptions, you are notified via email, and on the Home (Your Notifications) page, of new activity corresponding to your subscriptions. Via the Settings/Subscriptions page, you can manage your subscriptions, including altering the timing of notification emails.