Can the Purchaser Rely on the Warranty and Indemnity Clauses in the Share Purchase Agreement?

Linkedin Post

In M&A transactions, warranty and indemnity clauses are toolkits for protecting the purchaser’s interest. But what happens if the seller can’t fulfill these obligations due to financial reason? A well-drafted clause is only as effective as the seller’s ability to pay.

If the purchaser is concerned that the seller may not have the financial means to satisfy claims brought under any warranty or indemnity clauses, the purchaser may consider the following:

1. Guarantee from holding company/shareholder

If the seller is a company, the purchaser may request for a guarantee from the seller’s shareholders, which may be a holding company or individuals.

2. Retention in escrow account

The parties may agree for a portion of the purchase price to be retained in an escrow account for an agreed period to satisfy any warranty or indemnity claims that may arise. The amount in the escrow account would be paid to the seller at the end of the agreed period if no claim is made by the purchaser.

3. Deferred payment

The parties may agree for the purchaser to pay the bulk of the purchase price on completion of the share purchase agreement. The purchaser will then pay the remaining part of the purchase price post completion. The purchaser will make the deferred payment to the seller at the end of the agreed period during which the purchaser may claim under the warranty or indemnity clauses.

4. Bank guarantee

The purchaser may request that the seller provide a bank guarantee to guarantee the seller’s performance in the event of warranty or indemnity claims. However, the seller may be reluctant to do so as there is cost involved in providing a bank guarantee.

Whether the seller would agree to any of the above would depend partly on the parties’ bargaining power. The seller may also be concerned that the purchaser put forward claims without merit to try to set off the purchase price against the warranty or indemnity claims, if the SPA allows for setting off.

#malaysiancorporatelawyer

#mergersandacquisitions

This post was first posted on LinkedIn on 21 January 2025.

Linkedin Post
Earn-out: A postponed dispute?

An earn-out is often the solution when a buyer and seller cannot agree on price. The seller believes the business is worth more than what the buyer is willing to pay upfront. So, the parties resolve the issue by deferring the portion of the price they cannot agree on, with …

Linkedin Post
The disclosure letter: Why founders selling their companies should not treat it as an afterthought

When founders sell their companies, the scope of legal work usually focuses on the share sale and purchase agreement (SPA). The disclosure letter is sometimes treated as secondary to the SPA but it should not have been the case. The disclosure letter sets out the exceptions to the sellers’ representations …

Linkedin Post
Third-party consents in a share sale: What sellers should check before negotiating

When a company is sold, due diligence is usually conducted by the buyer, not the seller. That means the consents required from regulators, other shareholders, financiers or IP licensors to complete the sale are often only discovered when the buyer’s lawyers identify them during legal due diligence. By then, the …