M&A buyer’s perspective: Should director and shareholder of seller be a party to the SPA?

Article

In a sale and purchase of shares or business, where the seller is a corporation, it is worth considering whether to include the person who has control over the corporate seller (“Person”) as a party to the sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”). The Person would typically be a director and/or controlling shareholder of the corporate seller.

The rationale for including the Person as a party to the SPA is for the Person to ensure due performance of the obligations and assume the liabilities of the corporate seller in the event of any default by the corporate seller under the SPA. The Person may be more financially viable that the corporate seller and the buyer may have a better chance of claiming and enforcing a judgement against the Person than the corporate seller.

Practical consideration

From the buyer’s perspective, the buyer may want to negotiate to include a director and/or controlling shareholder of the corporate seller to be a party to the SPA in the following circumstances:

  1. when the corporate seller does not have financial credibility, does not have any or much asset or “not worth suing” in the event the corporate seller defaults under the SPA;
  2. when including a director and/or controlling shareholder of the corporate seller as a party to the SPA makes it more likely that the corporate seller would perform its obligations under the SPA on the pain that an action may be brought against the Person directly or where there is doubt whether the corporate seller would be able to carry out its obligations under the SPA;
  3. where the corporate seller has continuing obligations under the SPA even after completion of the sale and purchase. For example, the SPA may provide that the buyer may bring an action against the corporate seller even after completion of the sale and purchase for breach of any of the corporate seller’s representations and warranties under the SPA. Perhaps the corporate seller has agreed in the SPA to indemnify the buyer if certain events happen. The buyer would want to be able enforce such provisions under the SPA if it becomes aware of the seller’s default after completion of the sale and purchase and not to find that the corporate seller has been wound up at that point.

The information in this article is intended only to provide general information and does not constitute any legal opinion or professional advice.

 

 

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 …