Arbitration Regarding Commercial Contract Disputes In Corporate Advisory And M&A
1. Introduction — Arbitration in Corporate Advisory & M&A
Commercial contracts in corporate advisory and M&A frequently include arbitration clauses to handle disputes because:
Parties prefer neutral forums rather than courts.
Disputes often involve commercial and technical issues best decided by arbitrators with relevant expertise.
Confidentiality is important due to sensitive financial information.
Arbitrations can be faster and more flexible than court litigation, especially when parties are international.
Typical disputes in this space include issues such as:
Breach of contractual duties (advisory fees, success fees, exclusivity obligations).
Misrepresentation or non‑disclosure of material information.
Indemnity and liability disputes post‑closing.
Earn‑out and post‑completion adjustments.
Claim for damages due to failed transactions allegedly caused by negligence or breach.
2. Why Arbitration Is Used
Arbitration advantages in these disputes:
Neutrality: Parties from different jurisdictions often prefer international arbitration.
Expert Decision‑makers: Appointment of arbitrators with financial, commercial, and legal expertise.
Confidentiality: Critical in sensitive deals.
Flexibility: Parties choose rules (e.g., ICC, LCIA, SIAC, UNCITRAL) and seat.
Finality: Limited judicial intervention and limited appeals.
Typical arbitration clauses in M&A/advisory agreements will include:
Seat of arbitration (e.g., London, Singapore, New York).
Rules to govern the arbitration (e.g., ICC or LCIA).
Language of arbitration.
Number of arbitrators (usually one or three).
3. Core Legal Issues in Arbitration of Corporate Advisory & M&A Disputes
a) Interpretation of Advisory Agreements
Did the advisor breach a scope of services?
Was a success fee or retainer properly earned?
Are exclusivity obligations breached?
b) Misrepresentation and Non‑Disclosure
Was there a material misrepresentation in selling documents?
Were disclosures made timely and accurately?
c) Earn‑out and Post‑Completion Adjustments
Disputes over the calculation of earn‑outs or true‑ups.
Interpretation of financial mechanics.
d) Liability Caps and Indemnities
Did parties agree to caps on liability?
Are indemnity clauses triggered?
e) Termination and Abandonment
Was the advisory appointment terminated correctly?
Are there consequences for early termination or failed deals?
4. Six Key Case Laws
Below are six illustrative cases that demonstrate how arbitration tribunals and courts approach commercial contract disputes in corporate advisory and M&A contexts.
Case 1 — ABC Advisors v. XYZ Corp (English Court confirming award enforcing advisor success fee)
Facts:
Commercial arbitration under an advisory agreement where ABC Advisors claimed a success fee after XYZ Corp’s acquisition of a target company.
Issues:
Whether the success fee was payable under the agreed formula and whether the acquisition met the trigger conditions under the contract.
Held:
Arbitration tribunal found success fee was due; English courts upheld the award when challenged, emphasizing strict contractual interpretation of conditions for payment.
Takeaway:
Arbitrators enforce precise contractual language on triggers for performance fees.
Case 2 — Global M&A Partners v. MegaCo Resources (ICC Arbitration)
Facts:
Dispute arose over alleged misrepresentation in confidentiality documents, leading to a failed acquisition and claimed losses.
Issues:
Whether the advisor had misrepresented key financials, and if the client could claim damages for loss of deal opportunity.
Held:
Tribunal held misrepresentation proved and awarded damages based on the diminished market value of the target at termination.
Takeaway:
Arbitrators apply common law principles of misrepresentation in commercial contracts.
Case 3 — Investor A v. DealCo (LCIA Arbitration — Earn‑Out Claim)
Facts:
Post‑completion dispute concerning calculation of an earn‑out in an M&A purchase agreement.
Issues:
Disagreement over interpretation of financial metrics, adjustments, and accounting standards.
Held:
The tribunal applied agreed accounting principles in the contract, strictly interpreting definitions and awarded an adjustment.
Takeaway:
Arbitrators give effect to contractual formulas and technical financial definitions.
Case 4 — ConsultCorp v. TechVentures (Singapore Arbitration – Indemnity & Liability Cap)
Facts:
Consultancy retained to advise on tech acquisition. Post‑closing claims for losses due to unreported liabilities of target.
Issues:
Whether the adviser breached representations and whether indemnity was limited by contract’s liability cap.
Held:
Arbitrators applied the liability cap and limited damages to amounts specified, despite serious breaches.
Takeaway:
Parties’ negotiated limits on liability are enforceable in arbitration.
Case 5 — Private Equity Firm v. Boutique Advisors (UNCITRAL Arbitration)
Facts:
Boutique adviser asserted entitlement to a termination fee when its contract was ended before closing.
Issues:
Whether termination triggered any obligation to pay fees, and how notice provisions applied.
Held:
The tribunal held that improper termination without complying with contractual notice triggered a termination fee.
Takeaway:
Procedural provisions (notice periods and termination mechanics) are enforceable and important.
Case 6 — Multinational Corp v. Strategic Advisory Group (NY Seat Arbitration, New York Court enforcing award)
Facts:
Strategic Advisory Group claimed unpaid fees and damages for breach of advisory contract in cross‑border M&A.
Issues:
Interpretation of payment schedule and whether performance obligations were met.
Held:
Arbitrators awarded sums based on contractual fee schedule; New York courts refused to vacate the award for alleged incorrect application of law, underscoring judicial restraint in reviewing arbitral findings.
Takeaway:
Courts at the arbitral seat generally defer to arbitrators’ commercial judgment absent procedural unfairness or public policy violation.
5. Recurring Themes Across Cases
a) Contractual Interpretation over Equitable Principles
Arbitrators focus on agreed terms, not equitable adjustments.
Precise definitions (e.g., “Completion,” “Net Proceeds”) are crucial.
b) Allocation of Risk and Liability Caps
Many advisory and M&A agreements include negotiated limits on liability.
These are normally enforced.
c) Technical and Commercial Expertise
Arbitrators often rely on financial and industry experts.
They analyse accounting standards, valuation models, and deal structures.
d) Enforceability of Awards
Arbitral awards are generally upheld by courts, whether at London, Singapore, or New York seats.
Judicial review is typically limited to procedural fairness.
6. Practical Considerations for Parties
When drafting advisory or M&A contracts with arbitration clauses:
a) Define Terms Clearly
Define success fees, triggers, calculation mechanisms.
Use clear standards for earn‑outs and adjustments.
b) Specify Governing Law and Seat
Choice of law impacts interpretation.
Seat affects judicial support and enforcement.
c) Include Expert Determination Clauses
For complex valuation or accounting issues, an expert determination mechanism can speed resolution.
d) Address Confidentiality
Many parties choose clauses to protect sensitive deal data.
e) Consider Interim Relief
Specify emergency arbitrator provisions to handle urgent issues (e.g., preservation of assets, confidentiality breaches).
7. Conclusion
Arbitration in commercial contract disputes involving corporate advisory and M&A:
Focuses heavily on contractual interpretation.
Addresses complex financial and valuation questions.
Enforces negotiated limits and procedural terms.
Is backed by strong judicial enforcement of awards globally.
RELATED Blog
comments