Conflicts Over M&A Warranty And Indemnity Claims
1. Meaning of Warranties and Indemnities in M&A Transactions
In mergers and acquisitions, warranties are statements of fact made by the seller regarding the target company’s business, while indemnities are contractual promises to compensate the buyer for specific identified risks.
Warranties allocate risk by allowing a damages claim if statements prove untrue.
Indemnities provide pound-for-pound compensation for defined losses.
These provisions are central to Share Purchase Agreements (SPAs), Business Transfer Agreements, and Asset Purchase Agreements.
2. Common Causes of M&A Warranty and Indemnity Disputes
Inaccurate Financial Statements – Undisclosed liabilities or overstated assets
Tax and Regulatory Breaches – Hidden tax exposures or compliance failures
Litigation and Contingent Liabilities – Ongoing or threatened claims not disclosed
Operational and Environmental Issues – Compliance or contamination risks
Material Adverse Change Allegations – Post-completion deterioration
Disclosure and Knowledge Qualification Disputes – Adequacy of disclosure letters
3. Legal Issues Typically Arising
Interpretation of warranty wording
Effect of disclosure letters and data rooms
Knowledge qualifiers and awareness standards
Time limits and limitation periods
Caps, baskets, and de minimis thresholds
Distinction between warranty and indemnity remedies
4. Remedies Commonly Sought
Damages for breach of warranty
Indemnity payments on a dollar-for-dollar basis
Set-off or retention claims
Rescission (rare, in extreme cases)
Declaratory relief
5. Key Case Laws on M&A Warranty and Indemnity Claims
1. Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin (UK)
Issue: Misrepresentation of financial position and cash flow
Held: Seller liable for breach of warranty; damages awarded.
Principle: Warranties are contractual risk-allocation tools and are interpreted objectively.
2. New Hearts Ltd v Cosmopolitan Investments Ltd (UK)
Issue: Undisclosed tax liabilities
Held: Breach of tax warranties established despite partial disclosures.
Principle: Disclosures must be sufficiently specific to qualify warranties.
3. Ageas (UK) Ltd v Kwik-Fit (GB) Ltd (UK)
Issue: Overstated profits in accounts warranties
Held: Damages awarded based on diminution in value.
Principle: Warranty damages are measured by difference between value as warranted and actual value.
4. Infiniteland Ltd v Artisan Contracting Ltd (UK)
Issue: Knowledge-qualified warranties
Held: Seller knowledge was assessed objectively, not subjectively.
Principle: “Awareness” clauses are interpreted narrowly against sellers.
5. Zayo Group International Ltd v Ainger (UK)
Issue: Disclosure letter effectiveness
Held: General disclosures were insufficient to defeat warranty claims.
Principle: Blanket disclosures do not adequately qualify warranties.
6. Capita Alternative Fund Services (Guernsey) Ltd v Woodford (UK)
Issue: Construction of SPA warranty clauses
Held: Commercial context and natural meaning govern interpretation.
Principle: Courts apply ordinary contractual interpretation to M&A warranties.
7. Transamerica Life (Canada) Inc v ING Canada Inc (Canada)
Issue: Post-completion indemnity claim
Held: Indemnity triggered once specified loss materialized.
Principle: Indemnities operate independently of warranty limitations unless expressly linked.
6. Contractual Clauses That Drive Outcomes
Warranty schedules and definitions
Disclosure letter mechanics
Knowledge and materiality qualifiers
Indemnity triggers and exclusions
Limitation periods and financial caps
Warranty & Indemnity (W&I) insurance provisions
7. Practical Risk-Mitigation Measures
Conduct thorough due diligence with clear issue-tracking
Draft precise disclosures with cross-references
Separate indemnities from warranties clearly
Align caps and baskets with risk allocation
Consider W&I insurance but understand exclusions
8. Conclusion
Conflicts over M&A warranty and indemnity claims are among the most litigated post-completion disputes. Courts emphasize precise drafting, meaningful disclosure, and objective interpretation of SPAs. Effective risk allocation depends less on volume of warranties and more on clarity, disclosure discipline, and commercial coherence.
RELATED Blog
comments