This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
On August 28, 2015 , the Delaware Court of Chancery found the controlling shareholder-CEO and General Counsel of Dole Food Co. Inc. liable to investors for $148 million for fraudulently driving down the company’s share price in anticipation of a going-private transaction. What’s particularly noteworthy here is that the controlling shareholder appears to have structured the transaction with all of the protections required for minority shareholders ( see In Re MFW Shareholders Litig
Most private M&A transactions are structured as acquisitions of stock , rather than mergers or asset purchases. The principal agreement governing such a transaction is typically a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), sometimes styled a Securities Purchase Agreement or simply a Purchase Agreement. At their most basic level, these agreements provide for the sale of shares in a target company to a buyer in return for cash or some other form of consideration ( i.e. , something of value).
An M&A lawyer runs the deal. She is the hub in the hub-and-spoke system of deal parties and their advisers. The M&A lawyer serves as the primary point of contact for the rest of the deal team and has principal responsibility for shepherding the transaction to closing. She may be an in-house attorney but is more often an M&A specialist practicing with an outside law firm.
Like the classic game Operation, ® asset purchase transactions require parties to take great care in extracting just what they want. However, successful asset sales require quite a bit more than a pair of tweezers and steady hands. Among other things, they require a well-crafted Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). These agreements, at their most basic level, provide for the sale of tangible and intangible assets and liabilities of a seller to a buyer in return for cash or some other form of conside
Speaker: Susan Spencer, Principal of Spencer Communications
Intent signal data can go a long way toward shortening sales cycles and closing more deals. The challenge is deciding which is the best type of intent data to help your company meet its sales and marketing goals. In this webinar, Susan Spencer, fractional CMO and principal of Spencer Communications, will unpack the differences between contact-level and company-level intent signals.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 8,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content