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
Things rarely go according to plan. Earnings are missed. Commercial relationships end. Regulatory approvals don’t materialize. Lawsuits get filed. And disasters happen. Such are the vicissitudes of business. But what happens when they transpire during the gap period between signing and closing an M&A transaction? Most sellers would argue that little if anything should happen—the deal should still close at the previously agreed-upon purchase price.
The primary transaction agreement in every M&A deal contains representations and warranties, colloquially referred to as “reps and warranties” or simply “reps,” from each party to the other. These are statements of past, present and sometimes future fact relating to the status, business, assets, liabilities, properties, condition, operating results, operations and prospects of the party making the statements, one or more companies under the party’s control or a
On August 19, 2015 , the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an opinion in Kerbawy v. McDonnell that addressed how holders of a majority of a company’s shares should take control of a board of directors by executing written consents. The case involved interpretation of Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporation Law , which provides that, unless otherwise set forth in a corporation’s certificate of incorporation, shareholders may act by written consent upon any action that may
52
52
Input your email to sign up, or if you already have an account, log in here!
Enter your email address to reset your password. A temporary password will be e‑mailed to you.
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