Completion Accounts Governance
Completion Accounts Governance
1. Introduction
Completion accounts governance refers to the legal and contractual framework regulating the preparation, review, dispute resolution, and adjustment of financial statements prepared at the completion of a merger or acquisition (M&A) transaction.
In share and asset purchase agreements, price adjustments often depend on:
Net asset value
Net debt
Working capital
Cash balances
Completion accounts protect buyers from value leakage between signing and completion and ensure the seller receives fair value.
Governance concerns include:
Accounting standards to be applied
Independence of accountants
Scope of expert determination
Interpretation of contractual drafting
Judicial review of expert decisions
2. Legal Nature of Completion Accounts
Completion accounts are governed primarily by contract law. Courts generally:
Enforce the agreed accounting methodology strictly
Respect the finality of expert determinations
Avoid re-opening commercial bargains
Two major mechanisms exist:
Locked-box mechanism (price fixed at signing)
Completion accounts mechanism (price adjusted post-completion)
This discussion concerns the second.
3. Governance Issues in Completion Accounts
A. Hierarchy of Accounting Standards
Disputes often arise over whether to apply:
Specific accounting policies stated in SPA
Historical accounting practices
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
IFRS
Priority clauses are critical.
B. Role of Independent Expert
Most SPAs provide that disputes are referred to an independent accountant acting as:
An expert (not arbitrator), or
An arbitrator
The distinction affects judicial review.
C. Scope of Expert Jurisdiction
Experts can decide only matters expressly referred to them. Courts retain authority to interpret:
The SPA
Legal construction issues
Jurisdictional overreach
D. Finality of Determination
Courts generally uphold final and binding expert determinations unless:
Fraud
Manifest error (if provided in contract)
Jurisdictional excess
4. Key Case Laws on Completion Accounts Governance
1. Jones v Sherwood Computer Services plc
Principle: Where an accountant acts as expert (not arbitrator), their decision is final unless there is fraud or departure from instructions.
Significance: Foundational case on limits of judicial interference in expert determinations.
2. Nikko Hotels UK Ltd v MEPC plc
Principle: Court will enforce contractual mechanism strictly according to drafting hierarchy.
Significance: Highlights importance of clear accounting priority clauses.
3. F&C Alternative Investments Holdings Ltd v Barthelemy
Principle: Construction of SPA determines whether issue is for expert or court.
Significance: Clarified division between legal interpretation and accounting judgment.
4. Shafi v Rutherford
Principle: Expert cannot exceed mandate defined by agreement.
Significance: Reinforces governance boundaries.
5. Capita Insurance Services Ltd v RFIB Group Ltd
Principle: Contract interpretation requires balancing textual and commercial context.
Significance: Influences interpretation of accounting adjustment clauses.
6. Mears Ltd v Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd
Principle: Specific accounting methodologies agreed in SPA override general accounting standards.
Significance: Demonstrates supremacy of contractual accounting framework.
7. BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SpA
Principle: Courts will not rewrite poorly drafted commercial bargains.
Significance: Parties bear risk of unclear completion account drafting.
5. Key Governance Principles Emerging from Case Law
1. Contractual Primacy
The SPA governs completely. Courts do not import external accounting rules unless incorporated.
2. Expert Finality
If accountant acts as expert:
No appeal on merits
Only limited challenge grounds
3. Jurisdictional Limits
Experts cannot decide legal construction unless expressly authorized.
4. Hierarchy Clauses Are Critical
Typical hierarchy:
Specific SPA provisions
Agreed accounting policies
Historical practices
GAAP/IFRS
Misalignment creates disputes.
6. Common Dispute Areas
Working capital adjustments
Classification of debt vs operational liability
Provisions and contingencies
Revenue recognition
Intercompany balances
7. Governance Safeguards in Drafting
To reduce disputes, SPAs should:
Clearly define accounting standards hierarchy
Specify expert vs arbitrator role
Limit scope of expert determination
Define manifest error standard (if any)
Include illustrative examples of calculations
Specify time limits for objections
8. Completion Accounts vs Locked-Box Governance
| Feature | Completion Accounts | Locked-Box |
|---|---|---|
| Price certainty | Post-completion adjustment | Fixed at signing |
| Litigation risk | High if poorly drafted | Lower but risk of leakage claims |
| Financial transparency | Requires closing balance sheet | Based on historical accounts |
| Governance complexity | Higher | Moderate |
9. Risk Management in Corporate Governance
Boards must ensure:
Finance team alignment with SPA terms
External audit support where required
Early dispute identification
Documentation of accounting judgments
Poor governance may lead to:
Price erosion
Prolonged litigation
Reputational harm
10. Conclusion
Completion accounts governance is fundamentally a contractual risk allocation mechanism in M&A transactions.
Judicial authorities consistently emphasize:
Strict adherence to agreed accounting hierarchy
Finality of expert determinations
Limited judicial intervention
Clear separation between accounting disputes and legal construction issues
Effective governance requires careful drafting, financial discipline, and procedural clarity to prevent costly post-completion disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments