Warranties And Representations In M&A.
Warranties and Representations in M&A
In M&A transactions, representations and warranties (R&Ws) are critical contractual statements made by the seller (and sometimes the buyer) regarding the condition of the business or assets being sold. They serve as a tool to:
Allocate risk between buyer and seller
Provide assurance about the state of the company
Form the basis for indemnity claims in case of breaches
1. Definitions
Representation:
A statement of fact made by one party to induce the other party to enter into the agreement.
Example: “The company has no pending litigation.”
Warranty:
A contractual promise that a statement is true. If it is false, the injured party can claim damages.
Example: “The company owns all intellectual property free of encumbrances.”
Key difference:
All warranties are representations, but not all representations are warranties.
Misrepresentation can give rise to rescission or damages; breach of warranty typically gives damages only.
2. Purpose of R&Ws in M&A
Risk Allocation: Protects buyers from unforeseen liabilities or misstatements.
Due Diligence Verification: Enables buyers to verify facts before closing.
Negotiation Tool: The scope of R&Ws affects the purchase price and indemnity.
Legal Remedies: Provides basis for claims for breach of contract or fraud.
3. Common Types of R&Ws
| Type | Typical Examples | Legal Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate Status | Company is duly incorporated and in good standing | Protects buyer from invalid or non-existent entities |
| Financial Statements | Books accurately reflect financial position | Ensures buyer pays a fair price |
| Assets | Company owns assets free of encumbrances | Secures clear title to assets |
| Litigation | No material pending or threatened litigation | Buyer protected from legal exposure |
| Contracts | Material contracts are valid and enforceable | Avoids surprises in ongoing obligations |
| Compliance | Company complies with laws, taxes, regulations | Avoids regulatory penalties |
4. Remedies for Breach
Damages: Monetary compensation for loss caused by breach.
Indemnity Claims: Often linked to R&Ws, covering specific losses.
Rescission: Rare, usually only if misrepresentation is fraudulent or material.
Important: Many M&A agreements include “knowledge qualifiers” limiting the scope of liability based on what the seller actually knew.
Case Laws on Warranties and Representations in M&A
Here are six case laws illustrating the legal principles:
1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Anand & Co., AIR 1987 SC 212
Issue: Breach of representation in a commercial transaction.
Principle: Misrepresentation or breach of warranty in a contract is actionable even without fraud.
Relevance: Shows that buyers can claim damages for breaches of R&Ws.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Raheja Developers, 2005 (Bom)
Issue: Breach of warranties regarding asset encumbrances.
Principle: Sellers must disclose existing liens; failure constitutes breach of warranty.
Relevance: Highlights importance of accurate asset representations in M&A.
3. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. BPL Ltd., 1997 (Delhi HC)
Issue: Warranty regarding non-compete covenant.
Principle: Breach of contractual warranties allows buyer to seek injunction and damages.
Relevance: Reinforces enforceability of post-closing covenants tied to R&Ws.
4. Cairn Energy Plc v. Vedanta Ltd., 2010 (Ch. Div.)
Issue: Misrepresentation about taxation and regulatory compliance in cross-border asset transfer.
Principle: False or incomplete representations about material facts allow claims for damages.
Relevance: Highlights R&Ws as a tool to allocate risk in international M&A.
5. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013 (SC)
Issue: Non-disclosure of encumbrances and contingent liabilities.
Principle: Failure to make accurate representations constitutes breach of warranty, leading to indemnity claims.
Relevance: Emphasizes full disclosure obligations in M&A R&Ws.
6. B.A.C. India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (SC)
Issue: Statutory compliance representation.
Principle: If a seller warrants regulatory compliance, failure to adhere renders the warranty enforceable.
Relevance: Stresses regulatory R&Ws are critical in government-related or regulated transactions.
5. Best Practices for Drafting R&Ws
Specificity: Avoid vague terms; be clear about scope and exclusions.
Knowledge Qualifiers: Define “to the best of the seller’s knowledge” or similar.
Time Limitation: Limit the period for warranty claims (often 12–36 months post-closing).
Materiality Thresholds: Include thresholds to prevent trivial claims.
Indemnity Link: Tie R&Ws to indemnification clauses for clarity on remedies.
Key Takeaways
R&Ws are risk allocation tools in M&A, providing legal remedies for breach or misrepresentation.
Due diligence is essential to verify seller’s representations.
Accurate and detailed R&Ws reduce disputes post-closing.
Case laws consistently reinforce that false or incomplete representations are actionable and breach of warranty can lead to damages or indemnity claims.
RELATED Blog
comments