Delaware Chancery Court provides helpful drafting tips in Earnout case

After taking the summer off from blogging, its time to write again. I thought I would go back to one of my favorite topics to discuss - one often ripe for dispute - earnouts. An interesting decision by the Delaware Chancery Court last month raises some drafting issues.

The case involves a dispute over an EBITA-based earnout between sellers of a life-sciences startup and buyer, AmerisourceBergen Corporation. The deal involved a $21 million closing payment and an earnout of $55 million based on 2003 and 2004 results. Because Sellers saw this deal as giving them access to a larger marketing platform, they obtained buyer's agreement to exclusively promote seller's products as part of AmerisourceBergen's marketing pitches. The merger agreement also included language expressly requiring buyer to use "good faith" and not undertake any actions that would impede the earnout benefits to the sellers.

Notwithstanding these seller-favorable provisions and a finding by the Court in favor of liability for breaching the agreement, on this issue the Court only awarded nominal damages of 6 cents. (The Court did award $21 million on a separate claim that the earnout metric was miscalcuated, so the sellers did have something to celebrate). So, a liquidated damages clause may have been useful here to the sellers.

Another issue was cost control as related to the earnout computation. The agreement clause did not prevent sellers from controlling (reducing) its expenses during the earnout period. A buyer in this case may consider providing that any reductions in expenses (that are not buyer-approved) will get backed out of the EBITDA or other similar earnout metric. Conversely, sellers should try to control as much of the action as possible, so buyer's increases in overall corporate spending do not dilute their earnout.

The term "average" was also in dispute. Buyer argued that average meant "weighted average," while the contract was silent. The court did not find this argument compelling ("the most straightforward usage of the term 'average' is an arithmetic mean, or an average in which each term is given equal weight"). So, if you mean weighted average, you need to say so in the agreement and then spell out the rules on how the weighting is going to work.

The case also presents an example where the parties departed from GAAP in defining the Adjusted EBITA and the Court enforced their agreement, as opposed to referring back to what GAAP may require.

Delaware Chancery Court rules on post-closing adjustment dispute

A March decision of the Chancery Court in Matria Healthcare v. Coral SR LLC is an essay on post-closing adjustment (true-up) provisions and the interplay of dispute resolution mechanisms in a purchase agreement.

The case involved a merger between two companies in the disease management and wellness business, Matria and CorSolutions. Apparently, before the closing CorSolutions received some complaints from a key customer about their bill and failed to disclose that to the buyer. Matria got the call from the customer - one day after closing - and then spent the next six months negotiating what turned into a $4 million settlement. This was done without discussion with the seller and without their consent. After the settlement, Matria sought relief from the seller for their payment and the dispute ensued.

To complicate things, this agreement had four different types of dispute and resolution mechanisms, two of which are relevant here. The first was a typical post closing adjustment (true up) provision relating to balance sheet adjustments for things like working capital, cash on hand, indebtedness, etc. Disputes arising from adjustments would be submitted to an outside accountant (a “Settlement Accountant”). These claims were not limited by a cap and would be adjusted on a first dollar basis.

Other claims by the parties relating to the transaction, such those arising from breaches of representations, warranties or covenants, would be handled by a AAA arbitration. These claims would be resolved against a $20 million escrow fund, and were subject to a basket (i.e. deductible) of $4.5 million. The agreement also provided a typical exclusive remedy clause where all claims other than fraud or for injunctive relief would be limited to the escrow fund.

The court noted that, in anticipation of a potential hierarchy issue stemming from the different ADR provisions, the parties also provided that any claim that could be brought related to the financial statement adjustments will be subject to that provision and not subject to the escrow fund. ("The items set forth on or reflected in the [financial statements delivered in connection with the true-up] and any matters relating thereto that could have been subject to adjustment or dispute pursuant to [the true-up] are subject solely to the adjustments set forth in Article II [i.e. by the Settlement Accountant] . . . and accordingly shall not be subject to any claim by [Matria]… on the Escrow Fund.”)

If the claim went before the Settlement Accountant, Matria may recover fully on its $4 million claim; if it goes before the AAA, they will likely get nothing since it will be wiped out by the $4.5 million basket. Therefore, it is not surprising that the parties could not agree on the forum.

The interesting part of this decision is the analysis of how Matria’s claim arising from the customer complaint could be characterized under the agreement. The Court noted that the claim could be (1) a potential claim, serious enough to be reflected on CorSolutions’ balance sheet, and therefore properly before the Settlement Account on a first dollar basis; (2) a misrepresentation based on a failure to disclose and a breach of various representations and warranties and, thus properly before the AAA and subject to the cap and basket ; and (3) a Third-Party Claim pursued by the customer, where yet a third mechanism from indemnity and damage relief would apply. The discussion appears on pp. 15-16 of the decision.

At the end of the day, the court being predominately known for its strict construction, directed the dispute to the Settlement Accountant on the basis of the hierarchy clause that was in the agreement, albeit with some reluctance. (“The result reached here is, in large part, unpalatable; it is the product, however, of words chosen by sophisticated parties who drafted a complex and comprehensive agreement. More importantly, it is not for some judge to substitute his subjective view of what makes sense for the terms accepted by the parties.”).

The moral of the story here is that these are very complex provisions that really need to be tested by the drafters in advance to make sure that they will work in the field. The Matria decision has a lot of other interesting nuggets for transactional lawyers relating to arbitrability, contract constuction and drafting examples (that may or may not work, depending on one's viewpoint) and therefore worth a closer a read.