United States: Top Six Legal Issues In Earnout Lawsuits

Last Updated: October 29 2013
Article by Randall K. Miller

An "earnout" is an agreement between the buyer and seller of a business where a seller can obtain an additional payment if the business later achieves a financial performance target. The earnout is typically memorized in a purchase agreement and is sometimes expressed as a contingent purchase price, meaning that the buyer must pay an additional purchase payment contingent on future performance of the business. Earnouts can be an effective way to bridge the gap between a buyer and seller at the deal stage, but these provisions frequently spawn lawsuits when the earnout payment is not made. As one court commented, an earnout reflects "a disagreement over the value of the business that is bridged when the seller trades the certainty of less cash at closing for the prospect of more cash over time . . . But since value is debatable and the causes of underperformance equally so, an earnout often converts today's disagreement over price into tomorrow's litigation over the outcome." Aveta, Inc. v. Bengoa, 984 A 2d 126, 132 (Del. Ch. 2009). A review of the caselaw reveals recurring legal issues, and suggests that there is uncertainty in these cases, and no easy path to resolution.

Alternative dispute resolution versus court: Where should the parties litigate the issue? The first recurring issue in earnout litigation is choice of forum. Most earnout agreements have an alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") provision (such as a referral of disputes to an arbitrator or independent accountant). Parties nevertheless often litigate whether particular issues must be resolved in court. In many cases, parties are surprised to find that both courts and arbitrators weigh in even when the contract requires mandatory ADR for earnout disputes.

In a case where a disappointed seller who does not receive an earnout sues for claims arguably not covered by the ADR language, the parties can become embroiled in litigation to determine jurisdiction over the claim. For example, the plaintiff may claim that the dispute does not involve the earnout calculation itself, but instead whether the buyer acted in bad faith to artificially burden the acquired company (for example by loading the company with affiliate expenses in order to depress profitability, or delaying consummation of lucrative transactions until just after the expiration of the earnout period). As another example, a disappointed seller could allege the violation of duties outside the contract; for example, a fraudulent inducement claim based on representations that the buyer had the skill, expertise, and commitment to competently operate the acquired business – representations that were allegedly false when made and which prevented the business from reaching the earnout target.

Plaintiffs who want to avoid ADR can argue that the dispute does not implicate the power the contract gives to the arbitrator or accountant, or is beyond the expertise of the accountant and requires court evaluation. For example, one court permitted the parties to litigate, notwithstanding a mandatory ADR clause requiring referral to an independent accountant:

I]t makes no sense to assume that accountants would be entrusted with evaluating disputes about the operation of the business in question. Yes, operational misconduct may well affect the level of earnings and therefore the schedules, but the misconduct itself would not be a breach of proper accounting standards. Nor would one expect accountants to have special competence in deciding whether business misconduct unrelated to accounting conventions was a breach of contract or any implied duty of fair dealing.

Fit Tech, Inc. v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 374 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2004). Likewise, the court in Hodges v. Medassets Net Revenue Systems, LLC, 2008 WL 476140 (N.D. Ga. 2008) concluded that a mandatory ADR provision requiring an independent accountant "does not apply to the claim of contract and duty breach at issue here; rather, it only applies to disputes over objections to earn-out consideration calculations and not claims regarding Defendants' software sales business conduct."

This debate is driven in part by the contract language. For example, a contract that requires a neutral accountant to determine whether the earnout "calculation was prepared in accordance with GAAP" is very narrow (and therefore subject to an end-run to court) as distinguished from a contract that requires ADR for "any and all disputes relating to the earnout rights and obligations arising under, or relating to, this agreement, including disputes regarding whether the acquired business is operated in good faith during the earnout period."

Given that public policy favors the enforcement of ADR provisions, courts usually resolve close calls by dismissing the case in favor of ADR. But, by that time, the parties have often already engaged in a substantial battle before ADR even begins. Besides deciding the merits of a case, courts sometimes get involved in collateral issues, such as actions to compel the buyer to provide access to financial records so that the seller can verify an earnout calculation and actions to resolve deadlock in the ADR process (such as a dispute over the procedure to select the neutral). Even after ADR, the losing party often appeals to a court where the parties debate how deferential the court must be to the ADR result.

Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: Even where the performance target is not achieved, did the buyer violate the implied covenant by preventing the achievement of the performance target? The covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is implied in every contract, "precludes each party from engaging in conduct that will deprive the other party of the benefits of their agreement." Orange County Choppers, Inc. v. Olaes Enterprises, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 541, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). In earnout cases, sellers will argue that buyers may not undermine the attainment of a performance threshold and thereby deprive the seller of the "fruits of the bargain," i.e., the earnout payment. Sellers also may go a step further and argue that the implied covenant obligates sellers take reasonable or even best efforts to maximize their chances for attaining the earnout. See Sonoran Scanners, Inc. v. Perkinelmer, Inc., 585 F.3d 535; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23852 (1st Cir. 2009) (discussing this as an implied contract term).

How well such arguments fair is uncertain and the issue is typically based on factual disputes that preclude motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. For example, in Hodges v. Medassets Net Revenue Systems, LLC, 2008 WL 476140 (N.D. Ga. 2008), the seller argued that the buyer "failed in their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to operate the company in a manner providing Plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to maximize the earn-out provision by 'sun-setting' Plaintiffs' former products in order to supplant them with Defendants' comparable products, as well as converting Plaintiffs' contracts and intellectual property to products not subject to the earn-out." The buyer defended by saying that it "had no obligation under the [contract] to sell or distribute the products in a manner of the Plaintiffs' choosing" and that it exercised legitimate business judgment in phasing out "inferior" products. The court denied the buyer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the factual dispute had to be resolved by the jury at trial.

Buyers can be expected to defend against "implied covenant" attacks by emphasizing that the implied covenant is limited to a gap-filling mechanism, it cannot be used to contradict a contract— or even apply at all when "the subject at issue is expressly covered by the contract." Airborne Health, Inc. v. Squid Soap, LP, 984 A.2d 126, 146 (Del. Ch. 2009). For example, in Rubin Squared v. Cambrex Corp., 2007 WL 2428485 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), the seller complained that the buyer took actions that impaired the earnout, including diversion of business and support "to another unit not covered by such profit-sharing obligations." The court rejected plaintiff's attempt, holding that "[n]one of these practices appear intended or likely to frustrate Plaintiff's achievement of the earn-out, and indeed were foreseeable consequences of [the] acquisition by a larger corporation." Likewise in Hydra-Stop, Inc. v. Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc, 2005 WL 2035584 (N.D. Ill. 2005), the seller argued that the buyer made post-close decisions regarding personnel that "hamstrung the company into earning profits below the thresholds required for him to garner additional payments under the earnout provisions." The court rejected this claim: "Because Murphy cannot show that Environmental took any action not allowed under § 2.3 and because it is not possible to show Hydra-Stop would have achieved the profit thresholds but for Environmental's decisions, Environmental is entitled to summary judgment."

Condition precedent: Dressing up implied covenant theories under a different doctrine. Under basic contract law, a "condition precedent" signifies an event that must occur before contract performance is due. Earnouts are classic conditions precedent. An earnout is payable if—but only if—the plaintiff-seller can prove the occurrence of a condition precedent (the attainment of the performance threshold). Parties often debate who bears the burden of proof under the condition precedent doctrine, with buyers arguing that the non-occurrence of a condition excuses contract performance. Sellers typically argue that they do not have the burden to prove the occurrence of the condition because the buyer has control over the business operations and the financial documents and data that show the results.

If it is determined that the condition precedent has not occurred, a second question arises regarding whether the buyer acted improperly to prevent or frustrate the occurrence. The arguments under this doctrine are virtually identical to the arguments under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (discussed previously), and provide an avenue to air these issues even in those few jurisdictions that do not have an implied covenant doctrine, or which narrowly construe the implied covenant.

Even where there is arguably buyer interference, the buyer has a final rebuttal if it can prove that the condition would not have occurred even if the buyer had taken all necessary steps to make the occurrence of the condition a theoretical possibility. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245. As with implied covenant arguments, these arguments are intensely fact-bound determinations that are not susceptible to early motions practice.

Books and records: How much access or discovery does buyer have to provide? Sellers are often at the mercy of buyers in obtaining documents and financial data necessary to pressuretest the earnout calculation, and will have to use discovery tools, to the extent available, to compel production. Sellers' right to inspect the business records may be limited, particularly if the purchase agreement requires ADR for earnout disputes, such as an independent accountant proceeding and where fullblown discovery is not usually available. Sellers will need to be tenacious in pursuing financial data. Buyers certainly will possess the financial records and general ledger data that underlie an earnout calculation and will also have historical data based on the buyer's obligations to track the earnout value and make periodic adjustments to the value of the contingent earnout payment. See, e.g., Financial Accounting Standards 141. Buyers would argue that as with any discovery obligation, reasonableness and proportionality should predominate and that sellers should not be permitted to propound unduly burdensome discovery obligations as a tactic of extortion.

Business judgment versus canons of contract interpretation: Can the buyer defend by alleging that certain actions are within its business judgment? Lawyers will pour over the specific language of the earnout provisions and apply canons of contract interpretation that sometimes conflict. The fact finder may ultimately have to "harmonize" contract language that is inconsistent in order to effectuate the intent of the parties, to interpret the contract as a rational business instrument, and to avoid hyper-technical readings.

Parties often can rely on the absence of contract language to justify actions not prohibited by the contract. For example, in a case where a seller argues that the buyer took actions that impaired profitability and therefore failed to use best efforts to maximize the attainment of the earnout, the buyer can respond that its business operation and judgments are legitimate and that the challenged actions (such as firing a key employee or changing strategic direction) could have been addressed in the contract but that the seller failed to include such provisions.

This defense does not always work. For example, in O'Tool v. Genmar Holdings, Inc., 387 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2004), the court concluded that the buyer violated the "spirit" of the contract and earnout obligation by taking a series of actions that increased costs and delayed revenue. The buyer protested that such actions reflected its legitimate judgment and were not precluded by the contract itself. But the the court's evaluation of the language, logic, and structure of the contract led it to conclude that the parties "would" have prohibited the buyer's actions "had they actually thought about it" at the time of the contract drafting.

Battle of the experts: Whose expert is more credible? Earnout cases are almost always fought and won with experts, especially with regard to valuation and financial accounting issues. For example, a contractual requirement that the earnout calculation be performed in accordance with GAAP will lead to experts opining on what GAAP requires in a particular setting, a highly judgmental exercise that requires marshaling evidence and accounting guidance. Given that both parties tend to be experienced business people who are very familiar with the acquired business, there is a temptation to delay or avoid hiring experts. In cases where substantial earnouts are at stake, this impulse is "penny wise and pound foolish." Early involvement of experts will ensure that issues and potential lines of attack are spotted early, with time to develop the arguments and discover the support. Experts should be substantively qualified but also have prior testifying experience. Parties also should be prepared to use "Daubert" principles to ferret out unreliable approaches and methods used by proffered opposing experts. Having your own expert onboard early is indispensable to these efforts.

Conclusion

The issues in earnout litigation often cut both ways, with both sides able to advance fact-based arguments that preclude a fast resolution. Earnout litigation is not easily resolved and it can be very burdensome and require litigation all the way through an expensive trial. Quick victories are rare. The cases tend to be fact intensive, expert dependent, and tedious. Good experts, arbitrators, lawyers, and other consultants are expensive, and can cost more than the earnout at issue.

Given the foregoing, sophisticated parties with a thorough understanding of the business and reliable expectations for how the business is to perform may decide to avoid earnout agreements altogether, or attempt to anticipate possible scenarios with extremely detailed contractual provisions. When a dispute emerges, both sides should evaluate and discuss settlement options. However, when a potential earnout is significant, and the circumstances of a case justify it, parties are advised to fight the cases aggressively and tenaciously to win, including by retaining qualified experts and experienced counsel early, and by digging in for a long fight.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fox Rothschild LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fox Rothschild LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions