ARTICLE
23 February 2006

Delaware Ruling Reminds Sellers To Tell The Truth

From the Supreme Court of Delaware last week comes an important reminder to all private companies that in the context of a merger or acquisition, the ability to protect a seller from post-closing fraud claims is limited.
United States Corporate/Commercial Law

From the Supreme Court of Delaware last week comes an important reminder to all private companies that in the context of a merger or acquisition, the ability to protect a seller from post-closing fraud claims is limited.

In ABRY PARTNERS V, L.P. v. F&W Acquisition LLC, decided on February 14, 2006, the Court found that it is against Delaware public policy to allow a seller to avoid rescission or limit damages for a material intentional misrepresentation of fact in a purchase contract, even if the parties have agreed on monetary damages with a capped indemnity as the sole remedy for breaches of representations and warranties.

In reaching its decision, the Court created the following bright-line rule: A seller cannot insulate itself from the possibility that a sale may be rescinded if the buyer can show either

  1. that the seller knew the relevant contractual representations and warranties were false; or
  2. that the seller lied to the buyer about a contractual representation and warranty.

The Court cautioned, however, that this bright-line test does not release a sophisticated buyer from the inherent risk it assumes that a seller may act with recklessness or negligence in drafting its representations and warranties. Instead, the Court underscored the requirement that a buyer must prove a seller's actual knowledge of a misrepresentation made by the seller or another selling party.

In addition, buyers and sellers should also note that the sale agreement in ABRY contained a "non-reliance" clause, in which the buyer disclaimed reliance on facts and representations not expressly written in the agreement. The ABRY ruling treated this as a key fact in concluding that no fraud could be claimed with respect to representations not written into the contract. Accordingly, buyers and sellers should carefully consider the effects of non-reliance clauses in acquisition contracts.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More