Hey all, could someone explain to me what is the difference between Conditions Subsequent and Reps/warranties?
They both have to do with things that happen after the close of the transaction but I can't understand what exactly is the distinction between that two.
Thanks
| +26 | The Difference Between a Good Business and a Good Acquisition | 7 | 1d |
| +18 | Career / Life Crossroads | 5 | 1d |
| +14 | Leave MF PE for FP&A Manager at Top Company? | 22 | 1d |
| +14 | Partners misalignmet common? | 4 | 2d |
| +11 | on-cycle possible after lateraling? | 2 | 1d |
| +10 | Opinions on DTCP? | 4 | 5h |
| +10 | PE Associate Recruiting from a PE Analyst Program | 3 | 6h |
| +10 | How to prep for HH calls? | 3 | 4d |
| +9 | What to do - advice needed for incoming 27 associate | 2 | 1d |
| +9 | Late 20’s career switch into IB/PE/REPE -realistic? | 0 | 3h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
An M&A lawyer will give you a better answer, but -
R&W - things about a business that are true (or claimed to be true), subject to disclosure, generally as of the signing date (and often "brung down" or said to be true as of a closing date).
Conditions Precedent / Conditions Subsequent - things that must be true (that are knowable!) or actions that must be taken prior to signing (but more typically) closing a deal
These are treated differently from an indemnification perspective. R&W breaches are usually subject to survival periods, de minimus thresholds, caps, are insurable.
A breach of a CP / CS isn't really an indemnification matter since these items are usually fully known prior to parties pushing forward with a closing. A breach / lack of delivery would then allow the other party an out to not close a deal. However, I suppose if it turned out the parties agreed they were met, closed a deal, but one wasn't met, it would then be breach of contract (or if egregious, fraud), not be subject to the indemnification provision and all remedies would be available to the wronged party.
Thanks alot! So just to clarify two points.
Point 1: So if a company fulfilled the condition precedent and subsequently breached the condition subsequent, the investor would be able to opt out of the deal? By that I believe they are entitled to redeem their investment in the company?
Point 2: but if the company does not fulfill a warranty, they can only claim damages (but not opt out of the deal)?
Thanks for your time.
Ut nihil laborum magnam sit. Exercitationem et incidunt dolore illo exercitationem consequatur nihil. Doloribus quidem quae non non corporis. Dicta reiciendis aut rerum ipsam accusamus ea. In quisquam voluptates aut qui voluptas officia. Quia earum exercitationem impedit tempora sapiente ratione. Quidem neque at et eum cupiditate.
Eum ratione iste ipsum neque commodi est et. Iusto ea ducimus assumenda ipsum. Explicabo alias eos odio rerum et quia. Et expedita reiciendis doloremque sit. Voluptatibus numquam sit nobis corrupti facere.
Ut fugit suscipit dolorem non voluptates. Animi est soluta aut esse rerum sapiente natus. Vitae rerum sit dolores quia aut quo. Et sint dolorem molestiae autem vel possimus eaque.
Quas quia voluptates impedit hic voluptate doloribus unde id. Labore hic vel aut minima.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...