Stock Purchase Agreement Excluded Liabilities


Seller preferences: In general, the seller wants the “Accepted Commitments” section to include a non-exhaustive list containing all debts that are not expressly excluded from the excluded debt clause. In addition, it wishes to explicitly transfer all debts that are not settled before the closing date, all debts related to the contracts sold and all other debts incurred after closing (e.g. B, workers` allowances and benefits, taxes, etc.). This agreement establishes the entire agreement and agreement between the parties or any of them in relation to the business and the sale and purchase in this description. In particular, without prejudice to the universality of the above, the purchaser acknowledges that he was not led to enter into this contract by insurance or a guarantee other than those contained in the [guarantee schedule] or mentioned in the [guarantee schedule]. What is the Accepted and Excluded Debts section? Provisions for contracted and excluded liabilities are taken into account in detail, the seller`s liabilities that are transferred to the buyer and those that remain to the seller. Commitments are often accounted for in an agreement in the same way that assets and concepts applicable to acquired and excluded assets apply equally to liabilities. The buyer will probably negotiate a language of narrow liability and largely excluded terms of liability. In this case, a buyer may agree to take on only certain debts that arise or mature after closing, such as.

B that debts arising from ordinary activity and all debts related to contracts sold, and insist that the language of excluded liability encompasses all debts other than those expressly assumed by the purchaser. A buyer attempting to negotiate a language of excluded liability may insert a clause stating that excluded debts are all the seller`s debts that are not expressly assumed, but may only be able to negotiate a list of expressly excluded debts that he does not assume. Even courts that advocate this approach make some exceptions to providing evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation. However, these exceptions may be limited. The New York courts exclude both fraudulent and non-fraudulent claims of misrepresentation if the contract contains a specific declaration of non-credit statements that are then alleged to have been made fraudulently. The main New York case for this view is Danann Realty v. Harris, 184 N.Y.2d 599 (1959), where the Tribunal held that a full contractual clause alone would not be sufficient to exclude evidence, in a case where the parties had negotiated a specific non-confidence provision, the applicant was unable to later assert that he had been fraudulently inciting him to enter into the contract by referring to the statements on which he had agreed. The Danann case was more recently upheld in Grumman Allied Industries Inc. v. Rohr Industries, 748 F.2d 729 (2d Cir. 1984), where, under New York law, the District Court prohibited the applicant from justifying himself on pre-contract statements by the seller if the purchaser had not made the claim himself. Although this case has been decided – the purchaser has had access to the information necessary to confirm the accuracy of the statements – it shows that the New York courts may be more inclined to implement full contractual clauses and/or declarations of non-confidence than those of the United Kingdom.