Clauses—Corporate transactions

Corporate lawyers work on a variety of corporate transactions, all of which will in some way involve written agreements. This subtopic includes clauses that commonly appear in agreements relating to the following corporate transactions:

  1. private M&A share purchase transactions

  2. private M&A asset purchase transactions

  3. corporate joint venture transactions

  4. private equity transactions

Corporate transactional agreements will additionally contain some boilerplate clauses. For information on, and links to, boilerplate clauses that most commonly appear in agreements relating to corporate transactions, see: Clauses—overview.

This subtopic contains the corporate transaction precedent clauses that are commonly used in the corporate transactions set out below:

Private M&A share purchase transactions

Share purchase agreement clauses

The following clauses are for use with our suite of share purchase agreement precedents (see: Share purchase agreement—overview), as additional provisions to plug into our precedents where appropriate to do so:

  1. Retention account provisions—share purchase agreement

  2. Loan note provisions—share purchase agreement

  3. Earn-out provisions—share purchase agreement

  4. Share consideration provisions—share purchase agreement

  5. Share consideration provisions—share purchase agreement—private limited company

  6. Completion accounts provisions—share purchase agreement

  7. Working capital statement adjustment provisions—share purchase agreement

  8. Cash

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Corporate News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Corporate by content type :

Popular documents