© Copyright Acquisition International 2025 - All Rights Reserved.

Article Image - Growth in UK M&A Appetite – a Risky Business?
Posted 29th February 2016

Growth in UK M&A Appetite – a Risky Business?

KPMG forecasts published in September 2015 projected that appetite for M&A deals in the UK over the next 12 months would outstrip both the US and the rest of Europe (with appetite in the UK.

Mouse Scroll AnimationScroll to keep reading

Let us help promote your business to a wider following.

Growth in UK M&A Appetite – a Risky Business?
Image

Growth in UK M&A appetite – a risky business?

KPMG forecasts published in September 2015 projected that appetite for M&A deals in the UK over the next 12 months would outstrip both the US and the rest of Europe (with appetite in the UK, based on forward price/earnings ratios, expected
to increase by 13%, compared to just 6% in the US and 8% in the rest of Europe).

KPMG forecasts published in September 2015 projected that appetite for M&A deals in the UK over the next 12 months would outstrip both the US and the rest of Europe (with appetite in the UK, based on forward price/earnings ratios, expected to increase by
13%, compared to just 6% in the US and 8% in the rest of Europe).

With deal teams often working to incredibly tight schedules to “get the deal done”, we look at the risks associated with accelerated negotiations from a UK contract law perspective, focusing particularly on recent case law which suggests that courts have little
sympathy for parties trying to step back from a bad bargain post-completion, and the practical steps that parties should take in order to minimise these risks.

The risks of a rushed deal: a UK contract law perspective
When faced with recent disputes over the terms of commercial contracts, the courts have proved unwilling to sympathise with parties who have been unwise in their negotiations, instead making it clear that they will not apply commercial common sense simply to rewrite a bad bargain (Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; Wood v Sureterm [2015] EWCA Civ 839). This marks a subtle but significant shift by the courts, who traditionally stressed the importance of commercial common sense as an aid to contractual interpretation, leading some commentators to criticise what they perceived to be the erosion of the line between merely interpreting a contract and effectively altering it (Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896; Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101; Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50).

Specifically, in the case of Arnold v Britton, the Supreme Court held that when interpreting a contract, commercial common sense must not undercut the importance of the actual words used and cannot be invoked retrospectively. The court’s view was that “the mere fact that a contractual arrangement, if interpreted according to its natural language, has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties is not a reason for departing from the natural language”.

This is not to say that commercial common sense will not be applied by the courts, but that lesser weight may be given to it, with the courts favouring the natural meaning of the words used, regardless of whether or not this results in a bad bargain.

Similarly, the courts have re-enforced in recent cases their reluctance to imply terms into a contract simply to make it a fairer one, instead choosing to uphold the principle of freedom of contract, implying terms only where necessary, rather than reasonable Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10; Rosserland Consultants Ltd v Credit Suisse International [2015] EWHC 384 (Ch)).

Minimising the risks: practical considerations
1. Heads of terms to be reviewed by parties’ legal counsel at an early stage
Parties will often involve their lawyers in a deal once the heads of terms have been negotiated and agreed. However, the advantages of involving legal counsel at an earlier stage, whilst these discussions are still taking place, should not be overlooked. Involving lawyers (or at least enabling them to have sight of the draft heads of terms) will help to ensure that the key contractual provisions are considered and dealt with at the outset, particularly those most likely to result in future dispute, for example the nature of the warranties given (and how these relate to any relevant warranty and indemnity insurance, to the extent taken out) and any termination rights to be granted between exchange and completion.

2. Beware of “agreements to agree”
Where parties enter into fast-paced negotiations with a view to completing a deal within a tight timeframe, key provisions can sometimes be left “to be agreed on later”. Particular care needs to be taken with this approach as “agreements to agree” are generally unenforceable under English law (Walford & Others v Miles & Another [1992] AC 128). However, where parties can identify certain specific aspects of a deal that are to be negotiated post-completion, it may be possible to draft the relevant contractual provisions so as to minimise the risk that they will be unenforceable. For example, the following provisions were found by the
courts to be sufficiently certain to be enforceable: (i) an undertaking to negotiate in good faith the amount of certain “reasonable costs” payable (Petromec Inc Petro Deep Societa Armamento Navi Appoggio SpA v Petroleo Brasileiro SA [2005] EWCA Civ 891); (ii) a time limited obligation to seek to resolve a dispute by “friendly discussions” prior to referring the dispute to arbitration (Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Private Ltd [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm)).

3. All contractual terms should be clear on the face of the document
When it comes to drafting the relevant transaction documents, parties and their lawyers should opt for clear, simple drafting, rather than multi-layered, heavily-negotiated wording. Given (i) the recent shift away from commercial common sense as an aid to contractual interpretation, (ii) the difficulty in persuading a court to imply a contractual term, and (iii) the fact that previous negotiations between the parties are generally inadmissible when courts are asked to consider a contractual dispute, the parties should ensure that all of the relevant terms of the contract are clear on the face of it.

Joanne Maitland is an associate at international law firm Mayer Brown.


Categories: Innovation


You Might Also Like
Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
IRIDEOS Acquires Enter
Finance
04/07/2018IRIDEOS Acquires Enter

IRIDEOS Enhances Recent Strategic Acquisitions With Purchase of Leading Italian-Based Network and Cloud Services Provider

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Spend Less, Get More Customers
News
24/08/2021Spend Less, Get More Customers

Are you tired of relying on just one or two techniques for building your customer base and expanding email lists? Here are a few methods for acquiring new customers, no matter what line of business you're in.

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
GREE International Acquires DragonSoul
M&A
07/10/2016GREE International Acquires DragonSoul

GREE International Entertainment, Inc., the Western arm of global mobile social company GREE, Inc.

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
Coeur Acquisition of Wharf Gold Mine
M&A
27/02/2015Coeur Acquisition of Wharf Gold Mine

Coeur Acquisition of Wharf Gold Mine Coeur Mining, Inc, a precious metals mining company listed on the Toronto and New York Stock exchanges, has acquired the Wharf gold mine located in Lead, South Dakota. The acquisition involved entering into a definitive ag

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
3 Business Benefits of Transitioning to the Hybrid Cloud
Innovation
26/07/20223 Business Benefits of Transitioning to the Hybrid Cloud

Cloud computing is becoming more popular as it assists companies in processing large volumes of data, allowing them to adapt quickly and cater to the business’s and its employees’ ever-changing needs. It also facilitates global deployment, paving the way f

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
GBST Honoured as Financial Service Software Supplier of the Year – UK
Finance
29/06/2015GBST Honoured as Financial Service Software Supplier of the Year – UK

United Kingdom, 8th June 2015 – GBST Holdings Limited (ASX: GBT) (GBST), a global provider of securities transaction and fund administration software for the financial services industry, were recognised with the “Financial Service Software Supplier of the

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
SASE – The Security Fabric of The Future
News
05/02/2024SASE – The Security Fabric of The Future

The rise of cloud computing, the pervasiveness of mobile devices, and the widespread adoption of remote work have rendered traditional network security architectures obsolete and ineffective. To address these evolving threats and safeguard their valuable asset

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
UK-based medicinal cannabis private equity fund-vehicle JPD Capital expands into Spanish market
M&A
22/12/2020UK-based medicinal cannabis private equity fund-vehicle JPD Capital expands into Spanish market

Medicinal cannabis Private Equity fund-vehicle JPD Capital has announced it has entered into a joint venture with Verdex Group to create and scale a medicinal cannabis start-up in Spain.

Read Full PostRead - Eye Icon
10 Benefits of Studying Public Health
News
10/05/202410 Benefits of Studying Public Health

Image Source Public health plays a pivotal role in shaping the well-being of local communities as well as global populations. Its core aim is to promote community health, prevent diseases, and extend life expectancy through organized efforts and informed choic



Our Trusted Brands

Acquisition International is a flagship brand of AI Global Media. AI Global Media is a B2B enterprise and are committed to creating engaging content allowing businesses to market their services to a larger global audience. We have 14 unique brands, each of which serves a specific industry or region. Each brand covers the latest news in its sector and publishes a digital magazine and newsletter which is read by a global audience.

Arrow