By: Naveen Thomas (CLS Blue Sky Blog)
The definition of material adverse effect (“MAE”) in mergers and acquisitions agreements has become one of the most extensively debated, litigated, and analyzed provisions in contracts. Over the past two decades, its average length has nearly tripled as lawyers meticulously negotiate and scrutinize every aspect in deal after deal.
However, in an upcoming article, I propose that the persistent drive to customize MAE definitions is ultimately inefficient and counterproductive. According to Delaware law, standardized clauses could offer the same advantages as customized ones, eliminating the significant but often overlooked costs associated with lengthy negotiations. Rather than getting caught up in the fine details and disputes surrounding MAE definitions, lawyers could enhance their effectiveness by directing their limited leverage towards other contract provisions that serve their objectives…
Featured News
Big Tech Braces for Potential Changes Under a Second Trump Presidency
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
Trump’s Potential Shift in US Antitrust Policy Raises Questions for Big Tech and Mergers
Nov 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU Set to Fine Apple in First Major Enforcement of Digital Markets Act
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Six Indicted in Federal Bid-Rigging Schemes Involving Government IT Contracts
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Ireland Secures First €3 Billion Apple Tax Payment, Boosting Exchequer Funds
Nov 5, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI