Inside the Rise of Sell-And-Go-Hard Transactions
In this seller's market, buyers are increasingly committing non-refundable deposits, even when a seller finds an issue during the due diligence period.
September 13, 2019 at 04:00 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In this seller's market, buyers are increasingly committing to non-refundable deposits as a way to win competitive deals. This transactions have been dubbed sell-and-go-hard, and in these deals, buyers cannot recoup deposits for property issues or defects found during the due diligence period. As a result, sign-and-go-hard transactions operate differently than a standard deal. "Sign-and-go-hard transactions are real estate acquisitions or dispositions, which require the buyer to commit its deposit upon entering a purchase agreement, without an opportunity to reclaim its investment if it discovers an undesirable condition on the property following such execution," Alain R'bibo, a real estate attorney at Allen Matkins, tells GlobeSt.com. "Such transactions differ from standard purchase agreements—which typically contain a diligence period during which the buyer may investigate the property, terminate the transaction and recover its deposit for any reason—and give sellers an advantage at the competitive bid and letter of intent stage." These deals, however, lock a buyer into a deal with little flexibility to react to unknown property issues. "If the buyer in a sign-and-go-hard transaction discovers a material and objectionable condition on the property after executing the purchase agreement, which requires they terminate the transaction, the seller will retain the buyer's deposit following such termination, even if the buyer had no means of discovering the objectionable condition prior to entering the purchase agreement," says Shannon Snell, a real estate attorney at Allen Matkins, tells GlobeSt.com. However, buyers do have options to perform due diligence inspections that are part of the standard process. "Buyers can replicate the standard diligence period by entering into an access agreement immediately after the execution of an LOI, which provides them with access to property and diligence materials while negotiating the purchase agreement," says R'bibo. "Access agreements advance transactions while the parties finalize deal terms, are typically negotiated in a fraction of the time it takes to finalize a purchase agreement, and afford buyers the opportunity to gain valuable insight regarding the condition of the property prior to putting down a nonrefundable deposit." Despite replicating the due diligence process, these agreements aren't free of risk. "Access agreements present an element of economic risk, as buyer will inevitably incur legal and diligence costs before the purchase agreement is finalized and they risk losing that investment if the transaction does not go forward," says Snell.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1People in the News—Jan. 8, 2025—Stevens & Lee, Ogletree Deakins
- 2How I Made Partner: 'Avoid Getting Stuck in a Moment,' Says Federico Cuadra Del Carmen of Baker McKenzie
- 3Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
- 4Spalding Jurors Return $12M Verdict Against State Farm Insurance Client
- 5Special Series Part 3: The Statutory Guardrails Violate the Majority Vote Rule
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250