Letters of Intent in Connection with Sales of Businesses: Key Considerations
Once a business owner has identified a prospective purchaser of his or her business, a letter of intent will typically be entered into. All too often, merger and acquisition (M&A) lawyers are engaged after sellers have signed letters of intent.
July 12, 2021 at 09:55 AM
7 minute read
Once a business owner has identified a prospective purchaser of his or her business, a letter of intent will typically be entered into. All too often, merger and acquisition (M&A) lawyers are engaged after sellers have signed letters of intent. This approach is a mistake. While the deal terms outlined in letters of intent are usually, for the most part, non-binding, in practice letters of intent have great moral authority. It can be challenging to renegotiate, in connection with preparing definitive transaction documents, items that have agreed to in the letter of intent.
In addition to outlining the key business terms of a proposed transaction, such as the purchase price, letters of intent should identify key legal terms. This will help ensure that buyer and seller are aligned on these items prior to expending significant resources on the proposed transaction. Moreover, agreeing to key legal terms, on a conceptual level, in the letter of intent is typically more efficient than doing so through multiple "turns" of a purchase agreement and other transaction documents. Finally, in our experience, going into greater detail in letters of intent usually benefits sellers, as sellers frequently have the greatest leverage at the letter of intent stage.
This content has been archived.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 AllDeal Watch: Private Equity Dealmakers Make 2025 Predictions Amid Deal Resurgence
12 minute readThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute readO'Melveny Secures Global Clearances for Korean Air-Asiana Merger
Big Law Leaders, Dealmakers Optimistic About M&A Deal Flow Under Trump, With Caveats
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Don’t Blow It: 10 Lessons From 10 Years of Nonprofit Whistleblower Policies
- 2AIAs: A Look At the Future of AI-Related Contracts
- 3Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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