The COVID-19 Case for ADR Provisions in M&A Agreements
The current pandemic should motivate deal parties to include both arbitration and mediation provisions in their agreements going forward.
April 15, 2021 at 11:35 AM
8 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc on economies and upended economic metrics. It's led to some M&A deals dying, others being delayed and many sitting in limbo as parties struggle to close: Deals were agreed on pre-COVID terms based on financials that are, more often than not, simply no longer remotely applicable. With the court system backlogged and parties needing to address transaction matters in a timely fashion, alternative dispute mechanisms such as arbitration and mediation are increasingly becoming attractive options for deal makers. Going forward, deal parties and their lawyers should seek to untangle themselves from the courts and, as a matter of course, include both mediation and arbitration provisions in their transaction agreements.
This past year, a number of M&A deals have been in the headlines with one party seeking to enforce a sale on the basis of the pre-COVID agreed terms and the other party arguing that closing conditions haven't been met due to the pandemic. Parties can look to a number of provisions to argue against enforcement: Some will turn to the material adverse effect clause, possibly arguing that the industry in which the target operates has been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic; others may look to a seller's inability to satisfy the typical pre-closing ordinary course of business covenant. Some deal parties, such as LVMH and Tiffany, took it upon themselves to revisit purchase price and ultimately closed with an—albeit nominal—purchase price adjustment. L Brands and Sycamore took the opposite approach for the sale of Victoria Secret, agreeing to terminate their transaction agreement. No termination fee was paid. In most cases, deal parties initially turned to the courts to settle their dispute but COVID-19 didn't spare courts. They find themselves faced with significant backlogs, with reduced capacity amidst a growing number of cases, as both small and big players look to revisit pre-COVID arrangements. Transaction parties are now faced with a difficult choice: wait for an indeterminate period of time for courts to catch up to the caseload, and thus take on all the risks and costs accompanying such delays, or turn to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Some may have the wherewithal to be patient but for many businesses survival and resolution of dispute go hand in hand. For those constituents, arbitration and mediation are invaluable lifelines.
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 AllThe Public Is Best Served by an Ethics Commission That Is Not Dominated by the People It Oversees
4 minute readThe Crisis of Incarcerated Transgender People: A Call to Action for the Judiciary, Prosecutors, and Defense Counsel
5 minute read‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Morgan Lewis Says Global Clients Are Noticing ‘Expanded Capacity’ After Kramer Merger in Paris
- 2'Reverse Robin Hood': Capital One Swarmed With Class Actions Alleging Theft of Influencer Commissions in January
- 3Hawaii wildfire victims spared from testifying after last-minute deal over $4B settlement
- 4How We Won It: Latham Secures Back-to-Back ITC Patent Wins for California Companies
- 5Meta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
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