David Fox is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, focusing on complex mergers and acquisitions as a member of that firm’s Corporate Group. This post is based on a Kirkland & Ellis M&A Update by Mr. Fox and Daniel Wolf.
During the course of early-stage negotiations, exclusivity provisions are often used to protect the time and economic investment being made in the potential transaction by ensuring that the counterparty deals only with the named party for a stated period. In a recent appellate decision in the First Circuit, the court applied a surprisingly narrow reading of the scope of what appeared to be a very broad exclusivity provision, offering a cautionary note to dealmakers as they draft such terms.
Gemini, a private equity firm, signed a preliminary outline of terms to finance the acquisition by AmeriPark of a competitor (Mile Hi). While the rest of the term sheet was expressly non-binding, the paragraphs entitled “Exclusivity” and “Confidentiality” were agreed to be binding. The exclusivity provision, which was coterminous with the separate exclusivity arrangement between Mile Hi and AmeriPark, stated, in relevant part, that AmeriPark “agrees not to discuss this opportunity or reach any agreement with any person or entity regarding financing for this Transaction or the pursuit of any sale or major other financing”. During the exclusivity period, AmeriPark abandoned its discussions with Gemini and instead held talks with a large AmeriPark shareholder (Greenfield) and then the sole shareholder of Mile Hi about financing the acquisition, eventually completing the acquisition using the seller financing.