<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/10/18/good-faith-not-just-an-aspiration/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 11:32:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Good Faith — Not Just an Aspiration</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/10/18/good-faith-not-just-an-aspiration/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=good-faith-not-just-an-aspiration</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/10/18/good-faith-not-just-an-aspiration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty of good faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Letters of intent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=22149?d=20150113160450EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent Kirkland M&#38;A Update, we reviewed a Georgia appellate decision upholding a $281 million jury award to a spurned suitor, showing that even careful drafting of “non binding” language in a letter of intent may not be effective in avoiding unanticipated binding obligations if the parties’ conduct is inconsistent with those provisions. We [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Daniel E. Wolf, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&amp;itemID=9713" target="_blank">Daniel Wolf</a> is a partner at Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP focusing on mergers and acquisitions. This post is based on a Kirkland &amp; Ellis <em>M&amp;A Update</em> by Mr. Wolf and David B. Feirstein. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is co-sponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In a recent <a href="http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/C878DB2EC6B81BEED2664D51321A8BF5.pdf" target="_blank">Kirkland M&amp;A Update</a>, we reviewed a Georgia appellate decision upholding a $281 million jury award to a spurned suitor, showing that even careful drafting of “non binding” language in a letter of intent may not be effective in avoiding unanticipated binding obligations if the parties’ conduct is inconsistent with those provisions. We also noted, in an earlier <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/01/24/letters-of-intent-%E2%80%94-ties-that-bind/">Kirkland M&amp;A Update</a>, a Delaware decision underlining the potential pitfalls for parties entering into letters of intent or term sheets with the expectation that they merely represent an unenforceable “agreement to agree.” A recent Delaware <a href="http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTA3NjQzfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&amp;t=1" target="_blank">decision</a> by VC Parsons highlights that danger lurks for unwary dealmakers even when a court comes well short of finding a term sheet to be a binding agreement.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/10/18/good-faith-not-just-an-aspiration/#more-22149" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Good Faith — Not Just an Aspiration">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/10/18/good-faith-not-just-an-aspiration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
