<?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/2012/08/26/dispute-resolution-for-earnouts-and-purchase-price-adjustments/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>Sun, 16 Aug 2026 11:30:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.10</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Dispute Resolution for Earnouts and Purchase Price Adjustments</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/26/dispute-resolution-for-earnouts-and-purchase-price-adjustments/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dispute-resolution-for-earnouts-and-purchase-price-adjustments</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/26/dispute-resolution-for-earnouts-and-purchase-price-adjustments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accounting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Earnouts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=32227?d=20150113140504EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We have written before of certain pitfalls that await dealmakers utilizing earnouts and purchase price adjustments. An oft-shared aspect of those two deal provisions was the subject of a recent Delaware decision by Chancellor Strine — the employment of an independent accountant to resolve post-closing disputes between the parties. The outcome, while hardly surprising, offers [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Daniel E. Wolf, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, on Sunday, August 26, 2012 </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/dwolf" 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. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is cosponsored 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>We have written before of certain pitfalls that await dealmakers utilizing <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2010/02/13/earnouts-a-siren-song/">earnouts</a> and <a href="http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/6618DC514C9DA2CFDE307B4C1CA8C56F.pdf" target="_blank">purchase price adjustments</a>. An oft-shared aspect of those two deal provisions was the subject of a <a href="http://www.kirkland.com/files/MA_Update/7149_opinion.pdf" target="_blank">recent Delaware decision</a> by Chancellor Strine — the employment of an independent accountant to resolve post-closing disputes between the parties. The outcome, while hardly surprising, offers some timely reminders of some of the hazards presented by this popular dispute resolution mechanism.</p>
<p>The case arose from Viacom’s 2006 purchase of Harmonix, the maker of the <em>Guitar Hero</em> and <em>Rock Band</em> video games. A substantial portion of the consideration was in the form of a contingent earnout based on a multiple of “gross profit” for the acquired business for the two years following closing. Following a dispute relating to the 2008 earnout, the parties, per the merger agreement, submitted the disagreement to an independent accountant for review. The accountant decided in favor of the sellers awarding them $239 million, and Viacom sought court review of the decision. Chancellor Strine’s opinion largely focused on two key issues:</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/26/dispute-resolution-for-earnouts-and-purchase-price-adjustments/#more-32227" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Dispute Resolution for Earnouts and Purchase Price Adjustments">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/08/26/dispute-resolution-for-earnouts-and-purchase-price-adjustments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
