Once the agreement is reached, the possibility of a dispute will of course remain. An acquirer may realize that the entity or asset he or she purchased is not exactly what he or she thought. Or after a merger, a shareholder may feel that its expectations regarding the performance of the merged entity after closing are not met. Generally, closing disputes are claims for financial damages, but in the case of mergers that occur after shareholder agreements or joint ventures have been concluded, they may also include rights to omission. As stated in Part II, enforcement is also available in some legal systems as remedial measures. Again, practitioners who develop research and development agreements can take steps to anticipate and mitigate these risks, or at least provide appropriate means to resolve them quickly. A little planning can reduce the possibility of a dispute or significantly improve a party`s ability to raise its expectations. It examines the following potential issues relating to some of these provisions, particularly because they may arise in arbitration proceedings, which may include restrictions on liability for representations and guarantees, working capital, salaries and governance mechanisms related to shareholder agreements concluded under mergers or joint enterprise agreements.  In the Chicago Bridge-Iron case, the Delaware Supreme Court ended a party`s attempt to use the capital-work procedure to circumvent the intent of a transaction agreement that did not survive the allegations of false financial testimony. 166 A.3d 933 (in accordance with the agreement in which the insurance and warranties did not survive the closure, “the purchaser could only use the True Up to settle disputes arising from changes in the facts or circumstances of the transaction between the signature and the closure).” In certain transactions of the company – z.B.dem acquisition of an asset or a share of a business or a private acquisition of a company from a single owner or a small group of owners – the agreement is likely to compensate the buyer after closing if the buyer discovers after closing that some of the seller`s insurances and guarantees were false.
In such cases, a claim for compensation may be created. In a way, these cases are standard claims against offences. Did the party or not violate the insurance or warranty? However, the designer can limit the current exposure through tools such as survival times and limitations on the amount or source of compensation. In some cases, access to books and records after closure may be an obstacle. Disputes of AM can generally be divided into two categories: before closing, if one party finds that it has a basis, do not sue and the other party must take legal action to compel the first party to enter into the transaction and, after closing, if one (or both) parties feel that its expectations have not been met. The nature of the dispute will, of course, depend on the nature of the transaction: mergers of limited companies may lead to very different types of litigation than the acquisition of private company assets. This chapter addresses some of the specific issues that may arise in any type of dispute resolution (pre-closing and post-conclusion) when the AM transaction is subject to a conciliation agreement, and examines the possibilities of anticipating these problems in the development of the transaction agreement.