Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: January 22, 2018
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comGiven that working capital adjustments are very common in merger and acquisition transactions, it is important to understand how they work and how they could impact your deals. In basic terms, working capital is the difference between current assets and current liabilities. Of course, it’s never that simple, and M&A purchase agreements typically address the components of working capital that will be included and excluded from the deal. For instance, many M&A agreements exclude cash and long-term debt. Others may exclude certain liabilities, such as income taxes.

Sellers are typically expected to deliver a certain amount of working capital when selling a business. That is because working capital reflects the current ongoing business activity of the business. The purpose of a working capital target is to set a level of working capital that the buyer and seller agree should be included. It is, ultimately, a negotiated number based on a variety of factors, and is traditionally thought of as an adjustment to purchase price. A higher target effectively reduces the purchase price while a lower target effectively increases the purchase price.
The requirement of sufficient working capital to fund ongoing operations is often first addressed in the letter of intent. As the negotiations proceed and the seller furnishes relevant due diligence, the target, and mechanism for calculating working capital, is further negotiated. For example, a deal might include a purchase price of $60 million and require the seller’s delivery of $10 million of working capital at closing.
Sellers with excess working capital can typically distribute it prior to closing, or, if not able to do so, can either receive an adjustment at closing or in a post-closing true-up process. Sellers with a working capital deficiency either have the purchase price reduced or a correction in the true-up process.
Working capital targets are generally determined by looking at the average monthly adjusted working capital over a defined period. The most appropriate method for determining working capital can vary from industry to industry and business to business. One common variation is an adjustment reflecting seasonality in a seller’s working capital. This occurs when a company’s sales vary significantly from season to season. In addition, businesses that provide products or services prior to receiving payment may also operate with negative working capital, which must also be considered when negotiating an acquisition.
Below are several key issues that should be considered when negotiating a working capital target:
In addition to determining a working capital target, the purchase agreement must determine how it will be calculated, i.e. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). It must also establish a dispute resolution mechanism should the parties be unable to reach a final figure after the closing.
During the M&A due diligence process, the buyer frequently identifies issues that may require adjustments to the initial target. Negotiations can be difficult because provisions that favor the buyer are typically unfavorable for the seller. For instance, the seller would prefer to have no working capital adjustment at all. While the buyer would want the agreement to allow only a downward adjustment. To resolve such impasses, agreements sometimes define working capital as a permissible range or establish a basket where working capital is only adjusted if it is a specific amount above or below the target.
In many M&A transactions, the buyer recalculates the working capital adjustment after the transaction closes in a true-up process. The true-up adjustment is typically made on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For instance, if the target is set at $10 million and the seller delivers only $8.5 million of working capital, the purchase price would be adjusted downward by $1.5 million.
If the seller does not agree on the buyer’s true-up calculation, additional negotiations may be needed. If a deal can’t be reached, the parties may employ the dispute resolution process set forth in the agreement.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Jeffrey Cassin, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Every New Jersey company should periodically evaluate its governance framework. Strong corporate governance protects directors and officers, builds investor confidence, reduces litigation exposure, and positions a company for sustainable growth. The first quarter of the year is a great time to evaluate your corporate governance practices and perform any routine maintenance needed to keep that […]
Author: Ken Hollenbeck

Being served with a lawsuit is one of the most stressful legal events a business or individual can face. Whether the claim involves a contract dispute, an employment matter, an intellectual property issue, or another legal challenge, the actions you take in the first few days can significantly shape the outcome of your case. Acting […]
Author: Robert E. Levy

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) continue to gain momentum as we move through 2026. After enduring a significant contraction following the 2021 boom and the regulatory scrutiny that followed, SPAC activity rebounded sharply in 2025 and now carries forward into 2026 with real momentum. The SPAC resurgence reflects broader improvements in both market conditions and the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher

New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!