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.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
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!