A New Theory of Material Adverse Effects

68 Pages Posted: 22 Oct 2020 Last revised: 3 Aug 2021

See all articles by Robert T. Miller

Robert T. Miller

University of Iowa College of Law; Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law School

Date Written: September 1, 2020


MAE clauses in business combination agreements almost never define the phrase “material adverse effect,” and so the meaning of that key expression derives primarily from a line of Delaware cases starting with In re IBP Shareholders Litigation. In that case, the court said that a material adverse effect requires an event that substantially threatens the overall earnings potential of the target in a durationally-significant manner. In implementing this standard in IBP and subsequent cases, the courts have had to determine how the target’s earnings should be measured (e.g., by EBITDA or by some other measure of cashflow), how changes in earnings should be determined (e.g., which fiscal periods should be compared with which), and how large a diminution in earnings is material. Neither IBP nor subsequent cases have provided clear and convincing resolutions of these issues. On the contrary, later cases have introduced yet new problems, such as whether it matters that the risk that has materialized and adversely affected the target’s business was known to the acquirer at signing, whether material adverse effects should be measured in quantitative ways, qualitative ways, or both, and whether a material adverse effect must be felt by the company within a certain period of time after the occurrence of the event causing the effect. This article proposes a new understanding of material adverse effects that solves all of these problems. Beginning from the foundational premise that a material adverse effect should be understood from the perspective of a reasonable acquirer, this article argues that such an effect is a material reduction in the value of the company as reasonably understood in accordance with accepted principles of corporate finance—that is, as a material reduction in the present value of all the company’s future cashflows. Hence, to determine if there has been a material adverse effect, the court has to value the company twice, once as of the date of signing and again as of the date of the alleged material adverse effect, in each case much as it would in an appraisal action. Valuing the company is easier and more reliable in the MAE context than in the appraisal context, however, not only because the court need obtain only a range of values for the company at the two relevant times (and not pinpoint valuations as in appraisal proceedings) but also because it turns out that there is a canonical way to determine if a reduction in the value of the company would be material to a reasonable acquirer. The new theory of MAEs presented here solves all of the problems in the caselaw noted above and explains why those problems could not be solved with the conceptual resources available in the existing caselaw.

Keywords: material adverse effect, material adverse change, MAE, MAC

JEL Classification: K12, K22

Suggested Citation

Miller, Robert T., A New Theory of Material Adverse Effects (September 1, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3706580 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3706580

Robert T. Miller (Contact Author)

University of Iowa College of Law ( email )

Melrose and Byington
Iowa City, IA 52242
United States
(319) 335-9034 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://https://law.uiowa.edu/people/robert-t-miller

Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law School ( email )

40 Washington Square South
Individual, NY 10012-1099
United States
13193359001 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.classicalliberalinstitute.org/

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics