On 29 January 2021, the Kemp Little team joined Deloitte Legal. Click here to view the press release.

As of 30 January 2021, Kemp Little LLP ceased to operate as a firm of solicitors and practice law and ceased to be regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Kemp Little LLP has been re-named KL Heritage LLP.

If you are looking to contact a specific individual to seek legal advice or in respect of any other business relationship, please contact Deloitte Legal.

If you are seeking to contact the old Kemp Little LLP in relation to a previous business relationship or matter, please get in touch with KL Heritage LLP.

For enquiries relating to Kemp Little technology products and training portal, please email deloittelegal@deloitte.co.uk

 


 

Kemp Little is a trade name used under licence by KL Heritage LLP (formerly Kemp Little LLP, registered number OC300242 and VAT number 182 8854 65).

On 29 January 2021, the Kemp Little team joined Deloitte Legal.  As of 30 January 2021, Kemp Little ceased to operate as a firm of solicitors and practice law. From this date Kemp Little ceased to be authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and is being re-named KL Heritage LLP.

All references to Kemp Little herein are references to KL Heritage LLP, which used to carry on business in that name.

KL Heritage LLP is not connected to or associated with Deloitte Legal or Deloitte LLP in any capacity.

 

Kemp Little
  • Looking for someone?
  • Email us
  • Search
MENU MENU
Insights overview

Corporate · 9 April 2019 · Mark Lewis

The disclosure standard & warranties concerning projections: Triumph Controls

The recent High Court case of Triumph Controls – v – UK Ltd & Anor v Primus International Holding Company & Ors [2019] EWHC 565… Read more

more content below

The recent High Court case of Triumph Controls – v – UK Ltd & Anor v Primus International Holding Company & Ors [2019] EWHC 565 (TCC) raises several important practice points on warranties and disclosure for parties to corporate transactions.

The case concerned the acquisition by Triumph of Primus’ aerostructure manufacturing business, including facilities at Farnborough in England and at Rayong in Thailand for c. US$76.5 million and claims totalling c. US$63.5 million that Triumph sought to bring against Primus for alleged breaches of warranties in the share purchase agreement for the acquisition (the SPA) concerning certain delivery and quality problems at the Farnborough site.

Disclosure standard

A key point in issue in the case was whether the delivery and quality problems at the Farnborough site had been fairly disclosed by Primus against the relevant warranties in SPA. If they had been fairly disclosed, Primus would have a complete defence to the relevant warranty claims.

As is usual on corporate transactions, the parties agreed a standard of disclosure in the SPA, which the disclosures against the warranties in the SPA made by Primus to Triumph in or under the disclosure letter would need to meet in order to constitute fair disclosure.

The agreed disclosure standard in the SPA was worded as follows: “fairly and clearly disclosed in writing in or under the Disclosure Letter (with sufficient detail to identify the nature of the matter disclosed).”

The disclosure standard, notably, did not require a disclosure made by Primus to include details of the extent or scope of the subject matter – a position that the recipients of warranties on corporate transaction commonly seek to negotiate – only the nature of it.

In the case, the Judge was satisfied that the specific and general disclosures made by Primus (including by general disclosure of the contents of the virtual data room populated by Primus in connection with the deal) revealed that there were significant and persistent quality and delivery issues affecting its key customers and that such matters were fairly disclosed.

The Judge rejected Triumph’s argument that that none of the documents referred to in the Disclosure Letter fairly disclosed the true and full extent of the operational situation, on the basis that this was not required by the agreed disclosure standard.

The key takeaway of this decision for buyers on M&A transactions, investors on equity fundraisings, or other recipients of warranties on corporate transactions, is to ensure that the negotiated disclosure standard in the transaction documents is sufficiently robust. Insisting that disclosures need to identify the scope or extent of the subject matter in order to be fairly disclosed can minimise the risk that matters can be fairly disclosed by simply disclosing their existence with no detail as to their extent.

Recipients of warranties need to bear in mind that courts will typically enforce a disclosure standard agreed between the parties and are unlikely to impose an overriding higher standard of disclosure.

Warranties concerning projections

A key warranty claim in the case concerned Primus’ alleged breach of a warranty that “so far as the Sellers are aware, the forward-looking projections relating to the Companies have been honestly and carefully prepared.”

Triumph argued that carefully prepared forward looking projections would have reflected certain matters in respect of the proposed transfer of production from Farnborough to Thailand by showing a significantly reduced rate of transfer of work to Thailand, lower composites production at Thailand, increased costs of sales and consequently significantly reduced forecasted revenues, income and profits.

While warrantors (such as the sellers on a M&A transaction, or the investee company or founders on an equity fundraising) should generally resist giving warranties that are forward looking, or warranting the accuracy of projections, it is more common for them to agree, in principle, to warrant the basis on which certain projections have been prepared (such as the business plan prepared by an investee company in connection with an equity fundraising).

In his judgment, the Judge set out several considerations on what a person should do to “carefully” prepare a forecast, including:

  • considering the latest available financial and operational information up to the date of finalisation of the forecast;
  • consulting with relevant members of management with appropriate operational and specialist knowledge;
  • reflecting the forecasting practice in that particular business and industry; and
  • documenting the basis of assumptions on which the forecast is prepared (all of which should be reviewed and challenged by someone independent of the person preparing the forecast).

These considerations are instructive for warrantors to consider when deciding whether or not to give a warranty that a certain projection is carefully prepared (or diligently prepared, or other similar formulations).

If a warrantor believes that a particular forecast they are being asked to warrant has been carefully prepared does not meet that standard based on the above factors, they can either revisit the preparation of the projection (to bring it more in line with the above factors) prior to giving the relevant warranty, or disclose the assumptions on which it is based or any deficiencies in the preparation of the forecast against the relevant warranty.

  • Share this blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Mark LewisMark Lewis is an IP & technology disputes partner

Get in touch

View the team

Sign up for our newsletters

  • Share this Blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Other stuff you might like

  1. Data first: How tech startups build trust and tap investment | CityA.M
  2. UK’s Gaming Industry – what are the key considerations and how can Kemp Little help?
  3. Finding the right co-founder for your tech startup | ITPRO.
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • EBA outsourcing
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • KLick Trade Mark
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
close
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • EBA outsourcing
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • KLick Trade Mark
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
Kemp Little

Lawyers
and thought leaders who are passionate about technology

Expand footer

Kemp Little

138 Cheapside
City of London
EC2V 6BJ

020 7600 8080

hello@kemplittle.com

Services

  • Commercial technology
  • Consulting
  • Disputes
  • Intellectual property
  • Employment
  • Immigration

 

  • Sourcing
  • Corporate
  • Data protection & privacy
  • Financial regulation
  • Private equity & venture capital
  • Tax

Sitemap

  • Our people
  • Insights
  • Events
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Cookies
  • Privacy
  • Terms of use
  • Complaints
  • Debt recovery charges

Follow us

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters

Kemp Little LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC300242) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office is 138 Cheapside, London EC2V 6BJ. The SRA Standards and Regulations can be accessed by clicking here.

  • Cyber Essentials logo
  • LORCA logo
  • ABTA Partner+ logo
  • Make Your Ask logo
  • FT Innovative Lawyers 2019 winners logo
  • Law Society Excellence Awards shortlisted
  • Legal Business Awards = highly commended
  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Business restructuring and reorganisation
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Digital content & reputation risk
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
    • Travel
  • Resources
  • Insights
  • Covid 19: Your Business Continuity
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
close
close
close

Send us a message

Fill in your details and we'll be in touch soon

[contact-form-7 id="4941" title="General contact form"]
close

Sign up for our newsletter

I would like to receive updates and related news from Kemp Little *

Please select below any publications that you would like to receive:

Newsletters

close

Register for future event information

[contact-form-7 id="4943" title="Subscribe to future events"]
close
close
Generic filters
Exact matches only

Can't remember their name? View everyone

  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Business restructuring and reorganisation
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Digital content & reputation risk
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
    • Travel
  • Resources
  • Insights
  • Covid 19: Your Business Continuity
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn