In a Dutch M&A transaction the buyer protection sits almost entirely in the share purchase agreement, not in the law. Dutch law gives a commercial buyer of shares no implied quality guarantee worth relying on, so warranties, indemnities, escrow and liability caps are the mechanisms that decide who pays when something turns out to be wrong. Alongside that contract sit a handful of mandatory Dutch requirements the parties cannot draft around: a notarial deed for the transfer of shares in a BV or NV, works council consultation, and merger or investment clearance where thresholds are met.
A misstep in drafting warranties, a poorly negotiated indemnity, or a vague escrow arrangement can expose buyers to hidden liabilities or leave sellers vulnerable to years of post-closing claims. The difference between a smooth transaction and a legal quagmire often lies in the fine print of the share purchase agreement (SPA).
This guide walks you through the core legal mechanisms that protect both buyers and sellers in M&A transactions under Dutch law. From deal structure and due diligence to warranties, indemnities, escrow accounts, and post-closing obligations, you’ll find the essential reference points for navigating complex transactions with confidence.
Whether you are acquiring a technology company in Eindhoven or selling a manufacturing business in Rotterdam, these building blocks decide how much risk you actually carry after completion.
Deal structure & documentation
SPA vs. asset deal — structural choice and legal consequences
The first strategic decision in any M&A transaction is whether to structure it as a share deal or an asset deal. In a share deal, the buyer acquires all shares in the target company, inheriting both its assets and liabilities—known and unknown. In an asset deal, the buyer cherry-picks specific assets and contracts, leaving historical liabilities with the seller.
Share deals are typically faster and cleaner from a transfer perspective, as ownership of the company changes hands without requiring third-party consents for every contract. However, buyers inherit all risks, including tax liabilities, pension obligations, and pending litigation. Asset deals offer more control and insulation from legacy risk, but they require explicit transfer of contracts, permits, and IP rights, which can be administratively complex and costly.
Letter of intent / heads of terms — binding or not?
A Letter of Intent (LOI) or Heads of Terms sets out the preliminary agreement between buyer and seller before the full SPA is drafted. Whether it’s legally binding depends entirely on how it’s drafted. Some clauses—such as exclusivity, confidentiality, and governing law—are typically binding. Others, like indicative price and deal structure, are often non-binding.
The key is clarity. Ambiguity in an LOI can lead to disputes about whether parties are obligated to proceed or negotiate in good faith. Under Dutch law, a non-binding LOI can still create liability if one party acts in bad faith or abruptly withdraws without valid reason after significant reliance by the other party.
Locked box vs. completion accounts
The locked box mechanism fixes the purchase price at a historical balance sheet date, with no post-closing adjustments. The buyer bears the risk of value changes between the locked box date and closing, but benefits from certainty. Sellers typically warrant that no value has leaked out of the company (through dividends, management fees, or intercompany loans) after the locked box date.
Completion accounts, by contrast, adjust the purchase price based on the company’s financial position at closing. This involves preparing closing balance sheets and comparing them to agreed targets for working capital, net debt, or cash. Disputes about completion accounts are common, often requiring independent expert determination.
Purchase price adjustments
Purchase price adjustments ensure the buyer gets what they paid for. Typical adjustments include working capital corrections, net debt adjustments, and cash-free/debt-free mechanisms. The SPA should clearly define how each adjustment is calculated, who prepares the closing accounts, and what dispute resolution mechanism applies if the parties disagree.
Mandatory Dutch requirements the parties cannot contract away
However the deal is structured and whatever law governs the SPA, a set of Dutch rules applies to Dutch entities and Dutch employees.
- Notarial transfer. Shares in a BV or an NV can only be transferred by deed executed before a Dutch civil-law notary (articles 2:196 and 2:86 of the Civil Code). Signing the SPA does not move title; the notarial deed does. Any transfer restriction in the articles of association, such as an offer obligation or an approval requirement, has to be satisfied first.
- Works council advice. Article 25 of the Works Councils Act (WOR) gives the works council the right to advise on a proposed transfer of control over the undertaking, and the advice must be sought at a moment when it can still influence the decision. A decision taken without that advice can be challenged before the Enterprise Chamber, which can order the decision to be withdrawn.
- Trade union notification. The SER Merger Code (SER-Fusiegedragsregels) requires the trade unions involved and the SER to be notified before a merger is agreed, in transactions that fall within its scope.
- Merger control. A concentration must be notified to the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and may not be implemented before clearance where the statutory turnover thresholds in the Competition Act are met; those thresholds are set by law and adjusted from time to time, so they should be checked against the current text. Where EU thresholds are met, the European Commission takes the case instead.
- Investment screening. The Wet veiligheidstoets investeringen, fusies en overnames (Vifo Act) requires notification to the Bureau Toetsing Investeringen for acquisitions of vital providers and companies active in sensitive technology. The transaction may not close before the assessment is complete.
- Transfer of undertaking. In an asset deal, articles 7:662 and following of the Civil Code transfer the employees working in the undertaking to the buyer automatically, on their existing terms. This is not optional and cannot be excluded by contract.
None of these is a drafting point; each is a condition precedent and a timetable item. Our overview of Dutch corporate law sets out the wider framework in which they sit.
Due diligence & the disclosure letter
Scope and importance of legal due diligence
Due diligence is the buyer’s opportunity to uncover risks before committing to the transaction. Legal due diligence typically covers corporate structure, material contracts, employment matters, IP rights, compliance with regulations (including GDPR), ongoing litigation, and tax positions.
The scope of due diligence should be proportionate to the size and complexity of the transaction. For high-value deals, a deep dive into every corner of the business is warranted. For smaller transactions, a focused review of key risk areas may suffice. Our article on due diligence in Dutch M&A transactions sets out the legal risks that are most often missed.
How the disclosure letter erodes warranties
A disclosure letter is the seller’s mechanism for qualifying or carving out warranties in the SPA. By disclosing specific facts or circumstances in the disclosure letter, the seller avoids liability for breaches of warranty related to those disclosures.
Buyers must scrutinise the disclosure letter carefully. A broadly worded disclosure, such as “matters disclosed in the data room,” can effectively hollow out the warranty package. Best practice is to require specific, clear disclosures tied to individual warranties, with references to supporting documents.
Data room and information rights
The data room is the central repository for all due diligence documents. Buyers should insist on comprehensive access, including legal, financial, and operational information. Sellers control what goes into the data room, so gaps or omissions can signal red flags.
Information rights should be clearly defined in the LOI or SPA, including the buyer’s right to speak with key employees, customers, and suppliers (subject to confidentiality restrictions).
Vendor due diligence
In vendor due diligence (VDD), the seller commissions a due diligence report before going to market, which is then shared with prospective buyers. This accelerates the sale process, allows the seller to control the narrative, and can reduce the buyer’s need for extensive due diligence.
However, buyers should not rely blindly on VDD reports. The report is commissioned by the seller, and the buyer typically has no direct recourse against the advisers who prepared it. Independent legal and financial review remains essential.
Warranties and how Dutch law treats them
Distinguishing warranties from representations
In M&A transactions, warranties (in Dutch practice garanties) are statements of fact about the target company. English law recognises a separate action for misrepresentation, with rescission as a remedy; Dutch law does not, so the distinction between a warranty and a representation carries far less weight in a Dutch-law SPA. What matters is the contractual allocation of risk.
Where a warranty proves untrue, a buyer under Dutch law has three routes, and a well-drafted SPA is explicit about which of them survive. The first is breach of contract under article 6:74 of the Civil Code, which is what the warranty regime is built on. The second is non-conformity under article 7:17: the thing delivered must answer to the agreement. The third is error (dwaling) under article 6:228, which can lead to annulment of the whole transaction, and that is precisely why sellers insist on excluding it. An express exclusion of dwaling and of the right to rescind is standard in Dutch share purchase agreements, and its absence is a real gap for the seller.
Warranties shift risk from buyer to seller by creating liability if the disclosed facts turn out to be untrue. The scope, duration, and financial limits of warranties are heavily negotiated.
Business warranties and tax warranties
Business warranties cover operational matters such as the accuracy of financial statements, ownership of assets, validity of contracts, compliance with laws, and absence of litigation. These are typically subject to time limits (18–24 months) and financial caps.
Tax warranties are narrower but critical. They cover the accuracy of tax filings, the absence of outstanding tax liabilities, and compliance with VAT and payroll tax obligations. Because tax assessments can arise years after a transaction, tax warranties carry longer survival periods. The Dutch reassessment rules drive this: the tax authority can generally issue an additional assessment (navordering) within five years of the end of the tax period, extended to twelve years for components of income or assets held abroad. The seven-year figure often quoted in practice is the statutory bookkeeping retention obligation, not a limitation period, and the two should not be conflated when drafting a survival clause.
Fundamental warranties
Fundamental warranties relate to matters so basic that they go to the heart of the transaction, such as the seller’s legal capacity to sell the shares, the existence and ownership of the shares, and the absence of encumbrances. These warranties are often uncapped and unlimited in time, reflecting their critical importance.
Warranty & indemnity (W&I) insurance
Warranty and Indemnity insurance transfers the risk of warranty breaches from the seller to an insurance company. The buyer (or sometimes the seller) takes out the policy, which covers losses arising from breaches of warranties up to a specified limit.
W&I insurance is particularly common in private equity transactions, competitive auctions, and situations where the seller wants a clean exit without post-closing exposure. The insurance does not cover every risk—known issues, forward-looking matters, and certain excluded categories (such as pension liabilities) are typically carved out.
Sandbagging clauses
A sandbagging clause allows the buyer to claim for breach of warranty even where it knew about the breach before closing. This matters more under Dutch law than under English law, because a buyer cannot rely on non-conformity in respect of what it knew or ought reasonably to have known, and because the standards of reasonableness and fairness in article 6:248 of the Civil Code give the seller an argument that a buyer who signed with full knowledge cannot now complain. If the buyer wants that outcome reversed, the SPA has to say so expressly; silence tends to favour the seller.
Sellers resist sandbagging clauses, while buyers push for them to preserve their warranty claims. The outcome depends on negotiation leverage and market practice.
Indemnities & liability limitations
Specific indemnities vs. general warranties
While warranties provide general protection, specific indemnities are targeted guarantees that the seller will compensate the buyer euro for euro for specific, identified risks. Indemnities do not require the buyer to prove causation or quantify loss in the usual contractual sense—they provide direct reimbursement.
Common examples include tax indemnities (covering historic tax liabilities), environmental indemnities, and indemnities for pending litigation. Indemnities are often uncapped or subject to higher caps than general warranties.
Tax indemnity and tax protection
A tax indemnity covers the buyer for any tax liabilities arising from pre-closing periods, including taxes that were not disclosed or reserved for in the accounts. Tax indemnities are typically broader than tax warranties and may cover taxes that arise from facts unknown at closing.
Tax protection clauses also address who bears the risk of changes in tax law or tax authority interpretations that affect the target company’s historic positions.
Caps, baskets, and de minimis thresholds
Caps limit the seller’s maximum liability under the warranty regime, typically expressed as a percentage of the purchase price (commonly 10–30%). Fundamental warranties are often excluded from the cap.
Baskets are thresholds below which the buyer cannot bring warranty claims. A de minimis threshold applies to individual claims (e.g., no claim below €10,000), while a basket applies to aggregate claims (e.g., no recovery unless total claims exceed €100,000). Baskets can be structured as tipping baskets (seller pays everything once the threshold is exceeded) or deductible baskets (seller pays only the excess above the threshold).
Limitation periods by category
Limitation periods define how long the buyer can bring warranty claims after closing. Standard business warranties typically survive for 18–24 months. Tax warranties may survive for five to seven years, aligning with tax assessment periods. Fundamental warranties often have indefinite survival, or at least extend well beyond standard limitations.
Clear drafting is essential to avoid disputes about when the clock starts ticking and whether a claim was brought in time.
Knowledge qualifications
Many warranties are qualified by knowledge—for example, “to the seller’s knowledge, there is no pending litigation.” This shifts risk back to the buyer, as the seller is only liable if the statement is false and the seller actually knew it was false.
Buyers should negotiate narrow knowledge qualifications, ideally tied to specific individuals (e.g., the CEO and CFO) and requiring reasonable inquiry. Sellers prefer broad or constructive knowledge standards that limit exposure.
Financial security mechanisms
Escrow account — structure, duration, and release conditions
An escrow account is a portion of the purchase price held by a third party (typically a bank or law firm) as security for warranty claims, earn-outs, or deferred payments. Escrow is particularly useful when the seller’s creditworthiness is uncertain or when W&I insurance is not in place.
The escrow agreement should clearly define the amount, duration (typically 12–24 months for general warranties), and release conditions. Release typically occurs automatically at the end of the escrow period, unless claims have been notified. Disputed claims remain in escrow until resolved.
Earn-out arrangements
An earn-out is a deferred purchase price component based on the target company’s future performance, such as revenue, EBITDA, or customer retention. Earn-outs bridge valuation gaps and align buyer and seller interests post-closing.
However, earn-outs are a common source of disputes. Issues include how performance is measured, whether the buyer has manipulated results, and whether the seller (often remaining as management) had sufficient autonomy to achieve the earn-out targets. Clear definitions, independent verification, and detailed operational governance are essential.
Deferred consideration
Deferred consideration is a fixed payment due after closing, typically used to smooth cash flow or align payment with specific milestones (such as regulatory approval or contract novations). Unlike earn-outs, deferred consideration is not contingent on performance.
Deferred consideration may be secured by escrow, bank guarantees, or retention amounts.
Bank guarantees and retention amounts
Bank guarantees are commitments by a bank to pay the buyer if the seller defaults on warranty or indemnity obligations. They provide more security than relying on the seller’s personal solvency but come at a cost to the seller.
Retention amounts are portions of the purchase price withheld by the buyer and released over time, subject to the absence of claims. Retention is simpler than escrow but gives the buyer direct control, which sellers may resist.
Post-closing obligations
Non-compete and non-solicitation
Non-compete clauses prevent the seller (or key management) from starting or joining a competing business for a defined period (typically two to five years) within a defined geographic area. These clauses protect the buyer’s investment by ensuring the seller doesn’t immediately set up a rival operation.
Non-solicitation clauses prevent the seller from poaching employees or customers. Dutch law enforces reasonable non-compete and non-solicitation clauses but may strike down overly broad or oppressive restrictions, particularly in employment contexts.
IP transfer and knowledge transfer
Intellectual property rarely transfers automatically. The SPA must explicitly assign patents, trademarks, copyrights, domain names, and software rights. For unregistered IP (such as know-how or trade secrets), the SPA should include detailed schedules and transfer protocols.
Knowledge transfer obligations ensure that the seller provides training, documentation, and support to enable the buyer to operate the business smoothly. This is particularly important in tech and professional services transactions.
Change of control clauses
Many contracts include change of control clauses that give the counterparty the right to terminate or renegotiate terms if ownership of the company changes. These clauses can jeopardise the transaction’s value, particularly in SaaS businesses where customer contracts are the primary asset.
Buyers should identify change of control risks during due diligence and seek waivers or consents before closing. Sellers should disclose these clauses in the disclosure letter to avoid warranty breaches.
Management retention
Retaining key management post-closing is often critical to business continuity and earn-out success. Management retention agreements typically include stay bonuses, equity rollovers, and non-compete provisions.
These agreements should be negotiated separately from the SPA to ensure alignment of interests and clarity about roles, reporting lines, and exit conditions.
Resolving disputes
Arbitration or court proceedings
Parties can choose arbitration or court proceedings for resolving M&A disputes. Arbitration offers confidentiality, flexibility, and the ability to select specialist arbitrators. Dutch courts, by contrast, provide enforceable judgments with established appeal mechanisms.
International transactions often favour arbitration under ICC or LCIA rules. Domestic transactions may default to Dutch courts, and for English-language proceedings the Netherlands Commercial Court in Amsterdam.
Material adverse change clauses
A Material Adverse Change (MAC) clause allows the buyer to walk away from the transaction if a significant negative event occurs between signing and closing. Courts interpret MAC clauses narrowly, requiring a substantial, durable impact on the business—not just temporary setbacks or general market conditions.
MAC clauses are heavily negotiated, with sellers seeking to carve out specific risks (such as regulatory changes affecting the entire industry) and buyers insisting on broad protection.
Expert determination for price disputes
Disputes about completion accounts or earn-out calculations are often resolved through expert determination rather than litigation or arbitration. The parties appoint an independent accountant or industry expert to decide the issue, and the expert’s decision is typically final and binding.
The SPA should specify the expert’s mandate, the procedure for appointment, and the allocation of costs.
Governing law: Dutch law or English law
Dutch law is the default governing law for transactions involving Dutch companies, but parties often choose English law for international deals, particularly when private equity or international investors are involved.
English law offers well-established M&A precedents, extensive case law on warranties and indemnities, and familiarity among international advisers. However, Dutch mandatory law (such as employment protections and company law requirements) will still apply to Dutch entities regardless of the governing law choice.
Specific considerations for technology and Brainport deals
IP warranties and software licenses
For technology companies, IP warranties are critical. Buyers need assurance that the target owns (or has valid licenses for) all software, patents, and trademarks used in the business. Open-source software can create unexpected risks if not properly managed—certain licenses require derivative works to be released as open source, which can destroy commercial value.
Software licences should be reviewed carefully for transferability, change of control provisions and compliance with the licence terms. We deal with this in more depth in our article on M&A in the technology sector.
GDPR compliance warranties
GDPR compliance is a major risk area in tech M&A. Buyers should seek warranties that the target has lawful bases for processing personal data, has implemented appropriate technical and organisational measures, and has not suffered data breaches or regulatory complaints.
Non-compliance can result in fines up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover, making robust warranties and indemnities essential.
Cybersecurity warranties
Cybersecurity breaches can devastate a company’s value overnight. Buyers increasingly demand cybersecurity representations covering the target’s security policies, incident response procedures, and history of breaches or ransomware attacks.
Sellers should conduct cybersecurity audits before going to market to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
Change of control in SaaS contracts
SaaS businesses are particularly vulnerable to change of control clauses in customer agreements. If key customers have the right to terminate upon acquisition, the buyer’s valuation assumptions collapse.
Obtaining customer waivers or consents is essential, but this must be handled carefully to avoid signalling instability or triggering early exits.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a warranty and an indemnity in an acquisition?
A warranty is a contractual statement of fact about the target company. If the warranty turns out to be false, the buyer can claim damages for breach of contract. The buyer must prove the breach caused loss and quantify that loss, subject to caps and limitations in the SPA.
An indemnity, by contrast, provides euro for euro compensation for specific, identified risks. The buyer does not need to prove causation or mitigate loss—the seller simply reimburses the buyer for the liability. Indemnities are typically used for tax liabilities, environmental clean-up costs, or pending litigation where the potential exposure is known but uncertain in amount. They are often uncapped or subject to higher limits than general warranties.
When is an escrow account useful in an M&A transaction?
An escrow account is useful when the buyer needs security for warranty claims, earn-outs, or deferred payments, particularly if the seller’s creditworthiness is uncertain or if Warranty & Indemnity insurance is not in place. Escrow is common in deals where the seller is an individual or small business, rather than a creditworthy institution.
The escrow amount is typically 10–20% of the purchase price, held for 12–24 months (longer for tax warranties). Funds are released automatically at the end of the period unless claims have been notified. Disputed claims remain in escrow until resolved by agreement, expert determination, or court decision.
What is a W&I insurance policy and when is it relevant?
Warranty and Indemnity (W&I) insurance transfers the risk of warranty breaches from the seller to an insurance company. The buyer (or sometimes the seller) purchases the policy, which covers losses arising from breaches up to a specified limit (typically 10–30% of the purchase price).
W&I insurance is particularly relevant in private equity transactions, competitive auctions, and clean exit scenarios where the seller wants to avoid post-closing liability. It’s also useful when the seller is insolvent or unwilling to provide significant escrow or holdbacks. However, the insurance does not cover known issues, forward-looking matters, or certain excluded risks such as pension liabilities or environmental contamination. Buyers should not view W&I insurance as a substitute for thorough due diligence.
How does a disclosure letter work and why is it so important?
A disclosure letter qualifies or carves out the warranties in the SPA by disclosing specific facts or circumstances that would otherwise constitute breaches. For example, if the seller warrants that there is no pending litigation, but then discloses a specific lawsuit in the disclosure letter, the buyer cannot claim for breach of that warranty.
The disclosure letter is critical because it shifts risk back to the buyer. Broadly worded disclosures—such as “all matters disclosed in the data room”—can effectively hollow out the warranty package. Best practice is for buyers to require specific, clear disclosures tied to individual warranties, with explicit references to supporting documents. Buyers must scrutinise the disclosure letter during due diligence to ensure disclosed risks are acceptable or can be priced into the deal.
What are caps and baskets in warranties and why are they important?
A cap is the maximum amount the seller will pay for all warranty claims combined, typically expressed as 10–30% of the purchase price. Fundamental warranties (such as ownership of shares and authority to sell) are usually excluded from the cap and may be unlimited.
A basket is a threshold that limits small claims. There are two types: a de minimis threshold applies to individual claims (e.g., no claim below €10,000), while an aggregate basket applies to total claims (e.g., no recovery unless claims exceed €100,000). Baskets can be tipping (seller pays everything once exceeded) or deductible (seller pays only the excess). Caps and baskets balance the need for warranty protection with commercial reality, preventing excessive litigation over minor issues.
What is an earn-out and when is it used?
An earn-out is a deferred purchase price component based on the target company’s future performance, such as revenue, EBITDA, or customer retention targets. Earn-outs are used to bridge valuation gaps when buyer and seller disagree on the company’s future prospects, or to incentivise the seller (often staying on as management) to grow the business post-closing.
Earn-outs carry significant dispute risk. Common issues include disagreements over how performance is measured, allegations that the buyer manipulated results (by cutting marketing spend or reassigning key customers), and whether the seller had sufficient operational autonomy to achieve targets. Clear definitions, independent verification by accountants, and detailed governance provisions are essential to minimise conflict.
How long can a buyer bring warranty claims after closing?
The limitation period depends on the category of warranty. General business warranties typically survive for 18–24 months after closing. Tax warranties often survive for five to seven years, aligning with the period during which tax authorities can assess historic liabilities. Fundamental warranties (such as title to shares and authority to sell) are often uncapped in time, or survive for significantly longer periods.
The SPA should clearly specify when the limitation period begins (usually the closing date) and whether claims must be notified or formally commenced before the deadline. Buyers should calendar these deadlines carefully to avoid losing valuable claims through inadvertence.
What is a MAC clause and when can a buyer invoke it?
A Material Adverse Change (MAC) clause allows the buyer to terminate the transaction if a significant negative event occurs between signing and closing, such as loss of a major customer, regulatory action, or catastrophic operational failure. MAC clauses are meant to protect buyers from unexpected, fundamental changes that undermine the deal’s rationale.
However, courts interpret MAC clauses very narrowly. The buyer must prove a substantial, durable impact on the business—not just temporary setbacks, general market conditions, or events that affect the industry as a whole. Sellers typically negotiate extensive carve-outs (such as changes in law, economic downturns, or pandemics) to limit the scope. Successfully invoking a MAC clause is difficult and rare.
What are the risks of an asset deal compared to a share deal?
In an asset deal, the buyer acquires specific assets and assumes specific liabilities, leaving historic risks (such as tax liabilities, pension obligations, and litigation) with the seller. This offers greater protection for the buyer, but creates complexity. Each contract, permit, and IP right must be explicitly transferred, often requiring third-party consents. Employees may need to be transferred under the Dutch rules on transfer of an undertaking in articles 7:662 and following of the Civil Code, and suppliers or customers may resist novation.
A share deal is simpler and faster—ownership of the company changes hands without needing to transfer individual contracts. However, the buyer inherits all liabilities, known and unknown. The choice depends on the buyer’s risk appetite, the complexity of the target’s operations, and the willingness of third parties to consent to transfers.
Which law applies to an M&A transaction in the Netherlands—Dutch or English law?
Dutch law is the default for transactions involving Dutch companies, particularly when both buyer and seller are Dutch or when the target’s operations are primarily in the Netherlands. Dutch law governs corporate formalities, employment protections, and shareholder rights, regardless of the governing law clause in the SPA.
However, parties often choose English law for international deals, especially when private equity or foreign investors are involved. English law offers extensive M&A case law, well-established interpretations of warranties and indemnities, and familiarity among international advisers. The choice of law affects how warranties are interpreted, limitation periods, and dispute resolution procedures. Regardless of the choice, Dutch mandatory rules (such as works council consultation and employee protections) will apply to Dutch entities.
Securing value and managing risk
M&A transactions are won or lost in the legal detail. Warranties, indemnities, escrow arrangements, and post-closing obligations are not boilerplate—they are the mechanisms that allocate risk, protect value, and determine who pays when things go wrong.
Whether you’re buying a business or selling one, understanding these legal protections is essential to negotiating a fair deal and avoiding costly surprises. The stakes are high, the issues are complex, and the consequences of getting it wrong can be severe.
If you’re involved in an M&A transaction and need expert legal guidance on structuring protections, negotiating warranties, or resolving disputes, Law & More is here to help. Our experienced M&A team advises buyers and sellers across the Netherlands on transactions of all sizes, from tech startups in Brainport Eindhoven to established businesses in Amsterdam and Rotterdam.
If you are preparing a transaction, the earliest and cheapest intervention is a review of the structure and the timetable before the letter of intent is signed. Please contact us to discuss your transaction.
