ARTICLE
23 April 2019

Cadwalader Attorneys Analyze Delaware Chancery Court Decision On Termination Of Merger Agreement

CW
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Contributor

Cadwalader, established in 1792, serves a diverse client base, including many of the world's leading financial institutions, funds and corporations. With offices in the United States and Europe, Cadwalader offers legal representation in antitrust, banking, corporate finance, corporate governance, executive compensation, financial restructuring, intellectual property, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, private wealth, real estate, regulation, securitization, structured finance, tax and white collar defense.
In Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that Rent-A-Center, Inc. properly ended its merger agreement with Vintage Capital Management LLC after Vintage neglected...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that Rent-A-Center, Inc. ("Rent-A-Center") properly ended its merger agreement with Vintage Capital Management LLC ("Vintage") after Vintage neglected to submit a notice to extend the drop-dead date for its pending $1.37 billion buyout of Rent-A-Center. The Court interpreted the language of the merger agreement strictly and allowed Rent-A-Center to terminate the merger unilaterally.

As described more fully in a Cadwalader memorandum, in concluding that Rent-A-Center's termination was valid and effective, the Court rejected Vintage's arguments that (i) Rent-A-Center's failure to provide written notice to extend the end date was obviated by the parties' conduct, (ii) Rent-A-Center breached its obligation to use commercially reasonable efforts to terminate the transaction by failing to remind Vintage of its obligation to submit an extension notice and (iii) Rent-A-Center fraudulently induced Vintage to believe that Rent-A-Center still wanted to consummate the merger.

Cadwalader attorneys noted several key takeaways for Mergers & Acquisitions practitioners and litigators regarding how the Court will interpret contractual agreements between merger parties, saying that:

  • the Court will not second-guess unambiguous drafting;
  • commercially reasonable efforts do not mandate reminding a counterparty of its contractual rights;
  • counterparties have no duty to warn of an impending termination;
  • Rent-A-Center's right to terminate was not limited by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
  • the Court left open the possibility that the breakup fee may be payable based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More