Boozie:
Indemnities were an issue, not sure if they still are. Parties were very confident the indemnities could be sorted. Bates was being unreasonable about them and ignoring lawyers advice but they believed there was a compromise to be made that he could accept.
Indemnities.... (skadesløsholdelse)
An indemnity is a sum paid by A to B by way of compensation for a particular loss suffered by B. The indemnitor (A) may or may not be responsible for the loss suffered by the indemnitee (B). Forms of indemnity include cash payments, repairs, replacement, and reinstatement.
A=Bates
B=Takeover men
Boozie presiserer igjen:
The indemnity is standard and nothing to do with buyers not trusting lawyers. It is to protect buyers in the situation "where something comes to light that was not documented/highlighted during the DD". If there was a liabilty the buyers that should have been obvious during DD they would sue their lawyers.
If there was a liability that should have been obvious but was 'omitted' from the process they sue the seller.Indemnities are standard not just in M&A but other business too eg. Construction.
Og det er vel dette Bates er så redd for! Pga.....
Boozie:
Well that would require me to have read every SPA involving a football club. I do however know of 3 football TO where there WERE indemnities. What I can also tell you is I've not in my experience worked on a case without indemnities, capped indemnities yes but not none.
Bates purchased Leeds without them (indemnities) but he didn't even do DD so wouldn't be a case for having them. Abramovich purchased Chelsea without them
and got stung by a tax bill which didn't come out of DD. Interestingly I understand the buyers team or have spoken to Abramovic. They are no fools.
