Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
The M&A Case Study Experiment - Part 1
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jmcnlmc" data-source="post: 129085" data-attributes="member: 27119"><p>Q.1</p><p></p><p>Digion’s reasons to buy immersive:</p><p></p><p>• Continue growth with expansion into Germany.</p><p>• Acquiring Immersive’s popularity among game developers.</p><p>• A platform for the patented cloud technology.</p><p>• Acquiring expertise of the immersive founders.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Q.2</p><p></p><p>I would advise Elena to deal with the Tristan concern by:</p><p></p><p>• Extending the restrictive covenants in clause in 7.3 to employees of the seller.</p><p>• Consider retention incentives to employees.</p><p></p><p>Q.3</p><p></p><p>The purpose of clause 5 is to protect Digion from outside events which could materially change the acquisition, whether that be the value another component. It also makes clear at which point the acquisition becomes binding. </p><p></p><p>It does this by ensuring transparency from immersive during due diligence; compliance with regulatory requirements and making clear the jurisdictional rules/standard that applies; it ensures that Immersive doesn’t materially/adversely change in nature and there are no repercussions that would bring about such a change. </p><p></p><p>Q.4</p><p></p><p>I’d encourage the seller to adopt the approach of full disclosure and access, shows goodwill and evidence fair behaviour throughout the transaction. I’d advise to leverage any risk or potential liabilities with an insurance solution. The list of risks are non-exhaustive, the conduct of one employee for instance could threaten the transaction. An insurance solution may re-assure the purchaser.</p><p></p><p>Q.5</p><p></p><p>Aside from clarity of knowing what law will apply to the transaction. Knowing that the that the Supreme Court would have the final word in the event of a dispute as opposed to a protracted European/other foreign process.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jmcnlmc, post: 129085, member: 27119"] Q.1 Digion’s reasons to buy immersive: • Continue growth with expansion into Germany. • Acquiring Immersive’s popularity among game developers. • A platform for the patented cloud technology. • Acquiring expertise of the immersive founders. Q.2 I would advise Elena to deal with the Tristan concern by: • Extending the restrictive covenants in clause in 7.3 to employees of the seller. • Consider retention incentives to employees. Q.3 The purpose of clause 5 is to protect Digion from outside events which could materially change the acquisition, whether that be the value another component. It also makes clear at which point the acquisition becomes binding. It does this by ensuring transparency from immersive during due diligence; compliance with regulatory requirements and making clear the jurisdictional rules/standard that applies; it ensures that Immersive doesn’t materially/adversely change in nature and there are no repercussions that would bring about such a change. Q.4 I’d encourage the seller to adopt the approach of full disclosure and access, shows goodwill and evidence fair behaviour throughout the transaction. I’d advise to leverage any risk or potential liabilities with an insurance solution. The list of risks are non-exhaustive, the conduct of one employee for instance could threaten the transaction. An insurance solution may re-assure the purchaser. Q.5 Aside from clarity of knowing what law will apply to the transaction. Knowing that the that the Supreme Court would have the final word in the event of a dispute as opposed to a protracted European/other foreign process. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
The M&A Case Study Experiment - Part 1
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…