Third-party contracts with change-of-control clauses are a major carve-out risk, as vendors may hike prices post-acquisition. To mitigate this, explicitly state in the Letter of Intent (LOI) that your valuation is based on the assumption that key contracts will renew at or near historical costs. This provides critical leverage for future negotiations or price adjustments.
Related Insights
To de-risk carve-out acquisitions, sophisticated buyers should recommend the seller commission a sell-side Quality of Earnings (QofE) report before a preliminary bid is made. A seller's willingness to invest in a QofE signals their motivation, and the report provides a more reliable financial perimeter, reducing the risk of later surprises and renegotiations.
When a buyer insists on a "termination for convenience" clause, explain that it nullifies the "length of commitment" lever. This effectively changes a multi-year agreement into a month-to-month one, which logically carries a much higher price (e.g., a 30-35% increase). This frames the clause not as a legal term, but a commercial one with a clear cost.
A major carve-out risk is the 'captive client'—the seller's remaining business that relies on the carved-out entity. Post-deal, this powerful client may demand significant fee reductions, destroying the target's valuation. Buyers must negotiate directly with these internal client stakeholders early on to lock in future commercial terms and avoid a last-minute deal collapse.
For complex legal requests that increase your business risk or costs (e.g., unlimited liability, extensive insurance requirements), treat them as an additional negotiation lever. Explain that your standard pricing is based on a reasonable, collaborative risk profile. Accepting their terms changes that profile and will require adjusting the price accordingly.
To avoid a broken handoff, embed key business and integration experts into the core deal team from the start. These members view diligence through an integration lens, validating synergy assumptions and timelines in real-time. This prevents post-signing surprises and ensures the deal model is operationally achievable, creating a seamless transition from deal-making to execution.
A major hidden cost in carve-outs is vendor contract renegotiation, as change-of-control clauses can trigger price hikes. State Street mitigates this by stating in its LOI that the valuation assumes all third-party contracts remain at or near historical costs. This forces the issue early and protects the buyer's valuation model.
To avoid post-close surprises and knowledge loss, marry diligence and integration leads before an LOI is even signed. This ensures real-world operational experience informs diligence from the start. The goal is to have a drafted integration thesis by LOI and a near-complete plan by signing, not after closing.
When sourcing a carve-out proactively, the seller may not be fully committed. State Street recommends the seller commission a sell-side Quality of Earnings (QofE) report. Their willingness to invest in this serves as a strong signal of their seriousness and provides a more accurate financial baseline, reducing the risk of surprises during diligence.
Experienced acquirers mistakenly believe a standard template can apply to all carve-out deals. However, since every company's internal operations are bespoke, a template is at best 80% accurate. The remaining 20% requires deep, deal-specific analysis to avoid unforeseen integration challenges and costs, making over-reliance on a template a significant risk.
Experienced acquirers use templates for carve-outs, but it's a misconception they are fully scalable. Keith Crawford of State Street cautions that the final 20%—a company's unique operational setup and internal processes—requires custom analysis to avoid relying on past assumptions and missing deal-specific risks.