Find a Lawyer
Book an appointment with us, or search the directory to find the right lawyer for you directly through the app.
Find out more
Al Adalla
Read MoreA complete spectrum of legal services across jurisdictions in the Middle East & North Africa.
From Breach to Value: How SPA Drafting Determines M&A Warranty Claims
4 min 35 sec
Written by
j.brooks@tamimi.com 
View LinkedIn Profile
Post-completion warranty claims are becoming more visible as private M&A across the Gulf grows in scale and sophistication. Yet establishing a warranty breach is only the starting point. A buyer must still show that the breach caused recoverable loss, quantify that loss on a defensible basis, and navigate the contractual gateways negotiated in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA).
This distinction matters, particularly in transactions governed by ADGM or DIFC laws. The ADGM’s statutory adoption of English common law makes English authorities directly relevant to ADGM-governed SPAs, and they carry persuasive weight in DIFC-governed transactions.[1]
The practical point is straightforward: a warranty allocates risk, but the measure of damages and the SPA’s limitations regime determine whether that allocation produces a right of recovery from the seller.
Key takeaway: Draft each warranty with the eventual claim in mind. What loss could breach cause, how would that loss be proved, and which SPA provisions would govern recovery?
Warranty claim or indemnity claim: Choosing the right remedy
When a post-completion issue comes to light, the first question is whether it should be pursued as a warranty claim for damages or as an indemnity claim. These remedies are structurally distinct, and the choice between them directly affects how risk should be allocated in the SPA.
A warranty is a contractual promise that a stated position is true; upon its breach, the buyer’s remedy is compensatory damages. In a share sale, those damages are conventionally assessed as the difference between the value of the shares as warranted and their actual value, both measured at the date of completion. The price paid is often strong evidence of the warranted value, but it is not an irrefutable substitute for a full valuation.
An indemnity is different. It is a promise to compensate for a defined event or category of loss on its own terms. A properly drafted indemnity may allow recovery of an identified liability without requiring the buyer to prove that the liability reduced the value of the shares. It does not, however, operate in a contractual vacuum: the claimant must still satisfy the indemnity’s trigger, as well as any causation, scope, and limitations in the form of exclusions, caps, and claims procedure under the SPA.
Key takeaway: Known, specific risks should be allocated deliberately through an indemnity, price adjustment, or escrow. If an indemnity is intended to be the exclusive remedy, say so; an anti-double-recovery clause alone may not achieve that result.[2]
Proving diminution: Causation, valuation, and timing
Even where breach is established, the buyer must independently prove that it caused the claimed reduction in value at completion. This causation step is the bridge between a warranty breach and a recoverable loss: the buyer must connect the breach to a lower completion-date value.
An accounting error is not itself an economic loss. The question is whether correcting it would have changed the price agreed for the shares. That inquiry requires expert valuation evidence, but the model must reflect the bargain actually made. Where the transaction price was based on maintainable EBITDA multiplied by an agreed multiple, the buyer may contend that the true position reduced the EBITDA, the multiple, or both. A reduction in the multiple is not automatic. It requires separate evidence that the breach changed the business’s quality, sustainability, or risk profile; otherwise, it risks being an impermissible double count.
The comparison must also be internally coherent: the warranted and actual values should ordinarily use the same valuation date and a consistent framework, changing only the assumptions affected by the breach rather than constructing two unrelated models. Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin [2012] EWHC 3443 (Ch) remains a useful illustration of an accounting warranty translating into a lower enterprise value, but it also demonstrates how fact- and methodology-sensitive the exercise can be.
Completion is the normal valuation date. Later events may provide evidence of conditions or risks that existed at completion, but they should not be used to rewrite the bargain with hindsight (see MDW Holdings Ltd v Norvill [2022] EWCA Civ 883).
Key takeaway: Preserve the valuation record at signing: investment papers, bid models, quality-of-earnings analysis, agreed EBITDA adjustments, and the rationale for the multiple. Those documents may later matter as much as the warranty wording.
Knowledge and disclosure define the risk transferred
Disclosure is among the most commercially significant battlegrounds in SPA negotiation, and it is frequently underestimated until a claim materialises. The effect of buyer knowledge depends principally on the SPA. Parties should specify whether warranties are qualified only by matters fairly disclosed, whether actual buyer knowledge also bars a claim, whose knowledge is attributed to the buyer, and whether constructive or imputed knowledge is excluded.
The disclosure standard deserves equal precision. If ‘disclosed’ requires fair disclosure with sufficient detail to identify the nature and scope of a matter, the seller should make a positive, intelligible disclosure rather than expect the buyer to piece together the answer from scattered data-room materials. Conversely, a seller seeking general data-room disclosure must negotiate that result expressly, identify the data-room index, and ensure the buyer had accessible copies before signing.
Knowledge and disclosure also affect valuation. A known weakness may already be reflected in the warranted value, in which case it should not be counted again to increase the diminution attributed to an unrelated breach.
Key takeaway: Treat every due diligence issue as a risk-allocation decision — disclose it specifically, convert it into an indemnity or price adjustment, or leave it within the warranty package. Ambiguity merely postpones the negotiation until a dispute.
Written by
Warranty disputes are not won by proving a breach alone. They turn on the interaction between the risk promised, the value affected, and the recovery architecture written into the SPA. The investment in getting these provisions right at signing — selecting the appropriate remedy, recording the valuation logic, defining knowledge and disclosure, and ensuring that limitations operate as the parties intend — is almost always smaller than the cost of litigating the ambiguity they leave behind.
SPA provisions that determine recoverability
Several provisions commonly described as ‘limitations’ can determine the outcome of a claim even before the valuation evidence is tested.
First, the definition of loss must match the intended remedy. Generic exclusions of loss of profit, consequential loss, or goodwill do not necessarily exclude diminution in share value. A seller wishing to exclude a valuation based on a multiple of earnings or revenue should use express language, and a buyer should recognise that accepting such language may remove the conventional method of valuing an earnings-driven business.
Second, disclosure determines the boundary between risks assumed by the buyer and risks warranted against. The agreed standard, disclosed documents, and buyer-knowledge provisions should therefore operate coherently rather than create overlapping or inconsistent qualifications.
Third, financial thresholds (de minimis, baskets, and caps) should be defined with precision. Is the basket deductible or tipping? Is the cap calculated by reference to total consideration or the amount received by each seller? Does it include interest, legal costs and expert fees? Equitix EEEF Biomass 2 Ltd v Fox [2021] EWHC 2781 (TCC) illustrates that a cap on contractual warranty claims will not necessarily limit ancillary court-awarded interest and costs where the drafting does not address them.
Fourth, the notice and conduct of claims regime should be drafted as a workable process, not an obstacle course. Notice provisions are interpreted by reference to their commercial purpose and their precise wording, and non-compliance can jeopardise a claim (see Teoco UK Ltd v Aircom Jersey 4 Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 23).
Finally, the SPA should coordinate mitigation, third-party recoveries, insurance and completion accounts. An anti-double-recovery clause should prevent duplication without inadvertently barring alternative claims before their legal and valuation bases are resolved.
Recent decisions in Synthos Spolka Akcyjna v Ineos Industries Holdings Ltd [2026] EWHC 83 (Comm) and Veranova Bidco LP v Johnson Matthey plc [2026] EWHC 1021 (Comm) show that knowledge-attribution drafting can determine whether a fraud carve-out applies. In Synthos, broad awareness wording permitted aggregation of specified individuals’ knowledge. Veranova held that, absent equivalent wording, innocent states of mind could not be combined to establish corporate dishonesty.
Key takeaway: Read the limitations schedule as a future statement of case. Test every defined term and procedural requirement against a realistic claim before signing.
Conclusion
Warranty disputes are not won by proving a breach alone. They turn on the interaction between the risk promised, the value affected, and the recovery architecture written into the SPA. For buyers, establishing that a warranty was false is the starting point, not the finish.
For sellers, the limitations regime is only as strong as its drafting. The investment in getting these provisions right at signing — selecting the appropriate remedy, recording the valuation logic, defining knowledge and disclosure, and ensuring that limitations operate as the parties intend — is almost always smaller than the cost of litigating the ambiguity they leave behind.
[1] ADGM Application of English Law Regulations 2015, s1; DIFC Contract Law, DIFC Law No. 6 of 2004.
[2] The recent decision in Learning Curve (NE) Group Ltd v Lewis [2025] EWHC 1889 (Comm) illustrates the distinction. The buyer recovered under a funding indemnity, but was also permitted to pursue warranty damages arising from the same underlying facts because the SPA prevented double recovery, not parallel claims. The warranty claim was substantially more valuable because the regulatory non-compliance affected both maintainable EBITDA and the risk reflected in the valuation multiple.
Next Article
