M&A Monday: The Danger of the Second Position LOI

professional profile

August 21, 2023

by a professional from Georgetown University in Maryland, USA

In the past two weeks, I had 2 clients ask to submit LOIs “in the second position” and one seller who asked me why a seller has gone mysteriously unresponsive.

Let’s discuss the second position LOI, its impact on a deal, and how a buyer can prevent it.

The "Second Position LOI" is when a seller accepts an LOI and enters exclusivity with a buyer, but then another buyer submits an LOI and seller’s broker holds it in the second position in case the first doesn’t work out.

This is like getting engaged, but keeping another partner on speed dial in case things fall through.

The obvious problem is that receiving a better offer will impact the seller’s desire to close the initial deal, the seller may drag their feet until exclusivity period ends, or attempt to retrade the LOI with the first buyer.

Thus, the buyer is expending time and expense (often over $50k), while unbeknownst to buyer, the seller has their eye on a new suiter. I recognize that some seller brokers take the LOI and don’t tell the seller about it and most believe it is advantageous to seller in case buyer falls through.

When representing buyers, I almost always include binding language in my LOI’s Exclusivity section to prevent this: (1) the public listing will be removed, (2) no solicitation of new offers will be made, and (3) any offers received will be disclosed to buyer (sample paragraph for your LOI at end).

Sadly, for my client, after he spent money on QoE, legal, lender, and got ready to relocate his family, the seller received a better LOI in “second position” and became unresponsive.

Below is a sample paragraph that I include in my LOIs:

Seller will not, directly or indirectly, and will cause its affiliates and its and their respective directors, officers, employees, members, managers, agents, advisors and representatives not to, (i) solicit or encourage any inquiries, discussions or proposals regarding, (ii) continue, propose or enter into negotiations or discussions with respect to, (iii) provide non-public information relating to or in connection with, or (iv) authorize, recommend, propose or enter into any confidentiality agreement, term sheet, letter of intent, purchase agreement or other agreement, arrangement or understanding regarding an acquisition of all or part of, an investment in, or a business combination or consolidation with, or the formation of a partnership or joint venture with, the Business, in each case other than involving only [Buyer] or any of its affiliates (collectively, “Exclusivity”). Until the Termination Date, Seller and Seller’s representatives agree to inform Buyer promptly of any inquiry, discussion or proposal from any person or entity of the type referred to above, including the terms thereof and will not accept or review any other offers, letters of intents, or other proposals of any kind.

5
9
187
Replies
9
commentor profile
Reply by an intermediary
from Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Devil's advocate -- exclusivity is a continuum that successful buyers and sellers recognize the risks they are asking the other side to take. Seller-centric/protective approaches leave a buyer with the risks you described in the post. Buyer-centric/protective approaches often leave the seller out in the cold, full of regret and missed opportunities, and starting over from scratch after expending 2-3+ months with a buyer that terminates during due diligence, which they can do "for any reason or no reason". A high risk proposition for a seller. We try to find a middle ground that recognizes and tries to mitigate the risks to both sides (and I have yet to have a seller try to wiggle out of the deal or retrade because they have a back-up offer). Also, buyers should keep in mind that their specific situation often informs how far on the exclusivity continuum a seller is willing to accept. A buyer with solid, tested financial backing and available funds, and a track record of completed acquisitions, will be more likely to get a more restrictive exclusivity than buyers with the opposite.
commentor profile
Reply by an investor
from University of Pennsylvania in Charlotte, NC, USA
Good post Eli. We tend to include the language in your last sentence "will not accept or review" in your clause (i). Also "respond to". This effectively prohibits a second position LOI. Enforceable as a practical matter? Perhaps not, realistically. But as you say it's a deterrent and clearly stakes out the buyer's position. If seller or seller's advisor wants to discuss those terms, that's fine.
commentor profile
+7 more replies.
Join the discussion