David Morgan Investments Pty Ltd v Maggie Beer Holdings Ltd [2024] NSWSC 778

Coffee and a Case Note

Content provided by James d'Apice. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by James d'Apice or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://podcastplayer.com/legal.

1+ y ago 9:06

M4A•Episode home

“You changed the business I sold you so you could underpay me!”

___

By deed P sold their shares in an online retail business to D.P was to receive $20M, some shares in D, and the Earn Out Amount (“EOM”): [3]

According to the deed, the EOM was the Base EOM of $10M plus the Additional EOM: [6]

The Additional EOM was the rounded difference between the Base EOM (I.e. $10M) and “Earnings”: [7]

“Earnings” meant EBITDA over the relevant year. The deed contained a mechanism for D send a proposed Earnings calculation (as part of a P and L), for P to make a reply including setting out “Contested Matters”, for the parties to negotiate the contested matters in good faith, and for the matter to be referred to an expert if negotiations failed: [10] - [14]

D sent a P and L suggesting Earnings were ~$6M (making the Additional EOM zero): [16]

P sent a reply calculating Earnings at ~$15M (taking the Additional EOM to its maximum possible figure) and raising Contested Matters: [17]

Following unsuccessful good faith negotiations, the matter was referred to an expert: [18]

How was the expert to calculate Earnings?: [19]

Cll 2.1 and 2.2 of the deed required Earnings to be calc’d disregarding revenues or expenses not part of the Co’s ordinary business including: costs relating to the share sale, restructure costs, certain related party transactions, and the costs of kicking off any new business: [21]

Cl 2.3 of the deed noted the parties’ agreement that Earnings were to be calc’d as if the Co’s business were run the same way post-purchase as it had been pre-purchase; and that D would not make big changes to the Co’s business (or, if D did make big changes, the EOM would be normalised to exclude those changes’ impact): [21]

P sued, seeking declarations that the expert determine Earnings in accordance with all of the above. D resisted: [25] - [27]

The Court found for the P: [28]

The well-known principles regarding contractual interpretation were (respectfully) helpfully restated at [29] - [33]

The Court noted the parties’ explicit agreement on the mandatory language in Cl 2.3; that Earnings *must* be calculated that way: [48] - [50]

The proper construction was found to be on that basis: [54]

P’s pressed for their Contested Matters to be referred to the expert.P said Earnings had to be adjusted due to D failing to implement a new website, leading to lower website traffic. The Court accepted this Contested Matter was appropriately dealt with by the expert: [63] - [77]

Similarly: P’s complaint regarding D’s failure to implement P’s logistics proposal was to be properly dealt with by the expert: [78] - [82]

Again similarly: P’s complaint that D’s marketing efforts wrongly focussed on conversion rather than branding was properly dealt with by the expert: [83] - [86]

The expert was required to value Earnings as P proposed, and to deal with P’s Contested Matters: [87]

___

Please head to www.gravamen.com.au - that's my law firm!

246 episodes

#Podcasting Education #James DApice