Skip to main content
← Back to M Definitions

Match rights

What Are Match Rights?

Match rights refer to a contractual provision that grants a party, typically a buyer or existing stakeholder, the opportunity to match a bona fide offer made by a third party for an asset or equity. This mechanism is frequently employed in the realm of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) and broader corporate finance transactions. The primary aim of match rights is to provide the initial party with a chance to retain a desired asset or strategic position by meeting the terms of a competing bid. This falls under the broader category of deal protection devices, which are clauses included in agreements to protect the interests of the parties involved, particularly the initial bidder in an acquisition.

History and Origin

The concept of match rights, while rooted in fundamental principles of contract law, became increasingly prevalent in large M&A transactions, particularly from the late 1990s onward. Before 1999, match rights were included in approximately 20% of M&A deals; however, their inclusion surged to about 80% of deals thereafter, indicating a widespread adoption as a standard contractual safeguard.10 This evolution reflects a growing sophistication in deal structuring, where initial bidders sought greater assurance that their efforts in negotiating a transaction would not be easily superseded by a last-minute competing offer. The development of these clauses parallels the increasing complexity of the bidding process in competitive M&A environments, where the ability to counter a superior proposal became a critical component for buyers.

Key Takeaways

  • Match rights are contractual clauses allowing a party to meet a third-party offer for an asset or shares.
  • They are common in M&A, private equity, and venture capital agreements.
  • These rights provide the initial buyer with a chance to secure the deal even after a competing bid emerges.
  • The terms of match rights, including the notification period and scope of matching, are critical and negotiated.
  • While they protect the initial bidder, match rights can sometimes deter other potential bidders due to perceived uncertainty.

Interpreting Match Rights

Interpreting match rights involves understanding the specific language of the contractual clause, as its terms can vary significantly between agreements. Key elements to scrutinize include the definition of a "superior proposal" that triggers the right, the timeframe within which the initial party must exercise its right to match, and whether the right is a "one-time" match or a "last-look" right that applies to successive counter-offers.9 For instance, if a company has match rights, it typically means that if a seller receives an offer for an asset, they must inform the party holding the match rights, providing them with the material terms of the third-party offer. The holder of the match rights then has a specified period, often 3 to 5 business days, to decide whether to match those terms.8 The clarity of what exactly needs to be matched—whether it's solely price, or also non-financial terms like marketing commitments or athlete endorsements—is crucial for effective interpretation and exercise of the right. Amb7iguity in these clauses can lead to disputes and challenges in the closing of a transaction.

Hypothetical Example

Consider "Tech Innovations Inc." (Target) which is being acquired by "Global Tech Solutions Corp." (Buyer) for $500 million. Their merger agreement includes a match rights clause. During the exclusivity period, "Innovate Ventures," a third-party, submits a superior proposal to Tech Innovations Inc. for $550 million.

  1. Notification: Tech Innovations Inc.'s board, after determining Innovate Ventures' offer constitutes a superior proposal as defined in the merger agreement, notifies Global Tech Solutions Corp. of the new offer's material terms.
  2. Matching Period: Global Tech Solutions Corp. now has a negotiated period (e.g., three business days) to exercise its match rights.
  3. Decision: Global Tech Solutions Corp. analyzes Innovate Ventures' offer. If Global Tech Solutions Corp. wishes to proceed, it must submit a revised offer that matches or exceeds Innovate Ventures' proposal, typically matching all material terms.
  4. Outcome: If Global Tech Solutions Corp. matches the $550 million offer, Tech Innovations Inc. is contractually obligated to proceed with Global Tech Solutions Corp.'s offer. If Global Tech Solutions Corp. fails to match or declines to do so, Tech Innovations Inc. is then free to accept Innovate Ventures' superior proposal, often subject to a termination fee payable to Global Tech Solutions Corp.

This example illustrates how match rights provide an incumbent bidder with a structured opportunity to counter competitive offers, safeguarding their initial investment in the due diligence and negotiation process.

Practical Applications

Match rights are primarily found in various financial and legal agreements to protect a party's interest in a potential transaction. Their most common application is in Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) agreements, where they serve as a deal protection mechanism. In this context, a buyer who has made an initial offer for a target company often negotiates for match rights. This allows the buyer to improve its offer and match any competing, superior proposals that the target company might receive from other parties before finalizing the deal.

Be6yond M&A, match rights also appear in:

  • Shareholder Agreements: Existing shareholders may have match rights if another shareholder wishes to sell their shares to a third party. This allows the current shareholders to acquire the shares themselves and maintain their proportionate ownership or control, preventing unwanted third parties from entering the company's ownership structure.
  • Real Estate Transactions: A tenant might have match rights in their lease agreement, giving them the option to purchase the property if the landlord receives an offer from an external buyer.
  • Licensing and Distribution Agreements: A licensee might have match rights for an expanded territory or additional product lines if the licensor receives an offer from another party.

In a notable legal case, New Balance vs. Liverpool FC, the interpretation of a matching rights clause in a sponsorship agreement became a point of contention. The dispute centered on whether New Balance had sufficiently matched Nike's offer, which included non-monetary terms like commitments for global superstar athletes. The court's ruling underscored the importance of specificity in drafting match rights clauses to ensure all "material, measurable and matchable terms" are clearly defined. Thi5s highlights the critical role of precise legal drafting and the potential for complex disputes arising from these clauses.

Limitations and Criticisms

While match rights offer significant protection to an initial bidder, they are not without limitations and criticisms. One primary concern is their potential to deter competitive bids. When a third party knows that their offer can be easily matched by the incumbent bidder, they may be less inclined to invest the considerable time, effort, and resources required for due diligence and crafting a valuation and detailed proposal. This "chilling effect" can reduce the overall competitiveness of a bidding process, potentially limiting the seller's ability to achieve the highest possible price for their asset.

Ad4ditionally, the negotiation of match rights can be complex. Issues often arise concerning the duration of the matching period, whether the right is a one-time match or a "last-look" that applies to multiple revised offers, and the scope of what constitutes a "material" term that must be matched. Pro3longed or overly broad match rights periods can be seen as "unacceptable lock-up devices" by regulators, potentially inhibiting an efficient and competitive market for corporate control.

Fr2om a corporate governance perspective, boards of directors of target companies must carefully consider match rights clauses in the context of their fiduciary duty to shareholders. While match rights can provide deal certainty, they must be balanced against the board's obligation to seek the best value for shareholders. Delaware courts, for instance, examine such deal protection devices as part of a larger package of terms to ensure their reasonableness and alignment with shareholder interests. Mis1use or overly restrictive match rights could invite legal challenges, particularly in the context of a hostile takeover attempt.

Match Rights vs. Right of First Refusal

Match rights and the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) are both contractual provisions that grant a party the ability to acquire an asset or interest before a third party. However, they differ significantly in their timing and triggering events.

FeatureMatch RightsRight of First Refusal (ROFR)
Timing of OfferTriggered after a third party makes a concrete offer to the seller.Triggered before the seller formally solicits or accepts third-party offers.
ActionAllows the holder to match the terms of an existing third-party offer.Allows the holder the first opportunity to make an offer.
Buyer's PositionThe initial buyer in an M&A deal gets a "second look" to secure the asset.The holder gets the first chance to negotiate or buy.
Impact on BiddersCan deter subsequent bidders who know their offer may simply be matched.May deter initial third-party offers, as the ROFR holder gets first dibs.

In essence, a ROFR gives a party the first chance to buy, essentially setting the terms, whereas match rights give a party the chance to react to a third-party's offer. The distinction is crucial in financial agreements, as it dictates the sequence of negotiations and the strategic leverage of each party.

FAQs

What is the purpose of match rights in an M&A deal?

The purpose of match rights in an acquisition is to provide an initial bidder with the contractual ability to counter any subsequent, more attractive offers made by rival parties. This helps protect the initial bidder's investment in time and resources spent on due diligence and negotiations, increasing the likelihood that their initial deal will be finalized.

Can match rights be waived?

Yes, match rights can typically be waived by the party holding them. The decision to waive these rights often depends on whether the competing offer is substantially better than what the original party is willing or able to provide, or if the party holding the rights has decided to withdraw from the bidding process.

Are match rights always beneficial to the seller?

Not always. While match rights can provide a sense of security for the initial bidder, they can also deter other potential buyers from making higher offers. This is because other bidders might be reluctant to expend resources on a proposal if they know it can simply be matched, potentially limiting the competitive tension that could drive up the valuation for the seller.

How long does a party typically have to exercise match rights?

The timeframe for exercising match rights is negotiated and specified in the contract. Commonly, it ranges from 3 to 5 business days after the party holding the match rights receives formal notification of a superior third-party offer. The precise duration can impact the effectiveness of the clause and the overall deal timeline.