An earnout can bridge a real gap in a business sale — the buyer isn't fully confident the business will keep performing, the seller believes it will and wants to be paid for that future performance, and an earnout lets both sides agree without one side having to simply trust the other's projection. But earnouts are also one of the most common sources of post-closing disputes in small business sales, and understanding where they go wrong before signing is far cheaper than litigating it afterward.
What an Earnout Actually Is
An earnout structures part of the purchase price as contingent payments made after closing, based on the business hitting agreed performance targets — typically revenue or profit thresholds — over a defined period, often one to three years. Instead of the seller receiving 100% of the price at closing, they receive a portion upfront and the rest only if the business performs as projected under the buyer's ownership.
The Core Problem: The Seller No Longer Controls the Business
The fundamental tension in every earnout is that the seller's remaining payment depends on performance during a period when the buyer, not the seller, controls the decisions that drive that performance. A buyer can make entirely legitimate business decisions — cutting a product line, changing pricing, integrating the business into a larger operation, redirecting sales resources elsewhere — that happen to also suppress the metrics the earnout is based on. Whether that was intentional or simply normal post-acquisition management is often genuinely unclear, which is exactly what fuels disputes.
Define the Metric With Extreme Precision
Vague earnout language is where most disputes start. "Revenue" needs a precise definition: does it include only the acquired business's existing customers, or new customers the buyer brings in? Is it gross or net of returns? What happens if the buyer merges the acquired business with another one they own, making it impossible to cleanly measure? Every ambiguity in the metric definition becomes a point of leverage for whichever side benefits from interpreting it differently once real numbers are on the table.
Negotiate Operating Covenants, Not Just the Metric
A well-structured earnout includes specific commitments about how the buyer will operate the business during the earnout period — maintaining a similar marketing budget, not materially changing pricing, keeping key staff, not diverting customers to another business unit. Without these covenants, the seller has agreed to a payment contingent on decisions they have no ability to influence or even monitor closely.
Build in Real Reporting and Audit Rights
The seller needs contractual rights to receive regular financial reports during the earnout period and to audit the buyer's books if a dispute arises about whether targets were met. Without these rights, the seller is trusting the buyer's own accounting of performance on numbers that directly determine how much the buyer has to pay them — an obvious conflict of interest that a good earnout agreement addresses explicitly rather than leaving to trust.
Understand What Happens on Sale or Change of Control
If the buyer sells the business again, or the business is otherwise restructured during the earnout period, the agreement needs to specify what happens to the remaining earnout obligation. Without this provision, a buyer could theoretically sell the business shortly after acquiring it and leave the seller with an earnout claim against an entity that no longer has the resources or business operations to generate the metrics being measured.
Have a Dispute Resolution Mechanism Ready
Specify in advance how disputes about whether targets were met will be resolved — ideally through a defined arbitration or expert-determination process rather than open-ended litigation, which is slow and expensive relative to the amounts typically at stake in a small business earnout. Sellers should also budget mentally and financially for the real possibility of having to enforce the earnout, since a meaningful share of earnouts end up disputed to some degree.
Weigh Whether the Complexity Is Worth It
Earnouts make sense when there's a genuine valuation gap between buyer and seller that both sides want to bridge rather than walk away from. But every layer of complexity in an earnout — metric definitions, covenants, reporting rights, dispute mechanisms — adds legal cost and risk. For smaller deals, sometimes a lower guaranteed price with no earnout is genuinely a better outcome for a seller than a higher headline price with a meaningful chance of an uncollected contingent payment.
An earnout isn't inherently a bad deal structure, but it shifts real risk onto the seller in exchange for a higher potential price, and that risk is only manageable if the agreement anticipates the specific ways buyer and seller interests diverge once the business changes hands. The sellers who come out ahead are the ones who negotiated the mechanics as carefully as the headline number.
Comments
Post a Comment