What Is a Material Adverse Effect?
A material adverse effect (MAE) — also called a material adverse change (MAC) — is a defined term in M&A purchase agreements that establishes the threshold for a significant negative change in the target company’s business, financial condition, or results of operations. The MAE definition is used throughout the agreement: in the buyer’s closing conditions (the “MAE closing condition”), as a qualifier on representations and warranties, and in interim covenants.
The MAE standard is fundamentally about risk allocation between signing and closing. If an MAE occurs during this period, the buyer may have the right to walk away from the transaction without paying a break-up fee — making the MAE definition one of the most heavily negotiated provisions in any M&A agreement.
The MAE Definition
Basic Structure
A typical MAE definition follows a two-part structure:
- The general standard — any event, change, or circumstance that has had (or would reasonably be expected to have) a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, or results of operations of the target company
- Carve-outs (exceptions) — a list of events that do not constitute an MAE, even if they adversely affect the target
Standard Carve-Outs
Sellers negotiate broad carve-outs to limit the buyer’s ability to invoke the MAE condition:
| Carve-Out Category | Rationale |
|---|---|
| General economic conditions | Affects all companies, not target-specific |
| Industry-wide changes | Sector headwinds are not a target-specific risk |
| Changes in law or regulation | Legislative risk is systemic |
| Changes in GAAP or accounting standards | Accounting changes affect all companies |
| Natural disasters, war, terrorism | Force majeure events |
| Pandemics and public health emergencies | Post-COVID, specifically negotiated |
| Effects of the transaction itself | Customer/employee reactions to the announced deal |
| Effects of the buyer’s actions | Buyer-caused disruption |
| Failure to meet projections | Performance vs. forecast is a symptom, not a cause |
Disproportionate Effect Exception
A critical negotiation point: many MAE definitions include a proviso that carve-outs do not apply “to the extent such event disproportionately affects the Company relative to similarly situated companies in the same industry.” This allows the buyer to invoke the MAE condition if an industry-wide event hits the target harder than its peers.
Invoking the MAE Condition
Legal Standard
Invoking an MAE to terminate a deal is extremely difficult. The Delaware Court of Chancery’s landmark decision in Akorn v. Fresenius (2018) — the first Delaware case to uphold an MAE termination — established key principles:
- The adverse effect must be durationally significant — not temporary or cyclical, but representing a sustained deterioration in the target’s earning power
- The standard is measured against the long-term value of the target, not short-term fluctuations
- The burden of proof falls on the party seeking to invoke the MAE (the buyer)
According to analysis by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, only a handful of MAE claims have succeeded in Delaware courts, reflecting the judicial view that the MAE standard requires truly extraordinary circumstances — not ordinary business risk.
Practical Threshold
The practical threshold for an MAE is severe: courts have suggested that a decline of 40% or more in the target’s earnings, sustained for more than a year, may qualify. Declines of 20-30% have generally been found insufficient.
MAE in Post-COVID M&A
The COVID-19 pandemic transformed MAE negotiations. Pre-2020, pandemic carve-outs were virtually nonexistent. Post-2020, they are standard in virtually every MAE definition. The key negotiation points include:
- Whether the pandemic carve-out covers “downstream” effects (supply chain disruption, remote work impacts)
- Whether the disproportionate effect exception applies to pandemic-related changes
- Whether government actions taken in response to a pandemic are separately carved out
APAC Context
Australia — Australian M&A practice uses MAC conditions that parallel the US MAE standard but with local variations. The Corporations Act’s scheme of arrangement framework provides limited scope for MAC conditions because the scheme must be approved by the court and shareholders, reducing the buyer’s unilateral termination rights.
Hong Kong — the Takeovers Code restricts the conditions that can be attached to a mandatory offer, making MAC conditions unavailable in mandatory bids. In voluntary offers, MAC conditions are permitted but the SFC scrutinises them to ensure they do not create subjective walk-away rights.
India — MAC clauses in Indian M&A transactions follow US and UK precedents, but Indian courts have limited jurisprudence on MAE interpretation. The uncertainty around judicial standards makes careful drafting of the MAE definition and carve-outs particularly important in Indian deals.
“The MAE clause is the last line of defence for buyers between signing and closing — but it is a defence that rarely succeeds,” observes Daniel Bae, founder of Amafi. “In APAC, where regulatory frameworks limit the availability of MAC conditions in certain transaction types, buyers must rely even more heavily on thorough due diligence and robust closing conditions.”
Negotiating M&A agreements across Asia Pacific? Amafi helps manage deal risk and transaction terms across the region. Learn more.