Sandbagging in M&A transactions is increasingly relevant in both deal structuring and commercial litigation. Proper contractual regulation can ultimately determine the success or failure of a warranty claim.
In general terms, sandbagging refers to the buyer’s ability to claim damages for breach of representations and warranties, even where the buyer had prior knowledge of the inaccuracy before closing.
The concept of sandbagging in M&A deals
In the context of business acquisitions, sandbagging arises when the buyer identifies a potential risk during the due diligence process but proceeds with the transaction and later brings a claim for breach of warranties.
This situation is particularly common in cross-border deals and plays a central role in commercial disputes, where contractual interpretation is decisive.
Under Spanish law, there is no specific statutory regulation governing the buyer’s prior knowledge and its effect on warranty claims. Courts therefore rely on:
- Principles of contractual interpretation
- Party autonomy (Article 1255 of the Spanish Civil Code – freedom of contract)
- The principle of good faith
- Contractual allocation of risk
In this context, contractual drafting is critical.
Pro-sandbagging and anti-sandbagging clauses
The way sandbagging is addressed in the contract is key to anticipating the outcome of potential disputes.
Anti-sandbagging clauses
Anti-sandbagging clauses restrict or exclude the buyer’s right to claim if it had prior knowledge of the breach before closing.
From this perspective:
- The buyer is deemed to assume the risk
- Good faith is reinforced
- Opportunistic behaviour is discouraged
Where no express clause exists, sellers often rely on this argument in litigation.
Pro-sandbagging clauses
Conversely, pro-sandbagging clauses allow the buyer to bring claims regardless of prior knowledge.
This approach is based on:
- Representations and warranties as a risk allocation mechanism
- Seller’s liability for their accuracy, irrespective of the buyer’s awareness
- The fact that due diligence does not replace contractual obligations
These clauses are typically heavily negotiated.
The importance of contractual drafting in commercial litigation
The presence—or absence—of sandbagging clauses has direct consequences in dispute resolution.
Where the contract expressly regulates the issue:
- Courts and arbitral tribunals prioritise party intent
- Legal uncertainty is reduced
- Disputes are easier to resolve
Where the contract is silent:
- Disputes become more complex
- The buyer’s knowledge is scrutinised
- Due diligence disclosures are analysed
- Good faith principles are applied
In such cases, outcomes are less predictable.
Current trends in M&A transactions
There is a growing trend to expressly regulate sandbagging in M&A contracts.
This reflects:
- Increasing deal sophistication
- A rise in warranty-related disputes
- The need for legal certainty
- Influence of international standards
As a result, contracts increasingly define:
- The scope of relevant knowledge
- The right to claim
- Risk allocation between buyer and seller
Conclusion
Sandbagging is a key issue in both commercial litigation and M&A structuring.
Although not expressly regulated under Spanish law, its practical impact is undeniable. Contractual drafting can determine the viability of claims and the ultimate allocation of risk.
Careful legal planning and precise drafting are therefore essential to minimise disputes and ensure transactional certainty.
Frequently Asked Questions
It is the buyer’s ability to claim for breach of warranties despite prior knowledge of the issue.
No. Courts rely on contractual interpretation and general legal principles.
Pro-sandbagging allows claims despite knowledge; anti-sandbagging prevents them.
Courts assess the case based on good faith, due diligence and the party’s intent.
Because it can determine whether a warranty claim succeeds.
Are you negotiating an M&A transaction or reviewing a share purchase agreement?
