Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

In many exit scenarios, the buyer's stated commitment to invest in a product roadmap can drift as integration pressure, budget shifts, or leadership changes occur. To prevent this drift, sellers should insist on tangible performance covenants that tie investment milestones to verifiable milestones and payment triggers. Start by defining a baseline: what product investments are contemplated, the timeline for each milestone, and the expected outcomes. Then attach these milestones to specific, objective criteria—such as release dates, feature completions, user engagement metrics, or revenue contributions. The covenants must be measurable, auditable, and enforceable, with clear remedies if targets are missed. This reduces ambiguity and creates accountability from day one of the deal.

The most effective covenants combine milestones with consequence structures. For example, a covenant could require ongoing funding for a certain period, with a holdback or earnout adjustment if investment lags behind agreed targets. Include a mechanism for quarterly or biannual progress reviews, and grant independent third-party verification when appropriate. To avoid disputes, specify how data will be collected, who bears the cost of verification, and what happens in case of conflicting interpretations. Equally important is clarity about remedies: partial releases, adjustments to purchase price, or stepped-down rights should be defined so both sides understand the path to resolution.

When defining performance covenants, it helps to anchor them in the strategic rationale of the product investment. Describe not only what will be funded, but why it matters for the buyer's market position and customer value. Tie funding to anticipated milestones such as new market entry, critical integrations, or scale-up of a flagship capability. The document should spell out the exact dollar amounts, funding windows, and decision rights for the buyer's management team. Consider adding staged funding contingent on achieving intermediate results. This structure keeps both parties focused on long-term outcomes rather than short-term appearances.

Risk allocation is another vital dimension. The agreement should specify who bears risk for unforeseen delays, technical challenges, or regulatory hurdles. A thoughtful covenant can include grace periods, reforecasting allowances, and a process for revising milestones in good faith. To protect the seller, require notice of any material forecast deviation and a right to renegotiate terms if market conditions materially change. By anticipating potential disruptions and building flexible, transparent processes, the covenants become a practical governance tool rather than a punitive mechanism.

A practical approach is to create a tiered structure of funding triggers linked to concrete deliverables. For example, the first tranche could unlock upon completion of a documented product prototype with user validation, the second upon a successful beta deployment, and the final tranche upon a full commercial launch with defined revenue benchmarks. Each trigger should be accompanied by a specified measurement method—source code maturity, test results, or customer adoption metrics—that a neutral auditor can verify. This reduces ambiguity and creates a trackable path from development to commercial viability. It also helps the buyer manage risk by tying capital to demonstrable progress.

Additionally, consider incorporating salvage provisions if unexpected issues arise. If a milestone slips due to reasons outside both parties’ control, the agreement should allow a temporary adjustment rather than immediate penalties. Conversely, if delays stem from avoidable mismanagement, the covenants can include accelerated funding penalties or reallocation of resources to realign with the plan. The governance framework should define who approves any adjustments, the criteria used, and the timeline for implementing changes. The goal is to keep the product program agile without compromising accountability.

Verification is the backbone of trustworthy covenants. Establish independent, professional reviewers to audit progress against stated milestones. Decide whether audits are annual, biannual, or quarterly, and specify the scope—development milestones, financial outlays, or performance outcomes. Include a cost-sharing arrangement for audits and a right to contest results through a defined dispute mechanism. The existence of a credible, unbiased verification process reduces the propensity for opportunistic interpretation and helps both sides feel secure about the ongoing investment. A transparent governance structure signals seriousness about execution and long-term value creation.

To ensure continual focus, codify regular governance meetings with an agenda that prioritizes product performance, customer feedback, and market signals. These reviews should document decisions, track deviations, and approve adjustments to the investment plan if required. Record-keeping is essential: maintain a centralized repository of milestones, metrics, and correspondence that can be referenced during negotiations or in the event of dispute. By formalizing routine oversight, buyers and sellers create a disciplined cadence that sustains momentum and mitigates post-close friction. This discipline often becomes a competitive advantage in competitive deal environments.

Remedies for underperformance should be proportionate and clearly sequenced. Start with remediation steps: reallocation of resources, revised timelines, or additional due diligence to diagnose root causes. If targets remain unmet, consider financial remedies such as earnouts reduction, holdbacks, or accelerated payment schedules tied to corrected milestones. It is critical to specify timelines for cure periods and the conditions that trigger each remedy. A well-crafted remedy framework preserves deal value while ensuring accountability. It also demonstrates to all stakeholders that the buyer is serious about turning investment promises into tangible outcomes.

The negotiation should also address market exit risks and strategic shifts. If the buyer anticipates a pivot or change in strategy that could deprioritize the product, require corresponding adjustments to the covenants. This can include sunset provisions, reallocation rights, or negotiated buyouts of the investment commitments under defined market conditions. These clauses protect the seller from goodwill erosion and ensure the agreement remains viable even if market dynamics evolve. Transparent risk-sharing provisions support a steadier integration process and reduce post-close tension.

Finally, build incentives that reward genuine execution rather than mere compliance. Consider tying a portion of the purchase price to achieved outcomes or to the sustained impact of the product investment over a defined post-close period. By aligning incentives with measurable results, you encourage disciplined execution and long-term collaboration. Ensure that incentive calculations are straightforward, with clear formulas and a transparent auditor’s role. This alignment helps prevent innocent drift and keeps both parties focused on real value creation, even as organizational priorities shift after closing.

In practice, successful covenants emerge from collaborative drafting and early scenario planning. Engage both legal counsel and product leadership in workshops that map potential deal realities, identify critical milestones, and agree on verification standards. Use hypothetical stress tests to reveal where ambiguity might hide and refine language accordingly. The objective is a covenant package that is rigorous yet workable, capable of guiding behavior in normal operations and during rough patches. With thoughtful preparation, you protect the investment’s integrity and set the stage for a buyer who remains committed to the product's success long after the deal closes.