Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

Negotiating working capital adjustments is a core risk management task in any acquisition, because it translates cash management expectations into a measurable standard that survives the change of control. Sellers want symmetry between historical performance and future conditions, while buyers seek assurance that the business maintains liquidity upon transfer. The negotiation should begin with a shared framework: define target working capital, specify measurement date and method, and agree on a post-closing true-up mechanism. Clarity here prevents disputes about seasonal fluctuations, unusual one-time items, or timing gaps. Stakeholders must articulate what counts as ongoing operations versus non-operating elements to avoid creeping definitions that favor either party later.

To craft effective definitions, teams should map the business cash cycle from revenue recognition to cash collection, inventory management, payables timing, and cost structure. This map becomes the backbone of the working capital covenant. As terms are drafted, it helps to distinguish normal operating expenditures from discretionary or extraordinary items. It is also essential to establish who documents and who audits the closing balance sheet. A well-structured schedule that includes illustrative examples of typical month-end adjustments can help both sides visualize how the final figure will be calculated. By anticipating common edge cases, negotiators reduce the likelihood of disputes over marginal variances at the moment of closing.

The first principle is to set a concrete target for working capital that reflects ordinary course operations. This involves analyzing historical averages, seasonality, and any known contracts that influence cash burn or inflows. The target should be expressed as a dollar amount or a range, with a transparent rationale. Moreover, the agreement must specify the exact data sources and cut-off dates for calculating the target, including whether adjustments for exchange rates or borrowings are permissible. By anchoring the target to verifiable data, both sides gain confidence that the measurement will not be swayed by arbitrary assumptions or last-minute reinterpretations during final negotiations.

A second key principle is to define the mechanics of post-closing adjustments with precision. The language should describe who conducts the measurement, when, and how discrepancies are resolved. The contract should require a closing balance sheet prepared by an independent accountant or a mutually agreed third party, followed by a sharp, predefined process for review and dispute resolution. It is valuable to specify timelines for each step and to require both sides to provide complete supporting documentation. Clear responsibility boundaries—what items are in-scope, what items are excluded, and what constitutes normal course operations—prevent scope creep and keep discussions constructive.

In practice, one of the most fruitful approaches is to create a detailed schedule of working capital components. This schedule enumerates accounts payable, accounts receivable, inventory levels, and other liquid assets or liabilities that influence the target. Each line item should include eligibility criteria, calculation methods, and typical ranges observed in prior periods. The agreement should also specify what constitutes a change in working capital due to business transformation, such as reorganized supply chains or divestitures, versus changes caused by normal operations. When the schedule is explicit, the closing process becomes a routine verification rather than a heated negotiation.

Another prudent tactic is to define adjustments for known one-time events. For instance, if a supplier dispute is resolved just before closing, counsel should decide how to treat this item—whether as a working capital adjustment or as a net purchase price adjustment separate from working capital. Similarly, tax-related cash flows, insurance reserves, or litigation settlements may require carve-outs or caps. The objective is to isolate non-recurring items from the baseline operating metrics. By explicitly handling these items, the deal avoids incentives to accelerate or delay payments to manipulate the closing figure. Consistency and predictability become the defining virtues of the agreement.

The role of third-party verification cannot be overstated. Engaging an accounting firm or valuation expert as an independent reviewer creates credibility in the numbers. The contract should specify the reviewer’s qualifications, the scope of work, and the standard of care applied during the assessment. Importantly, disputes should be channeled through a defined mechanism—such as mediation followed by arbitration if needed—so that disagreements do not derail the closing timeline. An experienced reviewer often identifies ambiguities that the drafting team missed, leading to faster consensus and fewer re-trades after signatures.

Communications discipline before and after signing is equally essential. Parties should exchange draft balance sheets, schedules, and supporting documents early in the process to flag potential ambiguities long before closing. Regular check-ins, joint data rooms, and version control practices reduce misalignment. It helps to assign accountable owners for each major section—receivables, payables, inventory—and require sign-offs before proceeding. This disciplined flow keeps expectations aligned, makes the true-up transparent, and reduces the likelihood that last-minute disagreements erupt as the funding and transfer occur.

Beyond technical precision, negotiations should address practical consequences of misalignment. For example, a miscalculated working capital target may trigger a holdback or escrows to secure funds during the post-closing period. The agreement should specify the mechanics for releases, the duration of any holdback, and the rights of each party to participate in the audit process. These provisions provide a balanced solution that protects both sides without creating a perverse incentive to overstate or understate the true balance. A well-crafted holdback clause can prevent cash-flow shortsightedness and reinforce trust.

The negotiation should also consider the timing of the closing relative to the business cycle. If the deal spans a season with volatile working capital needs, the parties may agree to a longer true-up period or a more conservative target. The key is to anticipate these timing effects and embed them in the definitions rather than leaving them to ad hoc interpretation at closing. Flexibility, when coupled with firm calculation rules, supports fair settlement and reduces pressure on negotiators to accept unfavorable terms to close quickly.

As a final practice, document all agreed definitions, methodologies, and procedures in a dedicated exhibit. The exhibit becomes the governing reference point should any ambiguity arise later. It should include sample calculations, a glossary of terms, and a clear amendment process. Keeping the exhibit up-to-date with any changes ensures that the deal remains coherent through post-signing adjustments. This living document protects both sides from drift in interpretation and provides a straightforward path to resolution if disputes surface during the close or shortly after.

In evergreen terms, preparation and precision are the true levers of successful exits. When buyers and sellers invest in airtight definitions for working capital adjustments, they reduce the probability of late-stage friction and costly renegotiations. The outcome is a fair settlement that reflects the business’s true operating state at the moment of transfer, not the vagaries of uncertain accounting. By combining data integrity, independent verification, and disciplined process governance, deal teams create a robust framework that endures beyond closing and supports sustainable value realization for both sides.