This article deals with the general concepts and variations of a GSB, but it is by no means exhaustive. Specific transactions and companies in different sectors require different conditions and are often the subject of in-depth negotiations between the parties. This section does not take into account the laws of a particular jurisdiction and does not address antitrust or anti-competitive considerations that may be relevant in certain M-A transactions. In addition, SBPs may also be controlled or affected by existing shareholder agreements between the shareholders of a target company. 1. forward (or direct) mergers – the objective merges with the buyer taking into account all the assets, rights and liabilities of the objective (the objective is no longer a separate unit thereafter); Since the sale of shares is subject to the general rule of “careful buyers,” the law does not offer much protection to the buyer if unexpected debts or problems are brought to light after the sale of the business. In order to protect the buyer from such unforeseen costs, a DSG contains extensive guarantees from the seller, in which it provides statements and commitments on the state of the business and assets of the business, and possibly compensation in favour of the buyer allowing him to recover any losses incurred by the seller. The prior conclusion of alliances generally limits what a seller can do before closing. As a general rule, the agreements granted by the seller are heavier than those of the buyer, as the seller generally retains control of the destination until the transaction is concluded. Since promises to do or not to do certain things, pre-closing agreements are common for transactions with deferred closures in order to protect and preserve the value of the business acquired between the execution of the OSG and the completion of the acquisition. As a general rule, THE SPAs are signed, the purchase price is paid and the shares are transferred on the same day. There may sometimes be delays between the exchange and the conclusion of the agreement, especially when the preconditions for sale must be met. It would be rare for a provision of the choice of law to be excluded from a G.S.O.
(or other cross-border agreement). The absence of a legal choice clause in an GSO would expose the parties, among other things, to unnecessary costs and complex rules to determine which right to apply, including examining where the parties are and where their obligations must be met. In the context of international M-AEs, the non-fixing of the law governing the BSG could be a disaster related to a dispute, particularly if the buyer is based in one jurisdiction and the seller is based in another country, with subsidiaries and assets in several other jurisdictions.