-Historically, Indian M&A transactions rarely featured break fees clauses in the transaction documents, but this is gradually changing. The COVID-19 era in particular saw a call for using break fees more often to hedge deal uncertainty. This note explores the concept of break fees and reverse break fee, their significance in M&A transactions, certain case studies involving break fees and reverse break fees, and their growing usage in the Indian market.

What are Break Fees and Reverse Break Fees?

Break Fee (Termination Fee):

A break fee is a pre-agreed sum that the seller or target company pays to the buyer if the transaction does not consummate due to specific events not performed by the seller. In other words, if the target/seller(s) backs out or triggers certain deal-breaking conditions (for example, breaching exclusivity obligations or not completing conditions precedent to closing, etc.), it owes the buyer a pre-fixed compensation amount. This break fee compensates the aggrieved buyer for the amount of time, costs (due diligence, legal fees etc.) and lost opportunity costs caused by the deal failure/stoppage. Typically, break fees range from about 1% to 3% of the deal value in mature markets, though it may vary. The amount is usually calculated to reflect a genuine pre-estimate of the buyer’s loss, without it being so high as to be considered punitive in nature.

Reverse Break Fee:

Conversely, a reverse break fee is a sum that the buyer agrees to pay the target if the buyer cannot complete the deal due to certain reasons, including, but not limited to, the buyer’s failure to secure financing for the acquisition, failure to complete the transaction by the agreed long stop date, and other such breaches by the buyer that lead to termination. Reverse break fees gained popularity through private equity deals, wherein buyers wanted the flexibility to walk away by paying a stipulated amount. They usually tend to be higher than break fees (often averaging around 4% of the deal value) since a failed deal can harm the targets’ business and the value (i.e., the target may lose time, reputation and other potential buyers). In essence, reverse break fees shift certain risks of non-completion onto the buyer, providing the target/seller(s), the comfort of penal compensation if the buyer does not consummate the transaction.

Both the constructs are voluntary, contractual deal protection mechanisms designed to encourage parties to go through with the agreement. Notably, Indian law and regulations do not specifically define these terms, and are contractual constructs influenced by global M&A practice.

Significance of Break Fees and Reverse Break Fees

Break fees and reverse break fees serve several important purposes in M&A transactions, especially in enhancing deal certainty and protecting parties from risks:

• Encouraging Commitment: The prospect of having to pay a fee/penalty for walking away keeps both parties committed to honouring the deal. In an M&A, no party wants to be seen as backing out lightly. The break fee thus acts as a deterrent against impulsive termination, where a party cannot simply walk out without financial consequences. This pressure helps ensure that both sides remain invested in satisfying conditions and closing the transaction.
• Compensating Efforts and Expenses: M&A deals involve extensive costs such as due diligence, legal fees, management time, opportunity costs, etc. If one side’s actions cause the deal to fail, a break fee provides the aggrieved party a framework to claim some of those costs. Essentially, it is a form of liquidated damages for breach/non-consummation of the deal.
• Increasing Deal Certainty: Break fees and reverse break fees can materially improve the likelihood of a deal closing. Studies of U.S. transactions have found that inclusion of a reasonable termination fee correlates with higher completion rates.[2] One research survey noted that out of 300 public company M&A deals over 2005–2010, 291 included break fee clauses, and deals with no (or very low) break fees had a significantly higher probability of failing.[3] The commitment mechanism thus gives the initial bidder greater confidence that the deal will go through, or at least that they will be compensated to some extent if it does not.
• Signalling Serious Intent: For sellers, especially, agreeing to a reverse break fee from the buyer can be a way to gauge the buyer’s seriousness and financial strength. For example, if a buyer is willing to put 3% of the deal value on the line, it signals confidence that they can close the deal. Similarly, a seller who agrees to a break fee signals they truly believe in the deal and are not simply using the offer to shop around, since they’ll pay a penalty if they stray. This mutual confidence can help both parties invest further in the process.

Some Case Studies in the Indian Context

Although break fees/reverse break fees were relatively uncommon in Indian M&A until recent years, several notable Indian deals have featured these clauses. Below are examples of how break fees or reverse break fees have been used (or contested) in Indian transactions, along with relevant legal case context:

• Apollo Tyres – Cooper Tire (2013): This M&A deal revolved around India’s Apollo Tyres, who agreed to acquire U.S.-based Cooper Tire & Rubber for $2.5 billion. The merger agreement included both a break fee and a reverse break fee, where Apollo would pay a $112.5 million reverse break fee if it failed to close, while Cooper would pay a $50 million fee if it walked away for other reasons. Ultimately, the deal fell apart amid multiple disputes: Apollo struggled with financing and sought to renegotiate price, and Cooper faced labour problems and opposition in its Chinese subsidiary. The collapse led to litigation in the Delaware Chancery Court. Notably, the court did not force Apollo to pay the $112.5 million, instead, it found that Cooper had itself breached certain obligations (like resolving labour issues) and therefore Cooper was not entitled to the reverse break fee. This case highlights that enforcement of break fees depends on the precise facts and contract terms and that courts will examine which party’s breach actually caused the failure.
• Zee Entertainment – Sony Merger (2022–24): A recent domestic example involving two Indian listed companies. Zee Entertainment Enterprises and Sony’s India unit signed a merger deal in 2022 to create a $10 billion media giant. The merger agreement reportedly included a break-up fee of approximately INR 750–800 crore, payable by Zee if the deal didn’t consummate. In early 2023, Sony decided to withdraw from the merger, citing closing conditions not being met despite 2 years of negotiations. Sony initiated arbitration in Singapore, seeking the USD 90 million termination fee from Zee. Zee countered that Sony’s withdrawal was wrongful and that Sony should instead pay the fee, especially since Zee had incurred around INR 400 crore in merger-related expenses. This led to disputes in Indian courts and an arbitral forum. Finally, in August 2024 the parties reached a settlement where both sides agreed to drop their claims for the USD 90 million termination fee and mutually release each other from obligations. The merger was later called off. This case shows that while a break fee clause existed, its enforcement became complicated by mutual accusations of breach. It reinforces that Indian parties do incorporate large break fees in deals, but collecting such fees may involve protracted legal battles or settlements if the deal termination itself is contentious.
• TAQA – Jaypee Power (2014): In an inbound investment deal, a consortium led by Abu Dhabi’s National Energy Co. PJSC (TAQA) agreed to acquire two hydropower plants from Jaypee Group in India for INR 9,689 crore. The deal included a reverse break fee of about INR 54 crore, meaning TAQA would pay this fee to Jaypee if the transaction fell through. In mid-2014, TAQA decided to withdraw from the acquisition, reportedly due to a change in investment strategy amid shifting market conditions. This invoked the reverse break fee obligation. This example, which is perhaps one of the early reverse break fees actually invoked in India, underlines that foreign buyers investing in India have agreed to such clauses to give comfort to Indian sellers.

Usage of Break Fee and Reverse Break Fee: Indian Context

The enforceability of break fees falls under India’s general law on liquidated damages and penalties in contracts. Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 governs stipulated damages, which holds that if a contract specifies a sum payable on breach, the aggrieved party is entitled to reasonable compensation not exceeding that sum. Indian courts have interpreted this to mean a pre-agreed amount is enforceable if it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but not if it is an unconscionable penalty.

Additionally, Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 addresses the effect of a party’s failure to perform their obligations on time. If time is of the essence of the contract and a promisor fails to perform within the stipulated time, the promisee may treat the contract as voidable, meaning the non-breaching party can rescind the contract and claim damages.

Accordingly, an exorbitant break fee (disproportionate to the deal size or actual costs) might be deemed a penalty and thus partly or wholly unenforceable in India. But a reasonable fee that can be justified as a fair estimate of due diligence costs or lost opportunities should be recoverable. Parties must be prepared to demonstrate that their agreed fee is a genuine recompense for the kind of losses they would suffer on a broken deal, which is why careful drafting and documentation of the rationale for the fee is advisable. Further, considerations under the extant foreign exchange laws of India in case the break fees or the reverse break fees are to be paid by resident Indian entities/persons to non-resident entities/persons as the same may require prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India.

A common technique to bolster the credibility of a break fee or reverse break fee is to set aside the amount in an escrow at the time of signing. If the deal falls through due to the buyer’s or the seller’s fault, the escrow funds can be released to the relevant counterparty immediately. This tackles the enforcement issue wherein the seller does not have to chase a breaching buyer through court for payment, since the money is already pre-secured.

Powerful Tools In Indian M&A

Break fees and reverse break fees are emerging as useful tools in Indian M&A, borrowing from global deal practice to address the age-old problem of transaction uncertainty. They provide a measure of protection for buyers and sellers who invest in a deal’s success. In India’s context, these clauses are contractually permitted and indeed increasingly seen in high-value transactions. Where properly used, break fees can increase deal certainty and even enhance credibility between parties. With judicious use, these clauses can facilitate smoother deals and provide remedies when things go wro