How Three Family Shareholders Beat a $650,000 Claim

The situation

Yanni, Valentina and Gabriela had grown up watching their parents build a commercial electrical contracting business in Mississauga from a two-person operation into a company doing steady work for property managers and general contractors across the region. When their parents retired, the three siblings took over as equal shareholders, and eighteen months before this story begins, they sold the company to a national contractor for roughly $22,000,000.

By the time of the sale, none of them worked in the business day to day. Yanni had moved into a role as an office manager for an unrelated company. Valentina had become a real estate agent. Gabriela split her time between family responsibilities and a small consulting practice. The sale was, in a real sense, the end of an era — and they had assumed the hardest part was behind them once the deal closed.

Share purchase agreements at this size are never simple handshakes. The agreement they signed included representations and warranties — formal promises about the state of the business, from its financial statements to its contracts to its compliance with employment law — backed by an indemnity: a promise to compensate the buyer if any of those promises turned out to be false and caused a loss. To back that promise, roughly $1,100,000 of the purchase price, about five percent, was held back in an escrow account for eighteen months rather than paid out at closing. The agreement also set an indemnity basket of $300,000 — a threshold the buyer's total claimed losses had to cross before any indemnity became payable at all — and once crossed, this particular agreement was a tipping basket, meaning the buyer could recover from the first dollar of loss, not just the amount above $300,000.

The buyer's claim

Two months before the escrow was due to be released, the siblings each received a notice of claim from the buyer's lawyers. The buyer alleged two breaches of the representations in the purchase agreement, together adding up to roughly $650,000 in losses, and said it intended to draw the entire amount from the escrow — with the possibility of pursuing further recovery beyond the escrow if the losses grew.

The first allegation concerned accounts receivable. The purchase agreement included a representation that the company's receivables — money owed to it by customers — were collectible in the ordinary course of business. The buyer said one customer account, worth about $400,000, had turned out to be effectively uncollectible, and treated this as a straightforward breach.

The second allegation concerned a warranty claim from a customer relating to installation work the company had completed before closing. A defect had surfaced in the wiring of a commercial property, and the customer was demanding remedial work. The buyer estimated the cost of the fix at roughly $250,000 and said this, too, breached the representations about the condition of completed work and outstanding liabilities.

Taken together, the buyer's position was that $650,000 in losses had crossed the $300,000 basket comfortably, entitling it to recover the full amount from the escrow. For three people who no longer worked in the industry and had already moved on to other careers, a letter alleging $650,000 in liability was alarming — and the looming escrow release date meant there was real pressure to respond quickly.

What we did

1. Went back to the disclosure schedules before touching the numbers. Representations in a purchase agreement are almost always qualified by disclosure schedules — lists attached to the agreement identifying known issues that the seller is not on the hook for, because the buyer was told about them before signing. We compared the receivables representation against the schedules and found that the disputed $400,000 customer account had in fact been specifically flagged as doubtful in a schedule attached to the agreement at signing. A matter that was disclosed cannot, by the agreement's own terms, form the basis of a breach claim — the buyer had priced the deal knowing about that account.
2. Tested the warranty claim against the actual scope of work and the survival period. We requested the buyer's supporting documentation for the $250,000 repair estimate and had it reviewed against the original installation contract and site records. The underlying defect was real, but the estimate included work well beyond what the original job covered, and included costs for upgrades the customer had requested independently of the defect. We also confirmed the claim had been brought within the agreement's survival period — the window after closing during which claims on this representation could still be made — so this piece could not be dismissed on a technicality; it had to be argued on the merits.
3. Commissioned an independent cost estimate for the actual repair. Using a contractor's assessment limited strictly to the defect itself, the realistic cost of remedial work came in at roughly $180,000, not $250,000 — a difference of about $70,000 attributable to unrelated upgrade work the buyer had folded into its claim.
4. Wrote a detailed response rejecting the receivables claim outright and disputing the inflated repair estimate. With the $400,000 receivables item removed as a disclosed matter and the warranty claim reduced to its properly substantiated cost of roughly $180,000, total recoverable losses fell to about $180,000 — below the $300,000 basket. Under a tipping basket, a claim that never crosses the threshold recovers nothing, not a reduced amount; the mechanics of the clause meant the shortfall in the buyer's number was decisive, not just persuasive.
5. Negotiated a release rather than let the dispute run to the escrow deadline. Rather than have the parties dig in and litigate over exact dollar figures near the threshold, we proposed a written settlement confirming the basket had not been met, releasing the full escrow to the family, and formally closing out the claim on both sides so no further demand could be made later on the same facts.

The outcome

The buyer's counsel pushed back initially, particularly on the receivables item, but once shown the executed disclosure schedule bearing the buyer's own signature acknowledging the doubtful account, that portion of the claim was dropped without much further argument. The warranty dispute took longer — roughly ten weeks of back-and-forth on the repair scope — before the parties settled on the independently estimated cost as the basis for calculation.

With the receivables claim gone and the warranty claim priced at roughly $180,000, the total fell well short of the $300,000 basket. Under the agreement's own terms, that meant no indemnity was payable at all. The escrow, roughly $1,100,000, was released to Yanni, Valentina and Gabriela in full, about four months later than the original schedule due to the dispute, along with a mutual release closing the matter permanently.

It was not a costless win. The family spent several months managing correspondence, gathering old project records, and living with the uncertainty of a six-figure claim hanging over money they had already mentally accounted for. But the underlying agreement they had signed, drafted with a proper disclosure process and a clearly negotiated basket mechanism, did exactly the job it was designed to do: it protected them from having to pay for a risk the buyer had already been told about, and it meant a disputed repair estimate could not simply be taken at face value.

What you can learn from this