The price in the letter of intent assumes the company arrives with a normal amount of working capital in it. A purchase price adjustment attorney in Kuna negotiates what normal means, how it gets measured after closing, and what happens when the two sides calculate it differently.
Book Your Free Legal-Strategy CallCall 855-208-2049
Quick answer
A working capital adjustment compares the capital actually delivered at closing against an agreed target, and moves the price by the difference. The three terms that decide the outcome are the target itself, the accounting definitions used to measure it, and the procedure for resolving a disagreement over the final calculation.
Working capital adjustments arrive late in a negotiation and get less attention than anything else that moves money. The parties have agreed a price, diligence is finished, and a clause appears that can shift the number by a sum large enough to matter on a transaction this size.
The idea behind it is reasonable. A buyer paying for a going concern expects it to come with the receivables, inventory and payables that let it operate on Monday morning. If the seller collects aggressively and stops paying vendors in the final weeks, the buyer receives a hollower company for the same price.
Kuna companies make this unusually live. Construction-linked trades, agricultural services and distribution all have seasons, and a target set from the wrong months describes a company nobody recognizes in either direction.
The agreed working capital target that the closing balance is measured against. Setting it typically means averaging monthly balances across a trailing period and then negotiating adjustments for items the parties agree are not representative. Because the price moves dollar for dollar against this figure, the peg is a price term wearing accounting clothes.
The clause gets drafted late, borrowed from another deal, and references accounting principles applied consistently without saying consistently with what. Two competent accountants then produce different numbers from the same ledger, and both are defensible.
Settle the included and excluded categories, the treatment of reserves, and the sample calculation first. Agreeing a sample working capital statement from a recent month, attached as a schedule, turns an abstract definition into something both sides have already run.
With defined categories, an attached sample and a tight review procedure, the true-up becomes arithmetic. Where a genuine difference remains, it is narrowed to specific line items an independent accountant can decide quickly.
The target is usually built from a trailing twelve-month average of month-end balances, which smooths ordinary fluctuation. That works well for a business with steady volumes and badly for one whose year has a shape.
A Kuna trades contractor working residential development has receivables that balloon through the building season and collapse over winter. A twelve-month average is defensible for such a company, but closing in a trough against a twelve-month target hands the buyer a windfall, and closing at a peak hands the seller one. Neither reflects anything about the business.
The repairs are not complicated. Match the averaging period to the cycle, use a seasonally adjusted target that varies by closing month, or agree a narrow collar inside which no adjustment occurs at all. Each is a negotiation, and each is far cheaper to have before signing.
Most adjustment disputes are not about arithmetic. They are about whether a particular item belongs in the calculation at all, and the agreement either answers that or leaves it to a later argument.
The agreement should name the included categories explicitly and state the order of precedence: the defined terms first, then the sample statement attached as a schedule, then general accounting principles applied consistently with the company’s own historical practice. Without that hierarchy, a party can reach for whichever authority produces the answer it prefers.
Two statements exist. The estimate, delivered shortly before closing, which determines the money that actually moves on the day. The final statement, prepared after the books close, which determines what the price should have been.
Which side prepares the final statement is a negotiated point with real consequences, because the preparer frames the discussion and the other side is left responding. Buyers usually prepare it, since they hold the records after closing, and sellers accordingly need robust access rights to the underlying books to review it.
A defined period, commonly measured in weeks, in which the reviewing party must object in writing and itemize each disputed line. Anything not objected to becomes final. That deadline is a hard one, and a seller without access to the records cannot meet it, which is why the access right and the window are negotiated together.
A genuinely two-way adjustment pays the seller when working capital is delivered above target, not merely reducing the price when it falls below. One-way clauses appear regularly in first drafts and are worth catching.
A downward adjustment has to be paid from somewhere. Some agreements fund it from a separately held amount dedicated to this purpose, which avoids chasing a seller who has distributed the proceeds. That is a different arrangement from any amount held against breaches of the representations, and the two should not be confused in the drafting.
Adjustment clauses almost always send disagreements to an independent accounting firm rather than into a general dispute process. That choice is deliberate and sensible: the question is narrow, technical and suited to an expert determination that arrives in weeks.
The drafting still has to do several things. Name how the firm is selected if the parties cannot agree. Limit the firm’s remit to the specific items in dispute, so it cannot revisit agreed figures. Require it to pick a value within the range the two parties have proposed, which removes any incentive to submit an extreme position. State who pays, with the most workable approach allocating fees in proportion to how the determination lands.
Say plainly that the determination is final and binding absent manifest error. Without that sentence the parties have added a step rather than resolved anything.
In an agreement governed by Idaho law, the adjustment is read as a contract term like any other. The accountant’s determination holds because the parties agreed it would, and a party trying to escape it is arguing about the scope of what they signed rather than about the underlying accounting. That is a hard argument, which is the point of the clause.
It also means the drafting has to be internally consistent. A defined term used two ways, a review period that conflicts with the payment date, or a reference to a schedule that was never attached each become real problems months after everyone has moved on.
The useful time to hire a purchase price adjustment attorney in Kuna is while the target is still being set, not once a statement has been delivered. A purchase price adjustment attorney consultation in Kuna covers the peg, the definitions and the sample calculation together. Owners working with a purchase price adjustment attorney law firm serving Ada County reach Clark Meyers PC through the firm’s Nampa office, and Lee Clark is admitted in Idaho and California.
| Term | What it controls | What to settle before signing |
|---|---|---|
| The target | The benchmark the closing balance is measured against | The averaging period, any seasonal variation, and whether a collar applies |
| The definitions | Which items enter the calculation and how each is valued | Included categories, reserve methodology, and a sample statement attached as a schedule |
| The procedure | Who prepares, who reviews, and how a disagreement ends | Preparation deadline, review window, access to records, and the accountant’s remit |
Negotiating a working capital target on a Kuna deal?
Book Your Free Legal-Strategy CallThe bottom line
Settle the accounting definitions and attach a worked sample statement before negotiating the target, because the definitions decide what the target even measures. Then make sure the dispute clause limits the accountant to the contested line items and says the determination is final.
The adjustment ensures a buyer receives the company with a normal level of operating capital inside it, by comparing the balance delivered at closing against an agreed target and moving the price by the difference.
Targets are commonly built from an average of month-end balances across a trailing period, then adjusted by negotiation for items both sides accept are unrepresentative of how the company normally operates.
Companies tied to construction or agriculture carry very different balances in different months, so a single annual average measured against a closing date in a peak or a trough produces a transfer of value unrelated to performance.
Buyers usually prepare it because they hold the books after closing, which makes the seller’s right of access to the underlying records a term worth negotiating alongside the length of the review window.
Items not objected to in writing within the stated window generally become final and binding, so a seller without timely access to the supporting records can lose the ability to challenge the calculation entirely.
Agreements almost always refer disagreements to an independent accounting firm acting as an expert on the specific disputed items, with its determination stated to be final and binding absent manifest error.
Well-drafted clauses restrict the firm’s remit to the line items actually in dispute and require it to select a figure within the range the two sides have submitted, which removes the incentive to take extreme positions.
Two-way adjustments pay the seller when working capital is delivered above the target as well as reducing the price when it falls below, and one-way drafting favoring the buyer appears often enough in first drafts to be worth checking.
A collar is an agreed band around the target inside which no adjustment occurs at all, which suits companies whose balances fluctuate normally and spares both sides a true-up over ordinary movement.
Clark Meyers PC negotiates purchase price adjustments for Kuna buyers and sellers from the firm’s Idaho office at 4865 E. Franklin Rd in Nampa, serving Ada County from there. The firm does not maintain an office in Kuna.
Fill out the form below and we'll get back to you within 24 hours.
We've received your request and will be in touch within 24 hours.