Reps and Warranties Insurance Versus Indemnification: 2026 Guide
- Riley Johnston
- 2 days ago
- 16 min read
In 2026, the choice between reps and warranties insurance and traditional indemnification is transforming how business owners handle risk in M&A transactions. Today’s deals are more complex, with over 60% of US transactions above $50 million now using specialized risk solutions.
This guide breaks down the differences, benefits, and drawbacks of each approach. You’ll find step-by-step comparisons, real-world examples, and practical tools to help you decide.
Ready to protect your interests and maximize deal value? Use this 2026 guide to confidently choose the best risk allocation strategy for your next transaction.
Understanding Traditional Indemnification in M&A Transactions
Traditional indemnification has long been the backbone of risk allocation in mergers and acquisitions. Before reps and warranties insurance became mainstream, most deals relied on indemnification to protect buyers from post-closing surprises. Today, understanding this mechanism is vital for buyers and sellers evaluating risk management strategies.
What Is Traditional Indemnification in M&A?
In M&A, indemnification is a contractual tool. It requires the seller to compensate the buyer for losses arising from breaches of representations and warranties (R&Ws) or other agreed risks. This structure predates the rise of reps and warranties insurance.
Historically, indemnification was the only way to ensure post-closing accountability. It is still standard in deals under $20 million, where reps and warranties insurance may not be cost-effective. Indemnification terms are central to the purchase agreement and shape deal dynamics.
Key Components of Indemnification
Several elements define how indemnification works in practice:
Representations and Warranties (R&Ws): <li>Fundamental R&Ws: Core facts like ownership and authority.
General R&Ws: Broader business matters.
Seller compensates buyer for breaches, pre-closing taxes, or specific risks.
General R&Ws: 12–24 months.
Fundamental R&Ws: 5–7 years.
Deductible basket: Seller pays only for losses above a set threshold.
Tipping basket: Once losses reach threshold, seller covers all losses.
Typical range: 0.5–1% of purchase price.
General R&Ws: 10–20% of purchase price.
Fundamental R&Ws: Up to 100%.
A portion of proceeds held for 12–24 months.
Amount: Often 5–10% of the purchase price.
Release: When survival period ends, less any claims.
Terms are tailored to each deal. Parties can adjust baskets, caps, or create carve-outs.
For a deeper dive into how escrows and indemnification compare with insurance-based solutions, see this Comparative Analysis of Escrows and RWI.
Comparing Indemnity Structures: Real Deal Data
Deal Size | Basket Type | Cap (%) | Escrow (%) | Survival (General/Fundamental) |
$10M (Private) | Deductible | 15 | 7 | 18mo / 5yr |
$30M (Tech) | Tipping | 10 | 5 | 24mo / 6yr |
$100M (PE Exit) | Deductible | 20 | 10 | 12mo / 7yr |
Most sub-$20M deals use only traditional indemnification. In contrast, over 70% of $100M+ deals now supplement or replace indemnification with reps and warranties insurance.
Indemnification in Practice: Frequency and Trends
According to 2025 industry data, 85% of deals below $20 million rely solely on indemnification. Only 30% of deals above $100 million use indemnification as the primary risk allocation, with the rest shifting to reps and warranties insurance.
Escrow amounts average 6% of the purchase price in smaller deals, compared to 2–3% when reps and warranties insurance is in place. Survival periods for general R&Ws rarely exceed 24 months, while fundamental R&Ws are protected much longer.
How an Indemnity Claim Works: Step-by-Step
Buyer discovers a breach of R&Ws after closing.
Notice of claim is sent to the seller within the survival period.
Seller reviews the claim and may dispute its validity.
Negotiation or mediation occurs if needed.
If accepted, funds are released from escrow or paid directly by the seller.
If disputed, parties may proceed to arbitration or litigation.
This process can extend for months, especially if disputes arise. Reps and warranties insurance streamlines claims by shifting recovery to an insurer, rather than the seller.
Seller Liability Exposure: Real-World Scenario
Consider a seller in a $30 million transaction. With traditional indemnification, 7% ($2.1 million) is held in escrow for 18 months. If a $500,000 claim arises, the seller’s proceeds are reduced. If no claims are made, the seller receives the balance after the survival period.
However, post-closing liability can linger for years. This exposure is a key reason many sellers now consider reps and warranties insurance, especially in larger or more complex deals.
What Is Reps and Warranties Insurance (RWI)?
Reps and warranties insurance has rapidly changed the landscape of M&A risk allocation. At its core, reps and warranties insurance is a specialized policy designed to protect buyers and sellers from financial losses resulting from breaches of representations and warranties in a purchase agreement.
This insurance solution emerged in the late 1990s. Over the past decade, it has become a mainstay in mid-market and large transactions, especially as deal complexity and valuation pressure rise. By 2026, reps and warranties insurance is viewed as a standard tool for managing post-closing risks.
How RWI Policies Work in Practice
A reps and warranties insurance policy typically covers financial losses caused by inaccuracies in representations and warranties made during an M&A deal. Most policies in 2026 are buyer-side, with over 90% of new policies purchased by buyers seeking direct recourse to an insurer rather than the seller.
Key mechanics include:
Coverage scope: Most general and fundamental representations and warranties are covered, but known issues, forward-looking statements, and certain high-risk areas (like environmental, tax, or cyber) are commonly excluded.
Policyholder: Buyer-side policies dominate, offering buyers direct access to insurance proceeds.
Retention (deductible): Usually set at 0.5-1% of deal value.
Policy limits: Coverage typically equals 10% of the deal value.
Policy periods: Three years for general reps and warranties, six years for fundamental reps and warranties.
Exclusions: Known breaches, environmental liabilities, and other high-risk areas are often carved out.
Underwriting: Requires robust diligence, detailed disclosure schedules, and a pre-closing review by the insurer. The underwriting process can take 2-4 weeks and may cost $30,000-$50,000 in fees, in addition to premiums.
Comparing RWI Policy Costs by Deal Size
Deal Size | Premium (2-3%) | Retention (0.5-1%) | Underwriting Fees | Coverage Limit (10%) |
$20 million | $400K-$600K | $100K-$200K | $30K-$50K | $2 million |
$30 million | $600K-$900K | $150K-$300K | $30K-$50K | $3 million |
$100 million | $2M-$3M | $500K-$1M | $40K-$65K | $10 million |
In 2025, more than 60% of US deals over $50 million included reps and warranties insurance, according to a recent Survey on RWI Usage Trends. Usage continues to rise as both buyers and sellers seek cleaner, faster closes and more predictable outcomes.
Step-by-Step: Securing RWI in Your Deal
Engage a broker: Start early to identify options for reps and warranties insurance.
Share deal documents: Provide the insurer with the draft purchase agreement and disclosure schedules.
Undergo diligence: Complete a thorough diligence process, focusing on financial, legal, and operational risks.
Negotiate policy terms: Work with the insurer to finalize coverage, exclusions, and pricing.
Bind the policy: Pay the premium and execute the policy before closing.
Manage claims: If a breach occurs post-closing, file a claim directly with the insurer.
Real-World Example: Clean Exit with RWI
Consider a private equity seller exiting a $100 million business. By using reps and warranties insurance, the seller avoids a large escrow and retains 99% of proceeds at closing. The buyer, meanwhile, gains insurance-backed recourse for breaches, streamlining negotiations and reducing the risk of post-closing disputes.
Reps and warranties insurance offers flexibility, certainty, and efficiency for both buyers and sellers. As adoption increases, understanding its mechanics and process becomes essential for successful dealmaking in 2026.
Comparing Traditional Indemnification and RWI: Key Differences
Navigating the choice between traditional indemnification and reps and warranties insurance is now central to M&A risk management. Both solutions address post-closing risks but differ in structure, cost, and impact on negotiations. Below, we break down the critical differences, costs, and limitations, with real-world examples and actionable insights.
Core Structural Differences
Traditional indemnification and reps and warranties insurance allocate risk differently in M&A transactions. Understanding these core mechanics is vital for both buyers and sellers.
Key Differences:
Recourse: In indemnification, buyers seek recovery directly from sellers. With reps and warranties insurance, claims are made against an insurer.
Risk Bearer: Seller carries risk in indemnification. Insurer assumes risk in RWI.
Negotiation Dynamics: Indemnification often leads to protracted negotiations, while RWI can streamline discussions and reduce tension.
Relationship Impact: Direct claims can strain post-closing relationships. RWI preserves goodwill by shifting disputes to a third party.
Comparison Table:
Feature | Indemnification | Reps and Warranties Insurance |
Recourse | Seller | Insurer |
Risk Bearer | Seller | Insurer |
Escrow/Holdback | Common | Often reduced/eliminated |
Survival Periods | 12-24m (general), 5-7y (fundamental) | 3y (general), 6y (fundamental) |
Negotiation Flexibility | High | Moderate |
Step-by-Step: How Claims Are Handled
Buyer discovers a breach.
Under indemnification, buyer notifies seller, triggering negotiation or dispute.
With reps and warranties insurance, buyer files a claim with the insurer, who investigates and pays if covered.
Example: In a $50M deal, using RWI eliminated the need for a $5M escrow, speeding up closing and reducing tension between parties.
Cost Considerations
Cost is a major factor in deciding between indemnification and reps and warranties insurance. Each approach impacts deal economics differently.
Indemnification Costs:
No upfront premium.
Legal fees for negotiation and claim management.
Escrow: Typically 10-20% of purchase price, held for up to two years.
RWI Costs:
Premiums: 2-3% of coverage, minimum $100K-$150K.
Underwriting fees: $30K-$50K common in 2026.
Due diligence: Deeper diligence required, raising legal and consulting expenses.
Escrow often reduced to 0.5% or waived entirely.
Recent Data:
Over 60% of US deals above $50M now use reps and warranties insurance.
RWI premium rates have dropped, with Decline in RWI Premiums reporting significant decreases in 2023.
Cost Breakdown Table:
Deal Size | Indemnification (Escrow, Legal) | RWI (Premium, Fees, Reduced Escrow) |
$20M | $2M escrow, $50K legal | $200K premium, $30K fees, $100K escrow |
$50M | $5M escrow, $80K legal | $1M premium, $40K fees, $250K escrow |
$100M | $10M escrow, $120K legal | $2M premium, $50K fees, $500K escrow |
Step-by-Step: Estimating RWI Costs
Calculate deal value.
Estimate 2-3% of coverage for premium.
Add underwriting and diligence fees.
Factor in reduced escrow, if applicable.
Example: In a $30M transaction, sellers avoided tying up $3M in escrow by opting for RWI, even after paying a $600K premium.
Coverage and Limitations
Coverage differences between indemnification and reps and warranties insurance can decide which solution fits your deal.
Indemnification:
Covers all negotiated reps and warranties, subject to baskets, caps, and survival periods.
Seller’s liability is limited by escrow and their financial health.
RWI:
Covers unknown breaches of reps and warranties.
Exclusions: Known issues, forward-looking statements, environmental, tax, and cyber risks are often not covered.
Retention (deductible) is 0.5-1% of deal value.
Policy limits usually 10% of deal value.
Survival: 3 years for general, 6 years for fundamental reps and warranties.
Statistics:
90%+ of RWI policies are buyer-side in 2026.
Claim frequency for RWI is rising, with payouts in over 20% of insured deals.
Comparison Table:
Feature | Indemnification | RWI |
Scope | Custom, broad | Standardized, some limits |
Exclusions | Negotiated | Policy-defined |
Max Liability | Up to purchase price | Up to policy limit |
Survival Periods | Up to 7 years | Up to 6 years |
Step-by-Step: Filing an RWI Claim
Identify loss and confirm it relates to a covered breach.
Notify insurer within policy period.
Provide supporting documents.
Insurer investigates and decides on payout.
Example: A buyer faced a $500K loss for a tax issue excluded from RWI. They could not recover under the policy, highlighting the need to review exclusions carefully.
Pros and Cons for Sellers
Understanding the pros and cons of traditional indemnification and reps and warranties insurance is crucial for sellers aiming to optimize deal outcomes. Sellers should evaluate each approach based on risk exposure, deal size, and transaction goals. Let’s break down the key factors.
Advantages of Traditional Indemnification
Traditional indemnification remains a standard in deals under $20 million, with about 70% of such transactions relying solely on this method. Sellers benefit from:
Direct control over the claims process
Lower upfront costs, as there is no insurance premium
Simpler documentation and fewer third-party requirements
For example, in a recent $10 million manufacturing sale, the seller avoided a $55,000 reps and warranties insurance premium by opting for indemnification. The process required only a basic escrow arrangement and standard representations and warranties.
Step-by-step:
Seller negotiates terms and agrees to limited indemnity.
Funds are held in escrow, typically 10% of the purchase price.
If no claims arise, the escrow is released after 12–24 months.
This approach can be particularly attractive for sellers who are confident in their business disclosures and want to minimize closing costs. However, it’s important to balance these advantages against the potential for post-closing liability.
Drawbacks of Traditional Indemnification
While traditional indemnification avoids insurance costs, it creates ongoing risk for sellers. Key drawbacks include:
Post-closing liability exposure, often lasting up to 7 years for fundamental reps
Funds tied up in escrow or holdback, typically 10–20% of deal value
Administrative burden of responding to claims and possible disputes
For instance, a seller in a $15 million technology transaction had $1 million withheld in escrow for 18 months, delaying access to those proceeds. If a claim is made, the seller must negotiate directly with the buyer, which can strain relationships and reputation.
Statistics show that, in deals over $100 million, only 10% use indemnification alone, reflecting the increased risk and potential for larger claims. Sellers must be prepared for the administrative and financial implications.
Advantages of RWI for Sellers
Reps and warranties insurance offers significant benefits for sellers seeking a clean exit. More than 60% of US deals above $50 million used RWI in 2025, with over 90% being buyer-side policies.
Top benefits:
Immediate access to 98–99% of sale proceeds at closing
Minimal or no post-closing liability, as the insurer assumes most risk
Enhanced deal certainty and faster closings
Private equity and family-owned businesses favor RWI for the clean exit it provides. In a $100 million software exit, the seller retained 99% of proceeds at closing, with only 0.5% held as retention under the reps and warranties insurance policy.
For sellers looking to maximize value and minimize risk, resources like the Maximize Business Sale Value guide can help align pre-sale strategies with effective risk allocation.
Drawbacks of RWI for Sellers
Despite its benefits, reps and warranties insurance is not without limitations for sellers:
Premiums can range from 2–3% of coverage, sometimes split with the buyer
Underwriting requires extensive disclosure and due diligence
Policy exclusions may leave gaps, especially for known issues
A real-world example: In a $40 million industrial sale, a known environmental issue was excluded from the reps and warranties insurance, exposing the seller to potential liability.
Another concern is insurer subrogation rights, which, while rare, can result in the insurer seeking recovery from the seller if there is fraud or intentional misrepresentation. Sellers must carefully review policy terms and ensure full disclosure to avoid surprises after closing.
Comparison Table: Seller Pros & Cons
Factor | Traditional Indemnification | Reps and Warranties Insurance |
Upfront Cost | Low | Moderate to High (2–3% premium) |
Post-Closing Liability | High | Very Low |
Escrow/Holdback | 10–20% of value | 0.5–1% of value |
Deal Certainty | Moderate | High |
Administrative Burden | High | Low |
Speed of Closing | Moderate | Fast |
Pros and Cons for Buyers
Buyers in M&A deals face crucial choices when allocating risk. The debate between traditional indemnification and reps and warranties insurance is more relevant than ever. To help you make the right decision, here is a breakdown of the key pros and cons for buyers, backed by data, examples, and expert insights.
Advantages of Traditional Indemnification
Traditional indemnification offers direct recourse for buyers. This method has been a staple in deals for decades and still holds advantages, especially in smaller transactions.
Buyers negotiate terms directly with sellers.
Indemnity claims are often resolved faster in straightforward cases.
Legal costs are typically lower due to less complex diligence.
Indemnification terms can be tailored to the specific deal.
Step-by-step Example:
Buyer discovers a breach post-closing.
Buyer notifies seller under the agreement.
Seller responds and negotiates resolution.
Buyer receives payment from escrow or seller.
Real-world example: In a $5M deal, a buyer successfully recovers $500K for a breach, highlighting the reliability of indemnification for smaller transactions.
The reps and warranties insurance market recognizes that buyers value this control and customization.
Drawbacks of Traditional Indemnification
Despite its strengths, traditional indemnification presents several risks for buyers. Data shows that nearly 40% of buyers in deals over $30M face delayed or incomplete recoveries.
Recovery depends on seller's financial health and willingness to pay.
Escrow or holdback funds may not cover all losses.
Disputes can lead to protracted negotiations or litigation.
Buyers must accept ongoing uncertainty post-closing.
Key Statistic Table:
Issue | Indemnification Only |
Seller insolvency risk | High |
Escrow coverage | 10-20% of deal value |
Average claim time | 6-18 months |
Example: Buyer in a $30M deal is unable to collect $1.2M after the seller files for bankruptcy, exposing the risk of relying solely on indemnity.
For deals where reps and warranties insurance is available, buyers increasingly weigh these drawbacks.
Advantages of RWI for Buyers
Reps and warranties insurance offers buyers a powerful risk management tool, especially in larger or more complex deals. As of 2025, over 60% of US deals above $50M use RWI.
Recovery is backed by an insurer, not dependent on seller's finances.
Broader recourse, including if the seller is unavailable or unwilling.
Negotiations are streamlined, reducing deal friction.
Buyers can negotiate reduced or eliminated escrow requirements.
Step-by-step Guide:
Buyer obtains reps and warranties insurance during deal structuring.
Post-closing, buyer identifies a breach.
Buyer files a claim with the insurer.
Insurer investigates, then pays out eligible claims.
Example: In a $100M tech deal, buyer secures a $3M payout from the insurer, ensuring certainty and speed of recovery that traditional indemnification could not match.
Buyers pursuing larger deals often view reps and warranties insurance as critical for deal certainty.
Drawbacks of RWI for Buyers
Reps and warranties insurance also brings challenges for buyers. While claims are on the rise, not all are paid in full.
Policies include exclusions, such as known issues or cyber risks.
Retention amounts (0.5-1% of deal value) mean buyers cover initial losses.
Underwriting is intensive, increasing legal and diligence costs.
Claims with insurers can be complex and time-consuming.
A recent M&A Insurance Claims Report revealed that, in 2025, 20% of RWI claims were denied due to policy exclusions.
Example: Buyer’s $250K claim is denied because the loss was tied to a pre-closing tax issue, which was excluded from the policy.
Buyers must carefully review reps and warranties insurance policies to understand coverage and limitations.
When to Use RWI vs. Indemnification: Decision Factors
Choosing between reps and warranties insurance and traditional indemnification is a pivotal step in modern M&A strategy. In 2025, over 60% of US transactions above $50 million used reps and warranties insurance, while deals under $20 million relied on indemnification 70% of the time. How do you determine which approach fits your transaction?
Key Decision Factors
Consider these main factors when evaluating risk allocation in your deal:
Deal Size: Reps and warranties insurance is most common in deals over $20 million. Indemnification dominates smaller transactions.
Industry and Risk Profile: Highly regulated sectors such as tech and healthcare often favor reps and warranties insurance for added security.
Buyer and Seller Sophistication: Private equity buyers and sellers typically prefer insurance, while family-owned businesses may lean toward indemnification.
Exit Preferences: Sellers seeking a clean exit with minimal post-closing liability usually opt for reps and warranties insurance.
Timeline and Speed: Insurance can shorten the closing timeline by reducing negotiation over escrows and caps.
Decision Matrix:
Factor | RWI Preferred | Indemnification Preferred |
Deal Size | $20M+ | <$20M |
Industry Risk | High (Tech, Health) | Low (Manufacturing, Retail) |
Exit Preference | Clean exit | Seller accepts liability |
Sophistication | PE, VC, Corporates | Family, Small Business |
Timeline | Accelerated closing | Flexible timeline |
Real-World Examples
Private Equity Exit: In a $100 million tech deal, the seller used reps and warranties insurance. This enabled a near-complete payout at closing and eliminated years of potential liability.
Family-Owned Business: A $15 million manufacturing company sale used traditional indemnification. The seller accepted escrow and a two-year survival period, prioritizing lower upfront costs over immediate access to all proceeds.
These examples highlight how deal size and exit goals drive the choice between reps and warranties insurance and indemnification.
Step-by-Step Guide: Evaluating the Best Fit
Follow this process to select your risk allocation strategy:
Assess Your Deal: Analyze transaction size, industry, and complexity.
Gauge Risk Appetite: Decide if you want a clean exit or are willing to accept post-closing exposure.
Evaluate the Seller’s Financial Strength: For indemnification, ensure the seller can cover potential claims.
Check RWI Availability and Cost: Obtain quotes and compare premiums, typically 2-3% of coverage.
Negotiate Key Terms: Set baskets, caps, and survival periods based on your chosen approach.
Conduct Diligence: Thorough diligence is critical, especially for reps and warranties insurance.
Finalize Documentation: Review all policy and purchase agreement terms.
For a deeper dive into the essential steps of a successful business exit, including risk mitigation strategies, see Critical Steps for Small Business Exits.
By following these steps, business owners can confidently choose between reps and warranties insurance and traditional indemnification to protect their interests and ensure a smooth transaction.
Practical Steps for Implementing the Right Risk Allocation Strategy
Choosing the best risk allocation structure in M&A requires a systematic approach. Whether you lean toward traditional indemnification or reps and warranties insurance, careful planning maximizes protection and deal value.
Step-by-Step Guide: Implementing Your Risk Strategy
Assess Deal Size and Complexity <li>Is the transaction above $20M? Larger deals often favor reps and warranties insurance.
Consider industry norms and regulatory factors.
Evaluate Risk Tolerance <li>Do you prefer a clean exit or are you willing to retain some post-closing exposure?
Sellers seeking immediate liquidity usually opt for RWI.
Analyze Seller’s Financial Strength <li>For indemnity, assess if the seller can cover claims.
For RWI, focus on insurer’s credit risk instead.
Review Availability and Cost of RWI <li>Check if reps and warranties insurance is accessible for your deal size and sector.
Typical premiums range from 2-3% of coverage, with minimum costs around $100K.
Negotiate Key Terms <li>Discuss baskets (deductible vs. tipping), caps, survival periods, and exclusions.
Tailor terms to your deal’s risk profile.
Conduct Thorough Diligence <li>RWI requires comprehensive diligence for underwriting.
Start diligence early to avoid delays.
Finalize Documentation <li>Review policy documents and purchase agreement language.
Ensure all reps and warranties insurance terms are clearly defined.
Prepare for Post-Closing Management <li>Set up escrow release schedules or claims processes as needed.
Assign responsibilities for managing RWI claims.
Practical Checklist for Buyers and Sellers
Step | Buyer Responsibility | Seller Responsibility |
Assess Deal Size | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Evaluate RWI Availability | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Analyze Seller’s Financials | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Negotiate Terms | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Conduct Diligence | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Review Documentation | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Claims Management Prep | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Both parties should engage legal and financial advisors throughout the process.
Real-World Example: Timeline for RWI in a $50M Deal
Week 1: Initial assessment, choose reps and warranties insurance.
Week 2: Submit application, begin underwriting.
Week 3: Complete diligence, negotiate policy terms.
Week 4: Finalize policy, close transaction.
Average RWI underwriting timeline in 2025 is 2-4 weeks.
In a recent $50M technology acquisition, RWI enabled the seller to receive 98% of proceeds at closing, with only 0.5% held in retention. The buyer gained insurer-backed coverage for general and fundamental representations.
Integrating Trends and Final Tips
Staying informed on current trends in exit planning and deal structuring is crucial. Many business owners now leverage reps and warranties insurance to streamline closings and reduce post-closing disputes. For deeper insights on how these innovations are shaping the M&A landscape, review the Exit Planning Trends for Business Owners guide.
By following this structured approach, buyers and sellers can confidently implement the right risk allocation strategy for their next transaction.
Tables and Real-World Examples: Visualizing the Differences
Quickly compare how reps and warranties insurance and indemnification stack up in real deals. The table below highlights key features, costs, and typical coverage:
Feature | Indemnification | Reps and Warranties Insurance |
Typical Use | <$20M deals | >$30M deals |
Escrow/Holdback | 10-20% | 1% or less |
Premium/Cost | N/A | 2-3% of coverage amount |
Claim Frequency (2025) | 30% | 20% |
Adoption Rate (2025) | 70% | 60% (>$50M US deals) |
Step-by-step: How claims are handled
Indemnification: Claim made, seller reviews, possible negotiation, payout from escrow.
RWI: Claim filed with insurer, insurer evaluates, payout if within coverage.
Case Example:
$100M private equity exit: Seller used reps and warranties insurance, received 99% proceeds at close, no post-closing liability.
For more context on choosing between these strategies, see Common Business Exit Strategy Types.
As you’ve seen in this guide, understanding the differences between reps and warranties insurance and traditional indemnification is crucial for protecting your interests and maximizing value during an exit. Every business and every deal is unique—so it’s important to know where you stand today before making these important decisions. If you’re ready to explore your options or want a clearer picture of your business’s current position, you can take the first step right now. Start Your Exit Readiness Assessment and gain tailored insights to help you exit on your terms.
Comments