The M&A Playbook (Part 3): Asset Purchase vs. Stock Purchase

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• The "Big Two": A Head-to-Head Battle
  • 1. The Stock Purchase (The "Buy the Whole House" Approach)
  • 2. The Asset Purchase (The "Cherry-Picking" Approach)
• The C-Suite's Dilemma: Why Would a Buyer Ever Do a Stock Purchase?
• The "Successor Liability" Trap
• The Advanced Option: The "Triangular Merger" (The Best of Both Worlds)
• At a Glance: Asset Purchase vs. Stock Purchase
• Conclusion: The Foundation of Your Risk-Mitigation Strategy

Introduction

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, we defined your strategy ("why") and your deal type ("what kind"). Now we arrive at the decision that is, arguably, more important than the final price: the legal structure of the deal.

This is where your General Counsel and CFO's advice is paramount. As your advisor, I can tell you this decision will dictate what you buy, what liabilities you inherit, and how you pay tax.

This is also the core conflict in any M&A negotiation. As the buyer, you will almost always prefer an asset purchase. The seller will almost always demand a stock purchase. Your negotiation over this single point—before you even get to price—will be a major part of the deal.

The "Big Two": A Head-to-Head Battle

You are not just "buying a company." You are executing a specific legal transaction. The two most common forms are fundamentally different.

1. The Stock Purchase (The "Buy the Whole House" Approach)

This is what most non-experts think of as an acquisition.

How it works: You buy the equity (shares of stock) of the target company directly from its shareholders. The target company itself remains intact; it just has a new owner (you).

The Critical Consequence: You acquire everything. You get all the assets, and—critically—you inherit all of its liabilities, known and unknown.

That old lawsuit from a disgruntled employee? That pending IRS audit? That environmental contamination from a factory 10 years ago? They are all your problem now.

2. The Asset Purchase (The "Cherry-Picking" Approach)

This is a more precise, surgical transaction.

How it works: You do not buy the company. You buy its assets. Your legal team and the seller create a detailed list of only the assets you want (e.g., cash, equipment, inventory, customer contracts, intellectual property).

The Critical Advantage: You can "cherry-pick" the assets you want and, just as importantly, you can leave behind the liabilities you don't want. The seller's corporate shell (which you did not buy) remains responsible for those liabilities.

The Tax Benefit: For your CFO, this is the main draw. The buyer gets a "step-up" in the tax basis of the acquired assets. This allows you to claim greater depreciation and amortization deductions in the future, which can be a significant financial benefit.

The C-Suite's Dilemma: Why Would a Buyer Ever Do a Stock Purchase?

At this point, you are thinking, "I will simply demand an asset purchase. This is a no-brainer."

Not so fast. The seller will often refuse, and for good reasons. And sometimes, you may be forced to do a stock purchase.

Reason 1: Seller Refusal (Taxes and a "Clean Break"). The seller will almost always demand a stock sale. It gives them a "cleaner break" from the business and is far more "tax advantageous" for them. They generally pay a single, lower capital gains tax on the sale of their stock. An asset sale can result in a "double-taxation" nightmare for the seller, so they will demand a higher price to compensate.

Reason 2: Key Contracts & Licenses. This is the operational deal-killer. The target's most valuable assets may be non-transferable. Think of a critical government contract, a key software license, or a state-level operating permit. In an asset sale, you don't own that contract, and the seller can't transfer it to you without "third-party consent". In a stock sale, the company (which you now own) still holds the contract. Nothing "transferred," so the contract is often preserved.

Reason 3: Simplicity & Continuity. A stock purchase is "less complex" and "more straightforward". The business continues to operate without interruption. In an asset purchase, every single asset and contract must be individually valued, titled, and transferred, which is a massive operational and administrative headache.

The "Successor Liability" Trap

As your advisor, I must warn you: an asset sale is not a perfect shield against liabilities. While the general rule is "non-liability", courts have created exceptions over the years. This is called "successor liability".

If a court finds that your asset purchase was a "de facto merger" (you bought all assets, kept all employees, and served the same customers) or a "mere continuation" of the seller, you can still be held liable for the seller's debts. This is why, even in an asset sale, your legal diligence must be just as thorough. You cannot get lazy.

The Advanced Option: The "Triangular Merger" (The Best of Both Worlds)

This is the common, flexible, and sophisticated structure your lawyers will almost always recommend.

How it works: You (the "Parent" company) do not buy the target directly. Instead, you create a new, empty subsidiary (a "shell company"). That subsidiary then merges with the target company.

The Benefit: The target becomes your wholly-owned subsidiary, but you, the Parent company, are shielded from its liabilities (similar to an asset purchase). At the same time, because the target merges (either surviving or disappearing into the sub), its key contracts and licenses are often preserved, just like in a stock purchase.

This structure is a common solution that combines the liability protection of an asset sale with the operational simplicity of a stock sale.

At a Glance: Asset Purchase vs. Stock Purchase

Feature	Stock Purchase	Asset Purchase
Liability Inheritance	Buyer inherits all liabilities (known and unknown)	Buyer "cherry-picks" assets and leaves behind most liabilities
Tax Treatment (Buyer)	No "step-up" in asset basis. Less favorable for buyer	Buyer gets a "step-up" basis, allowing for future depreciation/amortization
Tax Treatment (Seller)	Generally favorable. Single layer of capital gains tax	Generally unfavorable. Potential for "double taxation." Seller will demand a higher price
Contract Continuity	Contracts and licenses typically remain with the target company	Contracts may be non-transferable and require "third-party consent," which is a major risk
Closing Complexity	Simpler. A transfer of shares	Highly complex. Requires transfer of every individual asset and contract

Conclusion: The Foundation of Your Risk-Mitigation Strategy

The choice between an asset, stock, and merger structure is the foundation of your entire risk-mitigation strategy. It is a pure negotiation of risk (liabilities) vs. continuity (contracts) vs. financial impact (taxes).

With a strategy (Part 1), a deal type (Part 2), and a legal structure (Part 3) in mind, it's time to find your target and make the first move. Continue to Part 4 where we'll cover the 'first date': from the crucial Non-Disclosure Agreement to the high-stakes Letter of Intent.

---

Previous: Part 2: Horizontal, Vertical, or Conglomerate?
Next: Part 4: The Letter of Intent (LOI)