Merger & Acquisition (M&A) Dispute Resolution

Merger disputes can often arise between parties owing to the complex nature of transactions involved in selling, purchasing and combining two or more companies. As one of the leading offshore law firms that specialises in both mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and dispute resolution, Appleby is able to offer unparalleled legal advice in the area of merger disputes.

Offshore merger disputes

We understand that buying or selling a business is never a straightforward process. Whether a pre-closing or post-closing dispute, our team of merger disputes lawyers are able to leverage our firm’s deep understanding of commercial issues in M&A transactions, including in particular the valuation of shares, along with relevant statutes and legal precedents.

From due diligence to dispute resolution, we possess the necessary legal expertise to ably navigate shareholder rights and contractual obligations including breach of warranty, indemnity and price adjustment issues. Trust in our technical acumen to deliver comprehensive legal support throughout your M&A journey and to safeguard your interests with precision and integrity.

Our Experts
  • All
  • Guernsey (2)
  • Cayman Islands (1)
  • Jersey (1)
  • Hong Kong (2)
  • Bermuda (1)
SPOTLIGHT

Cayman merger disputes Lawyers

Our Merger Disputes lawyers in the Cayman Islands regularly advise dissenting shareholders who are dissatisfied with offer-merger consideration in proceedings to resolve the fair value of shares.

The team, which also has experts based in Hong Kong, is regarded as a market leader in respect to both appraisal rights claims and advising on fiduciary duty considerations. This is evidenced by rankings and commentary in highly respected legal directories such as Chambers and Partners, and The Legal 500, with recent praise of our Cayman dispute resolution team highlighting how “they are very alive to commercial issues and pressures, and they are mindful of this when discussing their strategy” (Chambers).

More news
Website-Code-Cayman-2
5 Feb 2026

Recusal For Apparent Bias Is Not A New Frontier

In Re New Frontier Health Corporation,[1] Justice Doyle decided to recuse himself, such that he would not hear the trial listed to commence weeks later, on the basis that he made findings in his recent Re 51job Inc judgment, as to the reliability and credibility of the same two experts who would give evidence at the New Frontier trial. The New Frontier judgment represents a further endorsement by the Cayman courts of the fundamental maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
3 Feb 2026

Appointment of inspectors in the Cayman Islands

The appointment of inspectors under section 64 of the Companies Act (2025 Revision) is an extraordinary remedy available to shareholders of Cayman companies. It allows either the Court or the company itself (by special resolution) to appoint inspectors to investigate the company’s affairs, compel disclosure of records, and examine officers under oath. Although rarely used in practice, this mechanism remains a powerful safeguard for shareholders who suspect misconduct or mismanagement.

Appleby-Website-Dispute-Resolution-Practice
15 Dec 2025

Aquapoint LP v Fan: Privy Council Confirms Equitable Constraints Can Override Strict Contractual Rights in Cayman ELP Winding Up

In its recent judgment in Aquapoint LP (in Official Liquidation) v Fan,[1] the Privy Council upheld the judgments of the Grand Court and Cayman Islands Court of Appeal (CICA). The ruling confirms that the exercise of strict legal rights under a limited partnership agreement – even one containing detailed contractual terms and “entire agreement” clauses – can nevertheless be subject to equitable considerations in certain circumstances. Where those equitable considerations arise, they may justify the winding up of an exempted limited partnership on the “just and equitable” basis. Appleby acts for the joint official liquidators of Aquapoint; for further details on the background of this case, see Appleby’s previous article here.