Delaware's Supreme Court clarifies the limits of earnout protections: specific milestone language controls, efforts clauses carry real obligations.

In Fortis Advisors v. Johnson & Johnson (Jan. 12, 2026), J&J acquired a robotics company for $3.4B cash plus up to $2.35B in milestone-based earnouts. None were ever paid. The Court awarded over $600M in damages. Here's why it matters:

๐—ง๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐Ÿญ: ๐—ช๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐˜…๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—น๐˜† ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ฎ๐˜ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ป โ€” ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜๐˜€ ๐˜„๐—ผ๐—ป'๐˜ ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐˜… ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ.
The milestones required a specific type of FDA clearance (510(k)). When the FDA closed that pathway, the seller argued the buyer should pursue an alternative route. The Court said no โ€” you picked your trigger, and the contract won't be rewritten because circumstances changed. If a risk is foreseeable, even if unlikely, you must draft for it at the negotiating table.

๐—ง๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐Ÿฎ: "๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ ๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜๐˜€" ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ฎ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ป'๐˜ ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ฝ๐˜๐˜† ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€.
J&J committed to pursue the milestones with the same effort it gave its own top-priority products. Instead, it ran an internal competition that set the acquired product back, merged it with a rival platform, and stripped employee incentives tied to the milestones. The Court held that a buyer can choose how to pursue a milestone, but it cannot abandon the goal altogether while hiding behind business judgment.

๐—ง๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐Ÿฏ: ๐—Ÿ๐˜†๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ผ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜€ ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜ ๐˜†๐—ผ๐˜‚ โ€” ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐—ณ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฐ๐—น๐—ผ๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด.
J&J's CEO pitched a $100M milestone as a near-certainty while concealing a patient death and FDA investigation that threatened it. The contract's exclusive remedy clause didn't save J&J because only J&J โ€” not the seller โ€” had agreed not to rely on statements made outside the contract. If you want protection from fraud claims based on what was said at the negotiating table, both sides must expressly disclaim reliance.

Fortis v. J&J is now the leading Delaware earnout opinion โ€” addressing milestone drafting precision, the enforceability of efforts obligations, and the limits of exclusive remedy clauses against extra-contractual fraud. Essential reading for anyone structuring contingent consideration.

Previous
Previous

ยฟEl privilegio abogado-cliente sobrevive la revocaciรณn del certificado de incorporaciรณn?

Next
Next

Majority Rules? Not Without Proper Notice