In this article
Deals that look clean at signing can turn contentious within ninety days of closing. The mechanism most often responsible is the working-capital adjustment — a post-closing true-up that recalibrates the purchase price against the actual balance sheet the buyer received. The working-capital adjustment is a key component of purchase agreements and is often a feared and misunderstood term in M&A transactions. That fear is largely a product of unfamiliarity. The mechanics are not genuinely complicated, but they are precise, and imprecision at any stage costs real money.
This piece walks through every stage: how the peg is set, what happens at closing, how the post-closing statement is prepared and reviewed, how disputes are resolved, and how the cash finally moves. Settlement professionals — closing attorneys, escrow officers, M&A advisors, and accounting arbitrators — live inside this process every day. The goal here is a rigorous map of the terrain.
Figures from the SRS Acquiom 2024 M&A Deal Terms Study, typical escrow practice and American Arbitration Association data, as cited in the sections below.
Why the adjustment exists at all
The working-capital adjustment exists because the purchase price is set months before the deal closes, but the assets and liabilities being delivered at closing are in motion the entire time. Receivables get collected. Inventory turns. Accruals build up. Vendors get paid.
When a buyer underwrites a deal, it models an expected level of working capital that will be in the business on day one. That expected level is baked into the purchase price. The buyer is paying for a going concern that includes a normal level of working capital to operate the business on day one. If the seller delivers less than that normal level, the buyer is effectively underfunding the business and needs a price reduction. If the seller delivers more, the buyer received a windfall and owes the seller the difference.
The adjustment mechanism is therefore symmetrical by design. It is not an adversarial tool; it is a calibration device that gives both parties what they actually agreed to pay for. Working-capital adjustments are not designed to extract value from either party. But the party that understands the mechanics better usually ends up with more favorable terms.
How common is this provision?
Very common. According to the SRS Acquiom 2024 M&A Deal Terms Study, more than 96% of private-target transactions include a working-capital adjustment provision, making it the most common purchase-price adjustment in the market. The Houlihan Lokey M&A Post-Close Adjustment Study shows working-capital adjustments are the single most common source of post-close claims in mid-market M&A, roughly 50 to 60 percent by frequency.
This prevalence means every party to a private M&A transaction should expect the provision to appear, and every advisor in the deal — from the M&A counsel drafting the SPA to the escrow officer holding the working-capital holdback — needs to know the sequence cold.
Stage one: Setting the peg
The working-capital peg is the agreed reference point. It is the number against which actual closing working capital will be measured. Setting it correctly is arguably the most important moment in the entire adjustment process, because every subsequent step flows from it.
M&A working capital is typically calculated on a cash-free, debt-free basis: current assets (accounts receivable, inventory, prepaids) minus current liabilities (accounts payable, accrued expenses, deferred revenue), excluding cash, debt, and deal-related items. This exclusion of cash and debt is intentional. Cash and debt are excluded from the working-capital calculation. They are handled separately as part of the cash-free, debt-free pricing convention used in most acquisitions.
In practice, the standard lower middle-market approach sets the peg using a 3-, 6-, or 12-month average from trailing periods. Buyers prefer a 12-month average because it captures seasonality. Sellers, predictably, prefer the period that produces the lowest peg. This negotiation is real and consequential. Get the peg definition, the calculation methodology, and the target working capital wrong at LOI stage and you can lose 5–15% of headline price without ever knowing why.
Precision at LOI stage pays dividends later. The math is simple but the line items are not. A $5.0 million peg sounds clean until the parties debate whether a $400,000 inventory obsolescence reserve was booked under the "same methodology" used to set the peg, or whether a $180,000 customer deposit booked three days before close is deferred revenue or pre-paid services.
Those classification disputes become post-closing disputes if the agreement is vague. The defense against both is precision in the agreement: a clearly defined peg with a stated methodology, an explicit definition of working capital (down to the included accounts and the accounting principles), and a defined dispute-resolution mechanism — typically referral of disputed items to an independent accountant whose determination binds the parties — so a disagreement is resolved efficiently rather than through litigation.
Stage two: Seller preparation before closing
Once the working-capital target is set, the seller has a real interest in delivering at or above the target at closing. That is not gaming the system — it is meeting the deal that was struck. In the weeks before closing, a thoughtful seller manages working capital actively: collecting receivables promptly, managing inventory levels, ensuring accruals are appropriately recorded.
What sellers cannot do is manufacture artificial spikes. Sellers should not engineer artificial spikes in working capital that distort the calculation. Buyers will catch it, the indemnification claims will follow, and the resulting dispute will erase any short-term gain.
The practical preparation involves more than balance-sheet management. Early preparation of the balance sheet and due diligence materials reduces disputes at the closing date. Simple, precise definitions protect value and speed the transaction. A seller who walks into the estimated closing statement without a clean, well-documented balance sheet is handing the buyer's accounting team an opportunity.
Stage three: The estimated closing statement
The adjustment process does not wait for final closing figures. The seller delivers an estimated closing statement a few days before closing, and the purchase price is funded based on that estimate.
This estimated statement is the first live calculation in the process. It compares estimated closing working capital against the agreed peg and adjusts the wire amount accordingly. At closing, sellers provide an estimated balance sheet with a preliminary working capital calculation. The purchase price gets adjusted based on this estimate versus the peg. But this is not final.
Think of the estimated closing statement as a working draft with real money attached. If the seller's estimate shows working capital of $5.2 million USD (approximately $7.9 million AUD) against a $5.0 million USD (approximately $7.6 million AUD) peg, the buyer pays an extra $200,000 USD at closing. If it shows $4.7 million USD, the buyer pays $300,000 USD less. The final true-up will reconcile these estimates against actuals, but the estimated figure is what drives the initial wire.
This is also the moment when escrow structures become relevant. Mechanically, a small portion of the purchase price (often 1–3%) is held in a working-capital escrow released after a 60–120 day post-close true-up. In deals where the buyer anticipates significant working-capital risk, requiring the seller to fund an escrow specifically for the working-capital adjustment at closing provides security against a seller who cannot pay after the fact. This is separate from the indemnification escrow, which serves a different purpose.
The escrow officer managing that holdback is executing a clearly defined role: hold the reserved amount, release it according to the schedule specified in the purchase agreement, and act on written instructions from the parties or the independent accountant when a determination is made. This is skilled, consequential work — and the structure of the adjustment depends on it being done precisely.
Stage four: The post-closing statement
After the deal closes, the clock starts running. A period, often 60 to 90 days post-closing, is given for the buyer to prepare and deliver a "Closing Statement" detailing their calculation of the actual closing net working capital.
The buyer's accounting team reconstructs the balance sheet as of the closing date using actual figures — not estimates. This is where asymmetry enters the picture. This process is asymmetrical and the asymmetry favors the buyer. The buyer controls the books after closing. The buyer prepares the closing statement using the buyer's accounting team and the buyer's interpretation of the agreement.
Several categories of items commonly produce disagreements at this stage:
Receivables collectability. The buyer's accountants may apply more aggressive bad-debt reserves than the seller historically used. If the purchase agreement requires the closing statement to be prepared "consistent with past practice," the seller has grounds to object. If the agreement is silent on methodology, the buyer has more latitude.
Inventory reserves. The buyer may want to apply their own, more conservative accounting policies to the closing statement (e.g., more aggressive reserves for bad debt or inventory obsolescence). The seller will insist on using the same policies and procedures that were used historically to calculate the peg.
Classification of items as debt-like. A frequent point of contention is whether an item is operational (part of net working capital) or financial (debt-like). For example, a seller might classify a large, overdue payable to a related party as a trade payable (part of NWC), while a buyer might argue it is a form of financing and should be treated as a debt-like item to be deducted from the price.
Timing of accruals and deferred revenue. Customer deposits and advance payments booked shortly before close are particularly contentious. Whether a $200,000 USD advance payment booked the week before close is deferred revenue (a current liability that reduces working capital) or a prepaid service (neutral to the calculation) can swing the adjustment by the full amount.
Stage five: The seller's review period
Once the closing statement is delivered, the seller generally has a limited review period, commonly 30 to 60 days, to submit an objection notice.
This window is not a courtesy; it is a hard deadline with severe consequences for missing it.
Sellers should engage their accountants promptly once the buyer's post-closing statement arrives, not at the end of the review period.
Most purchase agreements require an objection notice to be specific as to the line item and amount disputed and to explain how those components of the buyer's closing statement were not consistent with the purchase agreement's definitions and accounting principles.
The notice is not a general disagreement letter. Each disputed item must be named, the seller's proposed alternative treatment stated, and the dollar impact identified. Items that were not objected to in writing are deemed accepted. This structural constraint means that the seller's objection notice must be complete and precisely identify every disputed item, with the seller's proposed correct treatment for each one.
This is where M&A advisory firms and transaction accounting specialists earn significant value. Sellers can be most effective when they prioritize the accounts with the largest dollar impact or greatest degree of judgment, rather than disputing every difference. Challenging every line item as a matter of principle signals bad faith and can damage the broader post-closing relationship; disputing the two or three items that carry material dollar values with precise accounting arguments is the professional approach.
Stage six: Good-faith negotiation
If the seller submits an objection, the purchase agreement typically requires a negotiation period before the dispute escalates to an independent accountant. Disagreements over the final statement are fairly common. Most purchase agreements require the parties to first engage in good-faith negotiations, typically lasting around 30 days.
If the gap between the buyer's calculation and the seller's calculation is less than $50,000 USD on a $5 million USD deal, it is usually cheaper to negotiate a settlement than to engage an independent accountant, whose fees can run $50,000 to $150,000 USD for a complex determination. If the gap is $200,000 USD or more, an independent accountant is worth the cost.
The negotiation period has a practical function: many disputes resolve here, at lower cost to both parties, when the underlying accounting question has a defensible answer on one side. The disputes that survive to the independent accountant tend to involve genuinely ambiguous line items or contested classification questions where reasonable accountants applying the same standards can reach different conclusions.
Stage seven: Independent accountant determination
When good-faith negotiation fails, the dispute goes to an independent accountant who serves as a neutral expert. This is not arbitration. The independent accountant is an accounting expert applying accounting principles to disputed factual questions, not a legal arbitrator deciding matters of contract interpretation. The purchase agreement specifies the scope of the independent accountant's authority.
Purchase agreements typically designate a specific accounting firm in the agreement itself, often one of the nationally recognized firms, or specify a selection process if the parties cannot agree. The accountant should have no prior relationship with either party. Delays in agreeing on an accountant add cost and extend the resolution timeline, so the agreement should specify a default appointment mechanism if the parties cannot agree within a set period.
Each party submits a written position statement with supporting documentation to the independent accountant within a specified time frame. The accountant reviews both positions, may request additional documentation, and issues a determination that is binding on both parties.
The independent accountant determination typically takes 45 to 90 days. The independent accountant's determination is final and binding, limited to the disputed items, and decided based on the SPA methodology and GAAP. Per American Arbitration Association data on commercial accounting disputes, median resolution time is 65 days from submission.
The costs of the independent accountant process are handled according to the SPA. Most agreements include an independent accounting firm to decide if buyer and seller disagree on the calculation. This can cost $15,000–$40,000 USD in fees, split between parties. Some agreements allocate the cost proportionally based on the outcome — the party whose position deviated more from the final determination bears more of the fee. This allocation creates a genuine incentive to take honest, well-supported positions rather than using the determination as a continuation of negotiation by other means.
Stage eight: The final cash movement
Once the adjustment amount is determined — either by agreement or by the independent accountant — the cash moves. If the final values are higher than estimated, the buyer pays the difference; if they are lower, the seller refunds the excess. Final settlements are usually completed within 5 to 10 business days after the adjustment amount is determined.
If the seller agrees with the buyer's calculation, the settlement payment is made within a specified number of days. If the seller disagrees with any items, a formal objection notice triggers the dispute resolution process.
How the cash actually moves depends on the structure put in place at closing. The true-up is settled in cash between the parties or drawn from an escrow account if one was established at closing. In deals where a working-capital holdback escrow exists, the escrow officer receives joint written instructions from buyer and seller (or the accountant's determination) and distributes accordingly. The seller receives the holdback balance less any shortfall; the buyer receives the shortfall directly from escrow.
Within 5 to 10 business days of the final determination, the losing party pays the disputed amount, typically from escrow if escrow was held, otherwise directly. Interest may accrue on the disputed amount from the close date at a rate specified in the SPA, often the federal short-term rate plus 200 basis points.
A concrete scenario end to end
A manufacturing business sells for an enterprise value of $12 million USD (approximately $18.2 million AUD). The agreed working-capital peg is $2.8 million USD. At closing, the seller delivers an estimated closing statement showing working capital of $2.95 million USD — $150,000 USD above the peg — so the buyer pays $12.15 million USD at close. A working-capital escrow of $280,000 USD (about 2.3% of deal value) is funded by setting aside part of the seller's proceeds.
Sixty days after closing, the buyer delivers the final closing statement showing actual working capital of $2.55 million USD. The swing from estimated to final is $400,000 USD — a combination of an accounts-receivable reserve the buyer's accountants applied to slow-paying customers, and a deferred-revenue reclassification on advance service contracts.
The seller objects within the 30-day review window on both items, using documented historical accounting treatment to support its position. During the 30-day negotiation period, the parties agree on the receivables reserve: the buyer's number was aggressive, and they settle at a lower adjustment. The deferred-revenue item remains disputed and goes to the independent accountant.
Sixty-five days later, the accountant rules that the advance contracts should have been classified as deferred revenue under the methodology specified in the SPA. That adjustment stands.
| Disputed item | Buyer's statement | Final adjustment | Resolved by |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accounts-receivable reserve | $180,000 USD | $90,000 USD | Agreement in negotiation |
| Deferred-revenue reclassification | $220,000 USD | $220,000 USD | Independent accountant |
| Total downward adjustment | $400,000 USD | $310,000 USD | Agreed plus determined |
The escrow officer receives the determination, releases $280,000 USD from the working-capital escrow to the buyer, and the buyer invoices the seller directly for the remaining $30,000 USD balance. Fees for the independent accountant, totaling $28,000 USD, are split per the SPA's pro-rata allocation based on outcome.
The final effective purchase price is $11.84 million USD — $310,000 USD below the initial closing wire — settled just over six months after the original closing date.
The locked-box alternative
Not every deal uses a true-up mechanism. A locked-box structure fixes the working-capital amount as of a reference date prior to closing, with no post-closing true-up. The buyer assumes risk of working-capital fluctuations in exchange for price certainty. Leakage covenants prevent sellers from extracting value between the locked date and closing. This approach is more common in European deals but is gaining traction in U.S. middle-market transactions.
The locked-box structure shifts the risk profile significantly. Sellers benefit from price certainty; there is no post-closing statement, no review period, no risk of an unexpected shortfall claim arriving ninety days after they have moved on. Buyers accept the risk that working capital may erode between the locked date and close, in exchange for the simplicity of a fixed price.
For the settlement professionals involved — attorneys, escrow officers, advisors — the locked-box structure eliminates the post-closing true-up workflow but adds complexity in drafting and policing the leakage covenants pre-close. Neither structure is inherently superior; the choice depends on deal dynamics, the nature of the business, and the relative negotiating positions of the parties.
Where disputes consistently arise
Working-capital adjustments are the single most common source of post-closing dispute in middle-market M&A. Understanding the hot zones helps advisors structure agreements that reduce the likelihood of landing there.
Accounting methodology ambiguity. The most common root cause. Agreements that say "consistent with GAAP" without specifying the seller's historical accounting policies create room for the buyer's accountants to apply different standards. The agreement should name the specific policies — reserve methodology, revenue recognition approach, inventory costing method — and state that the closing statement will be prepared on the same basis used to calculate the peg.
Receivables timing and collectability. Most disputes involve accounts-receivable collectability or timing of payables. A receivable that was 60 days outstanding at close but collected in full 45 days later looks very different to the buyer's accountants (who reserve it) than to the seller (who knows the customer).
Deferred revenue. Software, SaaS, and service businesses commonly carry material deferred revenue balances. Whether advance payments represent a current liability (reducing working capital) or a prepaid service (neutral) often turns on the specific language of the customer contract and how the seller has historically accounted for it.
Accrued expenses. Year-end bonuses, commissions, and other accruals that were not fully booked at close are fertile ground for disputes. The buyer will argue these liabilities existed at close and should be reflected in the closing statement. The seller will argue the accrual methodology used at close was consistent with past practice.
The parties may disagree about reserve methodology, revenue cut-off, inventory costing, accrued expenses, capitalization, foreign currency, or classification. Each of these is avoidable with precision in drafting and a well-structured quality-of-earnings process pre-signing.
The role of onchain payment routing in the final settlement
The closing and true-up process described above involves multiple parties receiving money at different times: the seller receiving the initial wire at close, the escrow account being funded for the holdback, the buyer potentially receiving a shortfall payment, and the seller receiving the remaining holdback balance after the true-up resolves.
When the working-capital determination is final — whether by agreement or by the independent accountant's ruling — the distribution of the holdback escrow is, in structural terms, a split payment. There is a known total amount and a known allocation between parties. That is precisely the transaction type that onchain payment routing handles well.
shaka.deal routes the total amount of a deal and distributes it instantly to every party at preset shares, in a single transaction, with finality. For settlement professionals managing the working-capital holdback release, this means the distribution instruction — buyer receives the shortfall amount, seller receives the balance — can be encoded in advance and executed the moment the determination is confirmed, rather than sequenced through multiple wire instructions over several business days.
On a proof-of-stake network like Ethereum, a transaction becomes technically final when it is incorporated into a validated block and subsequently confirmed. Where traditional settlement relies on institutional rules and operational procedures to establish finality, blockchains achieve it through cryptography and economic deterrence. That means when shaka.deal routes a holdback distribution, each party receives their share simultaneously, in the same transaction, and the result is permanent. There is no recall period, no wire-reversal window, no settlement lag that leaves the outcome uncertain while funds are in transit.
For a closing attorney or escrow officer managing a deal where the working-capital true-up has resolved and the joint instruction has been signed, the question of execution is reduced to routing: one transaction, preset shares, simultaneous receipt by all parties. The complexity of the preceding process — the peg negotiation, the closing statement, the review period, the dispute — has already been absorbed by the professionals who manage it. The payment step, when it arrives, should be simple and certain.
That is what onchain routing provides. Not a replacement for the professionals who structure and manage the adjustment process, but a payment infrastructure layer that matches the certainty of a final legal determination with the certainty of an irreversible, simultaneous payout.
Practical checklist for settlement professionals
For M&A advisors, closing attorneys, and escrow officers who work with working-capital adjustments regularly, the following structural points reduce friction at every stage:
At LOI stage:
- Specify the peg methodology (trailing average period, included and excluded accounts, named accounting policies).
- Define what counts as a current asset and current liability, line item by line item.
- Agree on whether the closing statement will be prepared under GAAP, IFRS, or "consistent with past practice," and if the latter, define what that means explicitly.
At SPA stage:
- Name a default independent accountant, or specify a selection mechanism with a hard deadline.
- Set the interest rate on disputed amounts from the close date.
- Define the allocation of independent accountant fees.
- Specify the working-capital escrow amount, funding mechanics, and release triggers.
During the true-up period:
- Seller's advisors should review the closing statement promptly, not at the end of the review window.
- Objection notices must be item-specific. General disagreements are procedurally insufficient.
- Prioritize items by dollar value. Your M&A advisor should help you assess whether the buyer's position has merit or is a post-closing negotiating tactic designed to claw back part of the purchase price. A competent M&A advisor earns their fee in the working-capital negotiation.
At the final payment stage:
- Confirm the determination is final and binding before releasing escrow.
- Execute the distribution as a single coordinated instruction to avoid sequencing delays.
- Document the release and the accountant's determination in the transaction file.
Conclusion
The working-capital adjustment is one of the most consequential post-closing mechanics in any M&A transaction. A misunderstood peg or a poorly drafted methodology can shift the effective purchase price by hundreds of thousands of dollars after the deal has closed. Yet the mechanics, once understood, follow a predictable sequence: peg negotiation, estimated closing statement, post-closing statement, review and objection, good-faith negotiation, independent accountant determination if needed, and final cash movement.
Every professional in the transaction has a defined role in that sequence. The closing attorney drafts the provisions that govern it. The escrow officer holds and releases the working-capital holdback according to those provisions. The M&A advisor helps the seller understand what is actually at stake and respond effectively. The independent accountant provides binding resolution when the parties cannot agree.
What the final stage of the process needs — after all the professional judgment has been applied and a definitive number has been determined — is payment infrastructure that matches the certainty of the legal outcome. One instruction, all parties paid simultaneously, the result permanent and verifiable. That is the job that onchain routing tools like shaka.deal are built for: not to change how the process works, but to execute the final payment with the same precision and finality that the rest of the process was designed to produce.
