In this article
Deals rarely close cleanly in a single moment. The transfer of ownership may happen on day one, but the final transfer of money — all of it — can take months or years to complete. Two of the most important mechanisms that bridge that gap are the escrow holdback and the earn-out. Together they create a structured timeline between closing and full settlement, and the moment those two mechanisms converge — when the earn-out is verified and the holdback is ready to be released — is one of the most consequential disbursements in commercial dealmaking.
For closing attorneys, settlement agents, M&A advisors, and escrow officers, this moment is also one of the most operationally complex. Multiple parties are waiting on funds. Multiple conditions must be confirmed. Multiple shares must be calculated and distributed simultaneously. Getting it right requires precision at every step, from drafting through disbursement.
This article walks through the full lifecycle of an escrow holdback in the context of an earn-out deal: what these structures are, how they differ, how verification actually works in practice, what triggers the release, and how disbursement to multiple parties is executed with certainty.
Common contractual windows and the dispute rate cited later in this article.
The difference between a holdback and an earn-out — and why both matter at once
These terms are often used loosely, but they describe distinct instruments with distinct risk profiles.
A holdback protects the buyer against risk, while an earn-out ties payment to the business's future performance. That distinction shapes everything about how they are drafted, administered, and ultimately released.
An indemnity holdback is a temporary reduction in the amount of purchase price paid to the seller at closing, held in escrow to be drawn upon to cover the seller's indemnity obligations to the buyer, thereby reducing the purchase price. In practical terms, the buyer says: "We'll put a portion of your money in a neutral account while we confirm there are no surprises hiding in what you've handed us."
An earn-out is a mechanism to provide for contingent additional purchase price based on the company's post-closing performance. It answers a different question: not "did the seller misrepresent what we bought?" but "will the business perform the way we hoped it would?"
In many middle-market transactions, both instruments appear in the same deal. A buyer may retain 10% of the purchase price as a holdback against indemnity claims while also promising an additional payment — the earn-out — if the business hits specific revenue or EBITDA targets in year one or year two. When both structures are present, the escrow agent must track two separate pools of funds with two separate release conditions, and the closing attorney must draft agreements that are clear about which pool each claim or credit applies to.
An escrow holdback in M&A indemnification is usually 5% to 15% of the purchase price, with 12 to 18 months as a common release period. SRS Acquiom data shows that a 10% or larger holdback is common, and 90% of 2023 deals had at least one escrow.
Earn-outs typically range from 10% to 50% of total transaction value, with measurement periods extending from one to four years post-closing. So a single transaction might have a $2 million USD (approx. $3.1 million AUD) holdback sitting in escrow alongside a potential $3 million USD (approx. $4.65 million AUD) earn-out payment — both governed by different timelines, different triggers, and different disbursement mechanics.
What the escrow agreement must specify from the start
The quality of a holdback release is almost entirely determined by the quality of the escrow agreement drafted at closing. Key contractual elements influencing escrow disbursement include: Release Triggers — specific conditions or milestones that must be met before funds are released; Holdback Provisions — clauses that mandate retaining a portion of escrow funds to cover potential liabilities or unresolved claims; and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms — procedures outlined to address disagreements over escrow release.
Four terms define the escrow structure from the outset: amount, duration, claim scope, and release mechanics. Amount decides how much cash is held back. Duration decides how long the cash is trapped. Claim scope defines which types of losses or breaches allow the buyer to draw on the holdback. And release mechanics define the precise steps required to move money out of escrow.
When an earn-out is linked to the holdback — either because the same escrow account holds both types of funds, or because the parties agreed to net an earn-out payment against any outstanding indemnity claims — the agreement must specify exactly how those interactions work. A well-drafted agreement leaves no ambiguity about: who delivers the earn-out statement, when it must be delivered, what information it must contain, how the other party can object, and what happens when parties disagree.
A well-structured earnout in middle-market M&A should define the exact performance metric, measurement period, target threshold, payout formula, cap, floor, accounting policy, reporting cadence, verification rights, and dispute process. The structure should be specific enough that both buyer and seller can calculate the payout from the same records without renegotiating the deal after closing.
Ambiguity at the drafting stage is the single largest cause of delayed and disputed holdback releases. What reads like a reasonable shorthand in a term sheet — "subject to hitting $5 million in revenue" — must be translated into a definition that answers dozens of follow-on questions: Is that gross revenue or net? Does it include deferred revenue? What happens if the buyer moves a customer relationship to a different entity? Does the measurement exclude any product lines?
Overly complex earn-out formulas measuring multiple metrics with various weighting, adjustment mechanisms, and contingencies become difficult to calculate, audit, and verify. Complexity invites disputes as parties interpret ambiguous provisions differently and disagreements multiply across calculation components. The most successful earn-out structures employ simple metrics, clear definitions, and transparent calculations that both parties can easily track and verify throughout the measurement period.
The measurement period ends: who does what, and when
Once the earn-out measurement period closes — typically the end of a fiscal year or another agreed interval — a specific sequence of events begins. This sequence is contractually defined, and professionals who administer it must follow it to the letter.
Step 1: The buyer prepares and delivers the earn-out statement.
Earn-out periods commonly range from one to three years, and payments are due after each measurement period ends. The buyer will typically need time after the close of each measurement period to calculate the earnout — 60 to 90 days is common — and the provision should specify a deadline for the buyer to deliver the earnout calculation to the seller.
The earn-out statement is a formal document: it shows the metric as calculated, the supporting financial data, and the resulting payment owed (or not owed) under the formula. It is not a casual email. It is the document that will govern whether a release instruction is sent to the escrow agent.
Step 2: The seller reviews the statement and exercises verification rights.
In M&A deals, the buyer is usually responsible for tracking and reporting the earn-out performance metrics, leaving the seller with limited access to verify the calculations. This can lead to disputes if the seller suspects that the buyer is misreporting metrics.
To protect against this asymmetry, well-drafted agreements give the seller meaningful access to the underlying records. The seller should receive reasonable access to the underlying books and records of the acquired business, including workpapers and system extracts, subject to confidentiality, privilege protections, and data security covenants.
The seller (or the seller's representative or advisors) then has a defined window — often 30 to 45 days — to review the statement, run its own calculations, and either accept the statement or deliver a written notice of objection.
Step 3: Acceptance or objection.
If the seller accepts the earn-out statement — expressly or by failing to object within the specified period — the statement becomes final and binding. At that point, the escrow agent receives a joint written instruction (or, as specified in the agreement, a unilateral instruction from one party that becomes effective absent objection) authorizing the release.
If the seller objects, the parties enter a dispute resolution sequence. This is where the agreement's drafting matters most.
What happens when the earn-out figure is disputed
Earn-outs can create legal risk for the parties. Disagreements often arise over the interpretation of earn-out terms, the calculation of performance metrics, and the impact of management conduct on business outcomes. These disputes can damage the buyer-seller relationship, delay the final payment of consideration, and result in costly litigation.
This phenomenon, often called "accounting drift" or "earnout starvation," is the single largest source of post-closing M&A litigation. According to SRS Acquiom 2024 data, 18% to 22% of earnouts in their dataset resulted in a documented dispute or claim by the seller, with a median dispute value of roughly $2.3 million and a tail of cases above $50 million.
The most effective way to avoid full litigation is to build a tiered resolution process into the original agreement. A staged mechanism — notice, conference, independent accountant determination, and then litigation or arbitration — offers a pragmatic path, particularly because earn-out disputes often pivot on technical accounting issues that generalist courts resolve slowly and unpredictably.
Expert determination by an independent accountant is the most widely used first-stage mechanism for calculation disputes. When it comes to resolving completion accounts and earn-out consideration disputes, expert determination by an independent accountant has always been and remains the most common mechanism enshrined in SPAs for resolving disputes.
When it is not possible for the parties to reach a full settlement of an earn-out dispute, the SPA will usually specify that the dispute should proceed to an expert determination. This is usually an independent, forensic accountant with experience in M&A matters, instructed by both parties. Occasionally, the independent accountant may decide to use a process that is different from the one specified by the SPA. This process typically involves each party providing a submission setting out their key arguments and evidence to support their position, a counter-submission, and then responding to any further requests for information or questions from the independent accountant.
The expert reviews the parties' respective calculations and supporting documentation and issues a binding determination of what the correct earnout figure should be. Commonly, expert determinations are "final and binding" absent manifest error.
Critically, the dispute process should separate expert accounting determinations from legal and covenant claims, with deadlines and payment of undisputed amounts. Even while a portion of the earn-out is under dispute, any undisputed amount should be released promptly. The escrow agent holds only what is genuinely contested. The rest moves.
Including dispute resolution clauses in the agreement can also be helpful. Mediation or expert determination can resolve disagreements quickly and at lower cost than full litigation. These mechanisms are particularly well suited to technical disputes, such as accounting treatments, where an expert's decision can provide a practical outcome.
Concrete scenario: a $10 million USD deal with both a holdback and an earn-out
To make this tangible, consider the following structure.
A buyer acquires a software services business for a $10 million USD ($15.5 million AUD) enterprise value. The deal is structured as follows:
| Component | USD | AUD | Terms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closing payment | $8 million | $12.4 million | Paid at closing |
| Indemnity holdback | $1 million | $1.55 million | Held for 18 months |
| Earn-out | Up to $1 million | Up to $1.55 million | Payable if ARR exceeds $4.5 million USD ($6.97 million AUD) |
The earn-out is measured on annual recurring revenue (ARR) in the first full fiscal year post-closing.
The indemnity holdback and the earn-out funds both sit in escrow with a third-party escrow agent. The sale-purchase agreement specifies separate sub-accounts and separate release conditions for each pool.
- Month 12: the earn-out statementThe measurement period ends. The buyer's finance team calculates ARR at $4.85 million USD ($7.52 million AUD), which exceeds the threshold. The buyer delivers a written earn-out statement within the contractual 60-day window, showing an earn-out of $1 million USD fully earned.
- Month 14: the objectionThe seller's advisor reviews the statement and identifies that the buyer transferred three customer contracts to a sister entity during Q3, removing approximately $280,000 USD ($434,000 AUD) in ARR from the measured entity. The seller delivers a written notice of objection within the 30-day review window.
- Month 15: conference and referralThe parties enter a 20-day conference period and cannot agree on whether the contract transfers should be included in the ARR calculation. The matter is referred to an independent forensic accountant as specified in the SPA.
- Month 17: the binding determinationThe independent accountant issues a binding determination: $220,000 USD ($341,000 AUD) of the disputed ARR is attributable to the measured entity under the applicable accounting policy, and $60,000 USD ($93,000 AUD) is properly excluded. The earn-out is confirmed at $940,000 USD ($1.457 million AUD). Meanwhile, no indemnity claims have been made against the holdback, and the 18-month indemnity period expires at month 18.
- Month 18: two releasesTwo releases occur in close succession. First, a joint release instruction signed by both parties' attorneys instructs the escrow agent to disburse $940,000 USD from the earn-out sub-account to the seller. Second, the holdback period having expired without claims, the escrow agent disburses the full $1 million USD from the indemnity sub-account to the seller.
Each disbursement must reach the correct parties simultaneously: the seller's primary account, the seller's legal counsel's account (for any fees charged against the proceeds), the buyer's account if any netting applies, and any other parties with claims on the released funds.
This is where the mechanics of disbursement become critical — and where settlement professionals face real execution risk.
The disbursement itself: from release instruction to final payout
An escrow release instruction is not a payment. It is an authorization. The actual transfer of funds is a separate action, and in traditional settlement workflows, the disbursement from a holdback to multiple recipients is executed as a sequence of individual transactions rather than a simultaneous payout. That sequencing creates exposure: if a wire fails midway through, some parties have received their share and others have not. Reconciliation becomes difficult. Settlement statements may not match the actual flow of funds.
Disbursement of settlement proceeds means the payment of all closing funds from the transaction by the settlement agent to the persons or entities entitled to that payment. In theory, this is straightforward. In practice, a holdback release in a multi-party deal can involve the seller, the seller's legal counsel, a lien holder, a broker, and potentially multiple former shareholders who each hold proportionate claims on the released funds. Each requires a separate instruction. Each wire must be confirmed. Each confirmation must be documented.
Irrevocable disbursement instructions — written, irrevocable instructions that include any escrow holdbacks and release conditions — are the instrument that authorizes the settlement agent to execute payment. The precision of those instructions is what protects all parties and gives the settlement agent the authority to move.
The problem that closing professionals encounter most often at this stage is not a disagreement about the earn-out amount — that has already been resolved. It is the mechanics of getting money from the escrow account to five or six different recipients, in the right amounts, at the right time, with confirmations that create a clean audit trail.
How onchain routing changes the disbursement moment
This is where shaka.deal enters the picture — not as a replacement for the settlement agent or escrow officer, but as the tool that handles the payout itself with a precision that sequential wire transfers cannot match.
Once the earn-out is verified and the holdback release instruction is signed, the question becomes purely operational: how does the money move? Shaka.deal is a non-custodial onchain payment router on Ethereum. It does not hold funds at any point. What it does is accept a single incoming payment and distribute it instantly, in a single transaction, to every designated recipient at their preset shares — simultaneously.
For a holdback release, the workflow looks like this: the release amount is determined and authorized by the parties. The settlement agent or closing attorney configures the routing — seller's account receives 60%, seller's counsel receives 15%, the broker receives 5%, and the remaining 20% routes to a secondary seller who held a minority stake. Those shares are encoded in advance. When the funds flow through shaka.deal, all four parties receive their share in the same transaction, in the same instant.
There is no queue. There is no first-in-line risk. There is no scenario where the first wire settles and a subsequent one fails while the recipient is unaware. The settlement is simultaneous and final. Onchain transactions on Ethereum are settled with finality — they cannot be reversed or unwound after confirmation. That finality is a feature for the settlement professional: it means the disbursement is done, it is documented on the public ledger, and every party can verify their receipt independently without waiting for a bank's end-of-day confirmation.
The audit trail is automatic and permanent. Every address that received funds, every amount, the exact time of the transaction — all of it lives on the blockchain. For the closing attorney who needs to produce a disbursement record, or the escrow officer who needs to demonstrate that the release instruction was followed precisely, this record exists without any additional reporting step.
Protecting the seller between holdback periods: what good drafting looks like
The moment the earn-out statement is delivered is not the moment the seller can relax. Between delivery and disbursement lies the review period, the potential objection window, and — if disputed — the resolution process. Smart sellers and their counsel build protections into the agreement that preserve their position throughout that interval.
It is advisable, where possible, to limit the buyer's discretion over certain decisions that directly affect the earn-out. For instance, restrictions can be placed on moving assets, changing accounting policies, or reallocating key staff without seller approval. While buyers will resist overly rigid restrictions, balanced protections can help both sides avoid later disputes.
The buyer's right, if negotiated, to reduce earnout payments by other claims or obligations — known as offset — should be addressed explicitly, alongside an ordinary course covenant intended to prevent the buyer from operating the business in a way that unfairly depresses earnout performance.
Information rights should require periodic reports, supporting schedules, record retention, access rights, and tolling for missing information. A seller who cannot obtain the underlying data within the review window is at a structural disadvantage. If the agreement requires the buyer to deliver workpapers alongside the earn-out statement, the seller's window for meaningful review is far more useful.
The acceleration clause is also worth considering. An acceleration provision causes some or all of the earnout to become payable if another triggering event occurs, such as a resale of the business. If the buyer sells the acquired company before the earn-out period ends, the seller should not be left waiting for a metric that may never be measured under the new ownership.
What the buyer needs to get right on their side
The seller focuses on verification rights and disbursement certainty. The buyer's focus is the opposite: ensuring the holdback is not released prematurely and that any legitimate indemnity claims are properly documented and submitted before the escrow period expires.
The release of holdback funds typically occurs after a predetermined period, often ranging from 12 to 24 months, during which the buyer can identify and claim any breaches or liabilities. They involve setting aside a portion of the purchase price in an escrow account for a specified period. This reserve acts as security for the buyer, providing financial protection against any breaches of representations, warranties, or indemnification obligations made by the seller.
Disputes over escrow releases are typically resolved through mechanisms stipulated within escrow agreements, which often include negotiation, mediation, or arbitration clauses. Parties may first attempt direct negotiation to reconcile differences. Failing that, alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation or binding arbitration are employed to avoid protracted litigation.
The buyer who wants to preserve a claim against the holdback must: document the basis for the claim in writing, quantify it to the extent possible, deliver a formal claim notice to the escrow agent (not just to the seller) within the specified period, and then follow the resolution mechanism specified in the escrow agreement. Informal notice is not sufficient. An email to the seller's attorney does not constitute notice to the escrow agent unless the agreement specifically provides for that.
The role of the settlement professional at the release moment
Throughout all of this, the settlement agent, escrow officer, or closing attorney occupies a critical position. They are not a passive holder of funds. They are the party responsible for ensuring that release instructions are valid, that conditions precedent have been met, and that disbursement is executed correctly and completely.
In a general escrow arrangement, money, property, documents, or other assets are deposited with a neutral third party, known as an escrow agent, until the conditions in the escrow agreement are satisfied. The escrow agent releases the assets only when the parties' agreed instructions have been fulfilled.
At the earn-out verification and holdback release moment, the escrow agent will typically require:
- A written earn-out statement confirmed as final (either by acceptance, expiry of the objection period, or expert determination)
- A joint written instruction from both parties (or their representatives) authorizing release
- Confirmation that the indemnity holdback period has expired without unresolved claims, or that any outstanding claims have been resolved
- Wire instructions for each recipient, verified against the original disbursement schedule in the escrow agreement
- Any tax documentation required under the escrow agreement
These contractual clauses dictate both timing and legitimacy of escrow releases, ensuring that funds are disbursed in accordance with agreed terms, thereby minimizing ambiguity and potential conflicts. Effective management of escrow disbursements requires not only adherence to contractual provisions but also proactive measures to safeguard the interests of all stakeholders involved.
The settlement professional is also the party who must reconcile the release against the original closing statement. If the earn-out results in a net payment of $940,000 USD ($1.457 million AUD) and the holdback releases $1 million USD ($1.55 million AUD) on the same day, the disbursement statement for that day must reflect both amounts, each recipient's share, and the authorization basis for each transfer. This is a documentation exercise as much as a financial one.
When shaka.deal handles the payout leg, that documentation is generated automatically by the blockchain record. The settlement professional does not need to chase confirmation emails from four different banks. The transaction hash shows every recipient, every amount, and the precise time of settlement in a format that is independently verifiable by anyone with the address.
When holdbacks and earn-outs overlap: the netting question
One practical complexity that arises when both instruments are present in the same deal is whether the buyer can net an indemnity claim against the earn-out payment.
Say the earn-out calculation confirms that $1 million USD ($1.55 million AUD) is owed to the seller. At the same moment, the buyer has a pending indemnity claim of $200,000 USD ($310,000 AUD) against the holdback. Can the buyer pay $800,000 USD ($1.24 million AUD) and offset the rest against the holdback claim?
The answer depends entirely on the language of the escrow agreement. If the agreement permits netting — and specifies that the buyer may reduce earn-out payments by the amount of pending indemnity claims — then the buyer may hold back $200,000 USD pending resolution of the indemnity matter. If the agreement does not permit netting, the earn-out must be paid in full and the indemnity claim must be pursued separately against the holdback sub-account.
This is not a question to leave to inference at the release moment. It must be addressed in the original drafting. Sellers sometimes underestimate how other provisions interact with the earnout. Indemnity offsets, working-capital claims, debt-like deductions, employment termination, restrictive covenants, tax treatment, and a later sale of the buyer can all affect payment.
When netting is permitted, the routing calculation at disbursement becomes more complex: the earn-out amount is reduced by the claimed offset, that offset amount remains in escrow pending resolution of the indemnity matter, and the remaining funds are distributed to the appropriate parties. Getting each share right — and routing it simultaneously — is exactly the kind of multi-variable disbursement that shaka.deal is built to handle cleanly.
Tax timing and recognition at the release moment
One dimension of holdback releases that closing attorneys and CPAs must track closely is the tax timing question. The default for M&A escrows is that the seller does not recognize income on the escrowed portion until release, deferring tax liability. Interest earned during the holdback period is typically taxable to whichever party is contractually entitled — usually the seller — and the escrow agent issues a 1099-INT annually.
The earn-out has its own tax character. Depending on how the deal is structured and what the earn-out payment relates to — whether it is treated as additional purchase price or as compensation — the tax treatment can differ significantly. This is an area where the closing attorney and the deal's CPA need to coordinate before the release happens, not after.
The timing of the release also matters for recognition purposes. A holdback released on December 31 versus January 2 can fall in different tax years with real consequences for both parties. Settlement professionals who are managing holdback releases near year-end should confirm with both parties' advisors whether the timing of the release instruction matters for tax purposes, and build that into the disbursement schedule accordingly.
Final settlement: what certainty actually looks like
The moment a holdback is released after an earn-out is verified should feel definitive. All conditions have been met. All disputes have been resolved. All parties have signed or approved the disbursement instruction. The funds move.
In a traditional settlement workflow, "the funds move" still means a cascade of sequential wires, each with its own confirmation timeline, each potentially subject to correspondent bank delays, each requiring manual reconciliation against the disbursement schedule.
In an onchain workflow through shaka.deal, "the funds move" means one transaction, one timestamp, one record. Every party receives their share in the same instant. The split is verified by the protocol, not by a spreadsheet. The receipt is on the blockchain, not in an email inbox.
That is the promise of the model: one incoming payment, preset shares, simultaneous payout, final settlement. For the settlement agent handling a post-close holdback disbursement, that certainty is not a luxury — it is what the deal deserved from the beginning.
The professionals who do this work — the escrow officers, the closing attorneys, the M&A advisors who negotiate these structures — are the architects of deal certainty. The tools they use at disbursement should match the precision of the agreements they've spent months building. shaka.deal gives those professionals a disbursement mechanism that is as precise, as final, and as verifiable as the contractual structure it serves.
