Stapled W&I policies and synthetic policies will likely be increasingly common features of E&I transactions, although their feasibility should be assessed case by case.
By Simon J. Tysoe and Devdeep Ghosh
Warranty and indemnity insurance (W&I) is a long-established feature of M&A transactions in Europe, especially with private equity sellers. The 10th edition of the Latham & Watkins Private Equity Market Study shows that nearly 48% of all European M&A transactions in 2023 involved W&I with 65% of private equity sellers favouring W&I-backed exits. However, on the flipside, our market study indicates that on an aggregate basis only 35% of energy and infrastructure (E&I) transactions involved W&I, with varying levels of adoption across European geographies.
Certain recurring characteristics of E&I transactions could explain the dislocation in this trend: the sometimes challenging nature of the assets and jurisdictions for these transactions and the assets themselves frequently having a fragmented shareholder base, which usually means that there are no negotiated business warranties to be covered.
Along with a recent softening of the W&I market, two developments can help bridge this gap for E&I transactions: stapled policies and synthetic coverage.

In real estate transactions, buyers and sellers naturally pursue conflicting interests when negotiating a sale and purchase agreement. On the one hand, sellers will strive to achieve the highest possible purchase price, and will also want to keep their liability exposure low. Private equity investors in particular will try to achieve a “clean exit” when selling real estate directly or indirectly, so that they can dissolve the selling entity quickly. On the other hand, buyers will want to minimize the purchase price. At the same time, they will know the asset only from their due diligence. Therefore, buyers will try to obtain a comprehensive set of representations and warranties from the seller. However, even if the seller gives such representations and warranties, asserting claims will often be unsatisfactory for the buyer because the selling entity lacks assets. The buyer will therefore insist on a security for his claims. These conflicting interests often put a significant burden on contract negotiations and can even turn into a deal-breaker.