The Solution

Let us help you supercharge your M&A legal research! Our AI-driven tools will answer your corporate legal research questions more diligently and accurately through reference to the most relevant transaction agreements and public company filings.

You would never "hand the pen" on a transaction agreement to a paralegal—nor should you to a large language model. Human judgment reigns supreme on determining what language to include in your multi-million or multi-billion dollar transaction agreement. Instead, ask us questions like you might with a bright associate, and we can provide more context for you to make those judgments.

Why Choose PrecedentVault?

Challenge Failed Solutions How We Solve It
Searching for precedent language from other transaction agreements?
  • Old: Devise rules-based searches for exact words and phrases.
  • New: Draft provisions or agreements whole cloth (introducing sources of error and circumventing your judgment).
  • Find precedent transaction agreement language addressing your exact fact pattern and context.
  • (Even when a diligence associate would tell you it doesn't exist.)
Investigating "what's market" for various terms during negotiations with counterparties?
  • Old: Generic "deal-point" surveys lack details or insights to your targeted inquiries.
  • New: AI blithely attempts to conclusively rank terms as "favorable" or "unfavorable" without reference to your clients' interests or your counterparties' demands.
  • Comprehensive precedent analysis reveals real marketplace dynamics and provides all the context to prepare for any "page flip".
  • (Even on ancillary terms.)
Reviewing how others approach comparable disclosures in proxies or other filings?
  • Old: Reviewing SEC filings by hand yields only one or two examples matching your criteria.
  • New: AI applies regulations blindly, missing context and market practice.
  • Glean additional precedent support for your disclosure judgments with our comprehensive research tools.
  • (Even if you draft your disclosure anew.)

See Us in Action

🔍 Sample Question

What are the typical constraints on premiums for target D&O tail policies in precedent public company merger agreements around the $2B enterprise value mark?

📜 AI-Generated Answer

Most relevant precedent agreements (8 out of the 10 most recent) provided that the target may purchase a D&O tail policy at a cost of up to 3x the annual premium for the existing D&O policy. One set forth a limit of 3.5x the annual premium, and another example set forth no limit (but involved a merger with the controlling shareholder). See the following precedent transactions and corresponding agreement excerpts: …

🔍 Sample Question

Do public company targets typically disclose in their proxy statements the identity of a former financial advisor that worked on the transaction but was not ultimately retained to represent the company? If not, how do they describe the financial advisor?

📜 AI-Generated Answer

If the former financial advisor's involvement was extensive, proxy statements generally set forth a generic or anonymized defined term for the financial advisor (such as the "Former Financial Advisor" or "Financial Advisor A"). Otherwise, if it's only one or two references to the advisor's participation in the transaction, no defined term is used. See the following precedent examples: …

Try PrecedentVault for Free

Unlock AI-powered insights for smarter M&A legal research.

Get Started for Free