The CrossCheck 365 Blog

Deconstructing Contracts with CrossCheck 365

Top Ten

Ambiguous Cross-References

An ambiguous cross-reference is one which points to two or more sections or subsections with the same label.

For example, Section 3.6(c) of the DraftKings / DEAC Merger Agreement┬ádated December 22, 2019. The following appears in the original document as one unformatted block of text. Below it has been reorganized for readability using CrossCheck 365’s Expando feature.

Section 3.6(c)

  • (c) Prior to the Closing, the Parties shall cooperate and work together in good faith to calculate, and shall within two (2) Business Days prior to the Closing determine and agree, the number of shares of New DK Class A Common Stock that would constitute an aggregate value of US$ 45,000,000 at the Closing (taking into account the DEAC Liquidation Value), which shares shall be allocated from the SBT Sellers and the SBT Optionees, pro rata in accordance with their respective expected ownership of shares of
    • (i) New DK Class A Common Stock (received as SBT Share Consideration) as of immediately following the Closing and
    • (ii) shares of New DK Class A Common Stock underlying their New DK Options granted to them at the Closing in respect of their Rolled-Over SBT Options, using the treasury stock method (collectively and as may be reduced pursuant to Section 3.6(g), the “Lockup Shares”, and the aggregate number of Lockup Shares as of the Closing Date, the “Closing Date Lockup Shares”).
    • Beginning on the Closing Date and ending on the date that is five (5) years following the Closing Date (the “Lockup End Date” or “Final Release Date”), each SBT Security Holder shall not without the prior written consent of New DK, directly or indirectly,
    • (x) offer, sell, offer to sell, contract to sell, hedge, pledge, sell any option or contract to purchase, purchase any option or contract to sell, grant any option, right or warrant to purchase or sell (or announce any offer, sale, offer of sale, contract of sale, hedge, pledge, sale of any option or contract to purchase, purchase of any option or contract of sale, grant of any option, right or warrant to purchase or other sale or disposition), or otherwise transfer or dispose of (or enter into any transaction or device that is designed to, or could reasonably be expected to, result in the disposition by any person at any time in the future), any Lockup Shares acquired pursuant to the Agreement or
    • (y) enter into any swap or other agreement or any transaction that transfers, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, the economic consequence of ownership of any Lockup Shares, whether or not any such swap or transaction described in clause (x) or (y) above is to be settled by delivery of any Lockup Shares, but except in each case of (x) or (y), in the event of a transfer or sale as a result of a merger or sale of all or substantially all of the shares of New DK or similar transactions or arrangements effected by operation of law or pursuant to the Organizational Documents of New DK or by an agreement or arrangement approved by the Board of New DK or its Stockholders (a “Permitted Transfer”), in which case and notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, all Lockup Shares at that time shall cease to be restricted pursuant to the provisions of this Section 3.6(c), immediately prior to the closing of any such transaction.
    • Notwithstanding the foregoing, a SBT Security Holder (a “Transferor”) may transfer his or its Lockup Shares or any rights in respect of them to: a person or entity who
    • (i) as of the date of this Agreement, wholly owns such Transferor,
    • (ii) is wholly owned by such Transferor,
    • (iii) is wholly owned by the same person or entity who wholly owns such Transferor as of the date of this Agreement, in each case of (i)-(iii), whether directly or indirectly, or
    • (iv) is an immediate family member of such Transferor or to a trust the sole beneficiaries of which are such Transferor and/or his immediate family members, provided that in each case of the preceding clauses (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv), the transferee undertakes in writing to the benefit of New DK to be bound by the lockup provisions of this Section 3.6 (in so far as they relate to the Lockup Shares transferred to such transferee) as if such transferee was the Transferor.
    • Lockup Shares shall be transferable by operation of law (including as a result of the death or bankruptcy of an SBT Security Holder). For the avoidance of doubt,
    • (i) any transferees or assignees (including heirs or other transferees by operation of law) of Lockup Shares transferred as permitted by the immediately preceding two sentences (other than transferees pursuant to a Permitted Transfer) shall be subject to the lockup provisions of this Section 3.6(c); and
    • (ii) the SBT Security Holders and their transferees and assigns shall continue to enjoy the economic benefits of any Lockup Shares held during the period in which the above lockup provisions apply, including the right to receive any dividends distributed on such Lockup Shares.

In this section (again, a single paragraph in the original), there are three separate Romanette sequences. There are three clauses labeled “(i)” and three labeled “(ii)”. There are two internal cross-references to “(i)” and “(ii)”: one in (iii) and one in (iv) (thankfully, there’s only one “(iii)” and one “(iv)”).

Text like this can be sussed out by a human reader (although the reference to “the preceding clause… (iv)” that is actually in clause (iv) is problematic). But structures like this are confusing and unnecessary.

Related Posts